Canaux

108470 éléments (108470 non lus) dans 10 canaux

Actualités Actualités
Hoax Hoax
Logiciels Logiciels
Sécurité Sécurité
Referencement Referencement

éléments par Joe Wilcox

BetaNews.Com

  • Offer free or greatly-reduced price to go from standard to HD. Sometimes people wish they had bought the HD version or it simply wasn't available. Current example: I would strongly consider buying newer "Total Recall" uncut version if available in HD or there was promise of free HD upgrade when available.
  • Permit people buying individual TV episodes to apply the amount paid to the rest of the season.

    • Just Do It

    Amazon could and should do all this and more, with the objective being simple: Protect buyers' investment in content and save them money to boot. I personally would buy more content if I could get reduced-price or free HD upgrades later on. I would try out more TV shows, if it didn't mean buying the same episode(s) twice with the season.

    My CD buying reduced to just a couple discs a year, if that, around 2006. I simply bought digital instead for the convenience. This morning, 128 songs from previously purchased CDs appeared in my Cloud Library. Now all my past AmazonMP3 digital purchases are there, too -- for a total 404 albums and 4,056 tracks. Now that is customer service. I love what Amazon does but am greedy. Gimme books and movies, too, and not just from physical goods. I want the aforementioned digital content purchase benefits, too.

    If any company could do it, Amazon can. Disruption is in the corporate DNA, as are customer service and selling for lower prices. Content owners imprison artists' works, and people consuming them, by demanding repurchase for each new platform that comes along. I challenge Amazon to save us all. Is that really so much to ask?

    Photo Credit: Poprotskiy Alexey/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/09/Which_size_tablet_is_right_for_you_'

    Which size tablet is right for you?

    Publié: janvier 9, 2013, 8:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There is no shortage of new tablets being announced at this week's Consumer Electronics Show -- Acer Iconia B1-A71, Polaroid M7 and M10 and VIZIO 11.6" Tablet PC, among many others. Meanwhile, NPD DisplaySearch forecasts that global tablet shipments will surpass notebooks this year. But what's interesting is a dramatic shift in size preference, which is why I want to know: Which is right for you?

    DisplaySearch predicts that tablets with 7-to-8 inch screens will overwhelmingly dominate the market, with 45 percent share. Meanwhile, 9.7 inches -- the size Apple popularized with iPad -- will fall to just 17 percent share. Yet many of the slates debuting at CES are in the larger categories, typically between 10.1 and 11.6 inches. Does size really matter that much, and is smaller better?

    For me, it is. In November, I bought the Google Nexus 10, a quad-core 10.1-inch tablet with simply stunning high-resolution display. With a keyboard, I fancy Nexus 10 as laptop replacement. But as a tablet, the size just doesn't work for me because I want to interact with people online, and I find typing to be too difficult in the hands. But I can comfortably type one- or two-handed on the 7-inch Nexus 7. The size appeals so much, I used my Christmas money to buy another with 32GB storage (compared to 8GB on my old one) and HSPA+ radio. I'm undecided about keeping the larger tablet.

    The 7-inch preference is strange juxtaposition for me. If you'd ask me before getting Nexus 7, I would have said something around 10 inches would be better.

    On Google+, Eli Fennell captures my sentiment: "Having used both form factors, the 7-inch tabs are a better form factor in my opinion, much easier to hold in one hand or use while on the go".

    On the other hand, a larger size seems the more sensible PC replacement. Microsoft chose 10.6 inches for Surface, which seeks to be tablet running a traditional desktop OS but optimized for touch. Based on most credible analyst numbers, many people displace PC usage with a tablet. But replace?

    BetaNews reader Owilliams comments: "I have been amused over the past couple years by folks that continue to poo-poo the idea of tablets becoming the device of convenience and choice for a large audience, and yet the tablet market just continues to explode".

    Reader mshulman: "That a family with 3 kids, it's far less expensive to give each kid their own tablet and have them share a computer than it would be to give them each computers of their own (of course this depends on the tablet and PC, but I'm assuming a lower cost tablet and a decent PC; not your $300 special)".


    Using screen dimensions as measure, which size tablet are you most likely to buy in 2013?

    Please take the poll above and further explain in comments below which size tablet, if any, is right for you. I've included so-called phablets in the poll.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/07/5_things_I_don_t_want_to_see_at_CES_2013'

    5 things I don't want to see at CES 2013

    Publié: janvier 7, 2013, 11:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In just a few hours, the Consumer Electronics Show kicks off in Las Vegas with the pre-show keynote. But the event already feels days old, with all the announcements and press galas already passed. That's the insanity -- so much going on that vendors fall over themselves to get out stuff early so as not to be lost in noise. There will be plenty. Earlier today, I identified 5 things I would like to see come out of Las Vegas this week. Now it's the don't wannas.

    Honestly it's tough to keep the list to five, but I do so for consistency's sake, or change much from last year. Vendors are queued up to make the same mistakes as in the past, incurring wasted marketing costs they pass onto you the buyer. With that, I present, in no particular order of importance, 5 things I really don't want to see at CES 2013.

    1. Pre-show and first-day product pileups. CES 2012 was one of the worst for preannouncements. I couldn't imagine how this year's show could outdo the last one. But it has, so far. The show officially starts tomorrow, which is Day 1. The last two years, early announcements piled up on Day 0 and Day 1. But for 2013, there was a bunch of what I call Day -1 announcements. Why hold an event at all, if no one waits for the start?

    The problem is no one wanting to miss press coverage and so everyone yells about their products at once -- either before the show actually starts or all done Day 1. Seriously, I expect little left come Wednesday morning. The pileup means that:

    • Even more products are lost in the noise
    • There is too much at once for bloggers and journalists to cover
    • Smaller, deserving vendors are missed, even with something really cool
    • People bug out of the show earlier, because all the news is over -- wasting attendees' time and money

    I'm a huge fan of smaller events hosted by tech companies, where there is more focus and clear message. CES is too big for most. If there is any real value to such a large venue, it's for retail buyers and distributors. Even then, I wonder.

    2. Products shipping in six months or holiday 2013. This is similar to one item from my want to see list. CES is too much the vaporware show. It's bad enough vendors yell over each other to get attention, to glean even a smidgen of marketing attention. But must they do so with products you can't buy this quarter -- or God forbid -- until Christmas? If you aren't shipping soon, you're pushing vaporware, dude, and wasting valuable resources that add costs passed onto consumers.

    There's a misconception that because of search engine obsession -- ah, optimization -- the Internet has the memory of an elephant. Maybe it does, but people don't. Are vendor product managers so out of touch they think that hordes of buyers will wait 10 months to get that shiny new thing popular at CES? Hey, Mr. Sassafrass, you were once like the rest of us, too. Visit aunts and uncles and see how real people live.

    If only the madness stopped there. Tech companies spend millions of dollars on network and other security to deter, and hopefully prevent, corporate espionage. So why would they display their trade secrets at a hugely public event, with scads of press coverage and competitors' spies lurking everywhere. That hot product shown off this week is copied and released in a couple months, long before the real thing is available.

    I commend colleague Alan Buckingham for focusing on an actual -- whoa what a concept -- shipping product. LaCie has a new NAS server with release date and purchase price. Can you feel the earth shaking?

    3. 2013 is the year of... From the halls of CES 2012, we were told to expect the year of the ultrabook (That didn't happen). And iPhone (That kind of happened). Smart TV (Ah, no). Or Windows 8 (Windows what?). Among many others. So I look askance at whatever predictions 2013 will be the year of. For the record, it's the year of the snake, according to the Chinese calendar. Everything else is pure poof.

    4. Anything about Smart TVs. Sorry, but the Smart TV's time hasn't come. Will it ever? What makes it so brainy to begin with? Last week, Alan wrote about a new NPD report that finds lots of disinterest in and confusion about Smart TVs. How long has Samsung and Sony hawked connected sets, for example?

    Consumers lose when the tech leaps ahead of what they've got integrated in the box. The first (and only) generation of Sony televisions with integrated Google TV is good example. Second-gen devices use a newer hardware platform that supports features not available for the older one. Buyers would have been better off with a box connected to the set, rather than obsolete integrated features.

    I'll use myself as further example. My local Sony store has a huge remodeling sale underway right now. On Saturday, I looked at a 42-inch LED HDTV with $659 starting price available for around $600 but $407 after the big fire sale. A 40-inch model originally sold for $899 but would cost about the same after the big discount. I asked the sales rep why the smaller set originally cost more. It was a Smart TV, which doesn't appeal to me at all. If NPD is right, many others share similar disinterest.

    My view of Smart TVs: Vendors are trying to create a market where none exists. My local Sony outlet store sells a 32-inch HDTV for $299. Not long ago, a television with that size screen sold for $1,000 or even $2,000 more. But prices have come down as economies of scale kicked in and consumer demand declined. Now manufacturers seek higher prices with thinner sets, bigger screens and so-called smart features. I say most people don't need or want the connected features.

    5. Best of show awards. Take a close look at previous years' winners and see which turned out to be the godsend device of the year. Geek writers and judges aren't like the rest of us. The awards are great marketing for vendors but poor reflection of what products really matter at CES.

    Photo Credit: Svilen Georgiev/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/07/5_things_I_want_to_see_at_CES_2013'

    5 things I want to see at CES 2013

    Publié: janvier 7, 2013, 7:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tomorrow, the Consumer Electronics Show officially kicks off, not that many vendors are waiting. There already are plenty of Day 0 and -1 announcements, which make me wonder if this -- the first of two posts -- isn't already late: What I would like and not want to see during this year's big event. If early press galas are any indication, many CES participants won't hit the jackpot in Las Vegas this year. Sadly that's a trend.

    Like 2012, I'm sitting out the tradeshow. The real benefit is mingling, and that's for everyone -- from journalists to manufacturers to distributors. CES really isn't about gadget geeks but everyday consumers and CE manufacturers getting goods to them. Why else would LG's press gala feature 39 new driers and 72 refrigerators coming this year? But the big noise is all about the toys today, as it will be all week.

    I've picked 5 things I would like to see and probably won't get much of. Sigh. They are in no order of importance, because they all are.

    1. Shipping products. Every year it's the same damn thing. Vendors line up to out-yell one another about stuff they won't ship anytime soon. I can understand why LG wouldn't ship three-dozen driers immediately after the holidays. But what about real gadgets, like new cell phones or tablets or the strangest in-car thingy?

    Vendors generate excitement about the next, cool toy -- but you can't have it for six to 10 months. The excitement is long passed by the time many CES products ship, if they aren't already imitated first -- or changed to imitate others. I can understand a few weeks, even a month, after the show. But six? Get a life.

    2. Emphasis benefits. Vendors spend too much time checking off features when benefits matter more. So what if the smartphone screen is 0.1-inches bigger or that touchscreen tablet is 27 inches (what were you thinking, Lenovo). Vendors should emphasize what are the user benefits. How will these products improve buyers' lives.

    In group chat this morning, we discussed the LG announcements. Colleague Wayne Williams smartly observed: "Can't see why my wife would want a washing machine that can be started over Wi-Fi. That's what I'm for, apparently". That's exactly right.

    The first question that should be asked about any new product feature: Who needs it? The second: Who will use it? As Wayne also observed, a drier that saves 20 minutes time would be beneficial -- and that's something real buyers can care about. Sadly, analysts, bloggers, journalists and the social media set attending CES turn it into a freak show.

    "There is a fundamental conflict between marketing to early adopters who are more profitable customers and evangelists, and the rest of us", Russ Crupnick, NPD's senior vice president of industry analysis, says. That conflict helps put the emphasis in the wrong place -- features that gadget geeks want instead of benefits that the rest of us need.

    How funny. No tech company does better articulating benefits than Apple, and the company doesn't attend CES but instead debuts products at its own smaller events.

    3. Apple showstopper. Speaking of forbidden fruit, no CES would be complete without some stinging showstopping announcement or rumor. But there isn't much noise this year, and that's highly unusual. Big deal, there are 40 billion App Store downloads. If nothing else, Apple buzz helps preserve the company's image as an out-innovator. Last week, I called 2012 a year of Apple iteration, and even investors question future innovation (this morning shares are down 26 percent from the record high set in September). Apple needs something to draw spotlight away from Las Vegas and back to Cupertino.

    4. Contextual cloud computing. The so-called post-PC era is more marketing hype than reality. Apple would like you to think that way because it shifts emphasis to devices like iPad and iPhone. Instead, we live in the era of context -- and that is a major benefit vendors can promote.

    During the mainframe era, people interacted with giant computers largely from dumb terminals. The PC era made information more portable for less money but still with more fixed location. Contextual cloud computing is largely location independent.

    For example, many so-called knowledge workers don't keep 9-5 jobs. They aren't bound by the employer's physical building. As such, Jack Frost can switch from parent to product manager without leaving the couch, using his cloud-connected device. Computing context, not location, defines his role. Similarly, Jack Frost may start watching a movie on his tablet while flying and finish it at home on the HDTV. Context and location change but not the content. The point: The device's importance begins and ends with context, which interaction and not location defines.

    Context is also about interaction. Early this afternoon, Mihaita Bamburic and I discussed benefits in group chat and whether a Wi-Fi drier makes any sense. "Wouldn't you want something that nags the kids to clean their room or take out the trash? Do their homework?" Something like "Facebook status update: Mom says take out the trash". Imagine if the parent could post that to their minor child's Facebook feed. A little embarrassment goes a long way as incentive. The point isn't the feature, whether or not it could logistically or legally be done, but that it's a clear, recognizable, contextual benefit that most consumers could understand.

    5. Microsoft anything. The company that epitomizes the PC era pulled out of CES this year. There will be no CEO Steve Ballmer pre-show keynote tonight. Microsoft has a huge image problem right now. There is way too much negative buzz about weak /betanews.com/topic/windows-8/" target="_blank">Windows 8 and Surface RT sales during a time period that should have been a marketing boon. Over six months, Microsoft is releasing more new products than any other time in its history. Late 2012 and early 2013 should be a time of heralded innovation, of spectacular execution. But the buzz is more sour. Analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers can't seem to convey enough bad about recent execution.

    Microsoft really needs to hit the jackpot, even without commanding presence in Las Vegas. So far, the big news from Redmond, Wash. is negative. Tomorrow coincidentally is patch Tuesday, which highlights product security fixes rather than something positive. Time is for Microsoft to stir up the rumor mill or simply announce something big -- even if it doesn't ship for six to 10 months. There's good company along that timeline. Microsoft needs to do something.

    Photo Credit: Consumer Electronics Show

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/07/App_Store_s_40_billion_downloads_doesn_t_take_much_away_from_CES'

    App Store's 40 billion downloads doesn't take much away from CES

    Publié: janvier 7, 2013, 4:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's tradition. Consumer Electronics Show descends on Las Vegas. Apple doesn't attend but does something to steal some thunder. So it's no surprise that this morning the Cupertino, Calif.-based company announced 40 billion App Store downloads -- half in 2012 and 2 billion in December. That's surely impressive, but nowhere as near thunder stealing as some past years. C`mon, where are those strategically placed rumors that turn attention away from the big event?

    In 2011: Mac App Store. Twice. A year earlier: iPad and in 2011, too. Who can forget iPhone in 2007, which literally stole the show. The trend is so assured, last year I asked (and answered): "Are this year's CES attendees afraid of Apple?" So far, in 2013, they have nothing to fear.

    Sure there are rumors about new mobiles coming in fruity colors or that iPhone 6 production already has started, but they don't carry the weight of past leaks and aren't drawing nearly the same attention. That's not to demean 40 billion app downloads, which is an astounding number. I just expected something more exciting. Hell, the press release doesn't even quote Apple's CEO, but Eddy Cue, senior veep of Internet Software and Services, who says: "Developers have made over seven billion dollars on the App Store".

    Other numbers do impress: 775,000 apps available, 500 active App Store accounts and those 40 billion downloads being unique. Apple doesn't count redownloads or updates. It's all impressive and shows continued momentum for the store, for which the company wants to keep developers creating apps for (and ignore Android).

    I simply expected something more noteworthy. It's tradition. No CES is complete without absent-Apple being talk of the town.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/07/I_hate_CES__and_you_should_too'

    I hate CES, and you should too

    Publié: janvier 7, 2013, 2:50am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Consumer Electronics Show 2013 commences in about 24 hours with the pre-show keynote. I won't be there, and wonder why you will be. Apple is right to be a perennial no show, and Microsoft demonstrated wisdom pulling out -- and this year giving up the coveted kick-off presentation. Tradeshows like this are dinosaurs. Where's the meteor -- the oh-so needed extinction-level event? To everyone inviting me to their CES booths and parties, perhaps now you understand why I didn't respond to your email.

    I hate the Consumer Electronics Show and the tsunami of products crashing down in mass self-mutilation and destruction. Who needs them anyway? Will your life really be better because a new cell phone's screen is 0.1 inch larger? Or there's a new Google TV box just like the others, only from a different manufacturer? NPD says not. The analyst firm released data today that tickles my CES-loathing soul: According to surveys, 68 percent of US consumers are happy with the tech they've got. What they do care about: Tech that meets their, ah, digital lifestyle.

    "There is a fundamental conflict between marketing to early adopters who are more profitable customers and evangelists, and the rest of us", Russ Crupnick, NPD's senior vice president of industry analysis, says.

    The problem is you, if a gearhead. A small number of enthusiasts, tech bloggers and the like drive interest in the next new things, which is fine in moderation; when everyone can appreciate them. But the CES tidal wave is insanity, and I wonder why any rational tech marketer would want to compete with the storm surge of gear and risk being lost in the sea of new announcements. Apple is right to hold smaller events where it controls the messaging and doesn't have to compete with the pouring horde washing over Las Vegas' desert sands. The large tradeshow is madness.

    More significantly, events like this puts enthusiast before consumer -- the cart before the horse -- and that's a priority out of sync. "The industry can’t rely on consumers to drive innovation; it needs to give consumers a reason to want to adopt the innovation", Crupnick says.

    I look at the last couple Consumer Electronics Shows and see much the same stuff -- just a lot of it crashing down at once. "The challenge isn’t just selling better features and specifications today, but also focusing on meaningful innovation that makes the next gadget purchased more valuable than the last", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says.

    Stated differently: The average mass-market buyer has little in common with the gadget freaks flocking to Sin City this week. I adopt new stuff, because it's my job. I don't really need the newest gadget. But I do care about the glue -- content, software and cloud services -- that makes the tech fit my lifestyle. I'm not alone.

    "Consumers want their technology devices to provide solutions to everyday problems, which often aren’t the most glamorous", Baker asserts. "They’d like help getting the best prices when they shop, being safe in their cars, managing their home and family and enjoying basic entertainment".

    Yesterday I bought a new 42-inch television -- to replace the nearly five year-old one of similar size. I didn't buy because of 3D or Smart TV technology or even to get a larger screen (which would be too much for our small apartment). My local Sony store is having a huge remodeling sale. I got a $659 set for $407 before tax. Like most consumers, price is a major priority.

    I use a Chromebook in part because my computing needs are basic, which is also reason for using Nexus 4 smartphone and Nexus 7 tablet. They're affordable products that meet the needs of my digital lifestyle.

    But tech companies of all sizes will do this week what they always have: Over-emphasize features rather than sell benefits. The few that try will be hard-pressed to get above all the noise. The noise. The noise. Thousands of products crashing down on one tiny venue. Who will tell the world about them? Tech bloggers and enthusiasts who themselves obsess over features and send a seemingly positive, but really negative, feedback loop to manufacturers. The mass of consumers want to know why that 0.1-inch screen increase benefits them -- why their lives will be better because of it.

    With about a day to go, and companies making announcements ahead of the kick-off keynote, we're still debating how best to cover CES 2013. I asked BetaNews writers to take a muted approach, that perhaps our readers would benefit more from stories about something other than the Las Vegas tradeshow. But the boys love their toys. So we'll see. My focus will be context -- what it all means. I'll occasionally spit in disgust, so, please, don't stand too close by.

    Photo Credit: Consumer Electronics Show

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/04/The_FTC_is_right__Google_isn_t_a_dangerous_monopoly'

    The FTC is right, Google isn't a dangerous monopoly

    Publié: janvier 4, 2013, 5:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The US Federal Trade Commission decision to close the Google "search bias" investigation is absolutely in the best interest of consumers. On that point, I agree with agency Chairman Jon Leibowitz, who announced the findings during a January 3 press conference. The result isn't what many Google critics or competitors hoped for, or even what some in the news media expected. Journalists repeatedly probed on the investigation's closing during yesterday's Q&A. Many people view Google to be a monopoly, perhaps dangerous one, while others regard the search giant increasingly as gatekeeper to the Internet.

    In response to journalist questions, Leibowitz said that anyone in his position wants to take on the career-making case, which inference is clear: Google isn't it. "The Commission exhaustively investigated allegations that Google unfairly manipulated its search engine results to harm its competitors, a practice known as search bias", he said yesterday. "The Commission has closed this investigation by a 5-0 vote", which is unanimous, by the way. The decision fits long-standing US legal principles about competition and protecting consumers. Perhaps the government learned lessons from its monopoly case against Microsoft, which, as I previously asserted, failed to achieve its goals.

    I don't mean to put a halo around Google's double ohs. The company will make voluntary changes to search that answer other concerns. "Google has also committed to stop the most troubling of its business practices related to internet search and search advertising", Leibowitz says. "Google will stop misappropriating, or scraping, the content of its rivals for use in its own specialized search results. Google will also drop contractual restrictions that impaired the ability of small businesses to advertise on competing search advertising platforms".

    Stanley Cup

    US antitrust law allows for lots of fair and really rough play. Winning monopoly cases is hard work. During Microsoft's antitrust trial, one antitrust lawyer used the analogy of hockey during the Stanley Cup playoffs -- referees are slow to call penalties that disrupt the flow of competition. While the core Google investigation was about search, FTC commissioners pursued what they comfortably could win -- abuse of industry-standard patents -- and what Google would easily concede. The agency wasn't ready for a knock-down monopoly case.

    Google surely is dominant in search -- 67 percent share in the United States, according to comScore. But that's from an organically obtained monopoly, if the term could easily be applied. You can be sure Google would fight hard to keep the government from revealing search's secret sauce -- trade secrets. There are reasonable questions about whether a protracted legal battle would do more consumer harm than anything Google is alleged to be doing.

    The Justice Department won its antitrust case against Microsoft in early 2000 -- and it was much stronger: The company had 90-plus percent operating system share on x86 computers and engaged in exclusive contracts that, according to the Feds, leveraged the existing monopoly into the adjacent browser market. The government sought in its remedy to break what lawyers called the "applications barrier to entry" posed by Office and Windows. More than a dozen years later, both products have overwhelming market share in their respective categories, which is why in September 2011 I called the case a "failure. But it succeeded in something else, which is worthy of debate particularly as Google's search monopoly comes under increasing antitrust and anticompetitive scrutiny: Stifling innovation at Microsoft".

    Clearly the FTC wasn't convinced a formal filing against Google would cause more good than harm. "Google is unquestionably one of America’s great companies, innovative in fields from its core search engine to such varied ventures as driverless cars and augmented reality eyewear", Leibowitz says. "With [yesterday's] action by the FTC, Google can refocus on its business and its products, but with a clearer understanding that it, too, must do so while competing fairly".

    Fair Play

    As the Microsoft case also shows, capitalism did what regulators couldn't. While the Office and Windows monopolies are entrenched, their relevance declines as the so-called post-PC era advances. Surely, FTC commissioners considered the changing search landscape, particularly the push to mobile, in evaluating Google business practices.

    "Many of Google’s critics, including many of its competitors, wanted the Commission to go further in this investigation and regulate the intricacies of Google’s search engine algorithm", Leibowitz says.

    US antitrust law seeks to preserve competition to protect consumers. The presumption: Consumers benefit when there is free-flowing competition and are harmed when one or more companies shut out competitors, which may complain that the agency did not find consumer harm in Google's overall search practices. Protecting competition doesn't mean protecting competitors. They can still be harmed as long as consumers aren't.

    "While not everything Google did was beneficial, on balance we did not believe that the evidence supported a FTC challenge to this aspect of Google’s business under American law", Leibowitz says. "As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote more fifty years ago, and as the federal courts have consistently ruled since, the focus of our law is on protecting 'competition, not competitors'".

    The investigation, which produced nine million documents also put Google practices in context of competitors. "Although some evidence suggested that Google was trying to eliminate competition, Google’s primary reason for changing the look and feel of its search results to highlight its own products was to improve the user experience", Leibowitz says. "Similarly, changes to Google’s algorithm that had the effect of demoting certain competing websites had some plausible connection with improving Google’s search results, especially when competitors often tried to game Google’s algorithm in ways that benefitted those firms, but not consumers looking for the best search results. Tellingly, Google’s search engine rivals engaged in many of the same product design choices that Google did, suggesting that this practice benefits consumers".

    But Google's troubles aren't over. European antitrust law gives more credence to competitors, and Google still faces sanctions on the Continent if a settlement isn't soon reached. Leibowitz rightly scolds US companies: "Some may believe the Commission should have done more in this case, because they are locked in hand-to-hand combat with Google around the world and have the mistaken belief that criticizing us will influence the outcome in other jurisdictions".

    Competition by litigation is one business strategy. We'd all benefit more if they would just shut up and innovate.

    Photo Credit: Dariush M/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/03/What_are_the_terms_of_Google_s_FTC_settlement_'

    What are the terms of Google's FTC settlement?

    Publié: janvier 3, 2013, 10:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Earlier today, the US Federal Trade Commission announced closing its search bias antitrust investigation into Google. Chairman Jon Leibowitz says the nearly 20-month investigation "does not support a claim" and that commissioners reached a unanimous decision. However, they did find that Google caused consumer harm by pursuing patent litigation started by its Motorola Mobility subsidiary, and the search giant voluntarily made business practice changes affecting its core business.

    Many competitors will find the FTC's decision to close the core antitrust investigation as little more than a slap on the wrist. However, Leibowitz contends that the agreement protects consumers and that commissioners found no overt search bias. In fact, the agency found the the most disturbing alleged practices are commonplace among other search providers, mitigating any potential consumer harm.

    Unsurprisingly, Google praises the FTC. "The conclusion is clear: Google’s services are good for users and good for competition", David Drummond, chief legal officer, says.

    So what's different now? The terms of the agreement cover two separate and unrelated areas. The first is search and the other industry-standard patents. Search changes are voluntary, while the patent changes are a settlement and legally-binding consent decree.

    Search

    Google agrees to:

    1. Within 90 days provide website owners with the option to opt-out of Google search. The FTC received complaints that Google scraps data from services like Yelp and presents theirs as its own.

    2. Within 60 days change the AdWords API terms and conditions. "Advertisers can already export their ad campaigns from Google AdWords", Drummond explains. "They will now be able to mix and copy ad campaign data within third-party services that use our AdWords API". Conceptually, the change will enable advertisers to better mix campaigns across platforms.

    Patents

    Motorola Mobility holds several industry-standard patents that are supposed to be licensed on FRAND -- fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory -- terms. But the company sued patent licensees. According to the FTC:

    The Commission’s complaint alleges that Google reneged on its FRAND commitments and pursued -- or threatened to pursue -- injunctions against companies that need to use MMI’s standard-essential patents in their devices and were willing to license them on FRAND terms. Specifically the company pursued injunctions in federal district court and at the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to block competing technology companies from using MMI standard-essential patents.

    The FTC alleged that this type of patent hold-up is what the standard setting organizations sought to prevent by instituting FRAND licensing requirements. According to the FTC, if left unchecked, this type of patent hold-up can lead to higher prices, as companies may pay higher royalties for the use of Google’s patents because of the threat of an injunction, and then pass those higher prices on to consumers. This may cause companies in technology industries to abandon the standard-setting process and limit or forgo investment in new technologies, according to the agency.

    Google agrees to abandon all litigation regarding FRAND patents, which includes requests for injunctions against other companies' products.

    Photo Credit: JustASC/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/03/Google_settles_with_the_FTC'

    Google settles with the FTC

    Publié: janvier 3, 2013, 7:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    During a press conference early this afternoon, the Federal Trade Commission announced a sweeping settlement with Google that ends an ongoing antitrust investigation. But Google's legal woes aren't over. The European Union has set an imminent deadline for settlement there that otherwise will lead to sanctions. Still, on these shores, the search and information giant got a big pass today that is sure to send competitors howling (as some, Microsoft among them, did before today's agreement).

    FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz announced the settlement from the agency's Washington, D.C. headquarters. He describes the nearly 20-month investigation as "exhaustive", collecting "nine million pages of documents". The big claim against Google: That the company favors its own services over others -- so called "search bias". Leibowitz says the investigation "does not support a claim" and commissioners voted unanimously to close it. That said, Google agreed to stop scraping content from partners, such as Yelp, and to end contractual obligations that impede small businesses.

    The settlement is more about preserving availability of industry standard patents, which Google obtained with its Motorola Mobility acquisition. The FTC found against Google in a four-to-one vote. "We stopped that abuse", Leibowitz says. There will be a public comment period on the patent agreement.

    During today's press conference, reporters repeatedly pressed on the search issue, which is core to Google's business and still open across the Continent. To reiterate, Google got a big pass on allegations that it abuses search for self-benefit. "It does not violate American antitrust laws", Leibowitz says. "It's not a violation of the FTC Act. The facts weren't there under the laws we applied".

    The voluntary settlement, or consent decree, means Google avoids direct sanctions, and the stigma and legal obligations they bring. Under US law, court-approved sanctions carry considerably more weight and are not open to interpretation. The consent decree puts Google more in control of changes to its business practices while providing leeway for any future issues. The US Justice Department isn't precluded from pursuing separate antitrust action, nor the FTC from opening future investigations. However, Leibowitz says the Justice Department is unlikely to separately go after Google. Regarding his agency's Google oversight: "There are monitoring commitments", Leibowitz says that enable the agency to enforce the agreement. There is fine of $16,000 per violation.

    The specter of antitrust has haunted Google for some time. The European Union's competition commission opened its antitrust investigation in October 2010. The FTC investigation started in early summer 2011. Google's dominance is the core issue. On both continents, the company has overwhelming search share and has started to aggressively leverage this reach into other products as well as ongoing accusations that Google favors its own stuff, even over partners', negatively impacting competition.

    Competition is the key and where European and US laws differ. Here, antitrust law seeks to preserve competition to protect consumers. The presumption: Consumers benefit when there is free-flowing competition and are harmed when one or more companies shut out competitors.

    Competitors may complain that the agency did not find consumer harm in Google's overall search practices. Instead, FTC commissioners focused more on the harm from patent lawsuits, which could lead to injunctions blocking smartphones and tablets from shipping -- and that would cause consumer harm by hampering product choice and blindsiding innovation.

    There's an important distinction to be made: Protecting competition doesn't mean protecting competitors. They can still be harmed as long as consumers aren't. Under US law. Matters are different on the Continent, where antitrust laws also more directly benefit competitors. As such, I expect Google will have a much tougher time reaching an agreement with the European Commission.

    This isn't Google's first settlement with the FTC. In March 2011, the company agreed to 20 years of oversight for privacy breaches related to the now defunct Buzz service. Google also paid a $22.5 million fine for breaching Safari browser privacy controls.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2013/01/03/Microsoft_counts_down_to_what_'

    Microsoft counts down to what?

    Publié: janvier 3, 2013, 6:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Perhaps you're thinking about Consumer Electronics Show 2013 and all the goody gadgets set there to debut. Microsoft isn't, having pulled out of the event (and that includes the big kick-off keynote). The company instead looks ahead to E3 in, ah, June, with Major Nelson (aka Larry Hryb) posting a countdown clock. Easy speculation is to the next Xbox, but don't choke up with excitement just yet.

    CES keynote is exactly where Microsoft chief exec Steve Ballmer would unveil Xbox 720 (one of the rumored names), only to make everyone wait until November to get it. E3 debut simply means later announcement and likely holiday shipping, which is consistent timetable for Microsoft consumer products. When could you get Windows Phone, Xbox Kinect or Zune? Early November, baby. So consider that countdown clock just a wicked teaser -- like Lucy yanking the football out from Charlie Brown or Wile E. Coyote chasing the Road Runner off a cliff. Xbox 720, or whatever Microsoft calls it, won't be there in 158 days.

    Still, Hryb's countdown clock is a brilliant marketing gimmick in the lull ahead of CES, sure to draw lots of attention and to generate blogs or news stories (like this one). Tsunami is best analogy for the days leading up to CES. Suddenly, the ocean of gadget news disappears then pours back in a title wave of announcements -- often for stuff not actually available until much later in the year. I hate CES, and Microsoft was right to pull out.

    The questions for now: Microsoft counts down to what? Is it the new Xbox? Something else? Do you care? What do you want from the next game console? Comments await your answers.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/31/My_tech_life_completely_changed_in_2012'

    My tech life completely changed in 2012

    Publié: décembre 31, 2012, 8:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I join colleagues Mihaita Bamburic, Alan Buckingham and Wayne Williams recounting what tech I used in 2012. But unlike them, I made dramatic platform changes, more significant than first using Windows over New Years holiday 1994, buying a reburbished PowerBook in February 1999, adopting Facebook and Twitter in 2006 or purchasing Nexus One in January 2010. Each of these marked major platform changes -- and some not always lasting. Consider this: in early 2012, I owned a 1.8GHz Intel Core i7 MacBook Air, iPhone 4S and iPad 3. I end the year using Chromebook and Android smartphone and tablets.

    During the year I moved from OS X and Windows running on Intel to an ARM-and-Chrome OS laptop, and after several failed attempts at adopting tablets (three generations of iPads, really), I embraced not one but two Android slates. I store all my data in the cloud -- local storage is now merely a way station between destinations rather than personal repository. This old dog is learning new tricks, and if I make such dramatic platform changes what does that mean for younger users who are more flexible and not as financially or habitually Apple/Microsoft/Intel committed? Look around, the PC era rapidly evaporates around you and its disappearance will be difficult to ignore in 2013.

    The iPhone Moment

    As I expressed in November, the so-called post-PC era is all about context and how the cloud delivers your stuff anytime, anywhere and on anything. Your role changes based on context rather than location, such as going from product manager to parent without leaving the counch or watching a movie on the smartphone while traveling or finishing it at home. Context and location change but not the content. The new computing era is all about you. Can't you go from room to room or driving to walking while thinking about something -- anything? Your brain, the essence of you is largely location independent. The contextual cloud computing era is more inline with who we, as humans, are.

    Apple deserves credit for setting the new era in real motion on June 29, 2007. Yes, I refer to iPhone's launch. That day, standing outside Apple Store Montgomery Mall, buyer Steve captured the right sentiment: "I think this is a day that you're going to see a change in how computers, how handheld computers are done...I'm seeing it that way...I think we'll look back in 10 or 15 years, and like on that day the gadget came out...it changed the game". I look back five years and say, yes, it changed the game.

    Apple used touch and various sensors to give the original iPhone human-like qualities. The device responded to you, like nothing before it. I've long said the smartphone puts the "P" in personal computing. The device is more intimate and personal than the PC, being always with you, providing communication and context that matter most to you and responding to more senses (sight, touch and voice). The overall interaction is more human-like and opens more interaction with people. Five years later, touch-and-sensor cloud devices are even more extension of you.

    Going Google

    But Apple isn't inheriting the era iPhone launched. That distinction suddenly, unexpectedly, belongs to Google. This is the year Google got so many things right, and I'm confident it's no coincidence 2012 was Larry Page's first full year as returning chief executive. Google is more dynamic, more innovative, more aggressive than ever before. Apple has the reputation for being most innovative, but that's more a factor of being loudest tooting its stuff. Google quietly delivered everywhere. Show me a Google product that didn't greatly improve.

    The company gets my personal "Most Innovative of 2012" award. Google cranked out lots of new products and updated existing ones on ongoing basis. Everyday is change using Google stuff, usually for the better. Last week, my browser on Chrome OS started showing new Gmail notifications. It's one of many, many meaningful enhancements that just happen, with little to nothing required of me. Updates are automatic.

    Google Now is product of the year and easily eclipses the original iPhone's importance while extending the cloud-connected device platform's importance. The service is all about context and providing stuff that is meaningful to you. It's a watershed development that makes Jelly Bean Androids even more personal and aware of you.

    More Like Me

    I credit Google's dramatic 2012 execution with my unexpected abandonment of MacTel and WinTel for the Chrome OS and Android ARMy. What a strange juxtaposition. In April 2011, I asked: "Can you give up Google?" I tried and failed. Google+ pulled me back, starting in early summer 2011. But it was second-generation Chromebook, Nexus devices and improvements all the way round to Google software and services that pulled me in and pushed me beyond traditional PC platforms. All this year. Some highlights:

    Chromebook. On Jan. 31, 2012, I bought from Apple Store the then top-of-the-line 11.6-inch MacBook Air with 1.8GHz Intel i7 processor, 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD for $1,649 before tax. Days later, I added black 32GB iPhone 4S and in March 64GB LTE iPad 3. I used Christmas bonus and gift money, as well as sales of some gear, to finance most of the purchases. I switched from a Windows 7 laptop and Verizon Galaxy Nexus. I really liked the Android, but couldn't afford to split the family between two cellular carriers. I sold the Google phone for about the cost of the early-termination fee.

    But within months, I grew deeply dissatisfied using Apple products, for many reasons -- patent bullying and my disgust with pro-Apple bloggers and commenters being top among them. I considered changing platforms but to what. Windows didn't much appeal and Linux requires too much work (Hey, I'm no geek).

    Then, unexpectedly, Google and Samsung released the Series 5 550 Chromebook in late May and the performance equaled and in some ways exceeded the costlier MacBook Air. I used the original Chromebook for a full two months in 2011 but overall performance disappointed. Its successor changed everything. I moved to Chrome OS and didn't look back.

    Less than two weeks later, I formerly boycotted Apple, selling the fruit-logo laptop and tablet. I already had sold iPhone 4S, buying Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ soon as Google started selling the device direct (April). In July, having unloaded all my fruity gear, I declared independence from Apple.

    I adopted Chrome OS but on an Intel-based system. In October, Google and Samsung released an ARM-based Chromebook, selling for $249. I made the switch to the new model, despite performance deficiencies compared to the 550.

    Still, I'm about as satisfied with the ARM Chromebook as the i7 MacBook Air. Screen and physical size are similar, but the Samsung sells for $249 and I paid $1,649 for the Apple. What surprises me, and it shouldn't, is how aggressively Google promoted Chromebook over the holidays and how great was the interest.

    Contextual cloud. The switch meant living in the cloud, as explained in post "Chromebook changed my life". I do most everything in the browser, including photo and video editing, that is when not also working on an Android device (skip ahead for more on that). Gmail handles messaging, not that I like the browser-based UI much.

    I started the year listening to music in iTunes (with content stored on external USB drive). Now I stream from Google Music and will soon add a subscription service. (Suggestions anyone? MOG and Spotify are top consideration because of 320kbps streaming.) Personal content generally goes to Google+, Drive or YouTube. I keep nothing locally anymore. I watch less TV, streaming more content from Amazon, Google Play or Netflix. I'm in process of letting magazine subscriptions elapse. I'll either go digital version or none at all.

    Magazines as we know them are headed to extinction, and digital can't save them. It's adapt or die time. Yesterday, The Next Web announced end of its Android magazine for lack of demand. I laughed reading the post, for editors' stupidity, given the site's name.

    It's my experience that reading magazines on iPad is considerably more immersive than Android. Whether or not that's good depends on several perspectives -- one of which: What's -- and how ironic -- the next web? Google's platform, leveraging from search, is all mashup. Information coming in from different and disparate sources. That's also the trend driven by social media everywhere.

    During the web's early days, magazine publishers sought to maintain the print experience via tech like PDF. But the approach failed. The web platform's hyperlinking fostered something more dynamic. That characteristic isn't changed on tablets any more than PCs. If anything, mashup style is more the future web, something TNW editors seem to have missed. The past lesson still applies. There are reasons mobile apps like Flipboard are so successful. Mashup, baby.

    iPad, by contrast, is more Gangnam Style, appealing to a seemingly trendy set that clings to presentation over substance. Or, using the Hunger Games analogy, the Capitol (iPad) versus the Districts (Androids).

    I don't see much long-term future for magazines on any tablet, not as long as they take so long to download or remain so static. On Android, where users get info from feeds, Google Now, widgets and so much else, there's not even much short-term future. Given Android's escalating install base, TNW would be better off figuring out the market rather than abandoning it.

    Enough about magazine publishing. My cloud adventure deserves another post, particularly continued experience using Google Now, which I can't be positive enough about.

    Google Nexus. Android is the other platform switch here. But given this post is so long, I'll be briefer.

    I've owned every Nexus smartphone, but it's the Galaxy model running Android 4.1 that hooked me on the platform. I made full-time commitment to Galaxy Nexus in April, upgrading to Nexus 4 in November. The handset is a keeper.

    I owned iPad 1, 2 and 3 and sold each less than two months after purchasing. Then, in late June, I got Nexus 7. I love the form factor, performance, screen -- everything. For me, it's the perfect tablet. I also have Nexus 10, which doesn't appeal nearly as much. But the point: I have two Android tablets and use them both, whereas I sold every iPad. Something more: I used my Christmas money to buy up: The 32GB Nexus 7 with HSPA+. So now I have an Android tablet with cellular radio, attached to my AT&T shared data plan, for $10 a month -- and no contractual commitment.

    Rather than repeat everything, I refer you to my first-impression reviews of the Nexus 7 and Nexus 10.

    So, you see, 2012 was a tech transformation year for me. If my sense of computing trends are right, you won't be far behind in 2013. The New Year is often depicted as an old man going out and baby coming in. That's apt analogy for the transition from the PC epoch to the contextual cloud computing era. Expect major platform disruption ahead, but that's topic for another post.

    For now. Happy New Year!

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/28/Seven_out_of_10_will_buy_Surface_Pro'

    Seven out of 10 will buy Surface Pro

    Publié: décembre 28, 2012, 6:57am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Twenty-six days ago I asked "Will you buy Microsoft Surface Pro?" after pricing released and pundits gripe it is too high. They compared to iPad, which I argued then (and still maintain) isn't right: Microsoft smartly prices Surface Pro against MacBook Air and Ultrabooks. But do you agree? Based on responses to the poll, yes.

    Quick recap: Microsoft plans to release the second Surface tablet, running Windows 8 Pro, next month. The model available since October 26 runs Windows RT and is priced against iPad. Surface RT starts at $499. Pro is either $899 or $999 for 64GB or 128GB storage, respectively. Users can't install legacy apps on RT but they can on Surface Pro, which Microsoft positions more for business users and anyone needing access to the more traditional Windows desktop. The company also expects Pro buyers to pay up for Office 2013; the Home version ships free on Surface RT.

    So what do you think of all this? As I post, 1,699 people responded to the poll, and that's a healthy sample size. The numbers are compelling: 42.85 percent of respondents will buy Surface Pro "as soon as available", and another 16.36 percent within three months. Nearly 71 percent of you plan to buy Surface Pro. Only 18.5 percent say they won't.

    Specs: 10.6-inch ClearType HD Display with 1920 by 1080 resolution; Intel Core i5 processor and HD 4000 graphics; 4GB RAM; 64GB or 128GB storage; 720p front- and rear-facing cameras (meaning they're for video more than photos); accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; Wi-Fi A/N; Bluetooth 4; USB 3; Windows Pro 8. Dimensions and weight: 10.81 x 6.81 x 0.53 inches and just under 2 pounds.

    Surface Pro is unlike other tablets because it runs a traditional desktop OS, unlike, say, Android or iOS devices. Microsoft also sells a keyboard cover that transform the Windows 8 slate into a real portable. It's either a best-of-both-worlds solution or the worst. We'll know which when Microsoft releases the tablet and real users get their hands on it.

    A BetaNews reader using the handle Dig The Noise is enthusiastic: "Love the Surface RT -- heck yeah I'm getting a Pro. The Surface Pro will replace my laptop; I'm a developer and need the Intel or AMD chip (don't care which). I may also have to buy a 2nd RT because our current one gets a lot of home use and my wife would like one just for her job -- she needs only Office, mail, Skype, Skydrive, IE, calendar, etc. so the RT would rock for her".

    "I am a developer too, but I hate the small screen while coding", Joe Cho comments.

    "I can write on the Surface Pro -- while walking, while driving, when I get a brainstorm anywhere, without having to hunt and peck on a teeny screen requiring my eyes and at least 1 hand, or open a keyboard, which for me requires two hands", Helen Starkweather comments. "That is what's going to sell the Surface, whatever the price. The Surface doesn't replace a tablet and a laptop, it replaces a notepad, plus a tablet, plus a laptop".

    Troy Gates "will be testing Surface Pro for our project managers. Our project managers are in client/consultant offices nearly everyday or traveling by air to get there. They primarily use MS Office, PDF markup tool and a project management tool. Surface Pro looks to be exactly what they need. Will know a week after it comes out. This comment written from my Surface RT that I was testing for the same purpose, but the lack of full Outlook and our project management tool, it's a no go for our project managers. Too bad because I am getting full day usage with battery to spare".

    Microsoft already concedes Surface Pro battery life will be considerably less.

    benjitek: "People with money to burn, or deep corporate IT budget pockets, might buy it; the rest of us will take a look when the 3rd generation version of it comes out... ;-)"

    "The Surface pro is a great and unique concept", Lina Stein opines. "I certainly prefer the Surface or Surface Pro over an iPad which is not much more than child's play".

    A reader going simply by Jim sees a future flop: "The Surface Pro seems like the digital version of the Flying Car! Sounds great but historically they didn't fly well and didn't drive well either. The Surface line isn't really mobile because it lacks a cellular option and in the case of the Surface Pro battery life, and the Surface isn't a workhorse machine because it lacks screen size and a comfortable keyboard".

    Do you agree?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/27/What_I_learned_buying_my_daughter_iPhone_5_for_Christmas'

    What I learned buying my daughter iPhone 5 for Christmas

    Publié: décembre 27, 2012, 7:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In June, I boycotted Apple and completely declared independence in July. But my disdain is personal, I respect other people's fruity tastes. Thus, I found myself inside Apple Store on December 23 ready to buy my daughter her big surprise Christmas gift: white iPhone 5. But I ended up purchasing from AT&T, which experience taught valuable lessons about iPhone gifting and what the carrier can and will do that Apple Store won't or can't.

    Simply stated: I wanted iPhone 5 to be a surprise. That meant purchasing the device without activating to her phone number beforehand, thus walking out of the store with an unopened box, which seal she could break on Christmas morning. At Apple Store, one of the red shirts said no way. The phone couldn't leave the premises without being activated. "You could buy an Apple gift card for the same amount", he suggested. What's the surprise in that? Would you rather get the phone or the promise of one? Geez Louise.

    Outside the shop, I pulled out Nexus 4 and dialed 611 to reach AT&T customer service. I asked the friendly lady if there is a way to purchase an iPhone but activate later on. Sure enough, she researched and found a primer about delayed holiday activation. She didn't even know about it. So I wished her a Merry Christmas, walked to the car and drove to the local AT&T corporate store, which surprisingly wasn't busy for the last Sunday before the big day. I was second in line.

    Ten minutes later, I met with a sales employee and explained what the other rep told me. She politely listened, then went off to talk to her manager. About five minutes later she returned with the iPhone and told me no delayed activation would be necessary. I could buy the phone and activate after Christmas. Say what? I could actually walk out of a store with an iPhone still wrapped in cellophane. Simply inconceivable.

    So my daughter got her Christmas surprise, unlike many other people receiving gift cards instead. Yesterday, I stopped by the local Apple Store, which was busier than any day before Christmas. I asked several red shirts why. Three reasons: Returns, exchanges (mainly tablets for color and/or 3G) and gift card redemption. Right, for those poor souls who didn't get that sweet surprise iPhone under the Christmas tree but gift card instead.

    Back to the Christmas iPhone, so what about activation? We had two options: Haul down to the AT&T corporate store or call customer service. I chose the latter, which process took less than 10 minutes. The rep required the SIM card's ICCID and phone's IMEI numbers and my powering down the device. (My daughter had started it up and could log in to her Apple account via WiFi to sync, even without carrier activation.) That's it.

    Soon after activating iPhone 5, we drove to Walmart during my lunch break. She started SnapChatting in the car and immediately commented about how much better is the front-facing camera. What about Facebook's rip-off app Poke? She's not interested, and if you follow today's blogs neither are lots of other people. She also remarked how much better is the rear-facing camera and Internet speed (Hey, it's LTE, unlike my Nexus 4).

    She used iPhone 4S before yesterday. AT&T offered $207 trade-in credit, which I am strongly considering. Past years, I just used Craigslist. But there's a glut of iPhones for sale locally and presumably the resale market isn't as good days after Christmas. Time is money, too, but we'll see. Because Apple changed the connector, I also had to put out for new car charger and adapter for her speaker dock. The trade-in fee would cover purchase price before tax.

    By the way, my daughter's phone number was eligible for full-discounted, subsidized price from iPhone 5's release in September. She asked then, and I told her to wait because of Apple Maps. I also recommended that she not upgrade to iOS 6, since Apple pulled Google Maps. In one of the rarest occurrences, she actually took my advice. The 18 year old is still a relatively new driver and uses Google Maps to get around everywhere. Who knows where Apple Maps would send her? Now that a new Google Maps is out for iOS 6, time was right for iPhone 5. Had the app not released before Christmas, I wouldn't have bought her the new smartphone.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/26/Meme_of_the_year__Grumpy_Cat'

    Meme of the year: Grumpy Cat

    Publié: décembre 26, 2012, 6:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox
    Grumpy End of the World Grumpy Gift Grumpy Cat Nope Grumpy dont like Grumpy Cat funny Grumpy Cat tattoo Grumpy Cat worst apocalypse Grumpy Cat cake Grumpy Cat Santa roof Grumpy Cat Le Miserable Grumpy Cat dashing no Grumpy Cat immigration Grumpy Cat Impressions

    Psy's Gangnam Style may be the most popular YouTube video of all time, with 1.05 billion views, but there are other measures of popularity that say much about other things. In the old days of comedy, being mocked by talk show hosts like Conan O`Brien is one example. But in the social era, where anyone can be a comedian and the hive mind collectively produces one, memes rule. One clearly stands above all others, at least during second half of 2012: Grumpy Cat.

    Surely you've seen this feline somewhere. She has a tumblr, Twitter, website and YouTube, and across the social interwebs she has something to say nasty just about everything. To family, she is Tardar Sauce. To the Internet: Tard, or simply Grumpy Cat. She is the rarest of the rare: snowshoe cat, with genetic defect producing perpetual frown.

    Tard got her start in a casual Reddit post, making her one of the truly social sensations. There was no marketing plan. No public relations strategy. Simply an owner posting photos of a beloved, but unusual looking, feline on a social network popular among geeks. As sterotypes go, geeks really do love their cats. Everything that followed, including Grumpy Cat merchandise, started from social media demand -- someone asking for it. But, of course, Tard's fame is socially driven. Her owners feed the beast with daily photos, from which captioned versions are everywhere.

    Maybe you've seen for Christmas "Your gift is in the litterbox". In the slideshow above, there is more for your grumpy delights, showing this cat's big social media popularity. I pulled the photos from various social media sites. Please contribute links to others in comments. Oh and for the record, it's my understanding Tardar Sauce only looks grumpy. She's quite happy.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/24/An_Apple_Christmas_Carol'

    An Apple Christmas Carol

    Publié: décembre 24, 2012, 8:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tim Cook smiled as he pulled up the blankets and shook his toes against the cool sheets. Christmas Eve had come and the last Apple Store closed. Preliminary sales were gangbusters. Wall Street analysts betrayed him with lowered share price targets and projections iPad and iPhone sales slowed. But he knew! Cook laughed and kicked his legs under the covers. The best fourth quarter for sure! Occasional giggles broke the silence until at last -- long last -- sleep became him.

    But briefly, for rattling chains startled Apple's CEO from slumber. Chunk. Chunk. Chunk. The clanking grew louder and an ominous dragging sound with it. A frightening wail followed. Pain. Great pain! Then through the wall pushed out an apparition. Ghastly yellow eyes squinted behind a face sullen, sunken and seemingly familiar. Tattered black turtle neck and blue jeans -- the uniform worn by his predecessor and mentor. Realization pierced Cook, and he felt a burning hot fire in his solar plexus. Steve Jobs!

    The ghost hovered over the foot of Cook's bed. Minutes passed until finally Cook spoke. "Steve you're..."

    "Dead", Jobs finished. "You have to tell me? You should be so unlucky. If only I had known the misery the afterlife would bring".

    He rattled the chains, which long length Cook suddenly comprehended. "Each link represents every time that I put ego -- my own desire for attention -- ahead of destiny. The Universe has big plans for Apple. Special plans that I nearly ruined, which you will unless you turn the course".

    Suddenly, the ghost of Jobs grew in stature and size, his voice bellowing: "Repent! Repent, Tim Cook! Already your chains exceed the length of mine. You worked against Apple's destiny longer than I. REPENT!"

    Cook cowered, as much in awe and confusion as fear. He would never work against Apple. Universal destiny?

    "Tonight you will see what Apple was, is and will be", Jobs warned. "Sleep, my friend, and prepare". Suddenly, the apparition started to fade and as leaving Jobs lifted his chains. "Tell Jony Ive when he gets here I want him to design new chains. I'm tired of mine looking like everyone else's". He rattled them. "And I don't like the noise they make!"

    The Ghost of Apple Past

    Cook startled and bolted upwards from the bed. Gasping. "My God, it was just a dream". He laughed in relief. What a nightmare. In the morning he would delete that Charles Dickens book from the iPad mini.

    Cook flopped backwards onto the bead and stiffened in shock. Despair. Above him hovered another apparition. "I am the Ghost of Apple Past!" But the eyes were familiar.

    "Steve, I've read this story and there were three ghosts", the puzzled Cook said.

    "You think I would delegate something as important as this?" Jobs bellowed. "Come with me".

    The ghost and man shimmered into a darkened room -- no, a closet! There someone hovered over transistors. "The Universe destined Apple to bring good design and easy computing to the masses 30 years ago. But in this room, a lone Compaq engineer reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS. This accomplishment changed everything", Jobs sighed, then shook an angry fist.

    Cook suddenly found himself in a quiet restaurant where several men scribbled together on a napkin. "That", Jobs said pointing, "is the design for the Compaq Portable". He mocked: "Developed in Texas. Can you believe that? You know what happened, Timothy. Compaq brought this 30-pound monstrosity to market about a year before Macintosh. They called it 'the luggable'! Luggable, my ass, from Texass".

    "You helped make this happen!" Jobs accused. "You managed Compaq's supply chain and helped make white box clones king of computing. What happened to me? To Apple?" Cook suddenly stood before the bank of screens, before which Jobs waved his hands showing episodes in his life: The Apple boardroom meeting that ended his chief executive's career. His lonely days at NeXT developing amazing computers nobody bought but on which the World Wide Web was invented. And more. Cook knew this history, of course, but to see the grim, frightening story filled him with terror.

    Jobs interrupted: "Alfred Hitchcock directed this presentation. He's quite active over here".

    The Ghost of Apple Present

    Unexpectedly, Jobs bellowed: "I am the Ghost of Apple Present!"

    Suddenly, Cook found himself in a darkened, cavernous room. Around him, Cinema Display, iMac and MacBook Pro screens flickered with light. Steve had brought Cook to an Apple refurbishing center! Jobs waved his hands and young men and women appeared on each display, frantically pounding on keyboards -- most of them made by Apple.

    Jobs extended a long, bony finger. "These are blogger sweatshops run by Huffington Post, Gizmodo, Business Insider and others. When I was around, they wrote adoring Apple stories. Now they turn against us, well, you!" Jobs swung his finger, now accusing, to Cook. "Your supply chain obsessions have ruined Apple. I obsessed about myself, you with your stupid logistics. How could you let Apple Maps happen? Or Siri? We are laughingstocks. Yes, even me beyond the grave. Me!"

    Jobs waved his hand, and they appeared inside an Apple Store. "Look at those red shirts!" he accused. "All the employees are dressed in them. You imbecile. How could you let this happen? Don't you know that in Star Trek all the red shirts die? It's cosmic law, and Gene Roddenberry somehow sensed this.

    "Why do you think red is used on Stop signs and lights? Because death awaits all who proceed without stopping. Red, not black, is the cosmic color of death -- and that's what you chose to dress Apple Store employees? Red is bad karma, fool. Why do you think that Apple's stock price is falling or our most devote analyst and blogger friends are turning against us. Red shirts!"

    The Ghost of Apple Future

    Jobs waved his hands and proclaimed: "I am the Ghost of Apple Future".

    "Why are you showing me the '1984' Macintosh commercial?" Cook asked.

    Jobs stared down: "You idiot! This is the future. Google controls the Internet. People are mindless robots. And everyone uses Android. Thought police hunt down our customers -- anyone who dares to Think Different. We should have known Google+ and Google Now were plots to achieve sameness, to make everyone be alike, think alike, act alike. Google search is like a hive mind now, and everyone is plugged in at birth. Do you recognize those ugly, things they all wear? Google Glass is implanted at birth and sends a constant stream of crap. All information, all relationships, all desires satisfied in an instant as long as they join the army of mediocrity".

    Apple's cofounder continued: "Google boasted about its open philosophy but really closed minds. Only our customers dare think for themselves. But they are persecuted. Prosecuted. Slaughtered in the Android Arena that stands where our Space Ship headquarters once did. You will build it, Tim, and Google will tear it down. They call Apple users fruit loops. Can you believe that?"

    "You can stop this future, but you have to get back to supply-chain basics, refocus on higher margins and make design the priority over everything else. Only then can you remove your chains and some of my own. You must Think Different, Tim. I will telepathically give you instructions. Some will seem radical.

    "End the patent war against Android and Google. I was wrong to send you thermonuclear. All our patents will eventually be invalidated following the backlash, leaving Apple legally defenseless. Stop the war! Retreat now. Rehire Scott Forstall and make him COO. Abandon Apple Maps and make the new Google Maps the default in iOS. Buy Research in Motion and Yahoo. Buy Facebook. It's okay if you exhaust the $120 billion in cash doing so. In fact, do just that. Raise the prices on all Apple products. You thought too much about supply chains and not enough about margins when caving on iPad mini pricing. My God, $329? It's too low!

    "Remember, Apple's destiny is dictated by the Universe. Trust me. I set aside my ego to make these suggestions. You must do likewise, my friend".

    Jobs rested a cold but loving hand on Cook's shoulder. "Rest now and receive this gift from beyond the grave this Christmas Day -- what you need to save Apple and rise to meet its destiny".

    Then Steve Jobs vanished.

    In Cook's darkened bedroom, two technicians hovered over him. One removed the hallucinogenic IV drip and the other Google Glass from the CEO's open eyes. Behind them Google's cofounders looked on. "Do you think he will believe it?" Sergey Brin asked. "I sure hope so", Larry Page answered.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/21/10_end_of_the_world_classics_for_the_Mayan_apocalypse'

    10 end-of-the-world classics for the Mayan apocalypse

    Publié: décembre 21, 2012, 7:50am CET par Joe Wilcox

    We're not dead, at least not as I write. Dec. 21, 2012 is supposed to be the end of the world, based on ancient Mayan prophecies. If we do all die today, well, it was nice knowing you. Humans certainly are obsessed with apocalypse. Hell, it's biblical. Civilization's end, and how survivors cope, is quite the popular theme in literature and other artwork, including movies and television. I got to thinking: "Why not review some of the classics?"

    So I've compiled a list of my favorites, from least to most, all but one from the twentieth century (the other circa 1898). Sorry, "The Walking Dead" fans. I also skip late-1990 movies like "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact". Some of the works are deliberately chosen for not being mainstream but worthy of the world-ending genre.

    10. Farnham's Freehold is unusual for the genre. The obsessive main character and friends find themselves in his fallout shelter just as an atomic war starts. One giant blast comes and they open the door onto a future earth. It's by no means Robert A. Heinlein's best work, and I'm disturbed by some of the racial undertones. But it's a solid story pitting man against man. The novel published in 1964.

    9. The Day After. I continue with cheesy nuclear nightmare TV movie that aired on ABC in November 1983. About 100 million people tuned in to watch the world nuked. It was an event, or that's how I remember the night (Sunday?). The Cold War raged, and a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and United States seemed all too possible. The Day After graphically depicts devastation and its aftermath, but the special effects look really dated today.

    8. Night of the Comet is another 1980s artifact. Every 65 million years the earth passes through a comet's tail. It's no coincidence that's how long ago the dinosaurs died. Hint. Hint. Anyone behind steel enclosures is protected from the deadly effects.

    So who survives to repopulate the earth? A couple of valley girls more interested in shopping the deserted mall. They're sisters, who at one point argue over the last guy on earth (so they think). This campy movie even has zombies.

    7. I Am Legend. Speaking of Zombies, Richard Matheson's 1954 novel is a last-man-on-earth story, or one who isn't a vampire-like undead. The work helped define the zombie genre, inspiring three movies, including "The Omega Man" starring Charlton Heston in 1971 and "I Am Legend" featuring Will Smith in 2007. Movie "Night of the Living Dead", game and movie series "Resident Evil" and graphic novel and TV series "The Walking Dead" all pay homage to the novel.

    6. Five Million Years to Earth. In this 1967 classic British flick ("Quatermass and the Pit" across the pond), a spaceship full of grasshopper-like aliens (martians) is found long buried in the London Underground. Opening the ship unleashes telekinetic forces and apparitions of martin armies.

    5. War of the Worlds. We're not done with martians. H.G. Wells' 1898 novel has them invading and occupying the earth, and there is no human stopping them. The story was brilliant for its era and those following. The 1938 radio adaption was so good, panic followed as some people believed martians really were invading the earth.

    4. On the Beach is a 1957 novel by Nevil Shute, from which a film was made in 1961. The story is post-apocalyptic. Atomic war kills off the human race everywhere but Australia. But radiation is headed south and certain death with it. The story is the struggle for survival and hope and eventual acceptance about inevitable doom.

    3. Lucifer's Hammer. The novel by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle is a comet story of another kind. There's no passing through the tail but direct impact and devastation and survival that follows. The story is as much soap opera as anything else and captures the late-1970s Los Angeles social scene. I first read this book in college.

    2. Nightfall isn't about the end of our world but another. In the 1941 short story by Isaac Asimov, civilization collapses on the planet Lagash about every 2,000 years, coincidentally (or not) when darkness comes. Six suns perpetually keep the people in light, except for cycles of total night when the sky fills with stars, leading to global madness. It's a clever concept and one of Asimov's best stories.

    1. Day of the Triffids. John Wyndham's 1951 novel opens with Bill Masen waking in the hospital on the day bandages come off his eyes and reveal whether he is permanently blind. Unbeknownst to Masen, a bright meteor shower the night before has blinded most of earth's population (He can see, turns out). Worse, the blind are helpless against flesh-eating plants called Triffids that humans had harvested for rich oils. Wyndham's story is among the very best of the apocalyptic genre. It's fresh, riveting and political.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/20/Red_Hat_acquires_ManageIQ'

    Red Hat acquires ManageIQ

    Publié: décembre 20, 2012, 11:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Concurrent with third-quarter earning results late this afternoon, Red Hat announced plans to acquire ManageIQ, an enterprise cloud provider. The all-cash deal is for $104 million. Red Hat is uniquely positioned, opportunity and risk, for enterprise server consolidation and transition to private clouds -- for which virtualization is a linchpin technology. The Raleigh, N.C.-based company plans to expand its own capabilities by fitting ManageIQ's monitoring and management tools onto existing solutions.

    Red Hat's acquisition rides the cusp of a trend. Last month, IDC forecast big cloud-related mergers for 2013 -- totaling $25 billion over 20 months. The analyst firm sees three converging trends vertically related. "The IT industry as a whole is moving toward the mobile/social/cloud/big data world of the 3rd Platform much more quickly than many realize: from 2013 through 2020, these technologies will drive around 90 percent of all the growth in the IT market," Frank Gens, IDC chief analyst, says. "Companies that are not putting 80 percent or more of their competitive energy into this new market will be trapped in the legacy portion of the market, growing even slower than global GDP.

    What IDC calls "smart mobile devices" -- ereaders, smartphones and tablets -- will drive IT spending next year. The analyst firm expects IT spending to reach $2.1 trillion, with smart mobile devices accounting for 57 percent of growth. The cloud, which provides anytime, anywhere access, is the glue binding together these gadgets, data and users. For many businesses, building and managing private clouds will be crucial, and many organizations will marry this infrastructure to public clouds. That's where Red Hat and ManageIQ fit in.

    In its announcement Red Hat identifies three areas where the acquisition matters:

    • Red Hat CloudForms: a hybrid cloud Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) solution that enables the management, brokering, and aggregation of capacity across various virtualization and cloud providers as well as the management of applications across hybrid clouds.
    • Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization: a comprehensive virtualization management solution that is an ideal virtualization substrate for organizations to build cloud environments in terms of performance, security and value.
    • ManageIQ's Hybrid Cloud Operations Management Tools: a cloud operations management solution that provides enterprises operational management tools including monitoring, chargeback, governance, and orchestration across virtual and cloud infrastructure such as Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization, Amazon Web Services, Microsoft and VMware.

    Unsurprisingly, Paul Cormier, Red Hat's chief of Products and Technologies, is enthusiastic about his company's approach. "Industry and customer response to Red Hat's vision for the open hybrid cloud has been overwhelmingly positive because it offers the best of both worlds: the ability to tap into the public cloud when and where it makes sense, while leveraging existing investments for cloud infrastructure", he says. "For enterprise cloud initiatives, effective cloud management is critical. ManageIQ offers robust features, including orchestration, policy, workflow, monitoring and chargeback, that deepen Red Hat’s cloud management capabilities and bring the promise of open hybrid cloud a step closer for the industry".

    For third quarter, ended November 30, Red Hat revenue reached $343.6 million, up 18 percent year over year. Subscription revenue, totaling $294.2 million, made up the majority.

    "Since October of last year we have completed three acquisitions, and are announcing a fourth today to expand our portfolio of open-source solutions and enlarge our addressable market", Jim Whitehurst, Red Hat CEO, says "As our enterprise customers move to open, hybrid cloud architectures, we are addressing their needs with a clear roadmap based on industry-leading open source technologies".

    Photo Credit: Andy Dean Photography/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/20/Flipboard_comes_to_Android_tablets'

    Flipboard comes to Android tablets

    Publié: décembre 20, 2012, 6:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I don't much like Flipboard, popular as the app/service may be. But if you do and have a 10-inch Android tablet, there's a new version. It is specifically designed for all screen sizes, although users of 7-inchers could easily get by with the phone app. Now they can expect more, and I admit Flipboard is even prettier on Nexus 7.

    But the service isn't customizable enough for my tastes. Sure, you can add more channels, but Flipboard controls sources for the major ones. Your control comes from adding more personalized channels like Google News or your social networks. Also, I find apps like Feedly, or even Google Currents 2.0, to be more visually appealing. Hey, that's just my tastes; I'm not a member of the Flipboard fan club, big as it might be.

    "Like the smartphone edition, Flipboard’s Android tablet edition was made for a specific form factor", according to the Flipboard Team. "There’s still the widget for quick access to Flipboard and the ability to share to other apps, but page layouts adapt to a larger variety of screen sizes and aspect ratios. On 10-inch devices, readers can fit more tiles on their Flipboard, making it easier to quickly get to favorite content".

    I briefly tested Flipboard for Android on Nexus 10, where there is generous white space and apparent support for the super high-resolution display. If you have the tablet and love Flipboard, enjoy the bragging rights around iPad 3 or 4 friends. (Can you call them that if you love Google's platform and they use iOS?)

    Early user response on Google Play is quite positive. Patrick Domenig, who has Nexus 10, gives the app five stars: "Thank you sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much for the tablet version!" Jim Bolla: "Within 10 minutes of use, this experience trumps the official Google Reader, Facebook and Twitter apps". I can't disagree.

    Richard carnes "really like[s] this on my Nexus 7, just wish they had a comments section". Flipboard arrived first on iOS, and for many people it is one of the killer apps. For some Android users, tablet arrival means big changes. Andy Rhine: "Now I can sell my iPad".

    I promise to give Flipboard another chance. But I don't mind, even prefer, going to different apps specifically designed for their services, rather than pulling all content into one place. I much prefer Google+ or YouTube apps to what Flipboard gives me, for example. And you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/20/2013_will_be_the_year_of_4G'

    2013 will be the year of 4G

    Publié: décembre 20, 2012, 4:48pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Here's another reason for me to gripe that Google Nexus 4 isn't LTE, despite colleague Mihaita Bamburic insisting it doesn't matter: Strategy analytics predicts that LTE smartphone shipments will reach 275 million units next year. That's triple the number shipped in 2012.

    "It is clear that 2013 will be the year of 4G", Neil Mawston, the firm's executive director, says. Still, based on combined analyst forecasts, LTE would only account for about one-quarter of all smartphones shipped.

    "Major countries driving LTE growth next year will include the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China and South Korea", Neil Shah, Strategy Analytics senior analyst, says. "Multiple operators, such as Verizon Wireless, Everything Everywhere and NTT Docomo, are aggressively expanding their LTE networks. Key vendors leading the push into LTE smartphones will include Apple, Samsung, LG, Nokia, HTC, Motorola, Blackberry, Huawei, ZTE and Pantech. Popular LTE smartphone models will include Apple’s iPhone 5 and Samsung’s Galaxy S3".

    In most geographies, HSPA+ will still be the best smartphone owners can expect. All major US carriers are rolling out LTE networks, with Sprint and T-Mobile playing catch up to AT&T and Verizon. Sprint ends the year with LTE available in 49 markets, AT&T in 125 and Verizon in 440.

    Does LTE matter enough to you to determine your next smartphone purchase?

    Photo Credit:  Sashkin/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/20/Instagram_has_a_problem'

    Instagram has a problem

    Publié: décembre 20, 2012, 7:40am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Angry users say they will ditch Instagram over policy changes granting the service the rights to use their photos. Of course, what people say they will do in the heat of the moment isn't necessarily what they eventually do, especially when extra effort is required -- in this case, recovering images from the service. Still, among respondents to a BetaNews poll, the number planning to keep Instagram is statistically zero (5 votes). Forty percent will stop using or cancel the service. However, a much larger number, 60 percent, already aren't users.

    The Instagram backlash is nothing but fierce, for terms like these: "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service". The photo-sharer later claimed misunderstanding and poor wording, but you tell me what's unclear here.

    I share colleague Mihaita Bamburic's sentiment: "I personally am amazed by the rather condescending response to serious concerns raised by the media, and the rather substantial differences between what's written and what the company's co-founder says that people should actually read into".

    Thirteen days ago, National Geographic boasted about becoming "the No. 1 media brand on Instagram". Following the policy change, the organization is out: "@NatGeo is suspending new posts to Instagram. We are very concerned with the direction of the proposed new terms of service and if they remain as presented we may close our account".

    "Anything that FB touches turns to s#!t. And yes, this will effectively kill Instagram", BetaNews reader psycros asserts. Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram in April and closed the deal three months ago.

    "I have never been a fanatical user of the service", Neoprimal comments. "I have maybe three nice pics I posted on there. It's not a staple for me. I'm not really into 'social pictures'. This however does make me worry about posting anything, just because I have no real idea what they can or would do with the picture".

    John Dobbs "deleted my Instagram account this week, like a lot of people. Decided to go with Flickr". Oh? Perhaps that explains all the people who added me as Flickr contacts over the last 24 hours. There's a sudden surge. Some are new Flickr, while others obviously just migrated photos from Instagram (new collection is pretty obvious).

    Alfie Goodrich "deleted my account tonight and whether Instagram backtracks on its statement earlier this week or not, I am 100 percent happy with deleting my stuff".

    And you?

    Photo Credit: argus/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/19/Santa_writes_the_PC_s_obituary'

    Santa writes the PC's obituary

    Publié: décembre 19, 2012, 8:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I lost hope for Windows 8 last night, after visiting my local Best Buy store and seeing gads of cheap computers vying for customers' attention and losing it to tablets and smartphones. The prices are insanely low, which is more surprising because Microsoft has a new operating system that's supposed to generate demand and lead to market innovative touchscreen and convertible designs that offer real benefits to buyers and higher margins to manufacturers and retailers. Ba! Humbug! Gimme Grinch. There's no Santa coming to this island of misfit toys. There, have I mixed enough metaphors to make the point?

    This morning, I looked at PC prices from other retailers and the shock is greater still. I'll look first at Best Buy, which has some terrific bundles, starting at $299.99, for Windows 8 Dell or HP laptop, case, mouse, USB stick and security software (with 12-month subscription). Is that too much for you to spend? Best Buy has a Toshiba model for $269.99 with AMD dual-core processor, 15.6-inch LED display, 2GB RAM, 320GB hard drive, DVD burner, WiFi and all the ports you'd expect. For $329.99, you can move up to Intel processor, 4GB RAM and 500GB with a Samsung Series 3 laptop. At my local store, boxes fill the main aisle adjacent to the tablets. Meanwhile, Best Buy tucks expensive Ultrabooks further back, in a smaller side-isle display area almost anyone could miss.

    These prices sure seem low to me, again considering Windows 8 is fresh to market. But Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, disagrees. He says average selling prices are up this holiday season. "ASPs have been rising all year", which was one of Intel's goals with the whole ultrabook push. He also says holiday bundles aren't any more aggressive than the past.

    "Last year average selling price for a windows PC for first 3 weeks of the holiday was $407, this year $417", Baker tells me today. "Laptops only are $407 -- last year $401". Right, but shouldn't there be more lift from all these newfangled Windows models? Perhaps I expect too much. But I also look in context. Third-quarter PC sales fell below analyst estimates as back-to-school buying fizzled.

    Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent year over year, according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner put the decline at 8.3 percent. In the United States, shipments fell 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. Three weak quarters of sales sets "the PC market up for its first annual decline since the dot-com bust year of 2001", Craig Stice, IHS senior principal analyst, says.

    The PC has been the hub for computing activities, but Gartner says that by 2014 the cloud will be. That's a problem for Microsoft and its partners as the PC becomes more of a utility device, like the microwave, toaster or TV. Perhaps Google understands this, with its holiday Chromebook push.

    In the Best Buy store photos above and below, you can see the small Chromebook display, which Google staffs, selling $199 and $249 models running Chrome OS. Chromebook is sold out at Best Buy, which is still the best place to snag one this holiday. Google Play offers $199 Acer and $249 Samsung models, but only the lower-cost one is in stock. At Amazon, the Samsung Chromebook is top seller in the notebook category, a position held since late October and that despite being sold out.

    At Best Buy last night and on several other visits this holiday season, I observed massive crowds in the tablet area and little to no activity around laptops. At Amazon, in the broader "Laptops, Tablets & Netbooks" category, only one computer makes the top-10 best sellers (at No. 7): $249 Chromebook. There is only one Windows laptop in the top-20, a $459.99 Dell (at No. 19). Surely all this says something about the current state of the Windows 8 PC.

    I know people shop for deals during the holidays, but if Windows 8 convertibles, touchscreens and ultrabook had big appeal wouldn't Best Buy prominently display them? Meanwhile, at my local store, tablets dominate the main front area and boxes of cheap laptops fill the central aisle. C`mon, do you want Santa to bring a shiny new laptop or tablet this year?

    If Windows 8 can't generate interest in PCs during its first holiday season, what can? Analysts will answer the whats and whys in early January when tabulating global PC shipments and sales. Maybe I'm wrong, and I would gladly be, but lest something changes before year's end coal is the only thing going in the Windows PC holiday stocking this year.

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/18/Mark_Zuckerberg_can_take_his_billions_to_hell__I_m_done_with_Facebook'

    Mark Zuckerberg can take his billions to hell, I'm done with Facebook

    Publié: décembre 18, 2012, 8:39pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I joined Facebook on Sept. 30, 2006 -- that's four days after opening to the public. The service promised so much, and I was excited by this compelling competitor to MySpace, which let customization run amok. But within short time, my interested declined; over the years I've come to loathe Facebook, which user interface is among the worst ever, as the site increasingly clutters with distracting elements. MySpace is now clean by comparison. Far worse: Privacy settings too often change, and what's different is often lost, even if temporarily, in the grotesque layout.

    Overnight, Instagram, which Facebook now owns, announced radical rights policy changes starting in mid-January. The photo-sharing service grants itself a perpetual license to use and to sell your content. No permission required. That's one policy change too many for me. On December 9, I posted to Google+ my intentions to give up Facebook on the last day of the month. I thought more to empty the account of friends, information and content but not cancel -- for sentimental reason of having joined so much earlier than most everyone else. My intentions changed. I'm done with Facebook on December 31. I'd cancel today, but want intimates -- family and close friends -- to have forewarning.

    Changing Mores

    Facebook isn't a social network. It's a philosophy that reflects CEO Mark Zuckerberg's personal attitudes about privacy and his inability to operate within the confines demanded by social norms. Over the years, he has repeatedly affirmed that privacy doesn't matter -- that "he doesn't believe in it". His stance is advocacy, seeking to upend longstanding privacy mores by way of Facebook.

    Yet there's something seemingly insincere about Zuckerberg's privacy stance, because Facebook stands to profit so much from content posted for free by users and the mining of the personal data, behavior and activities for profit by way of advertising and third-party relationships.

    Facebook's CEO reminds me of young Bill Gates. Both men launched globally-influential companies. They're cunning and competitive programmers with shrewd business sense, questionable social skills (about the same age) and tenacious drive. Microsoft built an operating system for PCs, while Facebook is an operating system in the cloud. Developers write applications for both. Both men benefitted from timing -- Gates the shift from mainframes to PCs and Zuckerberg cloud-connected social sharing.

    Anti-Social

    Zuckerberg's privacy philosophy and easy willingness to exploit others for profit says something about his own social skill set and how well he fits in with others. Think about it. Why do you need Facebook if you can easily make and maintain relationships? The service is supposed to be a social network, but in many ways it's anything but. There's something very anti-social about Facebook, or perhaps it's better to say "awkward social" or socially awkward -- like it's for people who don't easily make or maintain relationships.

    For the socially awkward, where distance is an advantage and the person engaged reads the intelligence of their writing rather than hears them or sees their uncertain facial and body expressions, Facebook is pure empowerment. What irony! A super smart but socially awkward geek creates the global watering hole for making and maintaining relationships. Perhaps because they're not so easy for him.

    Should the truly socially inept, particularly those lacking empathy for others, have as much influence as Zuckerberg does through Facebook? Answer that question in context of the service's brazen privacy changes, which are frequent. On the one hand, the frequency of them reflects social awkwardness -- that Facebook the entity doesn't understand how to relate well to others; so it tries new things. On the other hand, the changes create confusion about what is and isn't private, which disrupts behavior (and the mores behind them) and opens corridors for quick profits from personal information.

    Facebook privacy changes are seemingly endless. The service proposed some new ones late last month, including combining personal information with Instagram that Electronic Privacy Information Center opposes.

    The Long Goodbye

    Anyone reading my stuff over the years knows I have no qualms making radical changes to my computing lifestyle, with the Apple boycott being one of the most recent. Leaving Facebook, I find unexpected irony, because my first post, on Oct. 1, 2006, was about giving up something else. Excerpt:

    I’ve been increasingly unhappy with the amount of DRM-protected music that I have amassed...My silent stewing over DRM content is a months’-long process...My problem with DRM is how it creates unnecessary 'pay for performance' dilemmas for us consumers. I can watch a DVD on the TV or PC, but I’ve got to buy the movie again to watch it on a portable device like iPod. Some content is transferable, but only by accepting newer DRM mechanisms. Additionally, technologies like HDCP and HDMI will limit consumption of high-definition content to specific DRM-supporting devices.

    No pay, no play.

    I don’t expect most other consumers to follow my lead: Make another choice. Neither Hollywood nor the music industry is the only source of good entertainment. Books, local plays or even YouTube offer loads of enjoyment. Some of the amateur YouTube stuff is a hoot (and you maybe thought I meant the uploaded copyrighted TV shows; naw). There are podcasts and video blogs (check out the Scoble Show; he really needs an editor, but he’ll learn). There is plenty of enjoyable and entertaining content available out there—and most of it is free. No pay. Do play. Share away.

    I achieved DRM freedom in early October 2007, so almost a year later.

    As for social networking, I have been more active on Google+, which is where you can find me henceforth.

    Photo Credit: Robert Scoble

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/18/Tell_us_what_you_think_about_Instagram_s_new__screw_you__policy'

    Tell us what you think about Instagram's new 'screw you' policy

    Publié: décembre 18, 2012, 5:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you're planning to Instagram lots of photos this holiday, think again. They might be in next year's commercial marketing -- your embarrassing candid plastered on billboards everywhere -- and you have no real say about it. Big companies use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 to keep you from sharing stuff. Instragram takes away such recourse for you, overnight announcing one of the biggest rights policy changes of the contextual cloud computing era. The photo-sharing site claims the right to sell your content, offering you absolutely no compensation for the privilege.

    The change is snakey sneaky: "Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service", but "Instagram Content is protected by copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret and other laws, and, as between you and Instagram, Instagram owns and retains all rights in the Instagram Content and the Service". You give up your rights to ownership simply by using the service, which gives you nothing.

    Ah, yes, the benefits of Facebook ownership and the squirrely, ever-changing policies. In April, the social network announced Instagram's acquisition, for $1 billion, and closed the deal three months ago. The new owner flexed its authority overnight, by announcing rights to use your stuff, starting January 16. "Bah! Humbug!" to you, too, Mark Zuckerberg. What do you say? Is Facebook's CEO Scrooge or Grinch, or the smartest tech leader since Bill Gates, who in the 1980s convinced IBM to license rather than buy MS-DOS and in the 1990s got OEMs to pay for DOS/Windows whether or not PCs shipped with it?

    Instagram's early coal in the stocking doesn't stop with claiming rights to profit from your stuff: "Some or all of the Service may be supported by advertising revenue. To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you...You acknowledge that we may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such".

    The service has lots of photos to sell, having reached 1 billion uploaded in April and claiming 5 million-plus per day, which adds at least 500 million to the pool. Facebook already profits from lots of free content people post everyday. But it's one thing to wrap advertising around your content and something altogether different to incorporate your stuff into ads without permission or compensation.

    Early User Reaction

    Instagram announced the changes on its Tumblr, where the rebloggers are furious. Instagram claims: "Nothing has changed about your photos’ ownership or who can see them". The Sane Tumblr responds: "Really? Nothing has changed? I don’t recall granting a non-exclusive royalty-free license to you to sell my pictures to advertisers. Sorry, but I’m not 'feeling comfortable sharing your beautiful photos on Instagram' with that change".

    Meat Sauce for Snappy: "What a misleading post. Ownership rights have changed, if Instagram/Facebook are suddenly granting themselves an unlimited license to use photos for commercial use". "If they’re going to sell our photos without letting us know, GOOD BYE INSTAGRAM on January 15th", LAM3 answers.

    Peter Bergers: "Alright, Instagram, nice to have known you! Bye, bye! Not angry, because you’re about to sell the pictures of users, but angry about that you don’t even ask".


    In a change effective Jan. 16, 2013, Instagram claims rights to sell your photos without permission or compensation. How will you respond to the new policy?

    Over at Google+, #instagram is the top-trending topic this morning. There Brian Medeiros asks: "So who is actually uninstalling #instagram today and who is just bitching? Been thinking about it since they killed twitter".

    Shawn Drape answers: "I'm actively backing up my Instagram photos now in preparation of deleting the account. I draw a line between being advertised to and being advertised with. I'd feel a bit different if their TOS was more specific on how your content could be used but since it is this open ended I've got issues with it".

    Jeremy Hodges: "With all the mass-deleting of #Instagram accounts, I am almost sorry I didn't open one so I could join the fun of deleting it". Yes, but is there mass-deleting going on?

    That's one of the questions for you. I ask what you will or won't do about the new Instagram policy. Please take the poll above and respond in comments below. What do you think about the new policy and how you will respond to it?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/17/Apple_s_perception_problem_is_HUGE'

    Apple's perception problem is HUGE

    Publié: décembre 17, 2012, 7:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    For more than a decade I've quipped: "In business perception is everything". For some brands, this axiom is truer than for others. Apple leads the list, much to its determent. For more than a month now, I've read speculative stories from all quarters trying to figure out why the company's stock tailspins. Some people blame the fiscal cliff, others taxes. Meanwhile, the anti-Apple crowd delights in rumors iPhone sales are slowing and the mini cannibalizes iPad 4 sales. There's an aura of doom that I can only describe as the anti-reality distortion field.

    Earlier today, Apple shares briefly dipped below $500, a low not seen since around Valentine's Day. Bloggers are beside themselves posting about this catastrophe -- or so they see it. I laugh, because they are a large part of the company's falling stock price problem. All these stories contribute to negative perceptions that feed the frenzy. That's one part of the answer to how someone nicked an artery and Apple bled about $200 per share, or 27 percent decline, from September's $705.07 record high. These bloggers were, and still are, detached from reality -- like analysts covering the company. Just two months ago, the Apple Fan Club gloated about projections of $1,000 a share. Now they run around like street people holding signs "The World Ends Dec. 21!" as shares slip and analyst cut back projections.

    Hey, Chicken Little

    I can understand some of today's freakdom. Overnight, Apple issued a press release boasting about two million iPhone 5 sales during the launch weekend in China. Surely that is cheery news in Apple's second-most important market and the one that, according to IDC, will top the United States for smartphone sales this year. In the past, Apple news like this would have sent shares soaring. They're in retreat instead, in part because some analysts took bites out of their Apple forecasts. Oh my, Chicken Little, the sky is falling. (Note: Shares reversed earlier declines, ever so slightly. They're up about 1 percent as I post.)

    There's an irony, and quite laughable one, to Apple's share price crisis: Misplaced perception. For years, Apple was a perception stock, largely buoyed by smart marketing and cofounder Steve Jobs' ability to cast the so-called "Reality Distortion Field", while generating cult-leader like adoration. For most of his time running Apple during his so-called second coming, Apple shares rose more because of positive perceptions, and overly-given attention from the Apple Fan Club of analysts, bloggers, reporters and other writers. Funny thing: Apple is no longer a perception stock but performance one. That's why I refer to the current situation as the anti-reality distortion field.

    The dynamics lifting Apple high bring it low. The company has long benefited from rumors and clearly-deliberate leaks about future products. These helped lift perceptions about Apple as an innovator and kept the brand all over the InterWebs. The people writing obsessively about Apple before continue to do so, but with more negative tone and concern as the bottom seemingly drops out of the stock and the brand. (For the record, Apple damaged its brand with all these patent lawsuits, which is a separate story I've written many times. Then there is Apple Maps, which is the brand equivalent of nuclear reactor meltdown.) People who love Apple or invest can't seem to shut up about declining shares. They feed the beast they want to kill. One of the benefits of being a non-investor: There's no conflict of interest, I write with a clear conscience and as such don't obsessively pen stories about every little Apple stock fluctuation.

    Growing negative perceptions feed off rumors, too. The track record of Apple rumors that are wrong, and the number of times Wall Street analysts misjudged Apple sales, is reason to ignore them all. Apple is an emotional stock and negative or positive feelings prevail -- and that includes analyst share targets. C`mon, some of them set 1,000 bucks just a couple months ago, while others lower the bar below $600 today. It's not the Mayan Apocalypse, people.

    Money Maker

    Apple's enormous growth was never sustainable. What matters more: Can the company continue meeting high revenue and margin targets? Recent history shows one helluva performer. Starting in 2010, Apple saw tremendous -- simply astounding -- revenue and profit gains, nearly doubling in one year from $13.5 billion to $24.7 billion and $3.1 billion to $6 billion, respectively. During fiscal 2010, Apple generated $65.23 billion in revenue. 2011: $108.25 billion. For fiscal 2012, which closed end of September: $156.51 billion. Apple revenue is up 140 percent from fiscal 2010. During the same time period, Apple's net income rose from $14.01 billion to $25.92 billion to $41.733 billion.

    Looked at differently, for calendar 2012's first three quarters, Apple generated $110.175 billion in revenue. That's more than twice Microsoft ($51.7 billion). Two years ago, Microsoft revenue exceed Apple quarter for quarter. By calendar Q4 2011, iPhone revenue alone exceeded all of Microsoft.

    I may be an Apple boycotter, but I'm not anti-Apple. Someone has to point out the insanity of the anti-reality distortion field. This is a company with in excess of $120 billion in cash and related assets. The foundation is rock solid from every perspective that counts: Component supplies, manufacturing, distribution and gross margins.

    I understand some of analysts' nervousness, when looking at Android gains on smartphones and tablets. What the platform gains in overall numbers, it gives up to Apple in profits. For example, on Black Friday, tablet average selling prices fell to $151 from $219 a year earlier, NPD says, mainly because of Androids. Based on Apple's promotions, I wouldn't expect much less than $500, if that. Globally for third quarter, using Apple financial statements, I see $535 average selling price. The point: While bunches of Androids compete for the lowest price, Apple skims the cream off the top of profits and margins. Meaning: Android tablet gains don't make iPad a loser. Same applies to smartphones.

    But nervousness prevails, with negative perceptions acting like gravity the way positive ones lifted the stock just months ago. No one knows what next quarter or those that follow will bring to Apple. Analysts can speculate, but based on my quarterly earnings coverage, I see them as more consistently wrong than right. So Citi cut price targets today, no big deal. Shares fell to $499 -- that's even less to worry about. Apple is a solid performer. The bottom won't fall out in a quarter, two or even three, as the rumormongers so publicly worry about. Frankly, the people who love Apple most write too much about share declines. If they really want to help Apple, shut the frak up.

    Photo Credit:  ARENA Creative/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/17/iPhone_5_first_weekend_China_sales_top_2_million'

    iPhone 5 first-weekend China sales top 2 million

    Publié: décembre 17, 2012, 4:54am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Apple started selling its newest smartphone in the People's Republic of China on December 14. Late tonight, the company claims 2 million sales for Friday and the weekend. The announcement comes as rumors mount about slowing sales.

    "Customer response to iPhone 5 in China has been incredible, setting a new record with the best first weekend sales ever in China", Tim Cook, Apple CEO, says. "China is a very important market for us", which is quite the understatement. During fiscal fourth quarter China revenue reached $5.7 billion, up 26 percent year over year. iPhone rose 38 percent, Macs 44 percent and iPad 45 percent. For the fiscal year, China generated $23.38 billion revenue, or 15 percent for all Apple. China accounted for more than three-quarters of Asia-Pacific revenue.

    Meanwhile, as a market for smartphones, China's importance rises. For 2012, IDC forecasts dramatic changes. In 2011, US share was 21.3 percent compared to 18.3 percent for China. This year, China is expected to reach 26.5 percent, while the United States falls to 17.8 percent.

    As the United States cools and China heats up, Apple faces increasing competition from lower-cost Androids reaching people with lower incomes. "Regionally, we expect smartphone demand to flow down to lower-tier cities", James Yan, IDC senior market analyst, says.

    Already, Androids put heat on iOS during third quarter, according to Gartner. Based on actual sales to end users, not less-reliable shipments to carriers and dealers, Android's global smartphone OS share rose a stunning 19.9 points year over year. That's to 72.4 percent, up from 52.5 percent. Meanwhile iOS fell to 13.9 percent from 15 percent.

    "In China, sales of mobile phones grew driven by sales of smartphones, while demand of feature phones remained weak", Anshul Gupta, Gartner principal research analyst, says.

    The real test of Apple's mettle and iPhone's capacity to cool Android momentum is the newest model's release in China. The company expects to have iPhone 5 available in more than 100 countries later this month.

    Apple shares are in free fall. At Friday's close, the stock was down nearly $200, or 28 percent, from the all-time high set just a few months ago. Will the news give the stock lift? Tomorrow's trading will answer.

    Photo Credit: Francesco Dazzi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/14/24_Google__improvements_are_bigger_than_you_think'

    24 Google+ improvements are bigger than you think

    Publié: décembre 14, 2012, 6:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you're a heavy Google user, every day is like Christmas -- well, in 2012. Not a day goes by that the company doesn't release something new. Updates are relentless, with products in continual states of improvement. Today's touted 18 24 Google+ enhancements are examples. Editor's note: Hours after we posted, Google changed the number from 18 to 24. The approach is philosophical and corporate cultural and defies traditional software development cycles Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and others adopted long ago. The relentless releases is for stuff Google mostly gives away for free. Now why is that?

    Years ago, I wrote several seething stories about perpetual Google betas (Gmail was 5 years, right?) and Microsoft somewhat mimicking the approach. (I can't find the stories this morning. If you can, please link in comments.) The search giant's work was never done, while competitors rolled major enhancements together made available all at once on long lead cycles (Hey, three years separate Windows 7 and 8 launches). Microsoft chooses the big blockbuster movie approach, which predicates a work largely done -- a story completely told. Google is the serialist, telling an ongoing story in a quick succession of releases. Which works better? You tell me.

    Think Differently

    I know which has more marketing punch, more meaningful customer impact. Would you rather get one big present once a year, or lots of little ones everyday? Apple and Microsoft purvey the big and Google the small, and I sure remember the little things more. They're constant reminders the giver innovates and cares about products, and customers gain new benefits on regular basis. Google's approach is part practical, from an Internet company moving at a faster pace, since the first dot-com boom, counts in dog days not dog years. The strategy is logistical, too, since as a cloud company Google can easily dispatch new features to customers. But fundamentally, it's all corporate cultural, reflecting a very different way of doing business that is core to Google's collective character.

    Some of that derives from the business and target customer base. Microsoft derives profits directly from software, Google from advertising and other services bundled around search. People tend to have greater expectations about things they pay for. Microsoft largely sells to businesses, among which IT administrators resist change. For many of them, even three years is too soon between desktop or server software upgrades.

    From that perspective, early days Google, as a corporate entity, didn't necessarily feel its stuff was as valuable. The direct value to the company came from search and profits directly derived from it. Additional Google products and services were a means to an end. But search isn't sustainable alone. It's not sticky. Anyone can change search engines by typing in a new web address. So Google released additional products, like Gmail and Maps, that are sticky. Fast-forward to 2012 and Google offers a broad array of stick apps and services, the majority still given away for free. The ongoing updating approach -- essentially perpetual states of unnamed betas -- once starting from something less valuable (because its free) today makes the stuff more valuable to users. Something new and improved is always just a short stop ahead.

    Never Perfect

    The approach also means Google developers needn't worry about getting everything perfect -- they just roll out stuff when it's ready and improve features over time. Google also masks shortcomings. For example, last week the company launched Communities, essentially groups, as part of Google+. But there was no mobile support. For a company which primary development focus is now mobile devices like smartphones and tablets, the omission puzzled me. As someone who primarily uses Google+ on Nexus 4, 7 or 10, I was quite irked. Today, Google updated the Android and iOS apps to support Communities (versions 3.3 and 4.0, respectively).

    Another compelling Google+ feature is Instant Upload. Android and iOS users can set their phones to automatically send new photos to a private folder on the cloud service. But Google compresses images and reduces their size to 2048 pixels wide. With today's Google+ for Android update, there is a "full size" option, which on my devices was enabled by default on installation. I long have disdained the size restriction. So, again, Google fixed a shortcoming. But it's not free. The compressed option is free, while the other takes up cloud storage that users pay for beyond 5GB.

    Google also improves Hangouts On Air, Events and more. You can get granular details and see other users' reactions in realtime using the #seasonforshipping hashtag.

    Owners' Pride

    Apple gets seemingly constant kudos across the InterWebs for innovation. But by what measure? Google innovates in ways you can see every day in some product somewhere. That's for stuff most of us don't pay for and from which the company doesn't derive direct revenue. That leads me to the final corporate cultural quality, and it defies standard business practice. Talk to any Googler, and they believe their products, their company, will make the world a better place -- that they will empower humankind. Behind that there is drive to keep the relentless pace of development going.

    Some of that corporate attitude comes from ownership. Public companies often follow a very different moral agenda than the people who run or work for them. They are beholden to shareholders, which put money first. Hence, the first moral objective is generating profits -- by any means. While Google is public, three people own the majority of the stock -- Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Companies tend to more strongly reflect the values of the owners, who often feel strong parental sense about the organization's sense. Then there is the greater freedom to step back from the demands other shareholders place on public companies.

    Google has its problems, for sure. I have written about them in the past and surely will do more in the future. But as a company that constantly innovates, in ways visible and meaningful to anyone using its products, Google stands apart from the Apples and Microsofts. Isn't that obvious?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/13/Bing_is_the_place_to_find_amateur_porn'

    Bing is the place to find amateur porn

    Publié: décembre 13, 2012, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Overnight yesterday, Google made alarming changes to search that will irk some people and lead others to express thanks. Suddenly, porn is much harder to search for, even with the most generous content settings. In researching the difference, I used Bing as reference and am shocked by the result. Microsoft presents amazing porn search, all neatly packaged. I am no porn connoisseur, nor do I use Bing image or video search enough -- otherwise, the discovery wouldn't so surprise me.

    Before continuing, some background: In the years before the Web's rise, I used shortwave radio to get news from around the globe. I still have a Grundig Satellit 750, but the worldband radio doesn't get much use. Sometime in late 2004, perhaps early 2005, I Googled "amateur radio" while shopping for new hardware. But I accidentally hit enter after "amateur", which to my surprise brought back page after page of porn. Google didn't organize images neatly as it does today but the skin was nevertheless easy to find. Since, I've used "amateur" as the benchmark for testing what's wrong with image search, which I do a couple times of year and most recently about a month ago. This week, for the first time ever, results are different.

    The Bing Difference

    With safe search off, the change is quite dramatic (and I find refreshing). Type "amateur" in image search and you'll see something like this. Go to Bing and image search "amateur" and you get endless porn. The contrast is dramatic. I started out the process primarily for reference, being unable to turn back the clock and see what Google presented before. But I recall porn presented as images on a page. Bing does much more.

    Microsoft's search engine makes finding the stuff easy, by providing convenient short links across the top of the image search page: "amateur wife"; "amateur sex"; "amateur girls"; "amateur pawg"; "amateur tan lines"; "amateur girlfriend"; "amateur teen"; "amateur thong"; "amateur lesbians"; "amateur cells"; "amateur radio". Remember, this is all searching for the one word, which could apply, say, to all kinds of sports.

    Off to the right under heading "Discover Bing Video" a thumbnail leads to a shocking selection of amateur porn that is well-presented and conveniently organized into headings like "amateur orgasms", "mature amateurs" and "amateur threesomes". Related topics include "gay", "Asian" and "Latina". Moving the cursor over any thumbnail starts the video playing right then and there. With sound! The screenshot above, without grey circles obscuring videos (which editors here added), shows what to expect.

    Clicking through to a video brings lots more. Headings across the top of the page provide more video previews, like "amateur stud bangs his wife", which happens to be one of the vids that must be viewed at the original site (in this case Redtube). It's a virtual amateur pornucopia (not an original term, I know). Bing organizes the videos so well, I'll be back looking for stuff that I want to watch more.

    Click to Skin

    Porn isn't my thing, so in my earlier quick "amateur" Googles, I only searched images, not videos -- didn't think to look. I can only assume "amateur" produced similar skin to Bing before the algorithm change, but presumably not as well-presented. Seriously, I'm really impressed with Bing video search. Microsoft does as well for other topics, but not yet any I find better. Video searches for "Justin Bieber", "President Obama" and "Curling" bring up brilliantly presented video -- the latter term a mixture of the sport and hair techniques. But many more of the videos link to third-party sites than does the porn. That next level of granularity distinguishes Bing vid search but is lost when redirected to another site.

    The net result for me as a user: I will use Bing as my primary video search engine, and likely images, too. Presentation, and visual search relevance, really impresses. Microsoft does a tremendously good job and I'm sorry it took a porn search comparison test to discover the benefits.

    Still, there's irony here. With Bing image and video search being so good, and Google purging porn from search terms like "amateur", suddenly Microsoft's service is the place for skin. From my perspective as a parent, that's not exactly an appealing distinction.

    As for Google, the only thing better now is the filtering. Image results still aren't relevant enough. Amateur can apply to many things -- baseball, hockey, ice skating, radio and skateboarding are among the many, many obvious images to deliver. I don't yet see enough of this kind of content -- 40 hours or so following the change, which greatly appeals to me. I would rather search for something innocuous like "amateur" and get lots of reasonably relevant results, not boatloads of porn.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/12/The_things_people_will_do_to_get_Chromebook'

    The things people will do to get Chromebook

    Publié: décembre 12, 2012, 8:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This morning, Amazon greeted me with email promoting the ARM Chromebook. Well, hell, back in stock is a story. But what a surprise I got clicking the link. Rather than the expected $249 price, one of the retailer's third-party sellers demanded $342.92 for the WiFi model and $448.45 the 3G. There were five WiFi Chromebooks hours ago. They're sold out now -- 3G as well from the one seller. Another has one 3G unit left for $441.90 -- or about $112 more than the official selling price.

    I'm a big Chromebook fan and last week made the $249 ARM model my main PC, even though Samsung's Series 5 550 is faster. I simply like the smaller portable's ergonomics and keyboard better. But my Chromebook enthusiasm stops with paying way more than Google's selling price. I've got to wonder: Why are these people paying premium price? Is it you? Is Chromebook really that much in demand?

    Yes, Google heavily promotes Chromebook. Advertising is everywhere, including Times Square. Definitely, the newer models are perpetually sold out. Advertising and low pricing help create demand, which unbelievably Google and its hardware partners can't meet. But for those people drawn to prices as low as $199, why pay more -- and for an arguably underpowered device compared to x86 laptops selling for about the same as that extra cost.

    For example, Amazon sells one Sony E11 model with same display size and resolution (11.6 inches, 1366 by 768), 1.7GHz AMD dual-core processor, 4GB RAM, 750GB hard drive and Windows 8 for $446.91, about the same as the overpriced ARM Chromebook with 3G. Hey, I'm just saying.

    Then there is the $99 Chromebook offer Google popped two days ago. That price is really $129, when adding required $30 management fee and that's for Samsung's oldest model -- the Series 5 -- but still considerable savings from the $399 + $30 Google quotes (Amazon offers same model to anyone for $326.95 through its partners and newer 550 Chromebook for $449.99). So, again, why would anyone pay so much more for Chromebook?

    Over on eBay, one seller describes the ARM Chromebook as "rare". The auction ends in about an hour (as I write) with no bids and $373.99 "buy it now" price. Another auction, with 13 bids and more than a day to go, currently is $275.75.

    If Apple and Microsoft product managers don't look cockeyed at the situation, they should. No one knows the real extent of Chromebook demand -- is thousands or even millions? But buyers' willingness to pay so much more for a cheap plastic PC, running a newfangled OS fronted by a browser, packing low-powered processor and limited storage and requiring a persistent Internet connection is worth competitors' deep consideration. Whatever Google's got, Apple should want for iPad and MacBook Air and Microsoft for Surface and Windows 8 devices.

    I'm surprised not so much by premium pricing but someone's willingness to pay. Aren't you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/12/Mrs._Claus_is_naughty_and_nice_in_Samsung_Galaxy_S_III_spot'

    Mrs. Claus is naughty and nice in Samsung Galaxy S III spot

    Publié: décembre 12, 2012, 6:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Six weeks ago, Samsung sauced up Galaxy S3 marketing with a dad going on a work trip commercial. His girls prepared a video, which the wife beams by touching phones together. She has one, too, but "you probably shouldn't watch it on the plane". A new version is out, with the Clauses, and the plump Mrs. still has spunk. She prepares a video for Santa, "but you probably shouldn't watch it on the sleigh".

    What? Will Santa's cheeks burn as red as Rudolph's nose? Mr. Kringle is supposed to reward those kiddies who are nice and give coal to those who are naughty. But what happens to the naughty and nice, like Mrs. Claus? Samsung leaves that to your imagination. But what you can imagine! I know, thinking of Santa and Mrs. Claus in bed together isn't much different than thought of your parents. But, hey, those elves came from somewhere.

    The original version has over 10 million views on YouTube, which says something about how well the three-letter "S" word sells. I don't dare use it for concern this post will get content-filtered.

    But is Santa too sacred -- after all he's a symbol of goodness to kids -- to put in adult context? Or maybe making Mrs. Claus the one with adult needs is the point, as seen from her appearance last week on Saturday Night Live.

    Of course, Santa can give Mrs. Claus, ah, presents 364 days a year. So why shouldn't she remind him the one day of the year he can't?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/12/Microsoft_is_right_to_expand_Surface_RT_availability____too_bad_about_timing'

    Microsoft is right to expand Surface RT availability -- too bad about timing

    Publié: décembre 12, 2012, 5:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's plans to greatly expand Surface RT sales to third-party retailers accomplishes two things. One: Rebuts unfounded rumors that the tablet sells poorly or that the company has cut fab orders by half. Two: Makes the tablet available in enough places to be truly successful. Honestly, I am so fraking sick of so-called professional blogs (and some news sites) writing rumor stories based on a single source -- or worse using another site's report based on unnamed source(s).

    Just a week ago, I explained why "Surface RT sales are probably quite good, you just don't know it". In a number-crunching analysis you shouldn't have missed, I refuted pundit claims sales are weak by looking from the perspective of actual distribution, which isn't much through 66 North American company shops or Microsoft Store online in seven countries. If Surface has any problem, it's limited distribution. Too bad the company waited so late in the holiday season to expand Surface RT availability.

    Retail expansion is promised by "mid-December", which is this weekend, right? "Our plan has been to expand the retail presence for Surface after the first of the year", Steve Schueler, Microsoft retail veep, says. "Based on interest from retailers, we are giving them the option to carry Surface with Windows RT even earlier".

    "We’ve increased production", Panos Panay, Surface general manager, says. That statement refutes unfounded, anonymously sourced reports Microsoft did just the opposite.

    Surface is not a sales failure. Analysts expecting millions of units sold during Q4 had their numbers wrong in the first place. Just one million tablets works out to 15,152 per Microsoft retail store for the holidays. Apple doesn't disclose iPad sales through retail, but my best estimate for third quarter: 9,000 per store -- 390 of them. That's for the planet's top-selling tablet. By adjusting the averages for lower number of Microsoft Stores, to be as successful as Apple Store selling iPads, each of the 66 shops would need to sell 6,600 Surface RTs, or 382,800 combined, for the 58 sales days from October 26 launch to December 24. That's an achievable number. Click through the link above for detailed analysis.

    But those numbers look better by increasing distribution and puts Surface in locales where there is no Microsoft Store and where iPad is available -- or something else. Consumers shopping Best Buy will meet Google Chromebook for $249 but not Surface. For shame!

    I understand some of the reasons for making Surface RT Microsoft Store-only: Driving traffic to new shops, pulling sales of companion products and diminishing competition with OEMs selling other Windows RT tablets. But retail down right demands distribution. Surface hasn't got enough and will miss the best selling season of the year. By my estimates, based on distribution before the expansion, Surface RT sales should be about half a million units for the holidays. Can 10 days expanded distribution really make that much difference? I'm not convinced.

    The other major reason to funnel Surface RT through Microsoft Store is why: Ensuring sales staff properly explain the benefits, compared to other tablets and in context using other Microsoft products. Will consumers get that from Best Buy? I'm skeptical. But being in more stores is better than not. So, ultimately, Microsoft does what it should have done from the start: Sell Surface RT everywhere.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/05/IDC_says_I_won_t_have_to_kiss_Steve_Ballmer_s_feet'

    IDC says I won't have to kiss Steve Ballmer's feet

    Publié: décembre 5, 2012, 2:35am CET par Joe Wilcox

    In March 2011, IDC made the most ridiculous prediction -- that Windows Phone would be second to Android in smartphone market share by 2015. I laughed off the forecast, but promised: "Should IDC's prediction prove to be right, I'll make atonement. If Windows Phone is No. 2 smartphone OS by 2015, I'll kiss Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's feet. He can take off his socks and shoes, too". Today IDC revised the numbers. Microsoft's OS share still looks too high but also places third. Lucky me.

    The new numbers are dramatically different and support my longstanding contention that the smartphone market is, or was, too volatile to forecast. Android clearly wins the share battle, even by IDC's conservative estimates. The analyst firm had put Android share at 45.4 percent in 2015, followed by Windows Phone and iOS, with 20.9 percent and 15.3 percent, respectively. Now in 2016, Android projection is 63.8 percent share, followed by iOS (19.1 percent) and Windows Phone (11.4 percent). I wouldn't rule out a BlackBerry comeback.

    Room for Three?

    The real question: Where will Windows Phone share come from. "Underpinning the worldwide smartphone market is a constantly shifting mobile operating system landscape", Ramon Llamas, IDC research manager, says. Some of the four-year share growth will come from Android, which the firm says will lose nearly 5 points (from 68.3 percent). IDC sees Apple losing none, gaining a fraction of a percent.

    "Android is expected to stay in front, but we also expect it to be the biggest target for competing operating systems to grab market share", Llamas asserts. "At the same time, Windows Phone stands to gain the most market share as its smartphone and carrier partners have gained valuable experience in selling the differentiated experience Windows Phone has to offer".

    I disagree. IDC says that in 2012, Android and iOS combined share is 87.4 percent. Microsoft's OS is lowly 2.6 percent. The market already is consolidated around two dominant platforms. Without some really dramatic change -- such as a Microsoft-branded phone, perhaps -- there is little to no room for a third player, certainly not above 10 percent.

    Track Record

    IDC's poor forecast record is another reason for my skepticism. The firm predicted 5.5 percent Microsoft mobile OS share for 2011, in March of that year. Windows Phone actual: 1.2 percent. Android forecast was 39.5 percent but came in at 49.2 percent. iOS: 15.7 percent (forecast); 18.8 percent (actual). BlackBerry forecast: 14.9 percent; 10.3 percent actual. Surely you can understand my lack of enthusiasm about 2016. If NASA erred by this much, that rocket to the moon would miss by millions of miles.

    Where I do agree is questions about two other operating systems, one of which has more share now than Windows Phone. "What bears close observation is how BlackBerry's new platform, BlackBerry 10, and multiple versions of Linux will affect the market once the devices running these systems are available", Llamas says.

    Windows Phone remains in startup mode, while Research in Motion merely needs to convert existing customers and win back old ones. Execution is key, and it's anyone's guess whether or not RIM can deliver.

    Then there is the Chinese contingent. Three months ago, IDC forecast that China would displace the United States as largest smartphone market this year. In 2011, US share was 21.3 percent compared to 18.3 percent for China. For 2012, China is expected to reach 26.5 percent, while the United States falls to 17.8 percent. Big brands like ZTE benefit, as do local white-label manufacturers that ship Android or even Linux. My point: There are many more reasons to assume Android growth will continue, rather than Windows Phone making gains in part because of declining Nokia.

    Then there is Apple. iOS is more likely to continue share gains, too, rather than Windows Phone rising from nowhere. Earlier today, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company expanded iTunes Store by 52 countries, including India, Russia, South Africa and Turkey. That brings the number to 119. Meanwhile, App Store reaches 155 countries. These services are critical to content strategy supporting sales of iPads, iPhones and iPod touches. No one should underestimate the stores' potential to influence iPhone sales everywhere.

    My guesstimate: There is no room for three, and the market consolidates around Android and iOS with combined share in the low 90s percentage.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/04/Google__bring_back_Nexus_Q'

    Google, bring back Nexus Q

    Publié: décembre 4, 2012, 11:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Nexus devices are largely sold out this holiday season. Supply can't meet demand, particularly the new smartphone. But one Google gadget is missing altogether, pulled before official sales started. I've got Nexus Q, and you should be able to have one, too. The entertainment device is quirky, but I like it. Surely there is stock sitting around in some warehouse somewhere. Sell it out, Google. Give geeks something else to clamor for and recover some of the development and manufacturing costs.

    The sphere-shaped device is a remarkable product, and changes fundamental concepts about digitally-delivered entertainment. Users stream music or movies from the cloud, using Android smartphone or tablet as remote control. The approach solves a fundamental end-user problem with digital content: Simple sharing.

    Share and Share Alike

    When you purchase a movie from popular digital stores, it is attached to a single account. Your buddy can bring over a Blu-ray to share, but that digital HD copy requires extra effort, if possible at all. Google solves this problem by letting multiple users control a single Nexus Q, even at the same time, using their own Android.

    Additionally, Nexus Q is highly portable and attaches to any modern TV or sound system; because content is in the cloud it's available anywhere the device goes. So the Q is social in two ways: Opening access to protected content and sharing owned content, such as music, among groups.

    Stated differently, Nexus Q promises to deliver your content anytime and anywhere there is a cloud connection -- and your friends' and families', too. Google calls the device the 'first social streaming media player', and there's truth in the claim.

    There are other solutions. For example, Apple TV streams content from iOS devices or Macs on the same network. But Google's concept is pure cloud storage and delivery, makes Android the controller and puts social sharing as main user benefit. Last month, the search and information giant brought a taste of Q to the YouTube app, which now can play videos from Android devices and allows control from multiple smartphones or tablets. Setup is drop-dead easy, as it is for Nexus Q. I recently got Nexus 4 and Nexus 10, and connected to the entertainment sphere with a single click.

    Q the Context

    I'll look at the major benefit from another perspective. Last month I explained that we have entered the contextual cloud computing era. Post-PC is over, if it ever was. Context drives device usage, not location. The mainframe and PC eras are largely defined by location -- meaning where the device is fixed.

    Cloud-connected devices are generally mobile and how people use them changes in context. You're out and about and need to find a toy store. You search on the phone with you, rather than using a tethered PC or yellow pages attached to a payphone. Perhaps you start watching a movie on the smartphone and finish it on the big screen TV. Location changes, context changes, but content remains the same.

    Nexus Q is highly contextual because Android devices control it. Content follows you, from the cloud, to your Android to Google's sphere. That's your stuff, or anyone else's with you. Something else: The controller concept is more intimate -- you and the smaller screen using touch to make choices for the larger one.

    Spherical Matters

    I started using Nexus Q after returning from Google I/O in late June, and posted my first-impressions review in early July. While I generally liked the device, the cloud and remote control concepts didn't jive at first. Perhaps it's an age thing; I'm not a young dude. But the Q grew on me, and I use it to consume all kinds of X, Y, Z content. The HD-viewing experience devastates Google TV and most similar devices I've used, including Apple's. As such, I now generally rent or purchase movies from Google Play, because the viewing and audio experience is so rich.

    Nexus Q is a feat of engineering that puts Google in the same class as Apple, and really in some ways above. The sphere-shaped device is beautiful, in part for its simplicity and the way circularity contrasts with rectangular consumer electronics devices alongside where it sits. Thirty-two LEDs circle the sphere, using color to let you know, say, whether Nexus Q is connected to the Internet or not. The sphere rotates around the LEDs to control volume, while a tap mutes sound.

    Google describes the enclosure as "die-cast, precision machined zinc bottom housing...injection-molded, interactive balanced top dome with precision bearing and satin touch coating".

    Beauty also is functional: Bluetooth, near-field communication, optical audio and micro-HDMI are among the connection options. Nexus Q is primed for digital audiophiles and videophiles -- all without adding more clutter to your dorm room, studio apartment or media space.

    Full specs: OMAP4460 (dual ARM Cortex-A9 CPUs and SGX540 GPU); 1GB RAM; 16GB NAND flash memory; 25W class D amplifier (12.5 watts per channel); micro-HDMI (type D); TOSLink Optical audio port (S/PDIF); 10/100 Ethernet; banana jacks; WiFi a/n; Bluetooth; and Android 4. Diameter is 116mm and the device weighs 923 grams but feels heavier, perhaps because of the die-cast metal exterior.

    Bring Back the Dead

    If only you could buy one and partake its simple beauty, which brings me back where I started. Google planned to sell Nexus Q for $299, then in late July abruptly postponed launch after taking preorders. The sphere hung as a carrot alongside other Nexus devices until early October, when Google unceremoniously whipped out the stick and pulled the Q when adding new smartphone and 10-inch tablet to the lineup.

    I love Nexus Q now, despite some quirks. I can't expect Google to update a device that is destined to become obsolete. So the experience won't get better short of modding. Perhaps updates are unnecessary, since content purchase experience comes from Android smartphone or tablet accessing Google Play. That's another reason to let those who want the device to buy. There is shelf life.

    Sell out the stock, Google. Give geeks something else to talk about this holiday and to buy. Even if the device lasts just minutes on Google Play before selling out, the event will be memorable and buzz worthy. The Android Army deserves nothing less.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/04/Adobe_holds_Creative_Cloud__Photoshop_media_event_December_11'

    Adobe holds Creative Cloud, Photoshop media event December 11

    Publié: décembre 4, 2012, 6:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Well, the Apple-copycats are at it again. The iPad and iPhone creator made something of holding specialized media events, and generating lots of buzz and rumors around them. Perhaps it's no coincidence that more tech companies follow Apple's lead, by suddenly announcing a media event, days ahead of time, with scant details. It's Adobe's turn. I just got an email about a December 11 virtual "Create Now Live" media event to "announce major updates to Adobe Creative Cloud and Adobe Photoshop".

    Interested parties can sign up at Adobe's Facebook event page. The show starts at 1 pm EST next Tuesday. Forgive my poo pooing Adobe, but I don't expect the kind of online rumor chatter Apple gets. That said, given recent tablet app updates and Creative Cloud opened for business more than half a year ago, time is right for something from Adobe.

    Questions on my mind: What's the state of Creative Cloud subscriptions? Is lower pricing coming? Adobe launched the service in May, and it's a surprising offering from a company which software is among the costliest sold anywhere. Adobe takes huge revenue risks, up front, from people willing to pay tens of dollars per month rather than hundreds or thousands of dollars when new apps release.

    Creative Cloud concept is simple: Users pay about 50 bucks a month for the rights to use most Adobe applications. Their usage rights end when they stop paying. This contrasts to outright purchase, where the license is perpetual.

    Standard pricing is $49.99/month, although existing, qualified Adobe customers pay $29.99 per month with annual commitment. The lower price works out to $359.98, or less than what Adobe charges for the Photoshop CS6 Extended upgrade from versions 3, 4 or 5.

    I must say that extension of the lower-price option beyond 12 months would be helluva perk, and good reason to hold a media event.

    Photo Credit: olly/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/04/Americans_shift_shopping_to_smartphones_and_tablets'

    Americans shift shopping to smartphones and tablets

    Publié: décembre 4, 2012, 5:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    US consumers love to use cloud-connected mobile devices to enhance their shopping experience -- surely something more than a few of you do now that holidays are here. Perhaps least surprising is the number of Americans using smartphones to find local stores -- 78 percent, says Nielsen. That's good news for Google Now, standard browser search services or even Apple's Siri. Sixty-three percent of shoppers check prices in the store. Hey, I do that all the time. Place orders, too. Can you say Amazon?

    More Americans use tablets to research items than smartphones (68 percent to 61 percent) or to read reviews of recent or future purchases (53 percent to 45 percent). Forty-eight percent of tablet owners purchase digital items and 43 percent physical goods from their devices. Mea culpa, I do both.

    The findings are yet another indication how contextual cloud computing devices change digital lifestyles, by displacing activity once only done on PCs. The personal computer, even the laptop, is more stationary fare limiting its contextual usage. Smartphones, and to a less degree tablets, are highly contextual devices because they are so often carried anywhere.

    Consider holiday shopping at the turn of the century, where consumers did little on mobile phones and none on tablets. Retailers didn't worry about, say, Amazon, which didn't compete in store. Buyers might see something at Costco, jot down the price and comparison shop online at home on the PC. My how times have changed.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/04/Holiday_Android_tablet_sales_surge_as_selling_prices_plummet'

    Holiday Android tablet sales surge as selling prices plummet

    Publié: décembre 4, 2012, 5:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Analysts continue to crunch Black Friday numbers, and NPD has fresh data out today on several consumer electronics categories, including Android tablets. The good news: sales at US retail are up 177 percent from the same period last year. Revenue: 91 percent. However, average selling prices are way down -- to $151 from $219 a year ago.

    The sales figures do not include Kindle Fire, which likely would lift ASPs, as the lowest-priced model sells for $159, which is higher, and new models range from $199 to $499. However, a $129-promotional price days later likely drove down overall selling prices. Right now, that data isn't available.

    Since the ASP is also lower than prices offered for big brand Androids, this morning I asked Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, if sales represented "off-brand mostly -- meaning not ASUS or Samsung?" "Yes, off brand, there were a lot of different brands", he responds. Android tablets popped up at seemingly non-traditional retail stores -- that is for consumer electronics: "Cheap Android promotional tablets at places like Kohl's, Walgreens etc.", Baker says, "lots of stuff under $100 this year".

    Falling ASPs is a mixed blessing. Higher volume extends the Android tablet platform, while lower ASPs sap manufacturer and retail margins. Off-brand Android tablets are least likely to carry the newest operating system, which is another concern. Apple offers the same iOS version on all tablets, which is better for customer experience and applications developers.

    NPD didn't release iPad ASPs. But globally for third quarter, using Apple financial statements, I see $535 average selling price. I wouldn't expect much below $500, if at all, based on Apple Black Friday deals. The point: While bunches of Androids compete for the lowest price, Apple skims the cream off the top of profits and margins. Meaning: Android tablet gains don't make iPad a loser.

    Rising tablet sales on Black Friday put down those for PCs. Overall, notebook sales declined 10 percent, which is also the decrease for Windows models. Mac laptop sales: Flat. Notebook category ASPs fell by 5 percent. I asked Baker if tablets displace PC sales. "We are seeing cannibalization in bigger numbers than the past", he answers. "Yes, displacing some, but the net is more computing device sales when you add PCs and tablets together". So that's a good thing.

    Something else good, at least for Microsoft: Windows 8 notebooks account for 89 percent of sales. However, ASPs are low, just $368. Touchscreen models, with $668 selling price, represent 3 percent of Black Friday sales. The high percent of Windows 8 models indicates that retailers mostly cleared out old inventory, despite sagging sales during third quarter.

    More broadly, consumer electronics sales declined 5.6 percent, and it's a trend. They were down 4 percent last year. The only two growth segments, Android tablets and TVs, accounted for 58 percent of sales dollars. That's up 7 points from Black Friday 2011.

    "We are in a mature category", Baker told me this morning. "More often than not growth in one place displaces growth somewhere else. More of a zero sum game than ever before. The industry opportunities lie increasingly outside of pure hardware sales. If you can't grow dollars on Black Friday it is hard to imagine how you can grow at other times in the year".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/03/Microsoft_quietly_releases_Office_2013_desktop_and_server_software'

    Microsoft quietly releases Office 2013 desktop and server software

    Publié: décembre 3, 2012, 10:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft would like everyone on the planet to adopt Office 365 and in doing so, move to subscription pricing. Customers get access to their stuff anytime, anywhere and on anything, while Microsoft sees consistent revenue stream and everyone using the newest features. But that's not happening soon. So for the majority of businesses presumably continuing with what the company describes as "on-premises versions", Office 2013 desktop and server software is now available for purchase.

    Office 2013, Exchange Server 2013, Lync Server 2013, SharePoint Server 2013, Project 2013 and Visio 2013 are immediately available to volume-license subscribers. Everyone else must wait. "Broad availability of the new Office through retail and online channels is planned for the first quarter of 2013", Microsoft's Sanjay Manchanda says. The company released a trial version to MSDN and TechNet subscribers.

    But you must understand that Microsoft really doesn't want anyone using Office 2013 by itself. The push remains the cloud service, which offers the productivity suite also on a subscription basis.

    "The new Office is in the cloud", Manchanda says. "Coupled with new cloud services available next year, the new Office will save your documents to SkyDrive by default, and your personalized settings, templates and documents will travel with you".

    Businesses purchasing by volume-licensing contract give Microsoft money in subscription-like fashion. But deploying Office 2013 on premise doesn't ensure they use the breadth of cloud services, if at all; will deploy the software everywhere at once; or keep employees on the newest versions. That said, on-premise deployment of the larger Office desktop-server stack lets adopters deploy their own private clouds, rather than rely on Microsoft.

    Microsoft has five major objectives behind its new Office platform strategy:

    1. Maintain the relevance of PC software. The transition from the PC to contextual cloud computing eras is unmistakable. Companies like Google shift computing and informational relevance to the cloud and drive it back to the device. Microsoft drives it the other way, leveraging off the huge Office System customer base. The strategy is sensible, but execution complicated and a process started years ago. This release cycle promises to be the one where there's seamless experience whether using software on a PC or over the Internet.

    2. Extend the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the datacenter. Microsoft dominates the most successful applications stack on the planet. But in the contextual cloud computing era, it's not enough. Incumbency is a huge advantage, but not if BYOD (bring your own device) to work supplants you (There's no Office for Android or iOS, despite rumors). Microsoft bets that Surface, other Windows RT tablets, Windows 8 devices and the cloud will, along with Office System apps and servers, be the winning combination that keeps its apps stack the preferred choice, particularly among businesses.

    3. Take out Google Apps. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer once treated the hosted suite as little more than an annoying gnat and later a yappy mutt. But Google racks up customers, by turning Apps, Gmail, Google Talk and other services into a suite that's "good enough" for much lower cost (typically ranges free to $50 per user/year); businesses are adopting Apps. Microsoft believes that Office desktop and cloud, particularly with revised subscription pricing and seamless sync, offer so much more. Again, turning incumbency back into a major asset is key.

    4. Provide customers what they want most. The PC is no longer the only device most people use, and Gartner claims that within two years the cloud will replace the personal computer as primary digital content hub. Stated differently: People want access to their stuff anytime, anywhere and on anything. Microsoft seeks to do just that without disrupting its major Office system revenue stream. The hybrid apps/cloud strategy seeks to have Microsoft's cake and let customers eat it, too.

    5. Make money. That seems obvious, but it's not. The Office division now generates more revenue and profit than Windows. Microsoft's challenge is how to rock the cart without spilling it over. That's why the cloud strategy is so important -- where for many customers Office 365 is primary product; they get productivity apps as part of the service, while paying ongoing subscription fees. If successful, Microsoft will further smooth revenue highs and lows. Meanwhile the company ensures customers' software is up to date, which lets it deliver more benefits faster, removes IT management burdens and makes happy subscribers willing to keep paying. By comparison, out-of-date software that IT must qualify and test leads to dissatisfaction and defection (to services like Google Apps).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/03/The_Daily_is_Dead____thank_you__Rupert_Murdoch'

    The Daily is Dead -- thank you, Rupert Murdoch

    Publié: décembre 3, 2012, 7:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The iPad's flagship newspaper is finished. Today News Corp. promised what some of us in the media long hoped for. Big boss Rupert Murdoch will take The Daily out back of the barn and shoot it in the head on December 15, putting the godawful digital rag, its editors and the few readers out of their misery. Thus ends the iPad's big, publishing experiment. In ruins.

    What a mess it is, too. News Corp. spent $30 million just to launch The Daily, which debuted in February 2011 on iPad. Apple joined the revelry that made the then less-than-year-old device seemingly legitimate -- a truly compelling platform for digital publishing. But News Corp's. digital newspaper stumbled right at the start. Early users complained about constant crashes and slow updates. The Daily promised ongoing content updates to the app, but they proved to be too much -- even after new versions released. Fundamentally, however, The Daily's failure is about editorial content.

    I periodically tried News. Corp's app over the next 18 months. As a journalist, I really pined for The Daily's success. The Google economy, which favors giving away valuable content for free, devastates the news business. Publications can't afford to pay senior staff, while aggregators and bloggers fill the InterWebs with poorly sourced stories or rumors. A daily newspaper, conceived and created for digital publication that people pay for, promised so much. My problem, and perhaps other peoples': The Daily is too much like a digitized USA Today for people with sixth-grade reading comprehension. Sorry, but the publication offers to little for the price: $39.99 year for tablet, $19.99 annually for smartphone.

    From a purely professional perspective, I would rather The Daily continue than collapse. As a reader, I say good riddance. The content is too generalized. The Daily didn't find an audience, and the app's performance never really improved enough.

    Meanwhile apps like Flipboard and Google Currents appeared, offering news from many sources presented in a truly meaningful way. Hell, I get most of my news through Feedly, which connects to Google Reader. News is customized to you, from many sources.

    "We could not find a large enough audience quickly enough to convince us the business model was sustainable in the long-term", Murdoch says.

    Process Journalism

    But there's more to The Daily's troubles. At launch, The Daily crew boasted about the publication being conceived for tablets, rather than migrating from print to them. But editors brought print journalism attitudes with them: obsession with perfection before publication -- the idea a story isn’t ready until it is authoritatively written and fact-checked, which makes sense when the medium is print. The story needs to be nearly as perfect as possible because no corrections are possible to print publications.

    While The Daily promised ongoing updates from the start, I never really saw push for developing stories cranked out fast with what reporters knew to be true in the moment and updated later on. In many ways, The Daily reads too much like a monthly magazine than newspaper -- and perhaps that's a failing of iPad, which to my usage feels better for monthlies than dailies or even hourlies.

    Jeff Jarvis, City University of New York associate professor, describes what online news gatherers should do as "process journalism". "If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it’s perfect because it has to be", he explains. "Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect. That doesn’t mean that we revel in imperfection...It just means that we do journalism differently, because we can".

    This concept should apply to tablet publications like The Daily, as it does to long-established newspapers publishing online, to print or to tablet. Think of process journalism like TV news reporting, where CNN reports there is a shooting at a shopping center in Town X. The story evolves, there is a process, as more information trickles out through official and unofficial channels, which includes citizens taking videos with cell phones.

    "In true process journalism, the news itself is a process, not a fait accompli like a court decision", Jarvis explains. "Process journalism is about news itself as a process and journalism following that process -- again, with due caveats. Process journalism is about covering a truly breaking story — a storm, a riot, a revolt, say -- and recognizing that fact in how we cover it".

    I have yet to see much process journalism, which is all about the news here and now, in The Daily. The lesson here is perhaps about the platform, too. I see tablets as being ideally suited for magazines, because the reading experience can be so immersive. I have yet to see a newspaper app that equals web counterparts or even social services like Facebook, Google+ or Twitter for getting out spot news fast -- and in a meaningful process of updating as more is known.

    Interestingly, some of The Daily's crew will move to the New York Post, which is surprisingly good cranking out compelling breaking and local news and effectively using grabbing headlines. With the changes, "the New York Post will continue to grow and become stronger on the web, on mobile, and not least, the paper itself", Murdoch says. Forgive me for hoping it's the Post staff that influences The Daily crew, rather than the other way around.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/12/02/Will_you_buy_Microsoft_Surface_Pro_'

    Will you buy Microsoft Surface Pro?

    Publié: décembre 2, 2012, 8:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last week, Microsoft released pricing on Surface tablets running Windows 8 Pro: $899 (64GB), $999 (128GB). Controversy followed, with the Apple Fan Club of analysts, bloggers, reporters and other writers fanning the flames of misinformation (as they so often do). These nitwits say Surface Pro is overpriced, because iPad costs so much less. But iPad is the wrong comparison to make. I say Microsoft prices Surface Pro against MacBook Air and ultrabooks, which makes loads of sense when looking at the chip architecture (x86, not ARM), configuration (similar to MBA for cost) and operating system (developed for desktop PCs not mobile devices).

    I rebutted loony iPad comparisons with post "Microsoft Surface Pro is NOT overpriced". Compared to MacBook Air or ultrabooks, Surface is competitively priced, which was my point -- that and getting sensible analysis out there. But properly priced against competing devices isn't the same as being right for your budget or what you're willing to spend. Apple commands a premium brand, for which people pay more, happily. Then there is ultrabook, which didn't lift PC sales during second and third quarters as Intel and its OEM partners hoped. The costlier laptops simply aren't selling well. Ultrabooks' failure to wow foreshadows big, potential sales problems for Microsoft, which brand doesn't carry the same price premium as Apple's.

    The question isn't "Will people spend $1,000 or more (with keyboard cover) for Surface Pro?" but "Who will pay $1,000 or more for a Windows 8 slate?" Does Windows command premium brand pricing? For the majority of buyers, my answer is "No". Take a look at US retail in the three weeks leading up to and including Black Friday. According to NPD, the average selling price for Windows laptops was $477. The cheapest Mac sells for $999, which sets the lowest number for ASPs. Globally, Apple laptop ASP was $1,356 during third quarter, as calculated from public financial filings. What does Microsoft sell to the average person that comes even close? Nothing. So how does Microsoft make the leap? I write this post in part to get answer from you, as potential buyers.

    I draw a different line from Surface Pro -- not to iPad but to laptops of similar architecture, recognizing something else: The pen. Surface Pro extends Microsoft's 10 year-old Tablet PC concept, because there is a stylus. The input device is standard equipment, even when the keyboard cover is extra-cost add-on.

    On Google+, Peter Sitterly responds to my pushback comparing Surface to iPad: "If typical consumers make these same wrong comparisons, then it will be a market failure. No amount of telling consumers that they're being stupid is going to solve Microsoft's marketing problems". But Microsoft telling consumers is the point. Presumably, like Surface RT, Pro will be sold exclusively at Microsoft Store, where the company controls the marketing and presents tablets in context of other products.

    The Big Gotcha

    People won't make iPad comparisons inside the company's shops. Microsoft's sales problem is much, much bigger. Consumers are more likely to compare Surface Pro to RT. That is the fundamental sales problem.

    When shoppers go into Apple Store, there is no question the difference between iPad and laptops like MacBook Air. From pricing to form factor to user interface, differences are unmistakable. Surface is quite different. Pro and RT form factors are nearly identical, as is the Modern UI buyers will see. That makes distinguishing the benefits of one versus the other all the more difficult -- and that's exactly not what Microsoft should want for a new branded product.

    Meanwhile pricing difference glares. Surface RT starts at $499, or 400 bucks less than Pro. Most buyers won't much notice or care about ARM versus Intel, and Microsoft Store sales staff and promotional materials will have to lay out the big difference: The ability to run legacy Windows applications. Is that worth spending $500 or more (when adding keyboard cover) and benefit easily presented as compelling. I'm not convinced.

    Surface Pro: 10.6-inch ClearType HD Display with 1920 by 1080 resolution; Intel Core i5 processor and HD 4000 graphics; 4GB RAM; 64GB or 128GB storage; 720p front- and rear-facing cameras (meaning they're for video more than photos); accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; Wi-Fi A/N; Bluetooth 4; USB 3; Windows Pro 8. Dimensions and weight: 10.81 x 6.81 x 0.53 inches and just under 2 pounds. Price: $899 (64GB); $999 (128GB).

    Surface RT: 10.6-inch ClearType HD Display with 1366 by 768 resolution; Nvidia T30 processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB or 64GB storage; 720p front- and rear-facing cameras (meaning they're for video more than photos); accelerometer; ambient light sensor; barometer; magnetometer; Wi-Fi A/N; Bluetooth 4; Windows RT. Dimensions and weight: 10.81 x 6.77 x 0.37 inches and just under 1.5 pounds. Price: $499 (32GB); $599 (32GB with keyboard cover); $699 (64GB with keyboard cover).

    Granted, Pro has twice the memory and higher-resolution display, but form factors are nearly identical for devices with very different purposes. Surface RT competes with iPad, by features, function and price. Pro extends the Tablet PC hybrid concept and, as such, is priced against x86 portables not Android or iOS devices. Microsoft has to sell buyers on the benefits of the hybrid concept, which in many ways applies to cheaper-selling Surface RT, and paying premium price.

    Better for Business?

    John Reczniarek puts Surface Pro in business context:

    For myself as a system administrator, I can have all my of administrator tools which only run in x86 whilst out of the office or even wandering around the office. I could get a phone call on the way to work and remotely connect via the proper VPN connectivity that isn't in the Surface RT, and resolve issues on my hour long trip to work. It brings proper security and gives Administrators like myself the ability to manage devices again. It's perfect for a business tablet because that's what it's designed to be!

    I agree but that scenario presumes IT organizations will choose to spend at least $1,000 on Surface tablets. Reality is this: iPad came into businesses by the backdoor -- the so-called BYOD, or bring your own device, to work phenomenon.


    Microsoft will start selling new tablets running Windows 8 in January 2013 for $899 (64GB) and $999 (128GB). Will you buy Surface Pro?

    "The Pro does something no other tablet does: Liberates tablets from only being able to run cheap crappy software purchased off app stores", BetaNews reader Joe Chan opines. "People don't realize the value because they're comparing it to existing products. Its value should become apparent after release when someone with a Pro is sketching on Full blown Photoshop with a stylus and the guy with an iPad is sketching on Photoshop Express with his finger. Or someone with a Pro is playing a PC quality game and someone with an iPad is cutting rope for the millionth time".

    Is he right? Can Surface come into businesses BYOD, for one-thousand bucks? Will businesses choose Surface Pro, when Windows 8 laptops can be had for less?

    You tell me. Please answer the poll above and give your reasons in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/30/Microsoft_Surface_Pro_is_NOT_overpriced'

    Microsoft Surface Pro is NOT overpriced

    Publié: novembre 30, 2012, 1:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    No sooner had Microsoft revealed the cost of self-branded tablets running Windows RT than doomsayers started crying pricing foul. The 64GB model will sell for $899, starting next month, and the 128 gigger for $999. I've seen several blog posts gleefully whack Surface Pro pricing as being way too high. They're wrong, in part by the Apple device comparison they make.

    I asked Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, about Surface Pro pricing, whether it's just right, too high or too low. "Interesting question though because most of what I have seen has compared it to the high-end iPad". But Microsoft has higher competitive ambitions: MacBook Air, and even Windows ultrabooks. That's the comparison I make and told Baker so. There, the tablet sits just fine. The company priced Surface RT against iPad. Surface Pro squares against Apple's thin-and-light laptop with 11.6-inch display.

    Think MacBook Air

    "With the cover price, Surface Pro is right in line with what people actually spend on the MBA", Baker acknowledges. Unlike Surface RT, where two models come with keyboard covers, people pay $120 or $130 more depending which click-on they choose. That's what Baker refers to by "cover price". Actually Surface Pro with cover sells for a little more than 11.6-inch MacBook Air, which is $999 or $1,099 for 64GB or 128GB storage respectively. That all assumes Microsoft won't offer a bundle at launch. I fully expect to see comparable MacBook Air pricing with keyboard cover included with the tablet.

    Thinking about Surface Pro this way changes everything. Baker agrees: "Just helps reinforce the laptop? Tablet? Question around Surface. Here that is pretty crucial since it really defines where its opportunity lies".

    I don't doubt where Microsoft sees the opportunity. Surface RT is more about the future, with the Modern UI and limited legacy desktop support. Users have the old motif, but they can only install apps purchased through the Windows Store that support the Start screen. Surface Pro is about the present, providing users benefits of the new while supporting the old stuff.

    Stated differently, the lower-cost tablet available now is priced exactly to compete with iPad, and ARM-based Windows easily is viewed as an Android or iOS competitor. That's not true of Surface Pro, which runs Windows 8 Pro, an operating system in the same class as Apple's OS X.

    From that perspective, Surface is a considerable value compared to MacBook Air and some ultrabooks because of the touchscreen and stylus that is included in the purchase price. Then there is increased portability and flexibility for a device supporting all Windows applications -- not just those designed for Modern UI -- and allowing users to switch between tablet (with touch) or laptop (with keyboard). That's what defines Surface Pro. It's a tablet and a laptop running a full desktop OS, just like MacBook Air.

    Fair Comparison

    You don't believe me? Look at the specs and how closely Surface Pro matches MacBook Air. Both come in the aforementioned 64GB and 128GB configurations, pack Intel Core i5 processor, 4GB RAM, Intel HD 4000 graphics, 720P Webcam, USB 3 port, Bluetooth 4, and Wi-Fi A/N. Surface's display is smaller, 10.6 inches, but considerably higher resolution (1920 x 1080 pixels versus MacBook Air's 1366 x 768). Both are thin-and-light portables. They weigh about the same when keyboard cover is attached to Surface Pro, which otherwise is 2 pounds compared to the Apple's 2.38 pounds. Additionally, Surface Pro uses ambient-light sensor, accelerometer, gyroscope and compass for orientation and packs a microSDXC card slot; these are all missing on MacBook Air.

    Whether or not potential buyers accept Microsoft's hybrid tablet/laptop approach is another matter. That's a question for after sales start in earnest. Something else, small as it may seem: Microsoft prices Surface Pro to drive sales of the higher-capacity storage model, which says something about desktop OS ambitions, too.

    Baker explains, regarding pricing: "Spacing is a little tight on the two. I think it argues that they want to drive people to the $999 product". He likes the price. "I think it is low in general though. I thought they would be over $1,000".

    The point: Don't compare Surface Pro to iPad. That's what the RT model is for. Microsoft prices against MacBook Air, and there offers some compelling advantages, starting with that higher resolution display and continuing with the option of running real Windows apps on a sensibly-sized tablet.

    Sorry, but Microsoft partners like Samsung that push 11.6-inch Windows slates need to think smaller. Surface's size is much more manageable in the hand, while offering benefits of dual tablet or notebook usage. Again, there's question whether the market will see the approach as best of both worlds, or worst of them.

    You tell me. Will you buy Surface Pro?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/29/Windows_8_is_a_disaster'

    Windows 8 is a disaster

    Publié: novembre 29, 2012, 5:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Quick, someone add "Nearer My God to Thee" to Steve Ballmer's Xbox Music queue. Microsoft's CEO has a real problem -- well, at least his OEM partners. Simply stated: US Windows PC sales still suck and got absolutely no lift from Windows 8's release. So much for 40 million licenses sold in the first month (and we know it really was longer, since license sales to businesses started in August). Then there is increasing context for Windows chief Steven Sinofsky's sudden departure. The new operating system sinks like Windows Vista. Cue the violins.

    New Windows version is supposed to lift PC sales, but they're down 21 percent since the October 26 launch. Notebook sales slumped 24 percent and desktops 9 percent, for the same time period a year ago. "Clearly Windows 8 did not prove to be the impetus for a sales turnaround some had hoped for", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says.

    But he cautions: "After just four weeks on the market, it’s still early to place blame on Windows 8 for the ongoing weakness in the PC market. We still have the whole holiday selling season ahead of us". NPD measures US brick-and-mortar and online retail sales.

    Tablets sink Faster

    Not that manufacturers demonstrate enough commitment to Windows 8. The Modern UI and emphasis on convertibles and tablets should have brought bunches of new designs to market -- and consumer sales with them. Three years ago, Windows 7 launched about the same time of year and accounted for 83 percent of PC unit sales during the first month. Windows 8: Just 58 percent. That says much about what's for sale and what people buy.

    Third-quarter PC sales already were bad and left some collateral damage for Windows 8's launch. "The bad Back-to-School period left a lot of inventory in the channel, which had a real impact on the initial sell-through rates for Windows 8", Baker says.

    Most surprising -- and I'm seeing Sinofsky's pink slip before my mind's eye -- NPD describes Windows tablet sales as "almost non-existent", accounting (cough, cough) for just 1 percent of sales. Have you seen the Best Buy commercial with the kid using Apple gadgets to contact Santa? With retail partners like this, what are Windows 8 slates' chances?

    Still, there's room in the lifeboats to save something from this sinking ship. "The strong performance of Windows 8 notebooks with touchscreens, where Windows 8 truly shines, offers some reason for optimism", Baker says. "These products accounted for 6 percent of Windows 8 notebook sales at an average price of $867 helping to re-establish a premium segment to the Windows consumer notebook market".

    "Premium" is not a word often associated with Windows PCs -- rather Macs. But Windows 8 lifts average selling prices. Let me tell you from covering this market for so long, Windows PC ASPs usually only go one direction. Down. But, year over year, notebook ASPs are up 80 bucks to $477 (not exactly Mac pricing territory), while desktop ASPs are up 10 percent. NPD attributes the rise to costlier touchscreen models.

    Surveying Wreckage

    There has been much debate, particularly the past 10 days, about Windows 8's success or failure. Early holiday PC sales are simply tragic. Not that this misery is new. Ten months ago, IDC described 2011 as the worst year for PC shipments since 2001 -- the year terrorists attacked the United States and during a recession. There is no good news since, just more bad for PC manufacturers -- that despite Intel's efforts to rally the market around ultrabook.

    In January, following disappointing Q4 2011 PC shipments, I asserted that "Only Windows 8 can save the PC market now". The new OS has come, and unless something really dramatic happens between now and Christmas Day, fourth quarter is a lost cause -- all while Apple sells iPads faster than the US Mint can print money.

    If Sinoksky is captain of this ship, he isn't going down with it. Or stated differently, the crew threw him overboard and he is first casualty of the sinking. His future name is Scapegoat Sinofsky. No matter that the rudder was too small, the ship too big to turn around the iceberg.

    Perhaps Windows 8's sinking was inevitable, as people shift buying to other device types. You know, tablets. That's the category where Microsoft bet the larger Windows ecosystem would give great sales lift. Not among US consumers. Sinofsky will be blamed, whether or not he deserves it. He's separated from Microsoft and surely won't risk any severance package by disagreeing too loudly.

    For those left behind, I say this: Man the life boats. Women and children first.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/28/Google_Play_demands_reviewers__identities'

    Google Play demands reviewers' identities

    Publié: novembre 28, 2012, 2:39am CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you wonder why "A Google User" suddenly is the most popular review commenter at Play, he (or she) is not. Today the store started a radical change, requiring Google Profile to place stars and comments for apps and other content. The days of anonymity are over, and good riddance.

    Others disagree, and the move definitely isn't popular with some writers in our newsroom. All the typical justifications are back: People need anonymity to protect their jobs. So on and so on. Blah, blah, blah. I've heard these crap excuses before. You got an opinion, stand by it with your identity -- particularly something like an app, movie or music review.

    There shouldn't be anonymous reviews, which could come from anywhere from anyone for any motivation. You know, shill reviews someone is paid to make Products X, Y or Z look good or from competitors looking to make something look bad. Identity makes the reviews more credible. That's ultimately better for app developers, and identity introduces accountability because other people can find you. Google should have done this long ago. The change gives Play edge over Apple content store reviews.

    The search and information giant calls the change "Reviews Powered by Google+": "From now on, reviews you write will be posted publicly using your Google+ name and picture. Your name on previous reviews will appear as 'A Google User'".

    Of course, there is more going on here. The identity mechanism will drive Google+ traffic, perhaps even increase signups. The company seeks to build up the social network by every means, and increased integration among existing services is leverage.

    Still, identified reviews tied to Google+ accounts also should increase social interaction around products, improving quality of feedback to artist, developer or publisher. Social magnifies reaction, which is great if the crowd loves your thing. But woe to you, if not.

    Will you stand up for your review, or hide like so many commenters do here at BetaNews -- throwing Molotov cocktails from behind boulders?

    Photo Credit: Renaud Thomas/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/27/Google_Nexus_4_first_impressions_review'

    Google Nexus 4 first-impressions review

    Publié: novembre 27, 2012, 11:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The LG-manufactured Nexus 4 is nearly perfect. Unless you have no other choice, perhaps because of unsupported cellular carrier and binding contractual commitment, put Google's newest smartphone at the top of your must-buy list. The device satisfies in all the right places -- battery life, call quality, display clarity, size and visibility, operating system and performance. There are other Androids with comparable or better hardware, but they typically slap on a secondary UI and ship with older OS. It's not the measure of one attribute, or even a couple, but many combined that make Nexus 4 so good.

    But nearly isn't perfect. Nexus 4's flaws, while subtle, will be serious for some potential buyers. There is no 4G LTE, for example. The feature is built-in to the Snapdragon processor but not properly enabled. The phone is HSPA+ for data, which works on GSM carriers like AT&T and T-Mobile USA. No LTE is a deal-breaker for some people, as seen in commments here and elsewhere. Something else: LG copied Apple, which put glass on the back of iPhone 4 and 4S and rightly abandoned the design with the newest handset. Double-sided glass makes the phone less durable than should be, particularly if dropped. Finally, many Galaxy Nexus users won't find its successor to be a compelling upgrade; much depends on what they use their phones for.

    Nexus 4 is available from Google Play and T-Mobile USA. Sales resumed today, following two weeks out-of-stock situation. I expect shortages to continue throughout the holidays. Phones from the search giant and cellular carrier are identical and will receive same speedy Android updates. Only price and terms are different. Google Play sells 8GB and 16GB Nexus 4s for $299 and $399, respectively, unlocked and without carrier commitment. T-Mobile offers the larger-capacity phone for $199 with two-year contract and $499 without.

    Obligatory iPhone 5 Comparison

    Many people looking at Nexus 4, if not set on Android, may wonder about iPhone 5. Specs for both:

    Nexus 4: 4.7-inch display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    iPhone 5: 4-inch display, 1136 x 640 resolution, 326 ppi; Apple A6 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on model); 8MP rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE (bands vary by carrier model and region); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth; Wi-Fi N; 1440 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 6. Measures 123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm and weighs 112 grams.

    Apple's mobile sells for $199 (16GB), $299 (32GB) or $399 (64GB) with 2-year contractual commitment from, in the United States, AT&T, Sprint or Verizon. Please refer to my Nexus 4-iPhone 5 comparison for more about how the two phones stack up. Generally speaking, you can't go much wrong with either, based on basics like battery life, camera, display or performance.

    Things That Matter

    A good phone is the sum of its parts, how well they work together and the overall user experience they and software and services produce.

    Battery. I tested the 16GB model, starting October 21. Six days later, I recharged the battery thrice. Heavy phone users should see much less, but do expect exceptionally good performance from the 2100 mAh battery. It's the best I've seen from any smartphone packing relatively standard capacity.

    But, like iPhone, battery is not swappable, unlike earlier Nexus phones. As someone who expects to use the mobile to shoot photos and videos at events, the fixed battery is a big concern. For example, during Comic-Con continuous use taking photos and videos, posting to Google+ and uploading vids to YouTube spent Galaxy Nexus battery in about four hours. I could swap another, which won't be an option on the LG model. I haven't yet put Nexus 4 to such rigorous test.

    Display. The screen is magnificent and different from Samsung-manufactured Galaxy Nexus; it's a qualitative not quality thing. The difference is most apparent when reducing to smallest font. Fine detail is more readable to my aging eyes.

    Samsung OLED displays tend to be highly -- I'd say overly -- saturated. LG's color reproduction feels more natural. Nexus 4's display is also more viewable outside in sunlight -- of which there is plenty in San Diego -- than Galaxy Nexus. While screen resolution is the same on both smartphones, Nexus 4's slightly larger display (4.7 inches vs 4.65 inches) means that the keyboard and some other UI elements appear slightly larger.

    I can't enough express my satisfaction with the screen. What the LG gives up in saturation it gains in clarity, which is amazing.

    Performance. Nexus 4 is fast, benefiting from quad-core processor and 2GB RAM, which is twice iPhone 5 and most Androids. Based on my still early testing, the extra memory matters more for typical operations. The hardware, combined with operating system improvements, produce smooth operations.

    But Galaxy Nexus performs well running Android 4.2, too. Overall operations are about as speedy. I can't speak for processor-intensive stuff. Yet. But putting Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 4 side by side, apps and Chrome open at about the same time. Galaxy Nexus is never faster, but at least the same and, when not, with just the slightest lag.

    Many Google geeks owning both phones disagree with this assessment, based on comments to my Google+ posts. The majority regard Nexus 4 to be faster. Perhaps their usage is different -- more processor and memory-intensive applications.

    But faster is a measure of degree -- then there's what's good enough. As a measure of pure performance, I find Galaxy Nexus to be plenty good enough. The point: Some, perhaps even many, people upgrading from the older to newer Nexus won't be wowed as much they might expect. Nexus 4 is a good upgrade, but nothing like the leap from Nexus S to its successor.

    Storage is stingy. I expect 16GB minimum in a phone this class, and there is no card slot for adding more. While a good value for the price, Google's target gadget enthusiast buyer will want more -- and he or she can get it from other mobiles. Really, 16GB and 32GB models are more appropriate here.

    That said, I find the 12.92GB available space to so far be more than ample. So, yeah, figure about 3GB used by Android and whatever else Google bundles. I wouldn't feel as good about the 8GB model, obviously.

    Galaxy Nexus (left), Nexus 4 (right) low-light camera comparison

    Camera. For me, a phone's camera is hugely important, which is why for so long I favored Nokia mobiles. I find Galaxy Nexus to be an exceptionally good shooter and presume this applies to other Samsung phones. Comparison to Nexus 4 shows why megapixels don't matter. Nexus 4 has more (8MP) and Galaxy Nexus less (5MP). The difference also is more than sensors, too, but how a camera phone in default mode chooses settings, which matters more indoors that outside.

    One thing that puzzles me about Galaxy Nexus, and it's something I really like: The phone tends to shoot at low ISO even in low light. Images may sometimes be darker, but that's easily fixed in post-production. Nexus 4 unfortunately behaves as I would expect, opting for higher ISO at lower light. This produces noise that is much harder to fix in post-production.

    Both phones ship with the stock Android, and use the same Jelly Bean 4.2 camera app, yet make very different decisions about ISO (200 and 600) and shutter speed (1/17 sec and 1/20 sec) in the photos here.

    That said, Nexus 4's color reproduction is truer, comparable to iPhone 5, than the older Android. While the Samsung makes better choices about ISO and shutter speed, default white balance isn't quite right.

    With regard to iPhone 5, which many (biased) reviewers consider to be the standard bearer, Nexus 4 produces as good or better photos, based on my testing. Some situations are better, others not, but overall comparable. Where the Google phone excels is control, including scene settings, exposure compensation and white balance adjustments. iPhone 5 is great for point and click, which is probably how most people will use it.

    Another thing: Android 4.2 features a 360-degree panorama mode, which advertises well but is more gimmick.

    Design. I wouldn't call Nexus 4's design remarkable, but the phone is handsome compared to Galaxy Nexus, which never impressed me. But it feels cool in the hand, because the back is glass. As expressed in the introduction, I consider this choice to present unnecessary burden on users, like those of iPhone 4 and 4S.

    The LG-made phone is conceptually less rugged than should be a mobile of this size, class and price. People complain about Galaxy Nexus cheap plastic, which seems plenty sturdy enough to me and better off if dropped.

    Bandwidth. Nexus 4 officially only supports HSPA+, although LTE can be hacked to work on some carrier networks (need to support Band 4). That makes the Google phone look like a jalopy on the speedster highway. Verizon only sells LTE smartphones, and all US carriers rapidly role out 4G networks. But globally, HSPA rules -- and even then only 2/2.5G is available in many countries. From that perspective, HSPA+ makes Nexus 4 more a global phone sellable at lower price and, conceptually, with better battery life.

    Accepting no-LTE will be difficult for some people, and I'm one of them. But the problem is the mind, looking at what others have got and wanting more. Priority should be what do you need. AT&T's HSPA+ network is lousy here in San Diego -- typically 3Mbps. LTE is at least six times faster. In reality, I find downloads to be plenty fast enough -- actually much faster than Galaxy Nexus even when testing the same speed. That has as much to do with faster processor and more generous RAM, I do believe.

    T-Mobile network's supports up to 42Mbps, and in some locales should equal or outperform AT&T's LTE network. Nexus 4 is probably the best phone for T-Mobile users. Price is exceptional on contract and performance and Internet speeds make the handset the alternative to iPhone 5 from the carrier which can't sell it.

    Jelly Bean is Sweet

    The overall usage experience greatly benefits from Android 4.2, which deserves long treatment. But I don't have time today, being rushed to post soon after Google started selling Nexus 4 again. So Jelly Bean gets less review here than deserved.

    Overall, I see little difference between Android 4.2 running on either the newest Nexus or its predecessor. Available features are about the same, with a few differences (such as getting HDR on Nexus 4 camera app). Font-rendering and other visuals are similarly appealing. Jelly Bean pops off the screen. Yum. Does it taste good.

    The similarity in performance actually means something important. Apple's success is very much about producing the whole stack -- hardware, services and software -- and tightly controlling the user experience. Google doesn't make the hardware on any Nexus, yet it feels all end-to-end. Android 4.2's smoothness fits like a glove. Unlike devices where carriers and manufacturers slap on custom UIs or add crapware and create a jarring, jagged user experience, Nexus 4 operation feels smooth in all the ways that matter.

    And yet...there's something I can't quantify that might be nothing more than my emotional attachments: Nexus 4 doesn't feel as much a tight ticket as Galaxy Nexus. The Samsung device feels more Google-made somehow.

    Beyond this there is what's typical. Setting up Nexus 4 is as easy as logging into your Google account. The device syncs everything you need, including apps. Android 4.2 improvements, available also on Galaxy Nexus, extend utility -- such as the new basic settings pull-down menu available from the top right-hand corner or the ability to run widgets on the main screen (the one that pops up when waking the device).

    Jelly Bean's big feature is Google Now, which Popular Science calls "innovation of the year". Google Now presents information in "cards". Is there an accident on your daily commute? Google Now will tell you. Is there an interesting nearby event, you are notified. Ditto for public transportation and time the next bus or train will come.

    The service represents a watershed development. Google successfully presents its depth of search and contextual services in a truly meaningful manner -- one that changes how people interact with mobile devices. You don't have to search. The feature tracks activities and location, anticipating what information the user needs before asking and presenting it contextually.

    Final Word

    Nexus 4 is a remarkable phone, a real gem. But not all gems are perfect, and as such the newest Google phone isn't for everyone. There are trade-offs to be made, but that's typical of most products. When do you ever really reach perfection?

    The combination of hardware, services and software, and the overall experience they produce, makes Nexus 4 a smartphone I must highly recommend. But some Galaxy Nexus owners are better off spending their cash on a tablet now. Demanding users who burn battery life down fast may want to consider options wisely. No storage expansion is limitation some other users won't like. Then there is no-LTE.

    Caveats aside, Nexus 4 is best for folks looking to improve their Google lifestyle, using prepaid cellular services (remember, phone is unlocked and carrier-free), wanting the best overall Android experience, seeking the most choice and software customization options or relying on T-Mobile as cellular carrier.

    Simply stated: If Nexus 4 isn't for you, it should be.

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/27/Google_Play_resumes_Nexus_4_sales'

    Google Play resumes Nexus 4 sales

    Publié: novembre 27, 2012, 3:53pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    At 9:24 am ET this morning, I received surprising email from Google: "Nexus 4 will be available for purchase later today! Order yours from Google Play starting today, November 27 at 12:00 noon PST (US only)".

    Sudden availability follows shipping notices many people who had placed orders previously received yesterday. The question: Can Google Play handle the orders this time? Another: Will you get a phone?

    I best finish my Nexus 4 review. Quickly. Apologies, I've only had the phone for six days, but did complete a comparison with iPhone 5 over the weekend. For most people considering either phone, from a carrier supporting both, I recommend the Android.

    Botched Launch

    Google started selling the LG-manufactured smartphone on October 13, and what a mess. The company sold out quickly, and many people placing orders encountered errors. Google Play cancelled my order at final confirmation screen. Nexus 4 is text-book retail case study of how not to launch a new product. Problems were bigger than short supplies. Google Play servers couldn't handle the load of those people trying to place orders.

    While competitors sold smartphones over Black Friday weekend, Google had no Nexus 4s to offer. No retailer should miss the biggest shopping day of the year, even when selling full price, which Google should have done for such a hot seller.

    The search and information giant also missed Cyber Monday, but that I consider smart retailing. People searched for hot online deals yesterday. Big discounts are over, and tech blogs and social media sharers obsession with them. Today is clear road ahead -- attention from buyers and blogs, news sites and social networks that might promote Nexus 4 availability.

    Great Demand

    Based on BetaNews polls -- and the general level of buzz on social networks -- lots of people want Nexus 4. Ten days ago I asked: "How does the Nexus device shortage affect you?". "I would order if devices were in stock", 52.71 percent of respondents answered. Only 7.91 percent successfully ordered. Another 23.72 percent tried and failed. These are grim numbers for a hotly-desired device sold out for so long.

    Based on our purchasing poll, 56.08 percent of respondents would buy Nexus 4 "as soon as available", and we know many tried and failed. More than 70 percent of you taking the poll would buy within 3 months. Those numbers exceed past polls for iPhone, and everything else, which says much about interest.

    Pricing and Specs

    Google Play sells two Nexus 4s, identical except for storage capacity: 8GB direct link; 16GB direct link. They are $299 and $349, respectively, unlocked and without carrier contractual commitment.

    Specs: 4.7-inch display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    Shattered Glass

    Interesting controversy started yesterday that deserves attention: Glass. At Droid Life, writer Kellex complains about cracked glass on Nexus 4 and similar Optimus G by "setting them down gently onto my room temperature stone countertop. That’s it. The temperature change after it went from my warm hand to a room temperature countertop was apparently enough to split both devices’ glass backs almost directly down the middle. To think, that deciding whether or not my device is going to crack just by laying it down gently, is something my mind doesn’t even want to entertain".

    Like iPhone 4S, Nexus 4 has a glass back. Several people asked for my opinion on Google+, which I further share here. To Manuel Mas I answered: "I have no problems so far. But I'm no fan of glass on both sides. I thought Apple chose poorly, and it's strange to see LG copy the approach".

    I had wondered why Google Play offers bumpers, which cost an extra $19.99 each. Shattered glass surely is reason. The bumper absorbs shock if the phone is dropped on its edge. But none of that explains Kellex's strange cracking experience.

    Anyone feeling comfortable enough to buy iPhone 4 or 4S shouldn't sweat Nexus 4. But I do consider glass on both sides to be a design flaw that Apple rightly corrected and one LG shouldn't have copied. Phones need to be rugged. Instead, users must worry about drops front and back, rather than just screen down.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/27/If_Chromebook_really_is__for_everyone___is_it_for_me_'

    If Chromebook really is 'for everyone', is it for me?

    Publié: novembre 27, 2012, 1:41am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Suddenly, I don't feel so special. But that's okay. For some time, I belonged to a small, elite group of Chromebook users. But new, lower-cost models and Google's aggressive "for everyone" marketing campaign moves the cloud computer into the mainstream market. On October 18, I started using the $249 model announced the same day. The question: Is 'for everyone' for me -- or even you?

    I already had adopted the $449 Chromebook as my only PC. The question: Could the ARM model satisfy? Except for 40 hours back on the costlier Intel, for performance comparison, I've used the smaller Chromebook full time for more than a month. In trying to answer the question, I hoped to perhaps get one for people tempted by the newer model's lower price or that of the (gasp) $199 Acer. Samsung makes the other two.

    For anyone considering any of them, quick specs:

    $199 Chromebook: 1.1GHz Intel Celeron 847 dual-core processor; 11.6-inch glossy display, 1366 x 768 resolution, 200-nit brightness; 2GB RAM; 320GB hard drive; webcam; three USB 2.0 ports; WiFi A/N; HDMI port; VGA port; Chrome OS. Weighs 3 pounds (1.1 kg) and is an inch thick.

    $249 Chromebook: 1.7GHz Samsung Exynos 5250 dual-core processor (ARM); 11.6-inch matte display, 1366 x 768 resolution, 200-nit brightness; 2GB RAM; 16GB SSD; SD-card slot; Webcam; USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports (one each); WiFi A/N; Bluetooth 3.0 compatible (dongle required); HDMI port; Chrome OS. Weighs 2.5 pounds (1.1 kg) and is 0.8 inches thick.

    $449 Chromebook: 1.3GHz Intel Celeron 867 dual-core processor (x86); 12.1-inch matte display, 1280 x 800 resolution, 300-nit brightness; 4GB SDRAM; 16GB SSD; Intel HD graphics; webcam; two USB ports; Bluetooth 3.0 compatible (dongle required); DisplayPort; WiFi A/N; Gigabit Ethernet; 4-in-1 media card slot; and Chrome OS.

    I can say from experience that the Intel model is speedier than the smaller Samsung and easily replaces the MacBook Air used before the switch. With the ARM Chromebook, however, there are trade-offs. Performance is sometimes spotty, which I attribute mostly to Flash. That leads to the wicked Catch 22: I would disable Flash, but most web apps demand it.

    The screen is still a little too dim for my tastes, but again manageable.

    The ergonomics are excellent, and the keyboard terrific. Overall, it's a great computer for the price.

    Google markets the hell out of this thing, what with the Times Square advertising pulling from the "for everyone" website. There's something quite clever about the marketing, which has a club-like, fanboy appeal. People share photos of why Chromebook is for them. They join the group, become one of the special people. Google benefits by expanding marketing material showing the device really is "for everyone".

    I'm committed to Chromebook. Weeks before Google announced the ARM model, I proclaimed that "Chromebook changed my life".

    But I'll say this: I'm in some ways more committed to Android and may soon adopt Nexus 10 as my primary PC. It's an experiment to start, but that's how I got hooked on Chromebook, temporarily making it my primary PC.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/27/Who_don_t_you_trust_with_your_personal_data_'

    Who don't you trust with your personal data?

    Publié: novembre 27, 2012, 12:05am CET par Joe Wilcox

    About a month ago I posted "Whom do you trust with your personal?", containing two polls. The number of respondents is surprisingly low, so I'm back with them, using a slightly different approach. Perhaps the InterWebs will respond more to the negative trust question.

    The results so far don't surprise me. Facebook is distrusted by a wide margin -- 57.42 percent of respondents. Microsoft and Google are most trusted (38.6 percent and 34.5 percent, respectively). But Google also is second-most distrusted (27.1 percent). Both polls provide just five major tech companies but opportunity for respondents to give their own answers. Nine percent trust no one.

    As always, your comments are enlightening. 1DaveN writes:

    I trust Facebook more than Google because I'm in control of what I post on Facebook. With Google, they just vacuum up every bit of information they can get their hands on from any source. Google could potentially be getting data from me in scenarios where I don't even know they're there -- kind of like they read all your emails, but I suspect they're doing similar things in areas where their presence isn't even known. I wouldn't be embarrassed to have anyone see what I do in my living room, but once I know you're peeping in my window, your creepy actions make me want to avoid you at all costs. That's kind of how I feel about Google.

    I'm most interested in responses like this one because of Google Now. The service presupposes Google watches you -- "peeping in the window" is all but necessary. How else can Google proactively provide information about local weather, travel time home, flight status, Amazon package shipped and much more. Google Now is a handy service, so good Popular Science calls the service "innovation of the year". But big benefits don't come cheap. They require extending Google quite a bit of trust.

    "For the most part, I think Google sticks to it's 'Don't be evil' motto", Xuanlong comments. "Yes, they do collect tons of data, which can make people uncomfortable, but at the end of the day, my search terms or browsing habits are not closely guarded secrets. If they can use that information to improve their own products, I can't really say I have too much of a problem with it".

    For other readers, the cloud makes everyone suspect. "Probably the biggest reason I have for not moving into the new post-PC world is it's reliance on the cloud", rebradley opines. "I know most people don't care or even know where their data is but I do and I want to control it. The cloud and networked services are just too fragile and tempting targets of opportunity to both deliberate assaults and its own technical weaknesses. Not only that, when you let others host all your private data, questions of who owns your data will inevitability arise. I see a day when the ownership of your personal pictures, writings and other form of data is questioned and even lost to the owner of the cloud".

    I'll add to that. What happens when cloud companies change policies affecting your stuff. Just seven months ago, DropBox dropped the bomb on users by granting law enforcement access to data that was supposedly encrypted. Among the 1,474 respondents to our reaction poll, 73.54 percent were either "really ticked off" or "kind of peeved".


    Which company do you trust least with your personal data?

     


    Which company do you trust most with your personal data?

    You have another shot at the two polls. Please take them above and comment below.

    Photo Credit: Slavoljub Pantelic/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/26/I_hate_Cyber_Monday_but_love_good_deals'

    I hate Cyber Monday but love good deals

    Publié: novembre 26, 2012, 5:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Over the weekend, my daughter asked: "Have you heard of Cyber Monday?" I thought but didn't say: "Have you been living under a rock?" She's 18 and a shopaholic. How is it she only just learned about this dreadful day?

    I despise the Monday after Thanksgiving, mostly because it's an artificial retail construct created during my adulthood. I'm too young for Black Friday. But I remember when suddenly the Amazons of the world added one more day to Black Friday weekend, and greedy analysts looking to sell clients new services promoted the concept. Supposedly, Shop.org coined the term eight years ago. Is that all? It seems so much longer.

    I shouldn't be so mad. Many popular holiday sentimentals come from retailers. Montgomery Ward brought Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer to the masses during a late-1930s marketing campaign, for example. Rudolph is endearing. Cyber Monday is obsolete.

    The concept arose to give online retailers their own special sales day back when many more people shopped brick and mortar than online. Much has changed. Most traditional retailers sell online, too, and pretty much nobody waits until so-called Cyber Monday to start the markdowns. Hell, last week my inbox flooded with junk promotionals for online deals starting the day before Thanksgiving and a few more on Turkey Day for people who couldn't wait one more day.

    The point: Cyber Monday started last week. Black Friday started early, too, with some retailers open Thanksgiving Day. My daughter saw long queues at the local mall around 9 pm Wednesday evening at stores opening at Midnight (She was there to see a movie with friends).

    "More store hours meant online retailers also created more online sale hours, with some sales being offered as early as Wednesday of last week. This dilutes the power of Cyber Monday", Marshal Cohen, NPD chief industry expert, says.

    Today, comScore released US weekend online sales data that further shows why Cyber Monday is really obsolete:

    • November 1-23: $13.726 billion, up 16 percent year over year.
    • Thanksgiving Day: $633 million, up 32 percent year over year.
    • Black Friday: $1.042 billion, up 26 percent year over year.

    That makes online Black Friday 2012 the first billion buck one ever. Yeah. Who really waits for Cyber Monday? Greedy retailers will take your money any day of the week.

    Hey, I love a good deal, too. But during the big holiday weekend retailers throw out deals like food to famished pigs, which stomp all over one another to grub. Be honest: How pathetic is that?

    Photo Credit: LYUSHA/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/24/You_can_have_iPhone_5__I_ll_take_Google_Nexus_4'

    You can have iPhone 5, I'll take Google Nexus 4

    Publié: novembre 24, 2012, 11:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I can see only one good reason to choose iPhone 5 over Nexus 4: The LG-manufactured mobile is sold out, and you can't wait. For the patient, Google's fourth-generation stock Android delivers rewarding experience. The new Nexus is the smartphone to buy this holiday season -- if you can find one.

    Two reasons stand in iPhone 5's favor, neither is good, just necessary for some people: Your carrier -- for example, Sprint and Verizon in the United States -- isn't supported (Nexus 4 is GSM/HSPA+), or you bought heap loads of apps from Apple and don't want to lose your investment. I feel your pain, but offer no pity. Nexus 4 is exceptional.

    That's no easy statement for me to make. I approached the Google mobile with extreme trepidation. Brand perception matters when choosing a device so personal as a smartphone. LG ranks rather lowly in my mind. Based on my observations of phones available from AT&T, the South Korean company is second-rate manufacturer -- not my first choice at all. So I'm so surprised to be so delighted by Nexus 4.

    Something else: Apple's handset is a major redesign, while Nexus 4 is an evolutionary upgrade from its predecessor, which is another reason the Google phone's superiority surprises. I reviewed iPhone 5 in September, and the one for Nexus 4 is in process. So this is just my first treatise on the Android.

    Basic Benefits

    Both devices are handsome and feel good to hold. iPhone 5 is considerably smaller and warmer to touch, thanks to Apple getting rid of the glass back, which the LG packs. If white is your thing, Apple offers the color but not Google. Black iPhone 5 is classically so and immediately evokes sense of being spy craft. By comparison, Nexus 4 isn't that distinguishable from the mass of smartphones. iPhone 5 is handsomer then, but that's no knock on the Google phone, which appearance greatly improves over Galaxy Nexus.

    Battery life, display and performance are among Nexus 4's winning attributes over iPhone 5. The 8-megapixel cameras produce comparable results, but Android 4.2 provides considerably more control compared to iOS 6. Other major differences come to operating system and contextual cloud computing services.

    Battery life. Apparently, size really does matter. The Google phone packs considerably larger battery, and, hot damn, does it show. I received Nexus 4 on November 21 and charged up late evening. When I went to bed Wednesday night, the phone had 94 percent charge. As I write late Saturday afternoon, it is 11 percent. Time between charges: 64 hours, 30 minutes. Granted, I've spent more time on Nexus 10 tablet over the holiday. Only: 379MB data usage and 31 minutes phone calls. Even as measure of idle time, battery life exceeds iPhone 5. I do expect mileage to decrease once widgets are placed on the homescreen; I'll get round to it.

    Camera. Both phones provide 8MP rear-facing cameras that produce sharp, pleasing photos. Focus is fast and shutters nearly instantaneous. However, iPhone 5's shooter, like so much of other built-in features, is one-size fits all. There are just a couple options -- high dynamic range and grid -- and little else. Nexus 4 provides much more, including scene settings, exposure compensation and white balance adjustments. iPhone 5 is great for point and click, which is probably how most people will use it. But the Android offers more control. Android 4.2 features a 360-degree panorama mode, which markets well but is more gimmick. Call me when there is fisheye mode -- more people would use that.

    Display. Sharp produces iPhone 5's screen, and it's quite good. Nexus 4's display is better. For starters, again, size matters: 4.7 inches provides more real estate than 4 inches, and resolution is higher. On first glance, LG's screen has a muted quality, particularly compared to any that Samsung produces; colors aren't as saturated, by comparison. Being no expert in screen science, I can express just this: For what the LG gives up in saturation it gains in clarity, which is amazing. The screen isn't overly reflective and is easily viewed in direct sunlight. Perhaps if equal size, iPhone 5 would edge out Nexus 4. But the total package is all the Android's advantage.

    Performance. Anyone moving up from iPhone 4 or older should see vast performance improvements. iPhone 5 is mighty responsive, but Nexus 4 is smoother and zippier overall. The handset benefits from quad-core processor (compared to dual for the Apple) and twice the memory (2GB). Then there are operating system improvements. Thanks to Google's Project Butter, the days of stuttering Android are gone. On this phone, Jelly Bean is mouth popping. Scrumdelicious. Both phones are speedy, but performance matters more on Nexus 4 because the handset does so much more. There is real customization and the ability to run widgets -- not just from the various desktops but startup homescreen.

    Side-by-Side

    Before moving on to the broader contextual user experience, where Apple's efforts simply collapse, there is the issue of money and value you get for it. Let's start with specs:

    Nexus 4: 4.7-inch display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    iPhone 5: 4-inch display, 1136 x 640 resolution, 326 ppi; Apple A6 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on model); 8MP rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE (bands vary by carrier model and region); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth; Wi-Fi N; 1440 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 6. Measures 123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm and weighs 112 grams.

    Nexus 4 packs a LTE chip but lacks the hardware necessary to truly work, and it's Band 4, which no major US carrier broadly supports. LTE must be enabled by some tomfoolery; it's disabled out of the box. By comparison, iPhone 5 offers HSPA+ and LTE that works. If LTE is a must-have feature, then Nexus 4 isn't for you.

    The phone also is available from three of the four major US carriers -- AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. However, only AT&T offers simultaneous talk and web over LTE. So that's an advantage for iPhone 5 -- in regions with broad LTE networks.

    Nexus 4 supports GSM/HSPA+, which means AT&T, T-Mobile and some regional carriers in the United States. CDMA network users (that's you if on Sprint or Verizon) are out of luck. T-Mobile's dual-band HSPA+ network, where deployed, delivers theoretical speeds up to 42Mbps, which should exceed rival carriers' LTE throughput for practical usage.

    iPhone 5 comes in three models: 16GB ($199); 32GB ($299); and 64GB ($399), with two-year contractual commitment, which includes opting for monthly extra-cost data plan. Google sells two Nexus 4s direct: 8GB ($299) and 16GB ($349). While the initial outlay is more upfront, there is no back-end commitment. The phone is unlocked and contract-free, which makes it a great choice for pre-paid users.

    T-Mobile offers 16GB Nexus 4 for $199 with two-year contract. There is no crapware, and the phone quickly updates to the newest Android version, just like the one Google sells. Whether purchased with or without contract commitment, Nexus 4 is clear choice for anyone on T-Mobile, which doesn't sell iPhone 5.

    What Matters Most

    Android 4.2 leaps ahead of iOS 6 in so many measurable ways, iPhone 5 can't compete for overall user experience.

    Mobile devices are all about context. How we interact with them depends on context, whether you shift from parent role to work role sitting on the couch, to starting a movie on your phone and finishing at home on the big screen. Apple doesn't deliver enough contextual experience, being too control-oriented, seeking to create context where it often isn't. Consider the iOS 6 maps fiasco, where Apple takes away contextual utility people had with Google's product. Location is all about context -- what's important where you are, what you're doing in the moment.

    By nearly every measure, Google exceeds Apple over truly, meaningful contextual computing experience, whether that's with the utility its cloud services offer or that provided by applications developers. That they can offer widgets, for example, means more apps that are contextually relevant. As I expressed two weeks ago, contextual cloud computing replaces the PC era.

    Apple showed promise with Siri, but the service receives well-deserved bad reputation for not living up to promise of giving people the information they want where and when they need it. Google Now smokes Siri and leaps Nexus 4 ahead of iPhone 5. 

    There's a good reason why Popular Science calls Google Now "innovation of the year". The service represents a watershed development. Google successfully presents its depth of search and contextual services in a truly meaningful manner -- one that changes how people interact with mobile devices. You don't have to search. The feature tracks activities and location, anticipating what information the user needs before asking and presenting it contextually.

    I would recommend Nexus 4 over iPhone 5 almost for no other reason than Google Now. Maps is another. Chrome. Seamless synchronization that surpasses iCloud. Widgets. And more. Nexus 4 running Android 4.2 puts the world in my pocket with context that matter to me. By every measure that matters, the Google phone trumps the fruity device.

    You can have iPhone 5, I'll take Nexus 4!

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/23/Nexus_4_is_still_sold_out'

    Nexus 4 is still sold out

    Publié: novembre 23, 2012, 6:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's not the headline I hoped to write this Black Friday. Having used iPhone 5 and Nexus 4, I easily recommend the LG-made Android over the Apple. There simply is no comparison in terms of overall user experience. I'll go into detail in my comparative review, which I'm writing now (in another browser tab). Nexus 4 should be deal of the day -- even full price. Not that you can pay the price. It's simply abominable that Google has none to sell; T-Mobile is sold out, too.

    Trust me, if there was even whiff of supply, Nexus 4 sales page would read "ships soon" rather than "out of stock". The smartphone's Black Friday absence suggests deep shortage, unless someone at the top of Google's retail supply chain thinks Cyber Monday is better day to bring back the smartphone. Absolutely not. Because over the next three days, some buyers wanting Nexus 4 will take a hot deal on some other handset.

    Many of you would buy, if only Google had something to sell. Last week I asked: "How does the Nexus supply shortage affect you?" Fifty-one percent "would order if devices were in stock". Demand is there. Too bad Google has no phones to sell.

    New Nexus 10 tablets are somewhat better. The $399 model is in stock; the $499 32 gigger can be ordered but "ships in 2 - 3 weeks". All Nexus 7s, including the one with HSPA+ cellular data, are in stock.

    As I explained last week, Google really botched the Nexus 4 launch. According to our poll, nearly 25 percent of respondents tried to order a device. Only 8.75 percent of respondents succeeded. Matters are worse -- the biggest sales weekend of the year is here.

    "I still can't understand why Google doesn't just take pre-orders", BetaNews reader SDsurfin asks. "Let me check out and then, when the phones come in stock, charge my card and mail it to me. This stupid game of checking the website every 2-3 days is getting old. We might have some. We might not. Who knows? To add insult to injury they have the 'You can buy one from T-mobile now!' link. Yeah, I'm gonna go screw myself with a 2-year T-mobile contract. Get your act together Google! Take pre-orders and call LG and tell them: 'We need about 16 million more phones'".

    Designating the costlier Nexus 10 as "ships soon", and that being weeks away, essentially is what Google does. That suggests to me the severity of the N4 shortage. Definitely between the choice of taking Black Friday weekend orders that might not ship for Christmas and offering nothing at all, the latter is Google's more sensible choice.

    I've got two stories coming within days -- first-impressions review and comparison to iPhone 5. I can tell you why Nexus 4 is a great smartphone. If only you could buy one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/22/Eight_things_Google_should_be_thankful_for_in_2012'

    Eight things Google should be thankful for in 2012

    Publié: novembre 22, 2012, 9:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    US Thanksgiving is a time for reflection on the year behind, with plenty of time to ponder resolutions for January 1st. Yesterday, I posted about the things Microsoft should be grateful for in 2012. Today, I followed up with another, for Google. For consistency's sake, the list numbers eight, in line with Microsoft's, for which I chose to hat-tip Windows 8.

    The list is by no means comprehensive, just some things that stand ahead of others -- and it is organized from least to most important. Google had a great year, perhaps the best ever. Few companies released more innovative products, affecting so many people and building such positive brand awareness.

    8. Android Collectibles. Google's green robot is highly recognizable and iconic. It's a brilliant brand image, in part for its simplicity and emotional appeal. Designer Andrew Bell and company imbue the little droid character and give enthusiasts something to collect -- and they do.

    7. iPad mini. As usual the Apple Fan Club of rumormongers was wrong. Apple didn't price iPad mini at $299 or even $249, which could have been disastrous for Nexus 7 (see #4 for more on that tablet). Instead, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company put margins first, and quite possibly at the expense of sales. iPad mini pricing ranges from $329 to $659 (cough, cough). You sure don't like the price. Among the roughly 1,000 people responding to our buying survey, 78.98 percent say they won't buy the tablet.

    Compare that to our February buying poll, when we knew the size and not the price (and many assumed $199): 55.77 percent of the 3,629 respondents answered "Yes". The point: Price matters, and Apple asks too much, which is just fine for Google. Consider that Nexus 7 with higher screen resolution and same storage capacity (but not rear-facing camera) costs $130 less than the cheapest mini -- or that a 32GB with cellular radio is $299.

    iPad mini surely won't flop, but Google needn't fear sales suck from either of its Nexus tablet models, whether 7- or 10-inch screen size.

    6. Ingress. Few games in recent memory generate more buzz than Ingress. In part because not everyone can play. Yet. Invites are required, and Googler Brandon Badger doles them out. He's a stingy bugger. The big trend is to entreat him with artwork or other creations for the invites, which generates even more buzz and excitement to participate (I tried twice and got nothing -- here and here; no invite here). This is a huge branding win, and takes social to new levels.

    Basic premise, from the official app description:

    A mysterious energy has been unearthed by a team of scientists in Europe. The origin and purpose of this force is unknown, but some researchers believe it is influencing the way we think. We must control it or it will control us. "The Enlightened" seek to embrace the power that this energy may bestow upon us. "The Resistance" struggle to defend, and protect what’s left of our humanity. Install Ingress and transform your world...

    Move through the real world using your Android device and the Ingress app to discover and tap sources of this mysterious energy. Acquire objects to aid in your quest, deploy tech to capture territory, and ally with other players to advance the cause of the Enlightened or the Resistance...The struggle is being played out globally. Track the progress of players around the world, plan your next steps, and communicate with others using an Intelligence map...

    The struggle to save the planet spans the entire world. Groups of people acting together can be more effective than individuals acting alone. Cooperation across neighborhoods, cities, and countries will be needed to achieve the ultimate victory.

    The game is part of Google's Niantic Project.

    Directly, Ingress accomplishes several things:

    • Participants use Android phones
    • People get out walking or biking
    • They get to better know places around them
    • Google improves walking directions for Maps

    In process everyone plays a fun game and perhaps connect to other people close to them.

    5. Apple Maps. How could something seemingly so bad turn out so good? Apple dumps Google Maps for its homegrown product, which initially brings bad press to the search giant. Except, the new app sucks. I searched for "fashion valley" inside of Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego, and Apple Maps pulled up Skin Valley area of Paris. That's right France. Blogs and social networks spread similar stories everywhere. For a company so bent on controlling marketing, the negative buzz is disastrous. You know, Mayan apocalypse-like.

    Apple Maps ranks up there with Microsoft Bob for fiasco software debuts. Google Maps got lots of good publicity -- with great context: Oft-claimed innovative Apple is stinking PU. Google capitalized by releasing several stunning new features during the great iOS 6 Maps backlash. Companies can't pay enough for free, brand-building marketing like this.

    4. Nexus 7. In July, Google started selling a 7-inch tablet made by ASUS running Android 4.1. The $199 Jelly Bean device immediately sold out and proved popular with mainstream consumers as much as geeks. ASUS puts monthly sales at about 1 million a month, which is consistent with data IDC released late last month. Nexus 7 stole mind share and market share from Amazon Kindle Fire, which Google desperately needed.

    A year ago, Amazon stormed the tablet market with the original Kindle Fire, for just $199. It's $159 today. The original Kindle Fire sold so well, it fragmented the Android tablet market. Amazon ships customized Android, with its own browser (Silk) and app store (not Google Play). Google responded by rebranding Android Market, increasing the breadth of content from Play store and releasing the 7-inch tablet. By Nexus 10's November 13 launch, Google had in place a curated platform to compete with Amazon, as much as Apple.

    3. Samsung. The South Korean conglomerate became Google's most-important OEM partner in 2012. Samsung more than any other manufacturer pushed ahead Android, and iPhone aside. The company sold 98 million handsets during Q3, of which 55 million were smartphones, according to Gartner. (To be clear: Sales to end users, not shipments to carriers and dealers.) In the latter category, that's more than double second-place Apple; Samsung commands 32.5 percent market share and smartphones account for 56.1 percent of sales.

    Android sales share was 72.4 percent, up from 52.5 percent year over year, in Q3. Meanwhile iOS fell to 13.9 percent from 15 percent. Another perspective: Android share is up from 56.1 percent in Q1 and 64.1 percent in second quarter. Respectively, iOS is down from 22.9 percent and 18.8 percent. Trend applies to unit sales. Android sales rose from 81.07 million units in first quarter and 98.5 million in Q2. Respectively, iOS fell from 33.1 million and 28.9 million. Samsung by far drives the largest Android volumes.

    2. Android Army. I often say that enthusiasts are any company's best marketers. Whoa, are Android users enthusiastic and loyal. They approach Apple-like devotion, although for quite different reasons. The Android Army appreciates openness, rooting, customization, choice and value among other things (please add to the list, if you like, in comments). They're not obsessed with paying top-dollar for the newest pretty thing (like the Apple cult).

    Google sold out Nexus 4 within hours of its release 9 days ago. While enthusiasts expressed frustration, they remain surprisingly patient. Last week, I asked: "How does the Nexus device shortage affect you?" Only 7.73 percent who want one of the sold-out Androids "will buy something else instead". That said, half of you "would order if devices were in stock".

    But Google would be wise not to press this loyalty too far. Give the people what they want already. It's better to have them glowing about their new toys than griping about cancelled or delayed orders.

    1. Google Now. There's a good reason why Popular Science calls Google Now "innovation of the year". The service represents a watershed development. Google successfully presents its depth of search and contextual services in a truly meaningful manner -- one that can change how people interact with mobile devices. You don't have to search. The feature tracks activities and location, anticipating what information the user needs before asking and presenting it contextually.

    Google Now presents information in "cards". Is there an accident on your daily commute? Google Now will tell you. Is there an interesting nearby event, you are notified. Ditto for public transportation and time the next bus or train will come. Last week, I ordered a keyboard and case for Nexus 10, and Amazon sent shipping emails for both. The notices appeared in Google Now cards, rightly anticipating something I wanted to know about.

    The service debuted with Android 4.1 in July, and Google dispatched a new iteration alongside v4.2, which released November 13. Apple's Siri simply can't compete.

    Google Now is where the search giant extends contextual cloud computing in a big way. As I expressed 12 days ago, contextual cloud computing replaces the PC era. Google Now is the poster product for that future. Google, give thanks but also give us more services just like Now.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/21/Eight_things_Microsoft_should_be_thankful_for_in_2012'

    Eight things Microsoft should be thankful for in 2012

    Publié: novembre 21, 2012, 5:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Another Thanksgiving arrives here in the United States, and some people consider what they have to be grateful for. I celebrate by talking turkey, not just eating it, about the companies I cover. It's tradition, going back to 2006, that I present the things Microsoft should be grateful for.

    Last year, 11 items made the list, keeping with the 2011 theme. For 2012, I reduce the list to eight; my hat tip of respect to Windows 8, which launched nearly a month ago. There are many more things Microsoft could be grateful for, but I chose some that might not readily come to mind. The list goes from least to most important.

    8. CBS. The network's primetime lineup is one long Microsoft commercial. Characters on programs like CSI and Hawaii 5-0 quite visibly use Windows gear as part of the plot -- there is more than product placement at work.

    During this week's Five-Oh episode "Ohuna", Kono Kalakaua pulls out a Surface tablet on site at a crime scene, with that definitive click of the kickstand. It was quite an amazing feat, too, since Surface doesn't have built-in cellular radio and surely she wouldn't use an open hotspot -- especially in an episode about hackers. She does all this Surface magic from a remote, rual location, adding mystery to question: How does she connect? Hey, whenever do details matter in suspend-all-sense-of-reality cop dramas?

    7. FTC, Competition Commission. The US Federal Trade Commission and European Union Competition Commission breathe down Google's neck. The search and information giant faces antitrust troubles on two continents, ahead of likely formal investigations.

    As Microsoft learned all too well from its own problems, the government can screw up product development and forever tarnish a beloved brand -- that's with investors as much as customers.

    Legal woes could make Google a less-nimble competitor, while giving Microsoft a venue to complain about bad behavior. Hey, it's payback for when Google filed complaints against Microsoft. Revenge beats leftover turkey any day of the year.

    6. Apple investors. Suddenly Apple's stock stinks like grandpa's socks. The change is quite dramatic, but by no means disastrous. Except analysts, bloggers, reporters and other writers can't shut up about Apple's plunge, which feeds the selling frenzy. On Wall Street, bad news is more bad news.

    Apple opened at $564.25 on Wednesday. That's about 21 percent down from the 52-week high set in September. Just two months ago, those writing woes today couldn't shut up speculating about the stock soon hitting $1,000 a share. Now they're crying about declining valuation. Oh yeah, what miserable situation. The company is worth less than 500 billion bucks, a story blasted all over the InterWebs last week (recovered to more than $523 billion since).

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would love to have that problem. His company trades with market cap of $225.95 billion, early Wednesday. Surely he can't complain about Apple crybabies creating negative sentiments.

    As I often say, in business perception is everything. Negative perceptions about Apple stock feeds unsavory stories about current strategies and the company's future -- and that's lots better for Microsoft than endless rumors about the next iThing and how it will transform industries X, Y and Z.

    5. Steven Sinofsky. Microsoft can thank the fallen Windows divisional president for bringing Windows 8 to market and exiting soon after. What's that saying about soldiers wanted for war but rejected during peacetime?

    Sinofsky was Microsoft's wartime consigliere. He recovered the company from the Vista debacle and paved a post-PC future with Windows 8. While Microsoft technically remains at war with Apple and Google, among others, a great period of unification is ahead. Product groups must work more closely together -- to be political -- and Windows' general was the stereotypical loyalty leader. The cause is more important than one man, now. There is no room for hero worship.

    4. Windows 7. In September, Windows 7 usage finally exceeded XP. You expected Windows 8 here instead? The new operating system is the future, while its predecessor remains the present and will be for sometime. Many larger businesses recently deployed Windows 7 or will do so soon.

    Many others will purchase Software Assurance, decreasing Microsoft dependence on PC licensing, so they can downgrade to Windows 7 and maintain compatibility across systems. The more businesses opt for the older version, the better for Microsoft's bottom line and chances to shift Windows' revenue balance -- three-quarters of which comes from PC sales.

    3. Microsoft Store. Microsoft operates 65 company stores -- the majority temporaries for the holidays. The stores' importance cannot be understated, and their value is much bigger than selling new products. The shops create big brand presence and give many shoppers reasons to buy something with a Microsoft logo rather than the bitten fruit. They're crucial to selling the Microsoft lifestyle and showing off recently-launched Surface, Windows 8 and Windows Phone. Microsoft would be wise to secure permanent locations in most malls with temporary shops.

    2. Server & Tools. Suddenly Office and Windows aren't the brightest stars in Microsoft's revenue firmament. Weak third-quarter PC shipments drove down demand for the company's flagship products. But Server & Tools division rose above them. Business division revenue and income each fell by 2 percent during calendar Q3, while Windows & Windows Live plummeted 33 percent and 50 percent, respectively. By comparison, Server & Tools revenue rose by 8 percent and income by 12 percent.

    But here's the kicker: For the first time, the division's revenue and income both exceeded the Windows group, by $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively.

    Consider cloud computing hype and the idea more enterprises will buy less server software. So far, Microsoft not only defies the precept but provides tools big businesses want for creating private clouds, improving business intelligence and consolidating server infrastructure (including virtualization).

    No matter what happens to PCs over the next couple quarters, and sales lift or drag on Windows, server software remains a growth business Microsoft can depend on.

    1. Windows 8 hate. Everybody who is nobody has an opinion about Windows 8's future. Over the last week or so, naysayers came out in droves proclaiming the operating system's doom. PC sales don't meet Microsoft's projections, so 8 isn't great, they claim. There's a saying in advertising that even bad news is good news. What people remember at the end of the day are Microsoft and Windows 8. Negativity dissipates.

    Worst-case scenario would be nobody talking up the operating system. Endless punditry and debate keeps the brand visible, which Microsoft needs during the holidays. Lots of people will wonder what the fuss is all about and check out Surface, Windows 8 and RT portables.

    Remember: Most of the debate is about sales, which can turn on a dime, rather than major problems with core Windows 8 functions. Sure, some people gripe about the Modern UI but who liked the Start menu in 1995? Now people moan about Microsoft taking the thing away. Windows 8 hate -- debate -- is great.

    Photo Credit: Karen Roach/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/20/HP_CEO_Meg_Whitman_explains_alleged_Autonomy_accounting_fraud'

    HP CEO Meg Whitman explains alleged Autonomy accounting fraud

    Publié: novembre 20, 2012, 6:55pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Hewlett-Packard's stunning $8.8 billion fiscal fourth-quarter write-down, and reasons for it, shine a stunning spotlight on Meg Whitman and predecessor Léo Apotheker's lingering legacy. HP ousted Apotheker in September 2011, less than a month after he brokered the Autonomy acquisition. Today, during the company's fiscal fourth-quarter earnings conference call, chief executive Whitman had to answer for mistakes she inherited.

    While expressing "we remain 100-percent committed to Autonomy and its industry-leading technology", she also acknowledges alleged fraudulent accounting that only recently came to HP's attention. Regarding the $8.8 billion, "the majority of this impairment charge is linked to serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations that occurred prior to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the associated impact on the expected financial performance of the business over the long term. The balance of the impairment charge is linked to the recent trading value of HP stock".

    Whitman says "these improprieties were discovered through an internal investigation after a senior member of Autonomy's leadership team came forward following the departure of Mike Lynch on May 23. Based on this information, HP initiated an intense internal investigation into the allegations, including a third-party forensic review of Autonomy's historical financial results". Lynch was Autonomy CEO.

    In a statement given to Reuters on Lynch's behalf: "The former management team of Autonomy was shocked to see this statement today, and flatly rejects these allegations, which are false. HP's due diligence review was intensive, overseen on behalf of HP by KPMG, Barclays and Perella Weinberg. HP's senior management has also been closely involved with running Autonomy for the past year".

    "HP has contacted the SEC's enforcement division and the UK's Serious Fraud Office", Whitman emphasizes. "We have requested that both agencies open criminal and civil investigations into this matter. In addition, HP intends to seek redress against various parties in the appropriate civil courts to recoup what we can for our shareholders".

    The company spent about $10.2 billion to acquire Autonomy, with the write-down putting the investment -- or burden on shareholders, if you will -- at $16 billion.

    But who should be held accountable? During today's conference call, Benjamin Reitzes, Barclays Capital analyst, asks: "Who are you holding accountable internally?"

    "The CEO at the time and the head of strategy who led this deal are both gone, Léo and Shane Robison", Whitman answers. "Most of the board was here and voted for this deal, and we feel terribly about that. What I will say is the board relied on audited financials, audited by Deloitte, not brand x accounting firm but Deloitte. And by the way, during our very extensive due diligence process, we hired KPMG to audit Deloitte, and neither of them saw what we now see after someone came forward to point us in the right direction".

    She adds: "I was surprised to find that due diligence and M&A reported the strategy as opposed to the Chief Financial Officer. I've never seen that before in my career, and that's a decision I made right away before I knew any of this. So I understand your point of view, and we have made a few changes in that regard. But in the end, you have to rely on audited financials and we did, and we will now carry on. And as you know, we've reported this to the SEC, as well as to the Serious Fraud Office, and we will take it from here".

    But the answer doesn't satisfy Reitzes, who apparently recognizes the fallout could affect current leadership. After all, the acquisition closed on Whitman's watch. He asks: "Based on what you see right now, the organization is -- can remain stable based on this occurrence?"

    "Yes, it can", she answers. "I mean, really, the two people that should have been held responsible are gone, and that's the way I see it right now. So I feel good about the sort of the stability of leadership".

    HP's "internal investigation is ongoing", Whitman says. While "we are committed to seeking redress for the benefit of our shareholders" the reality: "I suspect this is a multi-year journey through the courts in both countries".

    Transcript courtesy of Seeking Alpha.

    Photo Credit:  valzan/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/20/HP_says_Autonomy_cooked_the_books__takes__8.8_billion_charge'

    HP says Autonomy cooked the books, takes $8.8 billion charge

    Publié: novembre 20, 2012, 3:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, HP stunned Wall Street and investors by announcing an unexpected $8.8 billion charge. The computing giant dropped the bombshell ahead of the market's opening concurrently with fiscal fourth quarter results. The amount isn't so stunning as the reason.

    Official statement: "The majority of this impairment charge is linked to serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations at Autonomy Corporation plc that occurred prior to HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the associated impact of those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business over the long-term. The balance of the impairment charge is linked to the recent trading value of HP stock".

    Shares plunged more than 11 percent in early pre-market trading. At 9:15 am, HP traded at $11.82, off Monday's $13.30 close. By market open: Down more than 12 percent, to $11.69. HP opened at $11.64.

    Only about $5 billion of the write-down is for Autonomy. The company has contacted the US Securities and Exchange Commission and UK Serious Fraud Office, regarding criminal investigations.

    HP announced the $10.2 billion Autonomy acquisition in August 2011 and closed the deal two months later. Cambridge, UK-based Autonomy makes enterprise search technologies that provide HP with better Big Data tools to offer larger customers. The fraud charges risk the reputations of both companies and raise questions about why HP didn't uncover the accounting problems during the due diligence process before the acquisition closed.

    Former CEO Léo Apotheker was responsible for brokering the deal, which, among some of his other actions, irked investors. HP ousted Apotheker and replaced him with former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman in the month before closing the Autonomy acquisition.

    If not for the unexpected charge, HP would have met Wall Street consensus for fiscal Q4 -- $30.43 billion revenue and $1.14 earnings per share. The company reported $30 billion and $1.16 EPS, on a non-GAAP basis. When factoring the charge, HP lost $6.9 billion, or $3.49 per share for the quarter. Loss for the full fiscal year is $12.7 billion, or $6.90 per share.

    Full-year revenue reached $120.4 billion. That's down 5 percent for the year; 7 percent for the quarter.

    More finely, HP revenue fell among four of the six operating units, reflecting larger macro problems with the PC market. Unit shipments for the Personal Systems group declined 12 percent year over year during fiscal Q4 -- that's for desktops and notebooks. Overall division revenue fell 14 percent and commercial revenue by 13 percent. That's on razor-thin, 3.5 percent margins.

    Printer unit shipments plunged 20 percent from fiscal Q4 2011. That breaks down to consumer 22 percent and commercial 15 percent declines. Overall revenue fell 5 percent. Margins were 17.5 percent.

    Services revenue dropped 6 percent, with those for technology down 4 percent, outsourcing 6 percent and applications and business 7 percent. Operating margin: 14.2 percent.

    Enterprise Servers, Storage and Networking revenue dropped by 9 percent year over year. PC servers fell by 7 percent, storage by 13 percent and business critical systems by 25 percent. Networking revenue grew by 7 percent. Overall operating margin: 8.3 percent.

    Ironically including Autonomy, Software revenue grew by 14 percent. Margin was 27.2 percent. License revenue increased by 9 percent, 9 percent for support and 48 percent for services.

    Financial Services nudged up 1 percent year over year. Operating margin: 10.8 percent.

    Photo Credit:  ARENA Creative/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/18/Google_is_red_face_ahead_of_Black_Friday'

    Google is red face ahead of Black Friday

    Publié: novembre 18, 2012, 8:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Some advice to Google: If you launch exciting new products right before the holidays, it's a good idea to have them to sell. Not only are new Nexus devices sold out, so are new Chromebooks. Worse, they're not available in stores that stock them. Ah, yeah, what a brilliant way to push a new product category to the masses: Look, but you can't buy.

    The new $199 Acer and $249 Samsung Chromebooks are on display in 500 Best Buys, and Google staffs sales specialists, who are there during store hours and are contracted through the end of the year. But the search and information giant can't stock Chromebooks. Like Amazon and Google Play, the Samsung Chromebook is sold out (the new Acer model is still available from Google today but not yet stocked by Amazon). Units coming into Best Buy are generally already claimed from online orders. Even the few returns, available as open-box purchases, sell within a couple hours. Google pays sales staff to educate potential buyers, who leave stores empty-handed.

    Not for You

    Google's marketing tagline is "for everyone". But Chromebook isn't for everyone if most anyone can't walk into a store, talk to a sales specialist and actually buy the product. Strangely, despite being consistently "temporarily out of stock", the $249 Chromebook remains Amazon's top seller in "Computers & Accessories" (nearly a month now). That says something about demand and the number of people willing to order and wait.

    Presumably, Google is in process of spending tens of millions bringing Chromebook to the masses. Concurrent with the $249 model's launch last month, advertising is aggressive -- US primetime TV, on the web and in major publications (Did you see two-page spread in the New York Times?) Then there are those in-store displays and Google sales staff.

    Chromebook brings new concepts to computing -- running applications in the browser instead of installed locally and storing all data in the cloud. Education is part of the process, but so are sales. Isn't selling the point? Look but don't buy is no sales strategy. Black Friday is days away, when big products go on sale with deep discounts, pulling buyers attention to what's safe and known rather than what's new and untried -- even for Chromebook's eye-popping low pricing.

    Every manufacturer's or retailer's worst nightmare is this: Overstocking. No one wants to have too much of something that turns to loss rather than profit, and that particularly must be true of a presumably low-margin product like Chromebook.

    Stocking Woes

    Google's stocking problem is much bigger than Chromebook, which initially sold out within hours launch day on Google Play. Consider new Nexus smartphones and tablets. Again, Google makes massive investment promoting the devices, which sold out during launch day and remain available. Worse, many Nexus 4 buyers received delay notices late last week. As I write, both Nexus 4 models remain "sold out", as they have since their November 13 launch. The 16GB Nexus 10 is available from Google Play, but not the costlier tablet.

    Google's challenge, along with partners Acer, LG and Samsung, is manufacturing and shipping enough product without doing too much. That won't be easy. From typical retail stocking strategies, replenished product will come to market way late, despite demand. Yesterday, I polled readers about the Nexus supply shortage. Forty percent of respondents say they "would order if devices were in stock".

    Google and its partners should have better anticipated demand and had enough stock on hand, particularly given investments in advertising and other marketing initiatives. My question: Google gets so much right because of smart math. Where's the algorithm to calculate sales demand? Guesswork isn't enough.

    My prediction: Shortages will persist throughout the holidays, because so late in the season there is too much risk of overstocking, particularly Chromebook. Google and its partners probably can't produce enough Nexus devices, however, lowering risks of getting stuck with unsold stock.

    No matter what happens, one thing is clear: Google has much to learn about retail sales.

    Photo Credit: ducu59us/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/17/How_does_the_Nexus_device_shortage_affect_you_'

    How does the Nexus device shortage affect you?

    Publié: novembre 17, 2012, 7:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday I received Google Nexus 10, which Samsung manufactures. Like many of you, I stood in the virtual line to get the tablet and also the LG-made Nexus 4. Early after sales started November 13, I had both devices in my shopping cart. Google accepted my credit card and billing information. Only needed: to confirm the purchase, which I did giddily. Then Google rejected and cancelled the order. I never saw the smartphone for sale again. Today the status remains: "sold out". I feel lucky, but deeply dissatisfied, to get Nexus 10.

    Blog and social network posts reveal that at least on these shores, many of you who successfully ordered received your devices yesterday. UPS tracking indicates my tablet arrived early, one-day shipping instead of two; that puts it in my grubby hands for the weekend instead of afterwards.

    Botched Launch

    But many more of you received something alarming. Rather than shipping notification, Google informed that your device wouldn't be available for some time -- in many cases weeks, for Nexus 4. The company is surprisingly silent about the problems. Did demand exceed expectations? Was the initial manufacturing yield too low? When will Nexus 4 be back in supply. Blogs and social networks buzzed with rumors on November 13 that Google would restock in three days. That time is gone, and Nexus 4 is still "sold out".

    "I got very lucky", BetaNews reader Neoprimal explains. "I started my ordering process at 8:30 and I was not successful until 8:57 - by then I had gone through 3 orders that LOOKED successful but ended with the image above after hitting accept and buy. By 8:57 I did it for the last time and was no longer able to so I thought I had lost out. I got an email saying there there was an issue with the bank although I'd made many purchases through that same Wallet combination (CC) before. After clearing everything up, I got a receipt at 9:33 saying I'd made a purchase".

    "Google is overrun", IT advisor comments. "There is lots of evidence that demand for the Nexus 4 is sky high. It will be a top-selling phone, once Google works out how to handle a deluge of orders. There is also ample enough evidence now that the competitor launches over at Redmond have flopped. So, Google wasn't prepared for a stampede wanting the Nexus 4, but I'd prefer to have Google's launch than the competitor's failed launch".

    "This phone is selling like hot cakes because it is fine hardware dirt cheap. Other than there is not that much appealing to it", Roger_Ramshit comments. "They are basically buying market share".

    Nexus 4 starts at $299, with 8GB storage, with another going for $349 with twice capacity. Both are unlocked and require no carrier contractual commitment. As early afternoon EST, November 17, Nexus 10 with 16GB storage is available, but the larger capacity model and both Nexus 4s are sold out.


    Google started sales of a new smartphone and tablet on November 13, 2012, but quickly sold out. How does the Nexus device shortage affect you?

    Anger Brigade

    I sharply criticized the product launch, and for good reason. Enthusiasts are any company's best marketers, but they also can be the worst when passion turns to anger. The negative buzz increases as the launch bungling grows. Bad enough eager beavers couldn't place orders, it's much worse now that people who thought they secured Nexus 4 won't get it right away -- perhaps for weeks.

    Consider just the harsh reaction from Neoprimal, who successfully ordered: "They did a pretty bad job with the launch. Even if you don't expect the item to be a total sell-out, preparation should be made for such an event. They could have handled it much, much better".

    The problem is one of expectations. Google rightly distributed Nexus 4 and Nexus 10 to blogger reviewers before sales day, and the majority raved. Anticipation soared high, mirrored by emotions sent low by disappointed geeks getting order errors and "sold out" notices. Now some of the lucky buyers join the sour sentiment, as they gawk in disbelief about email that is inconceivable. They likely won't receive gadgets before the long Thanksgiving weekend.

    So instead of ongoing, reinforcing positive buzz -- starting with this weekend and continuing over Black Friday -- as buyers unpack their Nexus and show it off on the InterWebs, there is rage and complaint. Google misses out doubly. Rather than ramp up gadget geek interest to buy Nexus smartphone or tablet over the big shopping weekend -- Black Friday -- there will be, presumably, nothing to sell. Many potential buyers may instead choose a competing device offered on the biggest discount day of the year.

    So all this leads into my question of the day: How does the Nexus device shortage affect you? Please take the poll above and also share in comments below. Unlike most of my polls, the responses are not mutually exclusive. For example, you may have tried to order and failed and now plan to buy something else. You can choose both. The poll seeks to measure buying success and future buying intentions, which aren't mutually exclusive. Please participate.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/16/Is_Windows_8_already_a_failure_'

    Is Windows 8 already a failure?

    Publié: novembre 16, 2012, 6:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Late this morning, Robert Johnson sent me a link to Paul Thurrott story "Windows 8 Sales Well Below Projections, Plenty of Blame to Go Around" -- "Uncertainty could turn Windows 8 into the next Vista". The lead sentence is frightening: "Sales of Windows 8 PCs are well below Microsoft’s internal projections and have been described inside the company as disappointing". Uh-oh.

    Robert asked my opinion, and I'll give it. Relax. Slow start isn't surprising at all. I've said for more than a year that Windows 8 wouldn't be big. It's a transitional operating system coming when most businesses just upgraded to Windows 7 or are in process of doing so and when tablets capture consumer interests more.

    Perhaps Microsoft managers drank their own Kool-Aid and simply expected too much too soon. Look at the economy. Target and Walmart posted disappointing results this week, sending stocks downward. Retail is weak right now, which surely affects consumer PC buying. Besides, something is missing: Compelling designs at affordable prices.

    I'm surprised at how lackluster are Windows 8 computers and how over-priced they are. Reality is this: Companies like Dell and HP drove down prices long ago. Consumers expect to pay bottom dollar, but, suddenly, everyone wants to be Apple this release cycle. Windows 8 slates selling for one-thousand bucks compete with Android tablets or iPads selling for less than $500. New Windows PC designs I've seen ask too much but give too little. ASUS and Microsoft stand nearly alone offering reasonably feature- and price-competitive models.

    Then there is Microsoft's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde user interface. Among several of Thurrott's on-the-money statements: "It’s a floor wax. No, it’s a dessert topping. Microsoft’s new whatever-the-F-it-is operating system is a confusing, Frankenstein’s monster mix of old and new that hides a great desktop upgrade under a crazy Metro front-end".

    The two-motif approach doesn't work, particularly on Surface. If users can't install legacy apps on the desktop, why have it at all? Windows RT should be an all Modern UI affair, with Windows 8 Pro presenting the desktop by default on any computer without touchscreen.

    Thurrott is right about Windows RT: "Imagine Apple announcing a major new version of iOS and then releasing a new tablet that runs Mac OS X instead of that new iOS version. Doesn’t make a lick of sense, does it? Well, that’s what Microsoft did".

    Windows 8's greatest risk is Microsoft. I rightly faulted the company for killing off the Windows Vista "Wow" marketing campaign and making other strategic changes soon after launch. Like Windows 8, the executive responsible for managing Vista's development and launch left the company. In the wake of Jim Allchin's departure and concerns about slow early sales, Microsoft wrongly shifted marketing strategies, which as much anything else doomed Vista. History repeats. Steven Sinofsky is out, and if Thurrott is right Microsoft sees slower-than-expected sales. The temptation will be to shift strategies, particularly marketing. Change now would repeat past mistakes. Stay the course, Microsoft.

    Windows XP sales started slowly, too. Microsoft released during a recession and six weeks after the Twin Towers fell. Consumers' mood was grim. Yet despite early hurdles, XP proved to be the most endearing release ever. Just because Windows 8 stumble starts doesn't mean it's already finished.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/16/Google_TV_s_killer_app_is_simply_amazing'

    Google TV's killer app is simply amazing

    Publié: novembre 16, 2012, 7:29am CET par Joe Wilcox

    This week, Google brought a little something from ill-fated Nexus Q to Google TV. Even my non-techie wife is amazed, and that's the point. This little something is really big, because anyone can use it and get dramatic benefits.

    The new YouTube for Android app installed on smartphone or tablet now acts as a remote control to Google TV, taking interaction far removed and clumsy and making it intimate, fun and easy. If Amazon and Netflix operated similarly -- and the set-top box got Hulu Plus -- I'd cancel AT&T U-verse, baby.

    There is so much done right here, I almost don't know where to begin. YouTube updates. You open the app, which prompts with a circle to touch to sync with the TV. That's it! You choose a video and it plays on the big screen.

    The Mrs. and I spent the night on YouTube instead of Primetime. First we used my Nexus 7, then she chose videos from hers. The experience is somewhat shared, because the app shows the last video watched regardless who played it. When resuming control, I saw her last watched video on my tablet.

    Google TV sadly presents a cumbersome YouTube experience from the remote. But on a touchscreen, the app is easy to use, and finding, selecting and watching videos light-years better. Bringing the two together, and how magnificently Google has done so, changes everything.

    But I've seen something like it before, on Nexus Q -- the streaming sphere Google mysteriously yanked before sales started during summer. Android phone or tablet is the remote, which I found to be odd at first, but by the third movie caught on to the benefits.

    The YouTube app as remote for the service on the big screen follows similar concept, and a little more. Google designed Nexus Q to be a shared device, such that people with different accounts can play content. There's a little of that concept sprinkled into the new YouTube app.

    Google just needs to go further. Touch on tablet is such a superior way to search for and access content than the clunky remote control. After all, which motif is the app, and others like it, designed for? Hint: Not the television.

    YouTube is a tremendously satisfying start. Amazon is an even worse experience right now. Video content presents in Chrome on YouTube like it would on a PC. The remote is painful way to get around Amazon's store. But an app with similar design to YouTube, and touch-friendly, would elevate the whole user experience.

    The key point: Touch isn't enough. The YouTube experience dazzles because the app so easily connects to Google TV, the layout looks good on both screens (and navigates simply on the small one) and play, pause or stop is finger-loving good. Heck, the app even puts videos in a "TV Queue".

    For the record, I have the Sony NSZ-GS7 Internet Player with Google TV, which has got about the worst remote imaginable. The thing is two-side, requiring constant flipping over, and the touchpad has poor tactile response. What a difference the Nexus 7 makes as remote, or a smartphone, of course.

    I like Google TV, but must accept annoying idiosyncratic behavior that's nearly all about the user interface. YouTube is now killer on the device, which could be killer if Google made more improvements like this one. That's above and beyond the new Google TV update announced two days ago.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/16/Enterprise_IT_spending_reaches__2.68_trillion_in_2013'

    Enterprise IT spending reaches $2.68 trillion in 2013

    Publié: novembre 16, 2012, 12:01am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Economic worries will hold back enterprise IT spending next year, Gartner predicts. The analyst firm sees tepid 2.5 percent growth to $2.679 trillion, up from projected $2.603 trillion. "The global economic outlook has deteriorated in 2012, leading to scant overall growth in enterprise IT spending", Kenneth Brant, Gartner research director, says.

    But there's a glimmer of sunlight in the economic gloom. "Our third-quarter outlook points to more substantial growth in 2013, if significant fiscal crises are avoided in the US and Europe, and in subsequent years. Most enterprises have already significantly cut discretionary IT spending growth over the past several years and, barring a global economic catastrophe and significant contraction of operations, they have little room to reduce IT spending further over the long run".

    While vertical segment growth is projected to be lower single digits everywhere, some will outpace others. Insurance and transportation track for 4 percent growth, followed by 3.5 percent for banking and securities. Content and media services: 3 percent. The sector typically dedicates 5 percent of revenue on a five-year basis to IT spending.

    "Several subsectors within CMS are heavily IT-intensive", Brant says. "Professional and IT services firms, communications service providers, software and Internet services, and media companies invest considerably in IT across hardware, software, IT services, internal services and telecommunications. With demands for a secure Internet connected backbone and faster wireless data services, coupled with the pervasiveness of social media and video, these industries will need to continue to invest in IT".

    He expects the sector to spend $426 billion next year. That compares to $460 billion for banking and securities and $478 billion for manufacturing and natural resources.

    By comparison, public spending is headed downward, 2 percent, to $445 billion.

    "Austerity measures and budgetary reductions have affected government spending worldwide as measured by the reconciliation of government budget proposals across the US and Europe" Brant says. But that's a simplification.

    "In some respects, IT budgets are being decoupled from the overall operating pressures facing governments", he continues. "At the same time, government organizations recognize that new technology investments may help reduce the cost of service delivery, improve operational efficiency or reduce future expenditure. Consequently, government IT spending intensity is beginning to diverge from traditional operational spending trends".

    Photo Credit: Lucia Pitter/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/15/Kindle_Fire_HD_arrives_to_cool_competing_choices'

    Kindle Fire HD arrives to cool competing choices

    Publié: novembre 15, 2012, 8:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Perhaps, with all the buzz about Apple iPad mini, Google Nexus 10 and Microsoft Surface, you forgot about another important tablet launch. Amazon Kindle Fire HD WiFi is available, starting today, following two months or preorders. The LTE model comes next week. So many headline competing tablets launched since Amazon's September announcement, Kindle Fire HD could easily be overlooked. Completely forgotten? Buyers will answer that question.

    Kindle Fire HD certainly looked like the iPad killer when unveiled. The 8.9-inch models nip iPad's 9.7-inches, offering much more, for much less. In-between Kindle Fire HD's announcement and availability, Apple punched out 7.9-inch iPad mini. Meanwhile Google stepped with newer Nexus 7 tablets (one with 3G) and larger Nexus 10. What distinguishes the lot are curated app and content stores. You're not just buying a tablet, or as Robert Johnson expressed in his Surface review yesterday, but an ecosystem, too. The point: No one should buy based on hardware features alone. Kindle HD and its competitors are about so much more.

    Hot Enough?

    A year ago, Amazon stormed the tablet market with the original Kindle Fire, for just $199. It's $159 today, and that's a price neither Apple or Google beat. There's a 7-inch HD model and 8.9-inchers, which range from $299 to $599, depending on storage capacity and wireless functionality.

    The original Kindle Fire sold so well, it fragmented the Android tablet market. Amazon ships customized Android, with its own browser (Silk) and app store (not Google Play). Google responded by rebranding Android Market, increasing the breadth of content from Play store and releasing 7-inch and 10-inch tablets. By Nexus 10's launch this week, Google had in place a curated platform to compete with Apple and Amazon.

    All three companies offer content sync across devices and supported services. Content types are similar but not selection (Google lags the other two): apps, ebooks, movies, music and TV shows. Google stepped up big-time magazine push in the summer, which accelerated in the month before Nexus 10 sales started. There, Google guns for Amazon, which selection is broadest (although Apple can claim better presentation among top-line titles).

    There are more tablet choices now and similar curated stores to buy stuff. Where you bought before matters now. For example, in his iPad 4 review, Wayne Williams explainx seriously considering Nexus 10 instead. "On paper the difference in price seems considerable (the Nexus 10 is $100 cheaper), but then I factored in apps. I’ve purchased at least $400 of iOS apps over the years...and if I switch to Android, I’ll have to start my purchasing all over again". Existing investment certainly is a consideration.

    If I were to rate the curated stores, Amazon wins, mainly for selection and price. Apple follows, more because of selection, which edges out Amazon in some categories. Google trails in both areas -- and another: Apple and Amazon can sync personal music to the cloud; Google makes you manually upload.

    Fire and Ice

    So what about specs? How does Kindle Fire HD compare to other tablets?

    Kindle Fire HD: 7-inch LCD IPS display (1280 x 800 resolution, 216 pixels per inch) or 8.9-inch display (1920 x 1200 display, 254 ppi); 1.2GHz OMAP4460 dual-core processor (7-inch), 1.5GHz OMAP4470 dual-core processor (8.9-inch) ; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on model); front-facing camera; Bluetooth; WiFi A/N; accelerometer; gyroscope; microphone; and Android. 7-incher measures 193 x 137 x 10.3mm and weighs 395 grams. 8.9-inch model: 240 x 164 x 8.8mm and 575 grams.

    • Kindle Fire HD 16GB: $199
    • Kindle Fire HD 32GB: $249
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 16GB: $299
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 32GB: $369
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE 32GB: $499
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE 64GB: $599

    Amazon offers the non-HD Kindle Fire for $159.

    iPad mini: 7.9-inch back-lit IPS display (1024 x 768 resolution, 163 ppi); A5 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; 5-megapixel rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; Bluetooth; WiFi A/N; HSPA+/LTE (on three models); accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; battery unknown; and iOS 6. Measures 200 x 134.7 x .28mm and weighs 308 grams.

    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi: $329
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi: $429
    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi/LTE: $459
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi: $529
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi/LTE: $559
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi/LTE: $659

    iPad 4: 9.7-inch LED display, 2048 x 1536 resolution, 264 ppi; A6X dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on the model); 5MP front- and 1.2MP rear-facing cameras; GPS; Bluetooth; Wi-Fi A/N; HSPA+/LTE (on three models); accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; 11,666 mAh battery (based on previous model); iOS 6. Measures 241.2 x 185.7 X 9.4 mm and weighs 652 grams.

    • iPad 4 16GB WiFi: $499
    • iPad 4 32GB WiFi: $599
    • iPad 4 16GB WiFi/LTE: $629
    • iPad 4 64GB WiFi: $699
    • iPad 4 32GB WiFi/LTE: $729
    • iPad 4 64GB WiFi/LTE: $829

    Nexus 10: 10.055-inch display, 2560 x 1600 resolution, 300 ppi; 1.7GHz Exynos 5 (Cortex A-15) dual-core processor; Mali T604 graphics chip; 2GB of RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 5MP back- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; NFC; WiFi N; micro HDMI; Bluetooth; 9000 mAH battery; Android 4.2. Measures 263.9 x 177.6 x 8.9 mm and weighs 630 grams. Price: $399 (16GB); $499 (32GB).

    Surface RT: 10.6-inch ClearType HD Display, 1366 by 768 resolution, 148 ppi; 1.3GHz Nvidia T30 (ARM Cortex-A9) quad-core processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on model); 720p front- and rear-facing cameras (meaning they're for video more than photos); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; magnetometer; Wi-Fi A/N; Bluetooth 4; Windows RT. Measures 274.7 x 172 x 9.3 mm and weighs 676 grams. Price: $499 (32GB); $599 (32GB with keyboard cover); $699 (64GB with keyboard cover).

    Burning Questions

    If you must choose by specs, both 8.9-inch Kindle Fire HDs offer tremendous value. The $299 model packs the highest resolution for the lowest price. Same can be said for LTE, at $499 or 64GB storage at $599. Amazon undercuts Apple, Google and Microsoft pricing across the board. The $299 Kindle Fire temps me most, although I chose to spend $200 more on Nexus 10 (and hope not to regret it).

    While still compelling, Kindle Fire HD isn't as exciting, particularly with iPad mini and Nexus 10 as smaller and larger competitors, respectively, also backed by curated content stores. It's a dynamic market that reminds of the PC industry in the late 1990s.

    Which will you choose?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/14/You_can_thank_Microsoft_for_iPhone_s_retreat_before_the_Android_Army'

    You can thank Microsoft for iPhone's retreat before the Android Army

    Publié: novembre 14, 2012, 7:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Two months ago, I declared Android winner in the smartphone wars. The victory is now broader, in a total route of all competing operating systems and in process driving down iOS market share. That's right, after more than five years of near-constant growth, Apple's platform retreats before the Android Army.

    Android's global smartphone OS share rose a stunning 19.9 points year over year in third quarter, according to Gartner. That's to 72.4 percent, up from 52.5 percent. Meanwhile iOS fell to 13.9 percent from 15 percent.

    Unlike most other analysts, Gartner measures actual sales to end users, not shipments into the channel. So there is no room for Apple apologists to argue about some disparity between the phone maker's stated sales and those from others. Like competitors, Apple calls shipments sales. The company reported 26.9 million in Q3. Gartner says actual sales were 23.55 million.

    The difference between sales and shipments isn't surprising. "We saw inventory built up into the channel as Apple prepared for the coming holiday season, global expansions and the launch into China in the fourth quarter of 2012", Anshul Gupta, Gartner principal research analyst, says.

    By comparison, Android sales more than doubled year over year -- to 122.48 million from 60.49 million. BlackBerry OS continued to bleed share, falling to 5.3 percent from 11 percent. Windows Phone/Mobile rose to 2.4 percent; like Symbian, behind Samsung's Bada.

    Android's Ascension

    The question: What about fourth quarter? Gartner attributes some of Apple's share loss to users holding back purchases for iPhone 5. But Apple's Q3 shipments actually were higher than Wall Street analyst consensus, raising doubts about Gartner's prediction. Meaning: Other than Apple executive statements, there is nothing overt in the numbers to suggest a major slowdown in third-quarter sales that would dramatically boost those in Q4.

    Then there is the quarter-on-quarter trend. Android made dramatic gains all year, while iOS declined. Android share is up from 56.1 percent in Q1 and 64.1 percent in second quarter. Respectively, iOS is down from 22.9 percent and 18.8 percent. Trend applies to unit sales. Android sales rose from 81.07 million units in first quarter and 98.5 million in Q2. Respectively, iOS fell from 33.1 million and 28.9 million. There is an undeniable trend for three straight quarters.

    There are many reasons for Android's ascension, but in my analysis one often is overlooked: Microsoft. In February 2011, the software giant announced a sweeping deal with Nokia that assured Symbian would be swept out in favor of Windows Phone. Just three months later, Nokia had entered a tailspin, bleeding market share at rapid pace. When the companies announced the Windows Phone deal, Nokia was global handset and smartphone leader. Now Samsung is tops, filling the gap with Androids where Symbian once led.

    During Q3, Symbian share plummeted to 2.6 percent from 16.9 percent year over year. Nokia fell from third to seventh place quarter on quarter. That's right -- in three months. If you track Nokia's share losses and add them with Research in Motion's, the result is pretty much Android's gains. Microsoft's OS-licensing arrangement is driving catalyst. Sure, Nokia bled share before, but the Windows Phone deal opened an artery.

    Turbulence Ahead

    Samsung is the decisive beneficiary of Nokia's decline, and that's the overall handset market, not just smartphones. Samsung sold 98 million handsets during Q3, of which 55 million were smartphones. In the latter category, that's more than double second-place Apple; Samsung commands 32.5 percent market share and smartphones account for 56.1 percent of sales.

    Apple and Samsung dominate a crucial handset category. "Both vendors together controlled 46.5 percent of smartphone market leaving a handful of vendors fighting over a distant third spot", Gupta says. Third place is up for grabs. Despite declining sales and share, RIM slipped into third place and HTC into fourth. "Both HTC and RIM have seen their sales declining in past few quarters, and the challenges might prevent them from holding on to their current rankings in coming quarters", Gupta says. Nokia has a long climb back into the top five.

    Smartphones are an increasingly significant segment of the cell phone market, accounting for 39.6 percent of third-quarter sales. Broadly, 427.7 million handsets sold, of which 169.2 million were smartphones.

    "After two consecutive quarter of decline in mobile phone sales, demand has improved in both mature and emerging markets as sales increased sequentially", Gupta says. "In China, sales of mobile phones grew driven by sales of smartphones, while demand of feature phones remained weak. In mature markets, we finally saw replacement sales pick up with the launch of new devices in the quarter".

    Sales of all mobiles fell 3.1 percent year over year in third quarter, and Gartner is cautious about Q4. The firm predicts lower-than-typical holiday sales lift, in part as consumers shift spending to tablets.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/Google_blows_Nexus_devices_launch'

    Google blows Nexus devices launch

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 7:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If anyone should be able to handle online orders, other than Amazon, Google should be it. This is a cloud company, after all. But today's Nexus 4 and Nexus 7 sales debuts are a total bust, with countless processing errors. Google pissed off the wrong people. Blog and social network reports from the other launch countries boded ill for sales starting at 9 am PT today in the United States. Matters are much worse.

    Even before the designated launch time, the costlier $349 Nexus 4 went out of stock, with many failed and successful buyers reporting multiple errors during the sales process. The $299 model shifted to "Notify Me" from "In Stock" minutes later. By 9:15 am PT neither smartphone was available, with lots of eager geeks frustrated by their unsuccessful attempts to buy a product in the shopping cart and purchase part-way processed. These gadget geeks are loud mouths and will rake Google for the fiasco launch.

    Running the Hamster Wheel

    My story is typical.

    Sales started early, which could be praised. I discovered the Nexus devices available around 8:40 am PT and immediately began the order process. Yesterday, I reviewed my Google Wallet account to ensure that everything was ship-shape and up-to-date. So as expected, everything looked good when placing Nexus 4 16GB and Nexus 10 32GB in my shopping cart. But I immediately got an "Opps" processing error. Five reattempts, and I breezed through all the way to confirm purchase. Then Google cancelled my order.

    Returning to my cart, I found that Nexus 4 had disappeared. But on the product page, Google Play listed the device as still in stock. So I added the phone again and returned to the cart, which is as far as I ever got. Twenty-three more attempts to purchase later and Nexus 4 again disappeared, and this time no longer appeared in stock. This was at 8:57 am PT. Yeah. just three minutes before sales officially started. The 8GB model remained available for a few more minutes then vanished.

    Let me break the flow and apologize to BetaNews readers who waited for sales to start at 9 am because of me. I called Google Play around 12:17 am and 5:56 am PT to confirm start-of-sale time and got 9 am both inquiries, as reported in my story earlier this morning. We report what we know to be true, and nine o'clock is what I knew direct from the store selling the devices -- and that information was wrong.

    After losing Nexus 4, I returned to the tablet. Another 18 attempts later, Google let me buy, at 9:11 am PT. Maybe. On the order number confirmation page came message: "problem processing your order". I mosied over to Google Wallet and saw the order there, and Google charged my credit card. But not until I started this paragraph did Google send email confirmation -- 9:49 am PT. Disgruntled at having both items in my cart, within reach of my greedy, grubby hands, I'm half a mind to cancel the order.

    The Natives Rebel

    Now comes gadget geek wrath, and, whoa, some people are pissed. Enthusiasts are any company's best marketers, but they also can be the worst when passion turns to anger. Reactions henceforth come from Google+.

    Media guru Jeff Jarvis: "DAMN YOU GOOGLE! I made many, many, many tries to buy a Nexus 4. Finally got to the final screen. Then YOU crashed on me again. How can you be so good at so much and so utterly shitty at running a damned store? Grrrrrrrrrrrrr". Jarvis posted at 9:05 am, so eight minutes after I saw the device out of stock.

    Like me, Frederic Floyd "was on there 20 minutes before official time". He got "same errors, then gone". Santiago Dominguez "had same issue in UK all morning, then they sold out. :(" 

    Eyal Sivan: "This is now officially the worst product launch in history". I wouldn't go that far. Sivan's story says much, though. In part:

    1) Like many of you, I was shocked by the launch time, especially since Google support clearly stated at 12:01 am PST that it would be available at 9 am PST, NOT 8:30 am. So either they were given misinformation to pass on to customers, or somebody pulled the switch early. So either they're mean or incompetent.

    2) Also like many of you, when I started placing my order (some 7 minutes too late), I got errors upon errors. Sometimes I would get to the cart, sometimes not. On one load of the cart, it informed me the 16GB was sold out, so I had to switch to the 8GB. A couple of times I made it to the wallet, but got even more errors. Finally I successfully hit the 'Accept and Buy' button, and it said 'Your purchase will complete momentarily'. That's where it still is. No order number, no confirmation.

    3) So I called Play support. While the rep was very nice, she had absolutely no information. All she could tell me was that my order had not gone through because there was a 'glitch' (which I already knew), and that I should wait for my email notification (which I don't believe anyone, anywhere has ever received). After speaking to her supervisor, she also assured me that more would be available later today (which I assume is more blatant misinformation), but she could not tell me a specific time (and even if she did, who knows if it would be true, as the last one was not). So I opened a case, and am (somewhat) expecting a call back from the supervisor.

    I would understand this kind of debacle from a hardware vendor like Samsung or a store like Best Buy, but organizing information is what Google is supposed to do better than anyone in the world.

    Carl Sims is angry: "It's bullshit that a company with the computing resources that Google has can't manage a damn online store without folding like origami. Normal presales would have prevented this crap". Sims says "ordering a Nexus 10 wasn't a problem for me. The 4 was a different story". I found it easier, but by no means good.

    Charles Bovet makes another point: "Thank you Google for never 'Notifying Me'". I submitted my email address, too, to be notified. Got nothing yet, and the phone is sold out. But wait! Just as a nearly finished my final proofread before posting, Google sent email at 10:44 PT: "Nexus 10 is now available for purchase".

    Strangely, and perhaps this is good for Google, the people who actually ordered the phone are really happy -- and I assume more so because they succeeded where so many others failed.

    Jordan Schnaidt is among the lucky ones: "Got that about 10 times. Got the order screen three times. Got to Accept and Buy once, and the money's now gone from my bank by Google. So I think I'm okay". Schnaidt later received email confirmation.

    Unbelievably, there already is a Hitler parody. He missed the Nexus 4, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/Microsoft_shareholders_react_to_Steven_Sinofsky_departure'

    Microsoft shareholders react to Steven Sinofsky departure

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 4:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's stock is off to a rocky start this morning, down 3.2 percent as I post, on news that Steven Sinofsky is out. Shares opened at $27.02, down from yesterday's $27.99 close. The stock immediately fell, to $26.75, in early trading.

    Sinofsky's departure came suddenly late last night, in an announcement from the company. The high-profile divisional president is credited with salvaging Windows after the disastrous Vista release in early 2007. Successor Windows 7 launched in autumn 2009 and received reasonable reception. Team Sinofsky followed up with Windows 8, RT and Surface tablets less than three weeks ago. The suddenness of his departure, right at the start of such a big product launch, is uncharacteristic of Microsoft.

    The share price dip is considerably modest in context. Many analysts pegged Sinofsky as CEO heir-apparent, for whenever Ballmer steps down. Then there is the timing and potential concerns management changes now could affect the current launch cycle and development of Windows 9 (or whatever Microsoft calls it). Typically work on the next version starts as soon as the current one's gold code releases. From that perspective, new developments started months ago.

    Sinofsky's sudden exit follows that of another influential tech executive and presumed CEO heir-apparent. Apple announced on October 29 iOS chief Scott Forstall's departure. But there's a difference: Forstall departs during a transitional period. Sinofsky finished November 12, the same day Microsoft announced his departure. (Presumably, Ballmer waited for security guards to escort Sinofsky out of the building -- and, yes, I'm being a bit facetious.)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/Google_Play_starts_selling_new_Nexus_4__7_and_10_devices'

    Google Play starts selling new Nexus 4, 7 and 10 devices

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 3:08pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today Google released Android 4.2 and new devices -- Nexus 4 and Nexus 10 -- running the software. The Nexuses (Should I say Nexi?) are available in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. Unconfirmed user reports on blogs and social networks claim sell-outs in Asia-Pacific and Europe. Sales in North America commence at 9 am PT, from Google Play, representatives confirm.

    LG makes the 4.7-inch smartphone and Samsung the 10.1-inch tablet, which join the ASUS-manufactured Nexus 7. The cloud services company announced the new products on October 29.

    The new smartphone replaces flagship Galaxy Nexus, which Google and Samsung unveiled about a year ago. Nexus 7 is a four-month old product that today gets larger storage capacities for same pricing and addition of a new 3G cellular HSPA+ model. Nexus 10 is a new product category for Google -- 10.1-inch tablet.

    If BetaNews polls are any indication, there is great interest in the new smartphone and larger tablet. Fifty-four percent of respondents say they will buy Nexus 4 "as soon as available", which is today, and 14.83 percent within 3 months. As for the Nexus 10, 44.44 percent of respondents plan to buy "as soon as available" and another 18.45 percent within 3 months.

    Google's nomenclature is a bit odd. The numerals for the two tablets, refer to screen size, while Nexus 4 refers to fourth-generation smartphone.

    Nexus 4 specs: 4.7-inch IPS display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2,100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    The 8GB model sells for $299 and the larger-capacity one for $349. Starting November 14, T-Mobile will offer a Nexus 4 model for $199.

    Nexus 7 specs: 7-inch back-lit IPS display, 1280 x 800 resolution, 216 ppi; 1.3GHz Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 1.2-megapixel front-facing camera; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21 (one model); WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; magnetometer; microphone; NFC; 4325 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 198.5 x 120 x 10.45mm and weighs 340 grams.

    Three models are available: 16GB ($199); 32GB ($249); 32GB with 3G ($299).

    Nexus 10 specs: 10.055-inch display, 2560 x 1600 resolution, 300 ppi; 1.7GHz Exynos 5 (Cortex A-15) dual-core processor; Mali T604 graphics chip; 2GB of RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 5MP back- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; WiFi N; micro HDMI; Bluetooth; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; NFC; 9000 mAH battery; Android 4.2. Measures 263.9 x 177.6 x 8.9 mm and weighs 630 grams.

    Google sells the 16GB Nexus 10 for $399 and the 32GB one for $499.

    By working with existing Android manufacturers, Google works to end ecosystem-wide fragmentation. For example, LG and Samsung typically are slow to update their Androids to the newest version of the operating system. Consider Samsung: Based on price and features alone, Google gives potential tablet buyers good reasons to make Nexus 10 the Samsung they buy. The pure Android model makes Galaxy Tab 10.1 obsolete and leaves the stylus Galaxy Note 2's only compelling feature. Samsung is an Android fragmenter, too, because of TouchWiz and slow OS updates. Nexus 10 solves that problem, or so I predict.

    Google could have Nexus devices via its Motorola subsidiary. Working with partners that otherwise contribute to fragmentation is smart.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/Steven_Sinofsky_is_OUT_at_Microsoft_'

    Steven Sinofsky is OUT at Microsoft!

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 2:45am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft has a longstanding tradition of promoting executives responsible for Windows soon after a new version releases. But in a stunning turnabout, Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky is finished, gone effective immediately, according to a late-evening announcement by Microsoft. To say I'm stunned is an understatement.

    Sinofsky is the architect responsible for Windows 8 and RT, which launched on October 26. The backstory here must be something. Consider the timing, less than three weeks later. There's no transition. It's typical for Microsoft senior executives to go gracefully over X number of months following an announcement like this. Yet he's gone, as if fired or departed following a power play. I have no inside scoop at the moment, but will seek answers to the question many people will ask: "What now?" Sinofsky's departure forebodes during a crucial product launch.

    Ballmer takes Charge

    The wake of his departure perhaps reveals something. Julie Larson-Green and Tami Reller will step up. Larson-Green is promoted, now responsible for all Windows software and hardware engineering, while Reller will run Windows business operations as divisional CFO and chief marketing Officer. Both will report directly to CEO Steve Ballmer, who you could say bears overall responsibility for the Windows division now.

    As someone writing about Microsoft since the mid-1990s, the reporting structure makes me suspicious about internal power struggle that went against Sinofsky or worse signs Surface and Windows 8/RT launches aren't going nearly as well as planned. Remember, Microsoft takes huge risks with the Modern UI and other changes affecting enterprise customers, OEMs and software developers.

    "I am grateful for the many years of work that Steven has contributed to the company", Ballmer says. "The products and services we have delivered to the market in the past few months mark the launch of a new era at Microsoft". But he says something that hints of the behind-the-scenes drama: "To continue this success it is imperative that we continue to drive alignment across all Microsoft teams, and have more integrated and rapid development cycles for our offerings".

    In reading that statement, I immediately wondered "Who's next?" and what other possible changes will come. If Sinofsky, who seemed untouchable, can leave "immediately" no one is safe, if Ballmer demands more accountability and cooperation.

    Mini-Microsoft, the profile anonymous employee blogger, asks: "A Microsoft without Sinofsky?" And answers: "People walking the hallways tonight at work certainly can't believe it. I can't believe it - working at a Microsoft without Sinofsky? Inconceivable".

    Post-PC Crisis

    Certainly Windows has fallen on hard times, even as the new version promises (and risks) so much. During calendar third quarter, weaker than-expected PC demand pounded Windows & Windows Live division. Revenue fell by 33 percent and income by a stunning 50 percent. In a remarkable turnabout and indication just how weak is the PC market, Microsoft's Server & Tools division generated more revenue and income -- a first -- than Windows & Windows Live. Many factors have hurt PC sales, but most analysts consider competition from so-called post-PC devices, like smartphones and tablets, to be major contributing factor.

    Sinofsky reveals nothing, simply stating: "It is impossible to count the blessings I have received over my years at Microsoft. I am humbled by the professionalism and generosity of everyone I have had the good fortune to work with at this awesome company".

    One question on my mind: Who stands by Windows and who looks beyond it? Last month, Ballmer recast Microsoft as a "devices and services" company. Sinofsky has seen the world through Windows for a long time. Peering into my crystal ball, a scenario where the men disagreed about Windows' future and remarkably changed role wouldn't surprise me. Sinofsky protects his Windows turf, while Ballmer positions the operating system as part of a broader post-PC strategy.

    Fallen Hero

    Sinofsky joined Microsoft in 1998 and worked in various roles before his sudden departure. But it is for Microsoft's flagship operating system he is best known -- the man who saved Windows following the Vista debacle.

    "If you're going to leave on a high-note, it doesn't get much better", Mini-Microsoft says. "Mr. Sinofsky got a standing ovation from the Windows team during the Company Meeting for all that he's done to take them on a multi-year journey to create Windows 7 and then hit the big multi-division reset button for Windows 8. He truly demonstrated technical leadership at its best".

    Sinofsky earned his rewards. In July 2009, even before Windows 7 launched, Ballmer promoted him to divisional president, filling a long empty post.

    Three years ago I wrote about his promotion:

    Steven Sinofsky will be the last man standing. He turned around Windows development. But his challenge ahead will be much tougher. Windows relevance is waning. It may be Sinofsky's charge to take Windows into its sunset years. More immediately, he must make a last stand against the "Internet Tidal Wave" Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates wrote about in May 1995.

    I predict that Windows' decline is inevitable. No Windows president can stop the tidal wave. But perhaps Sinofsky can guide Windows to ride that wave one last time.

    The last man is gone, washed away by the Internet Tidal Wave that is now the post-PC tsunami.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/Who_will_buy_Google_Nexus_4_'

    Who will buy Google Nexus 4?

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 2:16am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tomorrow, Google Nexus 4 goes on sale, along with the new Nexus 10 tablet. The question: Who will buy? I've got answers.

    Six days ago, I posted poll "Will you buy Nexus 4?" Early responses are quite surprising. Exactly 53 percent of respondents say they will buy the smartphone "as soon as available", with another 15.4 percent planning to do so "within 3 months of release". Say, what? Yes, that's my reaction, too. But the phone has received rave reviews from those publications receiving one (we're on the wait list). The results contrast strikingly with our iPhone 5 buying poll. More than 70 percent plan to buy Nexus 4 vs 33 percent the Apple mobile.

    Of course, what people plan and what they do often don't jive. The poll results merely reflect buying intention and presumably for a techier-than-typical crowd. Still, 53 percent immediately is a number not easily ignored. Two models will be available -- identical except for storage capacity: 8GB ($299); 16GB ($349), from Google Play. Look for sales starting around Noon ET.

    Still, many BetaNews commenters express misgivings about Nexus 4, while others give a firm no purchase. There are three things the smartphone lacks that many of you want:

    • 4G LTE
    • Replaceable battery
    • Expandable memory

    I'm not exactly thrilled by storage capacity but worry more about the fixed battery and HSPA+ for data rather than LTE.

    Mecanoroid shares similar sentiments: "Fixed battery and no memory expansion possible = NO, whatever the rest is. Tired of this false segmentation and forced obsolescence".

    srkelley:

    I chose No, the reason being that there isn't a replaceable battery and there is no SD card slot. What's so bad about me choosing to replace the battery? I get that a lot of work went into the design of the phone but if I want to use a 3500 mAh or greater battery to make it better fit me then why not? Why should my storage options be limited too? If you wanted to get people to spend more for memory with your two models than why not include the sd card slot and removable battery on the more expensive model? Eight and 16 gigs as the only options is a joke. It should have been 16 and 32 at minimum.

    "Well I just decided to buy the Nexus 4", jfplopes answers earlier today. "As much as I wanted removable battery, LTE and sd card support there is no denying this will be the cheapest high-quality phone on the market for a very long time. I was also considering the LG Optimus G, the Padfone 2 or even the Galaxy S III. But the Nexus 4 price is simply too good".

    My colleague Mihaita Bamburic says that LTE doesn't reflect "the reality around the globe, where fast data speeds are not the norm nor will they be in the next year or so. Nexus 4 is so much more than missing LTE cellular connectivity". HSPA+ makes Nexus 4 more of a true global phone, while presumably reducing additional cost LTE radio would impose.

    "I'm bored of my Samsung S III", ToeKneeC67 comments -- "was really hoping but this is a downgrade. So I'm going with a Windows 8 phone. Simply fast, works, enough apps, and because I have zero time to root phones and use custom ROMs (really the biggest advantage of Android). Plus, as I have a few phones, the Windows Phone OS is awesome on battery life (at least with the Radar 4G)".

    Responding to my post on Google+, Carl Sims is "buying Nexus 4 the moment a buy button is available".

    "Yep, I'll be buying it as soon as I can", Jordan Schnaid answers. "My old HTC Vision is barely chugging along here.".


    Google starts selling its fourth-generation unlocked smartphone on Nov. 13, 2012 for $299 (8GB) or $349 (16GB) with quad-core processor. Will you buy Nexus 4?

    For those of you still thinking about Nexus 4 or another device. Here are the core specs: 4.7-inch display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    I'm undecided. I am mostly satisfied with Galaxy Nexus, which camera is quite good for a 5-megapixel shooter. I worry that despite being 8MP, the LG-made Nexus 4 won't be as good as its Samsung-manufactured predecessor. Then there is no LTE, which makes the purchase all the more feel sideways than upgrade. What about you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/13/I_was_wrong_about_Google_Nexus_tablet'

    I was wrong about Google Nexus tablet

    Publié: novembre 13, 2012, 12:18am CET par Joe Wilcox

    In December 2011, I asserted: "Google Nexus tablet in six months is a year too late". The search and information giant proved me wrong. After failing to quickly respond to iPad and leaving Android leaderless, Google has recovered with a bang-up Nexus device strategy. Damn, this is my second tablet mea culpa -- the first about iPad nearly 18 months ago.

    Tomorrow, Google expands the number of available Nexus screens to three, all running Android 4.2 Jelly Bean: 4.7-inch smartphone that replaces Galaxy Nexus as flagship; 7-inch tablet updated with more storage for purchase price and new 3G model added; 10.1-inch slate with higher screen resolution than iPad 4. The devices are "pure Google" and produced by LG, ASUS and Samsung, respectively. The original Nexus 7 released in July, receiving rave reviews and generating, ASUS asserts, about 1 million sales per month.

    So much has changed about the Android tablet market in the 11 months since my analysis -- hell, in just 6 months. Globally, during third quarter, according to IDC, Apple's tablet share was 50.4 percent -- that's down from 68.2 percent in Q2. Go back even six months, and post-PC device-obsessed analysts forecast iPad's dominance for another four or five years. Instead, Android rises. In August 2011, Apple had overwhelming tablet share in the United States -- 81 percent. A year later, iPad dropped to 52 percent share, with Android tablets rising to 48 percent from 15 percent.

    Amazon fractures Android

    But that success put Android at risk. Amazon and Barnes & Noble tablets filled the leadership vacuum vacated by Google with proprietary Android distros. As I explained in December 2011:

    Amazon shows how one competitor can shake up the Android tablet market. But Amazon's objectives are contrary to Google's, since the online retailer, like Apple, wants to deliver a curated user experience...The retailer offers a curated experience -- apps, ebooks, music, movies and online physical goods sales -- and that's sensible for its business model.

    Google needed to take leadership over the Android tablet market a year ago. Amazon is filling the vacuum, culling Android and supporting apps to its own benefit. That's good for the retailer, not necessarily for the broader Android tablet market and certainly not for Google cloud services. Google's absolute leadership failure is Amazon's opportunity.

    In April report "Tablets Will Rule The Future Personal Computing Landscape", Forrester Frank Gillette predicted: "The popularity of these content-driven devices will cause proprietary Android share to surpass the installed base of Google’s Android ecosystem in 2015. This further fragmentation will challenge Android developers, customers, and especially enterprises, and hamper the creation of a shared ecosystem".

    This largely describes Android's problem on tablets. In April, I expressed about the search giant's tablet strategy: "Google isn't trying to save Android tablets but kill Kindle Fire". I figured it was too late for Google to step up and take divisive and decisive leadership -- Android faced two tablet enemies, iPad and Kindle Fire -- and that ignoring Samsung's success.

    Google unifies the Platform

    But I was wrong. Nexus 7 shows that Google can, working with a partner, produce a compelling, affordable tablet running pure Android. Nexus 10 raises the stakes. There's something devious, quite cunning, about the American company working with ASUS and Samsung -- the two leading Android tablet makers -- particularly the latter. Based on price and features alone, Google gives potential tablet buyers good reasons to make Nexus 10 the Samsung they buy. The pure Android model makes Galaxy Tab 10.1 obsolete and leaves the stylus Galaxy Note 2's only compelling feature. Samsung is an Android fragmenter, too, because of TouchWiz and slow OS updates. Nexus 10 solves that problem, or so I predict.

    Ultimate success isn't about market share, but platform leadership. Nexus devices are reference for all manufacturers and for developers creating Android apps. The revamped Android Market, recast as Google Play, offers a curated content platform similar to Amazon's and Apple's, but supporting the broader ecosystem. There's no competing silo.

    Then there is Google Now, which debuted on Jelly Bean 4.1 alongside new Nexus devices four months ago. The service is a watershed development. Google successfully presents its depth of search and contextual services in a truly meaningful manner -- one that can change how people interact with mobile devices. You don't have to search. The feature tracks activities and location, anticipating what information the user needs before asking and presenting it contextually.

    Over the weekend, I explained that there really is no post-PC era -- that we instead have entered the contextual cloud computing epoch, where Google demonstrates decisive leadership. Google Now delivers on the concept handsomely, and the search and information giant knows this. There are reasons why the service is centerpiece for new Nexus device TV advertising.

    I was wrong about Google Nexus tablet. The Calif.-based company got a late start -- about that I was absolutely right. But it was never too late.

    Photo Credit: electerra/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/09/Claim_your__icloud.com_address'

    Claim your @icloud.com address

    Publié: novembre 9, 2012, 3:25am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tonight, my wife received a routine email from Apple. Hey, I didn't get one. But since I declared independence from Apple in July, I really don't care. But you might.

    Apple is in process of migrating existing email addresses from @mac.com and @me.com, all of which reflect different iterations of cloud services. I've had mac.com since 2000, or thereabouts. Then four years ago, Apple moved everyone to MobileMe, adding a second domain. Now there's a third supporting iCloud, which debuted about a year ago. This means some Apple users will soon have three different email addresses -- and all of them functional. Confused yet?

    The email she received (with identity removed):

    All new iCloud Mail accounts now come with an @icloud.com email address. As an existing user, we'd like to offer you this new address as well. We have reserved xxxxxxx@icloud.com for you, and you can now use this address with your iOS devices and computers by following these simple instructions.

    If you prefer, you can continue to use your current email address just as you always have.

    No matter which address you use, you'll continue to receive all your mail, whether it's sent to your @me.com, @mac.com, or @icloud.com address.

    I presume that someday Apple will do away with @mac.com and @me.com. The sensible thing is move everyone eventually to @icloud.com but redirect messages sent to the others. Hypothetically, shouldn't ibreakforspammers@icloud.com be enough?

    Changing email addresses can be a nightmare for users, so Apple does right by allowing customers to choose new or old and keep messages flowing regardless of choice. Also, switching is pretty easy. Basically:

    You can send email from your @icloud.com address by following these instructions:

    1. Begin composing a new email on the device of your choice.
    2. Select the From: field in your message.
    3. Choose your @icloud.com address from the list of addresses.
    4. Compose your message and send it.

    There are additional specific, but simple, instructions for making the @icloud.com address default for iOS, OS X and webmail.

    Photo Credit: Archipoch/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/11/09/Here_s_what_I_wrote_about_Android_on_its_big_day_four_years_ago'

    Here's what I wrote about Android on its big day four years ago

    Publié: novembre 9, 2012, 12:50am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Searching through my old Microsoft Watch posts for one thing, I found another -- my Sept. 23, 2008 news analysis "How Android hurts Microsoft". I wanted to find some of my past posts about contextual computing, and you can read more about that soon. For today, this story uses the lens of the past to look at the present.

    I take lots of flake from commenters, whether directly on posts or blogged by others elsewhere, about my stories. Many accuse me of idiot perspective and being clueless. But often my seemingly brash analyses at the time, peering into future implications, are generally right. If you look at the totality of my writing, there is consistency of thinking that rightly anticipates trends. Abrasive writing style, provocative headlines and forceful argument puts off some people, especially those who don't like change or embracing new ideas. Occasionally I write seemingly contradictory perspectives, trying to look a things dimensionally rather than flatly. The Microsoft Watch post is one example of many that demonstrates what I mean.

    Four years ago in September, Google, HTC and T-Mobile USA announced the first commercially available Android smartphone, the G1. I had watched the space carefully from the perspective of Microsoft, being editor of a blog covering the company. I had previously written much about the importance of synchronization, particularly as devices like smartphones took on larger roles alongside PCs, and in some ways displacing them. I wrote in part:

    Think "baby seals" with regards to the clubbing Google gave Microsoft today.

    "'Whack, whack, whack' was the sound coming out of New York, where Google, HTC and T-Mobile launched the Android-based G1. The mobile phone goes on sale Oct. 22.

    Google clubbed Apple, too, but Microsoft will be the more seriously injured. Today, Google officially launched its alternative platform to the Windows PC. Microsoft is frakked.

    The Android-based G1 is Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's worst fears bundled together in a tidy package: Google, Web applications, open source and a platform alternative to Windows. Worse: easy access to Google's plethora of online services—including Calendar, Contacts, Gmail, Google Talk, Maps Street View and YouTube—via single sign-on. There is a single point of connection and synchronization to Google's goodie bag. Get this: No PC is required. Google syncs from the Web to the phone. Microsoft has got nothing like it, but should.

    As I've blogged before, sync is the killer application for the connected world. In 2007 I warned: "If Google gets synchronization right before Microsoft, it's game over". Something else I warned: "If Google and its partners can bring to mobile devices what they have to the desktop, I predict it will be game over for Microsoft. Windows' relevance will diminish before the Web platform".

    I can't blog this enough times: The PC era is waning. The cell phone is more personal than the PC, and it has great Web 2.0 platform affinity. The cell phone's destiny is inevitable. Mobiles will replace PCs as the most widely used personal devices... Some people may want to carry a PC everywhere. But it's the cell phone most likely to be carried and connected. Microsoft better get there, or it will be nowhere..

    Fast-forward to 2012, and where is Microsoft on smartphones? Or post-PC devices like tablets? Nowhere. Android was nowhere the day Google unveiled the G1, which went on sale Oct. 22, 2008. Today the operating system ships on three out of every four smartphones shipped globally, according to IDC. Windows Phone's share is less than two percent (most analysts combine with Windows Mobile, which lifts the number).

    In the analysis four years ago, I explained some ways Google could leverage existing services to improve Android smartphones' appeal:

    Google's business is about wrapping search keywords and contextual search advertising around information that people want. Where do they want that information most? Where they need it, like on a Los Angeles street when looking for a good place to eat. The cell phone, that device nearly always carried, is the place to get it. Google can provide the information, and with a little extra bling-bling for advertisers.

    One scenario: Minnie Martin types in a search, but instead of a search page she gets a Google Map with pushpins for a dozen Thai restaurants within 10 miles. I haven't seen the G1, so I don't know how deep the services integration is. But that's how Google should do it, with preference given to eateries that paid for placement or bought search keywords.

    There wasn't much local service four years ago. What seems commonplace now was hardly anyplace then. But the scenarios above exactly are what Google delivers today. For years I have repeatedly asserted that sync is the killer app for the connected-device era. But there is another, as cloud-connected devices proliferate -- and Google Now gets it right: presence and assistance. Behind both is context, something I'll rail on about in a day or so, also referring back to content posted years ago. We live in the era of contextual computing.

    The cloud is all about context. Content follows users everywhere, independent of device. Your music is available anytime, anywhere on anything. You watch a movie in one context, sitting in man chair at the mall on a smartphone and resume on the big-screen TV at home. Content is the same, but context and device change. But that's more topic for the weekend.

    For today, I want to say this: Take a look at the comments to that old Microsoft Watch post and compare them to the naysayer responses to my BetaNews stories. They aren't that different. There is similar denial and disbelief. One from the MW post: "This is article is nothing but inflammatory and irresponsible". But, honestly, I tend to be right more often than not. When not, I say so, such as "I was wrong about Apple iPad".

    By the way, another "I was wrong" confession is coming. Look for it in a couple days.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/31/Will_you_buy_Google_Nexus_10_'

    Will you buy Google Nexus 10?

    Publié: octobre 31, 2012, 12:19am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Two weeks from today, Google's first 10.1-inch tablet, manufactured by Samsung, goes on sale from the Play store. If the search and information giant is smart, pre-orders will start sooner, sure to generate buzz even as Apple seeks some when iPad mini arrives November 2. The question I have to ask: Will you buy?

    That's no easy answer for competitive shoppers. Thanks to Windows RT, there's no shortage of tablets to choose from this holiday season. Nexus 10 is compelling nonetheless. Screen resolution is highest -- 2560 by 1600 -- available on a tablet, and that's more than iPad 4. Price is hugely competitive. The 16GB model sells for $100 less than Apple's comparable tablet. Then there is Android 4.2, newest Jelly Bean iteration, and promise of continued updates free of vendor skins and other changes. As the expression goes: "Pure Google".

    Yesterday, I expressed doubts about the tablet, which design doesn't woo me -- at least not from product shots. "Why all the Nexus 10 hate?" reader intangible asks. "It's a great looking device, fantastic performance hardware all around it seems. I'll be passing along my Transformer Prime to the wife to get one. The price is perfect as well".

    The front-facing speakers, similar to Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, promise booming sound, and reader intangible rightly observes that speakers placed on the back "are just annoying when there is any ambient noise around you".

    Xuanlong shares my misgivings:

    The Nexus 10 is a nice tablet, but to me it just lacks the style that other manufacturers bring to the table. The rounded corners and plastic body just don't say high-end like the bodies of the Surface and iPad do. I wasn't impressed when Apple was able to cram more pixels onto the screen of its iPad, so I can't say it's a big selling point for me on the Nexus 10. At some point it's just overkill and not a huge difference, certainly not worth paying up for. I'd rather have a standard HD screen and a few bucks off the price, honestly.

    To help you answer the question, please look at the system specs and those for iPad 4 and Surface RT. I chose these other two because they're new and heavily advertised.

    Nexus 10: 10.055-inch display, 2560 x 1600 resolution, 300 pixels per inch; 1.7GHz Exynos 5 (Cortex A-15) dual-core processor; Mali T604 graphics chip; 2GB of RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 5MP back- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; NFC; WiFi N; micro HDMI; Bluetooth; 9000 mAH battery; Android 4.2. Measures 263.9 x 177.6 x 8.9 mm and weighs 630 grams. Price: $399 (16GB); $499 (32GB).

    Surface RT: 10.6-inch ClearType HD Display, 1366 by 768 resolution, 148 ppi; 1.3GHz Nvidia T30 (ARM Cortex-A9) quad-core processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on model); 720p front- and rear-facing cameras (meaning they're for video more than photos); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; magnetometer; Wi-Fi A/N; Bluetooth 4; Windows RT. Measures 274.7 x 172 x 9.3 mm and weighs 676 grams. Price: $499 (32GB); $599 (32GB with keyboard cover); $699 (64GB with keyboard cover).

    iPad 4: 9.7-inch LED display, 2048 by 1536 resolution, 264 ppi; A6X dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage (depending on the model); 5MP front- and 1.2MP rear-facing cameras; accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; GPS; Bluetooth; Wi-Fi A/N; 11,666 mAh battery (based on previous model); iOS 6. Measures 241.2 x 185.7 X 9.4 mm and weighs 652 grams. Price: $499 (16GB); $599 (32GB); $699 (64GB). (Apple also offers three costlier models with 4G LTE.)


    Google starts selling its first 10.1-inch tablet on Oct. 13, 2012 for $399 with 2560 x 1600 resolution display. Will you buy Nexus 10?

    I have compared WiFi models only. There currently is no cellular radio option for either Nexus 10 or Surface RT. Google's tablet is lowest price with highest-resolution display. Consider that a little Samsung payback to patent-suing Apple.

    Commenting to my Google+ post on the tablet, Andrew Davis responds: "I actually really like the look of the Nexus 10, and I think it will come down to how it feels to use and how 'throwable' it is (this is similar to how people judged the Nexus 7 early on). For me, I am impressed with the Nexus 10 and its features for the price".

    What about you? Will you buy Nexus 10. Please take the poll above and answer in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/30/BUILD_is_back_'

    BUILD is back!

    Publié: octobre 30, 2012, 7:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Microsoft kicked off its second BUILD. Last year's event replaced the Professional Developers Conference. This year marks a change in venue, from Los Angeles to Redmond, Wash. and comes amid, rather than before, a flurry of new Microsoft products. Windows 8 launched October 26, Windows Phone 8 yesterday and Office 2013 is released to manufacturing and available to developers and corporate customers. There's Windows Server 2012 and more either out the pipeline or coming down it.

    Microsoft is determined to woo developers to its new stuff and accompanying platform changes. During today's Day 1 keynote, attendees learned about the schwag: Surface RT 32GB and Nokia Lumia 920 smartphone. Consider them tools of the trade, for creating and testing new applications. Microsoft also slashed developers' fee for Windows Phone to $8 from $99. That is for just eight days.

    Hard Sell

    There is no right way to emphasize the importance of BUILD 2012. Microsoft asks developers to adapt to Windows architectural changes, which include a more locked-down kernel, WinRT runtime and ARM processors as well as supporting two motifs -- the revised desktop with Office Ribbon and Modern UI. Then there is the new Windows Store for selling their wares.

    Meanwhile, cloud services integration is tighter among all products, including inclusion of Skype and support for Office 365. With the latter, Microsoft hopes to make its productivity suite in the cloud more of development platform, like what Google does with Apps, only with deeper ties to desktop and server software. Microsoft asks much of developers, as Android, iOS and web apps pull away their attention.

    No time in its history has Microsoft faced so much competition for developers' attention. The sudden surge in cloud-connected devices creates new sales opportunities for developers, particularly as more people bring their own devices to work -- all while creating management problems for enterprises.

    "The era of the PC has ended", Phil Redman, Gartner research vice president, claims. "The convenience and productivity gains that mobile devices bring are too tempting for most companies and their employees".

    Windows 8 and ARM-supporting companion RT are Microsoft's mainstay push into newer cloud-connected device categories, such as convertibles and tablets. General and BYOD manageability matter to enterprises, and Windows is trusted for such capability on the desktop. "Securing corporate data on mobile devices is a big challenge, but one that companies must embrace", Redman says. "Enterprises are struggling with how to support and secure this dynamic workforce".

    They're struggling because consumers want something more than PCs. "The 'Great PC Exodus' on the Internet is happening because the PC was never truly a consumer product", Karsten Weide, IDC vice president, asserts. "Many consumers use them because there was no better alternative. Now, with the huge and growing installed base of more user-friendly tablets and smartphones, there are". And they're bringing those device to work, invading Windows' sacred turf.

    Opening Windows?

    Gartner predicts that by 2017, 90 percent of enterprises will support two or more operating systems. Consider the market shift: During the PC era, businesses generally supported one platform, Windows. During the early cloud-connected device era, many enterprises adopted iOS, Gartner claims. Where they fall, particularly following Windows 8's release, will be somewhere in-between -- and that's without considering Android as eventual contender. But the point, surely not lost on many developers: The days of Windows dominance -- 90 percent share on the desktop -- is over.

    Microsoft's challenge over the next three days is to convince them otherwise -- that the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps platform stack is still hugely relevant and place where they can still make lots of money. Steve Guggenheimer, Microsoft's chief developer evangelist, made the big pitch for relevance and money to be made:

    The developer opportunity on Windows has never been greater. Between expected PC shipment volumes in the coming year and the incredibly flexible terms of the Windows Store, the path to app monetization on Windows represents a huge business opportunity to everyone from the independent developer with a great idea to the world’s biggest companies who develop apps, games and device experiences to reach customers, extend their brands and drive revenue.

    Change is rapid now. Gartner predicts that next year, globally, mobile phones will be more commonly used to access the web than PCs. Two years later, 80 percent of handsets sold to mature markets will be smartphones. Today, Microsoft mobile operating systems global market share measures less than 4 percent, based on combined analyst estimates.

    Guggenheimer answers that problem: "The platform commonality and shared core between Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 is very much a part of the opportunity. This is about enabling developers to quickly get from a great idea to a money-making app running on multiple devices, by reusing their skills and, in some cases, the actual code, all built using a common toolset in Visual Studio".

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/30/Steve_Ballmer_should_pitch_more_Microsoft_products'

    Steve Ballmer should pitch more Microsoft products

    Publié: octobre 30, 2012, 4:46pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's CEO may be a smart guy who can stand in a room of geeks like one of them. But Steve Ballmer's legacy is marketing. It's what he did before joining Microsoft and for much of his early years with the company. Colleague Mihaita Bamburic calls out a new Windows Phone 8 commercial that Ballmer narrates.

    Oh yeah. Don't stop there, Microsoft. The new advert is "Meet Steve. See his Windows Phone". Do a series of "Meet Steve" adverts using all kinds of Microsoft products. People relate to people, and nothing resonates more than those who are hugely successful. Make Ballmer the person other folks aspire to be.

    Years ago, I suggested that Gates take such marketing role, writing:

    The technosphere is overly-obsessed with Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who is viewed as being visionary, ultra cool and having good taste. But the majority of people aren't like Jobs. They're more like Gates, whose stilted speaking and awkward manner is more like them. Sure Gates is smarter than most people, which makes him unlike most everyone else from another perspective. But he's also the American Dream, the self-made and shrewd billionaire whose products are used by most of the world's population. Success commands respect, as does his philanthropy. Even better, bring in the Gates family, talking about how they use Microsoft technology in their home or when traveling the globe.

    Jobs is gone. Apple has an identity problem. Meanwhile, Ballmer is in process of making over Microsoft into a "devices and services" company. Win or lose, it's a bold gambit. If Ballmer is architect for the strategy, make him marketing pitch man, too. After all, that's what he knows best, selling stuff. Ballmer is much more everyman than Gates, and he can add real personality to the marketing.

    Aspiration is the key to selling anything, particularly products people use every day, sometimes all day long. Jobs succeeded by casting the so-called "reality distortion field", of focusing on benefits and making people believe they would be happier for buying "One More Thing". I used to say that when Jobs had a bad day, you left his keynote wanting to buy the new thing because it would make your life better. When he was in the zone, really having a good presentation, you left feeling that if you didn't buy the product your life would be worse.

    Ballmer isn't in the same league as Jobs, but he still has tremendous charisma and runs one of the most successful American companies ever. People relate to people. It's not rocket science. Microsoft marketing can give Ballmer more personality and use his personality to make products more real -- put a face on all those inanimate techamajigs.

    Microsoft's longstanding problem is this: Its software and the products manufacturers create around it do too much. There are too many benefits to sell. Apple gets around this in part by giving features memorable names like AirPlay, iMessage or Retina Display. "Meet Steve" can bring people into his world using all Microsoft's new stuff --- and there is so much just in the past five days. Ballmer can make these product's benefits real.

    I don't suggest that Microsoft replace all other marketing with "Meet Steve", just add to it.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/30/Google_Nexus_10_is_ugly__and_Nexus_4_has_no_LTE'

    Google Nexus 10 is ugly, and Nexus 4 has no LTE

    Publié: octobre 30, 2012, 12:16am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Damn, and I had so expected to upgrade.

    Surely there's a metaphor here somewhere. Hurricane Sandy blew out Google's Android event, but the news came anyway like a storm raining down on Windows Phone 8's launch. Today, Google debuted the long-rumored Nexus 4 smartphone and Nexus 10 tablet, added a 3G Nexus 7 to the product family and took the wraps off Android 4.2. But in looking over the news, I'm not nearly excited as I expected to be. The new handset is HSPA+, in a LTE world. The larger tablet lacks the design charm that makes Nexus 7 so appealing; Samsung produces what in the photos looks like a stuffed Galaxy Tab with super duper high-resolution display. Maybe I'll warm up before sales start November 13. How unlucky a number is that?

    We have three stories up on the news, but not a one goes through the system configurations. So I'll give them up here, as well as pricing. Google Play will carry all the devices, and T-Mobile will offer Nexus 4 and 3G Nexus 7 -- the latter for as yet unspecified subsidized price.

    Since Google is using a three-size marketing tagline, I'll follow that and discuss the devices from smallest to largest.

    Nexus 4

    LG produces the smartphone. Samsung makes predecessor Galaxy Nexus, which I use.

    Specs. 4.7-inch IPS display, 1280 x 768 pixel resolution, 320 pixels per inch; Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage (depending on model); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; WiFi N; wireless charging; Bluetooth; NFC; SlimPort HDMI; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; Gyroscope; microphone; 2,100 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 133.9 x 68.7 x 9.1 mm and weighs 139 grams.

    The 8GB model sells for $299 and the larger-capacity one for $349, starting November 13. T-Mobile's subsidized price is $199, available a day later.

    The good.

    • Phone is unlocked and carrier contract free.
    • Entry-level price is now $50 less and quite a value.
    • Packs 2GB RAM, which is twice that of earlier Nexus smartphones.
    • The main camera is 8MP and supports new features found in Android 4.2.
    • T-Mobile remains in Google's good graces, with its odd data frequencies supported. Actually, every Nexus device, and even the first Google phone (G1), runs on T-Mobile's data network.

    The bad.

    • There's no LTE, which is simply unacceptable for a smartphone in this price range.
    • Samsung displays are remarkable for brightness and contrast, but Nexus 4 is LG-manufactured.
    • Many buyers will suffer sticker shock, not necessarily seeing the hidden, contractual price difference between a subsidized $199 phone with 16GB storage for $199 compared to Nexus' 8GB for $299.

    I am hugely satisfied by Galaxy Nexus, which camera is remarkably good. I lack confidence that LG will deliver as good, even with 8MP (GN has 5MP). Then there is no LTE, which is just about a deal breaker for me. Faster bandwidth is the biggest benefit I can see upgrading to any new handset. Carrier subsidized LTE, like the models available from Sprint or Verizon, isn't acceptable. So-called "pure Google" should be better, and HSPA+ isn't good enough for me. Of course, in part that's because I'm on AT&T. T-Mobile offers superior HSPA+ in my experience. You?

    Nexus 7

    Google's 7-inch tablet, which ASUS produces, is largely unchanged. The 8GB model is gone, replaced by the 16 gigger for the same $199 price. Stepping into $249 is Nexus 7 32GB, which is new. Google also offers a 32GB 3G tablet for $299.

    Specs. 7-inch back-lit IPS display, 1280 x 800 resolution, 216 ppi; 1.3GHz Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 1.2-megapixel front-facing camera; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 900, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21 (one model); WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; magnetometer; microphone; NFC; 4325 mAh battery; unlocked; Android 4.2. Measures 198.5 x 120 x 10.45mm and weighs 340 grams.

    T-Mobile's price is a mystery, but subsidized could get the price down to $149 or even $99 under two-year contract.

    The good.

    • Exceptional value for microprocessor and storage capacity.
    • Quad-core processor simply isn't otherwise available in this price range.
    • Once again, Google sticks with T-Mobile by supporting its HSPA+ frequencies.
    • Apple's cheapest iPad mini costs $30 more, with half the storage, less screen resolution and no cellular option.

    The bad.

    • There's no LTE, which puts cellular capability behind all other mainstream tablets.

    I'm tempted by the 3G model. I had considered moving up to the 32GB model, as the 8 gigger is no longer enough. For $50 more, there's cellular radio and my family is on AT&T's shared data plan. I currently use the now retired tablet more than any other computing device.

    Nexus 10

    Samsung makes the long-rumored tablet, which, for my tastes, bears too much resemblance to Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 -- right down to the front-facing speakers. No wait! It's more like a cross between Tab and Motorola XOOM, what their offspring might be.

    Specs. 10.055-inch display, 2560 x 1600 resolution, 300 ppi; 1.7GHz Exynos 5 (Cortex A-15) dual-core processor; Mali T604 graphics chip; 2GB of RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (depending on model); 5MP back- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; WiFi N; micro HDMI; Bluetooth; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; compass; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; NFC; 9000 mAH battery; Android 4.2. Measures 263.9 x 177.6 x 8.9 mm and weighs 630 grams.

    The good.

    • Thinner and lighter than iPad 4.
    • 2GB RAM is twice that of most other tablets.
    • Highest screen resolution of any tablet, even iPad 4.
    • Tighter pixel density of any other tablet (iPad 4 is 264).
    • Dual-core processor and graphics chip are superior performers.
    • Price is aggressive compared to iPad 4; 16GB sells for $100 less.
    • Front-facing speakers are better positioned for digital entertainment.

    The bad.

    • Overly-rounded corners won't appeal to some people (like me).
    • Overall industrial design suggests chubbiness where there really isn't any.
    • Front-facing speakers could cause feedback during video calls or Google+ Hangouts.
    • There is no 64GB model, which is unfortunate given the marketing push around magazines and other digital content.

    Google sells the 16GB Nexus 10 for $399 and the 32GB one for $499.

    I have mixed feelings about the tablet, and wonder about you. The screen resolution is huge benefit almost to a fault. Will anyone want to use a PC or other tablet after experiencing such visual crispness?

    But I'll concede this: Nexus 10 sets the standard for all Android tablets and quite possibly for any other, including iPad 4 and Surface RT. My gripes about design aside, Google and Samsung deliver a device specked to the max.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/29/Nexus_7_32GB_is_real_and_for_sale_now'

    Nexus 7 32GB is real and for sale now

    Publié: octobre 29, 2012, 1:31am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I just hauled back from the local Office Depot, which has Nexus 7 32GB in stock -- well, one left, for $249.99. The 16GB model is now $199.99, replacing the 8 giger at that price. So the rumors were true, and not all that surprising. I didn't check the local Gamestop, but online the 16GB tablet is $199.99. So it's not rocket science what's coming.

    Something unexpected: With all the rumors about Android 4.2, I expected that version. But the spec sheet has 4.1. So it's anybody's guess what to expect and when. The real question: What new product pops next and where. Google may have cancelled the New York Android event because of Hurricane Sandy, but that may not stop retailers from going ahead with plans to offer product. The channel isn't easily stopped, particularly when there is chance to get in front of competitors with a hot product. Retailers don't share Google's priorities.

    So keep a watchful eye for the rumored Nexus 4 smartphone and Nexus 10 tablet, which could drop anytime -- and before Google can reschedule. Why postpone at all? Just hold a last-minute virtual event, streaming from YouTube. Send out review units to grubby A-list tech sites. Why wait?

    Confession: I really wanted to buy that last Nexus 7. I'm in process of going all digital magazines, and my 8 giger just doesn't have enough capacity to handle the torrent of fat, sassy downloads. But I waited. Budget is tight, and maybe Nexus 10 will be better choice. Anyway, if you held out for Nexus 7 32GB, don't wait to be next in line. My guess is that supplies are limited.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/28/Whom_do_you_trust_with_your_personal_data_'

    Whom do you trust with your personal data?

    Publié: octobre 28, 2012, 8:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Like Microsoft in the late late 1990s and early 2000s, antitrust scrutiny confronts Google on two continents. Among the core issues emerging from the preliminary investigations: privacy. Your data, who has access to it, how clear are the search giant's privacy policies and how carefully does the company adhere to them. But Google is by no means the only concern. Facebook is renown for making user interface and feature changes that can suddenly and unexpectedly expose personal data, and there are problems past about third-party applications accessing what they shouldn't.

    As more established tech companies offer more services in the cloud, increasingly there is lingering question: Whom do you trust with your personal data? Last month, Apple expanded cloud services with iOS 6 and iPad mini and the fourth-generation 9.7-inch model go on sale November 2, supporting them. On Friday, Microsoft launched Windows 8 and Surface and does same with Windows Phone on October 29. To get the most from these products, users must have a Microsoft account, like Apple and Google require for their cloud services. Meanwhile, Office 365 extends online sync, storage and collaboration features.

    In the United States, antitrust and other laws seek to protect consumers not competitors. So any gatekeeper to the Internet, and many people argue Google is one, should concern either the Department of Justice or Federal Trade Commission -- the latter is responsible for investigating Google. Competitors complain, but regulatory agencies look at the impact on consumers. That's you. So let's hear from you.

    Below I present two surveys: "Which company do you trust most with your personal data?" and "Which company do you trust least with your personal data?" Please take both polls and give your reasons in comments. I have chosen several large tech companies, but you can add your own. You might trust your local ISP more or less or smaller service storage provider like Dropbox.

     

     


    Which company do you trust most with your personal data?

     


    Which company do you trust least with your personal data?

    Among the large service providers, I trust Amazon most and Facebook least. But that's just me.

    Photo Credit: Lakhesis/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/27/Due_to_really_bad_weather__Google_cancels_big_Android_event'

    Due to really bad weather, Google cancels big Android event

    Publié: octobre 27, 2012, 10:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For Microsoft it's an act of God. Just when Google looked to steal the thunder from Windows Phone 8's Monday launch, the big Android event is cancelled. Blame Hurricane Sandy. Google should have stayed on its own coast instead of choosing New York (Microsoft's phone shindig is in San Francisco).

    Well, it's nice to know exactly where we stand in the pecking order. Google did not send us an email about the cancellation, although it seems just about every other news site on the planet got one. The pain! The pain! The statement everyone else received: "We are canceling our Monday morning event in New York due to Hurricane Sandy. We will let you know our plans as soon as we know more. Stay safe and dry, The Android Team".

    Let the rumors continue then, about Nexus 4 smartphone, Nexus 10 tablet and Key Lime Pie.

    Photo Credit: Ovchynnikov Oleksii/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/27/Eight_out_of_10_won_t_buy_iPad_mini'

    Eight out of 10 won't buy iPad mini

    Publié: octobre 27, 2012, 12:10am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Early results from BetaNews poll "Will you buy iPad mini?" are in, and they are grim. Nearly 80 percent of respondents say they won't by purchase the device. But it's the hidden story behind the numbers that reveals more. In February, I asked" "Would you buy 8-inch iPad?" More than 50 percent responded "Yes". Nine months later, the size is ever-so-slightly less (7.9 inches) but the price is considerably more ($329 to $659) than what many people expected. What a difference that bit of information makes.

    Apple started taking pre-orders today, and iPad mini goes on sale November 2. If white is your color of choice, they're already back-ordered, with shipping stated as "2 weeks". But black is available in all three capacities -- 16GB, 32GB and 64GB. That's for the WiFi models. Apple plans to offer cellular radio minis in mid-November. The sell-out is no sign of demand, since Apple might simply have produced more of one color than the other. That the tablet didn't immediately sell out says much about interest that quite possibly -- I'll say likely -- resonates with our poll.

    None of these buying polls are scientific. For one, in the case of tech sites like BetaNews, they're targeted at a specific audience. Secondly, the respondents aren't qualified. While they can answer just once, we don't know who they are. Finally, what people say they will do often isn't what they do. Keeping all those things in mind -- and that the current poll has as I write just 620 responses compare to 3,625 for the other, let's compare results.

    To the older poll, 55.78 percent said they would buy the smaller iPad, compared to 78.39 percent responding "No" to the newer one. Ten percent of respondents are "pre-ordering" iPad mini, while another 7.74 percent plan to purchase within three months. Now compare the results to "Will you buy new iPad?" -- that's third-gen model that went on sale in March. There, 30.81 percent pre-ordered, with another 15.47 percent planning to purchase within three months. In the first mini poll and one for new iPad, the "no" responses fell within acceptable statistical sameness range -- 44.2 percent and 46.86 percent. iPad mini's real reception is much cooler.

    When I conducted the February survey, Amazon Kindle Fire sold for $199, starting two months earlier, but few other tablets went so low. But much changed after Google started selling Nexus 7 in mid-July. These very good tablets helped reset pricing expectations. Kindle Fire, Nexus 7 and Barnes & Noble Nook all offer very good experiences. Amazon's tablet is backed by curated apps and content that rivals Apple's platform. Nexus 7 has the best hardware features for the price -- and that "pure Google", Android-always-up-to-date experience.

    Apple's challenge: Convincing buyers that nearly one-inch larger display and the ecosystem around it is worth spending, minimum, and extra $130. That for a device with lower screen resolution compared to, say, Nexus 7. That said, the cameras are better than anything else in the size class, which is a selling point not to be ignored.

    Even before Apple announced pricing, the aforementioned market shift impacted interest. According to an August TechBargains.com survey of 1,332 shoppers, 50 percent wouldn't buy iPad mini. By contrast, 45 percent would purchase iPhone 5. At the time, both products were mere rumors.


    Apple starts selling a smaller tablet on Nov. 2, 2012. Prices start at $329 (7.9" display; 16GB; WiFi). Will you buy iPad mini?

    I'm not exactly surprised by your reaction in comment. Reader annotate: "I could have a Kindle Fire 8.9 HD for less $. Why would I buy a mini iPad with less specs? Not no but hell no. The iPad name don't sell things on this end". That model sells for $299 with 1920 by 1200 resolution, compared to 1024 by 768 on the mini and iPad 2.

    The screen resolution puts off Aaron: "That is quite last century ;) I already have an iPad, definitely not touching iPad mini". Meanwhile, bruno70 says that "$329 is outrageous for such a last-gen and crippled device. No thanks".

    I've re-embedded the poll so we can increase the sample. But barring a fanboy raid, I don't expect huge changes.

    a Photo Credit:  9nong/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/26/So_this_is_WHY_Apple_risks_so_much_on_iPad_mini'

    So this is WHY Apple risks so much on iPad mini

    Publié: octobre 26, 2012, 8:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple has a big problem. Android tablets are making huge market share gains against iPad, in part driven by attractive and affordable smaller models like Amazon's Kindle Fire and Google Nexus 7. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company won't admit the reason, but other things said, or even unsaid, during yesterday's earnings conference call reveal much.

    Then there is the sudden slowdown in iPad sales taken against new analyst data showing Android device increases. iPad mini is a desperate attempt to stop Apple's bleeding market share, and the cost will hit company margins.

    iPad Stumbles

    During third quarter, iOS share of the tablet market fell to 56.7 percent from 64.5 percent a year earlier, according to Strategy Analytics. Meanwhile, Android surged to 41.3 percent from 29.2 percent.

    "Apple shipped a disappointing 14.0 million iPads worldwide", Peter King, Strategy Analytics director, says. Android global tablet shipments reached 10.4 million units.

    "No single Android vendor comes close to Apple in volume terms at the moment, but the collective weight of dozens of hardware partners, such as Asus, Samsung and Nook, is helping Google’s Android platform to register a growing presence in tablets", Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics executive director, says. That collective weight is crushing.

    On Tuesday, Apple unveiled iPad mini, with a shocking surprise. CEO Tim Cook revealed that about two weeks earlier, the company sold its 100 millionth iPad. That tidbit sent many financial analysts scrambling, since the milestone meant that most iPad shipment forecasts were way to high. The eventual 14 million fell as many as 4 million units below some financial analysts estimates. Sequentially, iPad shipments fell 18 percent, as did revenue.

    Other data reveals iPad's rapidly disintegrating market position. According to Pew, Americans buy more Android tablets than ever before, dramatically chopping iPad's huge market share lead in just one year. Based on an August survey, iPad market share slipped to 52 percent from 81 percent a year earlier. Twenty-five percent of US adults have access to a tablet, according to Pew (22 percent as owners, 3 percent sharing with someone else in the household). Sixty-eight percent got their tablet within the last year, and 32 percent during 2012.

    Much of the gains come from lower-cost tablets that have more than just price advantage -- they offer compelling benefits. Make no mistake, Apple executives show their concern by their contempt -- going out of their way to diss 7-inch tablets, such as Nexus 7 during the mini's launch. "iPad mini is a fantastic product, it is not a compromise product like the 7 inch tablet, sorry, it is a whole different leap", Cook told financial analysts yesterday.

    Margins Call

    From the perspective of changing market dynamics, iPad mini is something of a necessity. But there's a problem: The price, as I'll further explain in my next post. Unit sales and revenue rarely align, but for iPad both fell 18 percent during third quarter. That says something about declining selling prices, and falling faster than unit sales.

    "The iPad ASP's were down year-over-year in a low double-digit way but this really was reflective of our price reduction on the iPad 2 the stronger dollar and a little bit of change in mix and that's what drove the asp change year-over-year on a sequential basis. iPad ASP's were actually pretty flat", Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said during Thursday's earnings conference call.

    What he means, without directly saying: $399 iPad 2 sales were brisk -- that despite the third-generation model offering so much higher-resolution display. The point: Price matters more, which is seen also in Android tablets' sudden sales surge. Apple charges too much in a rapidly commoditizing computing segment. Consumers prefer lower-cost tablets, which includes iPad 2.

    Enter iPad mini, which starting price is $329. About a year ago, I asked BetaNews readers: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" Among the 2,929 respondents so far, 82.21 percent responded $299 or below, with 26.66 percent saying $199 and 51.38 percent $199 or less. Based on the poll, and your responses, Apple has overpriced iPad mini for the mass-market.

    But from Apple's perspective, iPad mini sells for too little. "Its gross margin is significantly below the corporate average", Oppenheimer says. "So in summary, we expect our gross margin to decline by about 400 basis points sequentially". Stated differently, Apple expects gross margins to fall from 40 percent to 36 percent quarter on quarter, with iPad being one of the major drivers (along with several simultaneous product launches).

    It's a funny turn of events. In June, IDC raised iPad's forecast market share to 62.5 percent from 58.2 percent and lowered Android tablets to 36.5 percent from 38.7 percent. The analyst firm may want to revisit and reduce iPad shipment projections.

    Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, said then that "if Apple launches a sub-$300, 7-inch product into the market later this year as rumored, we expect the company’s grip on this market to become even stronger".

    Except it's not sub $300 but ranges from $329 to $659. Every iPad mini sold helps to preserve Apple's tablet market share, while sapping margins. The point: If consumers continue to flock to lower-cost tablets, Apple loses. If they choose sub-$300 models, competitors win. If consumers buy iPad mini, Apple margins decline.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/26/If_you_re_looking_for_Windows_8_PCs__don_t_shop_Microsoft_Store'

    If you're looking for Windows 8 PCs, don't shop Microsoft Store

    Publié: octobre 26, 2012, 6:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I simply don't know what to say. Some things are so perplexing, so exasperating no description makes sense. In writing a story about Windows 8 PC deals, I naturally called several Microsoft Stores. None have systems for sale. Same goes for the company's online shop. It's ore-order only, baby. What the frak?

    I'm confused. Didn't Windows 8 launch today, with Microsoft spending beau coup bucks marketing the operating system? Currently, Microsoft operates 27 permanent stores, with another opening in Toronto, Ontario November 16. Shops are also planned in Ohio and Puerto Rico, but dates aren't officially disclosed. Thirty-two holiday stores opened today. With nearly 60 stores open, in 27 states and three Canadian provinces, shouldn't Microsoft have PCs to sell on Windows 8's launch day?

    I have to wonder what that indicates regarding the company's realistic expectations about Windows 8 PC sales. You can buy a Windows 7 system in store today and get 8 Pro for an extra $14.99, one associate told me late this morning. Perhaps it's all about Surface RT tablets, which you can buy at Microsoft Store.

    Another store associate attributed the situation to PC manufacturers releasing Windows 8 PCs just today. I called a local Best Buy, and you'll never guess what's in store today. For purchase, not pre-order.

    But get this! The recorded message for my local shop says that Windows 8 launches October 26 but the store will open at regular hours (10 am). "Apple"s new iPad and iPad mini launch on November 2nd, and stores will open at 8 am". I didn't add the emphasis, BTW. So what does that tell you?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/26/Where_can_you_get_a_good_deal_on_Windows_8_PCs_'

    Where can you get a good deal on Windows 8 PCs?

    Publié: octobre 26, 2012, 5:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's here! Today Windows 8 launches around the globe, and Surface tablets, too. For years, I've said nobody partners like Microsoft, and the company is front and center promoting retailers and PC manufacturers. That's good for you, if you waited for the OS to take advantage of some of the most interesting new computer designs to hit the market in years. Not surprisingly, the company has posted a list of some of the deals available starting today.

    Windows 8 is Microsoft's most important product launch ever. It's a defining operating system, as the company seeks to maintain computing relevance during the shift from the PC era to cloud-connected devices. "What you have seen and heard should leave no doubt that Windows 8 shatters perceptions of what a PC now really is, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer boasts". "We truly re-imagined Windows, and kicked off a new era for Microsoft, and a new era for our customers". He spoke yesterday during the pre-launch event in New York City.

    Staples:

    • Tablet Trade-in and Trade Up Offer -- Consumers can trade in a working old tablet, buy a new Windows 8 tablet and receive up to a $250 Visa Giftcard. Available In-Store and Online 10/26/12 -- 12/24/12. Customers must register their tablet here within 14 days of purchasing their new Windows 8 tablet at Staples. Customers will receive a prepaid label in the mail to ship back the old tablet.
    • Buy a new Windows 8 device and get Free PC Start-Up, Free Training and Free Support.
    • Buy a new Windows 8 device regularly $699 or more, and receive Free PC Start-Up, Free Training and Free Support and Free Data Transfer.
    • For more information the Windows 8 offers, click here.

    Best Buy:

    • PC Home Makeover -- includes Samsung Series 5 laptop, Samsung Series 5 Touch Screen All-In-One, Samsung Series 5 Touch Screen Ultrabook, 1 year Geek Squad Support, 1 year Kaspersky Antivirus and PC Data Transfer for $1,999. Available Online and in-store beginning 10/26, while supplies last.
    • Buy 2 Samsung Touch LTs and 1 Samsung AIO, save $600 ($2,599 down to $1,999).
    • For more information on the Windows 8 offers, click here.

    Intel:

    • Trade In/Trade Up -- Bring in a working laptop (any PC as long as it can power on) and get at least $100 towards a new Intel-Inspired Ultrabook.

    Microsoft maintains a list of global offers, for 13 countries as I write, that will expand over time.

    The company maintains retail stores, and starting today, they will be open in 27 states and three Canadian provinces. Many of the locations are what Microsoft calls "holiday stores", which are more oversized kiosks than shops but retail presence nevertheless. I called a couple stores asking about deals, but they, get this, don't have any Windows PCs for sale. Just pre-order. But Microsoft Store will sell your Surface.

    "Buy a new computer, it lights up with your life", Ballmer cajoles. "You'll immediately see all of your friends from Facebook, Twitter, Gmail, LinkedIn, Outlook.com, co-workers who are on Outlook with you at work, all of your photos form Flickr, SkyDrive, Facebook will just appear. All of your documents will be available to you from SkyDrive, and all of your Xbox music, video, and games will be there. It will all be there, everything and everybody that you really care about".

    He aptly sums up Microsoft's primary objectives for Windows 8, as a cloud-connected OS offering access to your stuff anytime, anywhere and on anything. Does Microsoft succeed? You tell us.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/25/Apple_Q4_by_the_numbers___16B_revenue___8.67_EPS'

    Apple Q4 by the numbers: $16B revenue, $8.67 EPS

    Publié: octobre 25, 2012, 10:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, Apple announced another blow-out quarter and closed fiscal 2012, ending Tim Cook's first full four quarters as CEO. The challenge ahead is to maintain or to even extend momentum as cofounder Steve Jobs' influence over strategy and product development grows more distant. He died a year ago last month.

    On Wednesday, financial analysts got an unexpected October surprise, and not iPad mini. Cook revealed that Apple sold its 100 millionth iPad about two weeks earlier. Problem: By that reckoning most analysts had over-estimated the tablet's quarter. Philip Elmer-DeWitt sums up the impact: "As a group, these analysts lowered their iPad estimates an average of 2.67 million units. Most also lowered their revenue and earnings estimates, an average of $1.26 billion and $0.31, respectively". If you're an investor wondering why Apple shares declined most of the day ahead of earnings, there's a reason.

    For fiscal fourth quarter, Apple reported $36 billion revenue and net profits of 8.2 billion, or $8.67 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $28.27 billion and $6.62 billion net quarterly profit, or $7.05 per share. Apple announced fiscal Q4 results after the market closed today.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast $34 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 fourth quarter, with earnings per share of $7.65. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $35.8 billion revenue and $8.75 earnings per share. So Apple squeaked by reduced revenue estimates by missed consensus on earnings per share.

    Apple shipped 14 million iPads, 26.9 million iPhones, 5.3 million iPods and 4.9 million Macs. Wall Street expected about 15 million iPads, 26 million, iPhones 5.7 million iPods and 4.8 million Macs.

    Gross margins nudged down to 40 percent from 40.3 percent a year earlier. International sales declined to 60 percent from 63 percent.

    Apple announced another dividend, $2.65 per share, payable November 15.

    "Looking ahead to the first fiscal quarter of 2013, we expect revenue of about $52 billion and diluted earnings per share of about $11.75", Peter Oppenheimer, Apple CFO, says.

    Challenge of Leadership

    Two days ago, Apple unveiled the new iPad mini and introduced iPad 4. Pre-orders start tomorrow. The smaller tablet reveals some of the differences between Cook's leadership versus his predecessor. Supply chain simplicity defined Apple for more than a decade, but that era is over. The mini expands base iPad configurations from seven to 14. However, when accounting for colors and carrier-specific models, which adds Sprint to AT&T and Verizon, Apple now offers 54 different iPad configurations. Imagine managing that supply chain this Christmas. I'm surprised Wall Street analysts don't fuss more about this kind of complexity and what it means for sales -- lost ones for a high-demand product -- and toll on gross margins.

    iPad mini poses some risk to sales of the larger model, because of lower prices (starting at $329). The move marks another difference in Cook's leadership, as he seeks to position Apple to lead the so-called post-PC era and to keep Apple platforms vital.

    Challenges surround him. According to Pew, Americans buy more Android tablets than ever before, dramatically chopping iPad's huge market share lead in just one year. Based on an August survey, iPad market share slipped to 52 percent from 81 percent a year earlier.

    Twenty-five percent of US adults have access to a tablet, according to Pew (22 percent as owners, 3 percent sharing with someone else in the household). Sixty-eight percent got their tablet within the last year, and 32 percent during 2012.

    Daily Android activations now total 1.3 million, up from 900,000 in June, according to Google. At that run rate, Android device sales, based on activations, work out to 117 million every 90 days. Looking ahead, IHS iSuppli now predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year, but iOS not until 2015. Cumulative sales passed iOS devices during summer -- 500 million.

    Slowing PC market also weighs on Apple. Calendar third quarter is typically strong because of back-to-school sales. Not this year. Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent from Q3 20122 , according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner estimates 8.3 percent decline. The United States, a region recently in love with tablets, is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. Apple typically avoids the gravity pulling down the entire sector, as it did following the 2008-09 recession. Q3 is typically one of Apple's best, given the Mac's popularity among schools. But shipments in the United States fell 6.1 percent or 7 percent, respectively, according to Gartner or IDC.

    Then there is Microsoft, which tomorrow launches Windows 8 and RT, which are primed for touch and tablets, and the Surface slate. As Cook surveys the computing landscape moving into fiscal 2013, the decisions he makes now will determine Apple's future as early connected-device platform leader.

    MORE TO COME

    Photo Credit: nui7711/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/25/Apple_Q4_by_the_numbers___36B_revenue___8.67_EPS_misses_Wall_Street_consensus'

    Apple Q4 by the numbers: $36B revenue, $8.67 EPS misses Wall Street consensus

    Publié: octobre 25, 2012, 10:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, Apple announced another blow-out quarter and closed fiscal 2012, ending Tim Cook's first full four quarters as CEO. The challenge ahead is to maintain or to even extend momentum as cofounder Steve Jobs' influence over strategy and product development grows more distant. He died a year ago last month.

    On Wednesday, financial analysts got an unexpected October surprise, and not iPad mini. Cook revealed that Apple sold its 100 millionth iPad about two weeks earlier. Problem: By that reckoning most analysts had over-estimated the tablet's quarter. Philip Elmer-DeWitt sums up the impact: "As a group, these analysts lowered their iPad estimates an average of 2.67 million units. Most also lowered their revenue and earnings estimates, an average of $1.26 billion and $0.31, respectively". If you're an investor wondering why Apple shares declined most of the day ahead of earnings, there's a reason.

    For fiscal fourth quarter, Apple reported $36 billion revenue and net profits of 8.2 billion, or $8.67 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $28.27 billion and $6.62 billion net quarterly profit, or $7.05 per share. Apple announced fiscal Q4 results after the market closed today. Revenue rose by 27 percent and profit by 24 percent.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast $34 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 fourth quarter, with earnings per share of $7.65. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $35.8 billion revenue and $8.75 earnings per share. So Apple squeaked by reduced revenue estimates by missed consensus on earnings per share.

    Apple shipped 14 million iPads, 26.9 million iPhones, 5.3 million iPods and 4.9 million Macs. Wall Street expected about 15 million iPads, 26 million, iPhones 5.7 million iPods and 4.8 million Macs. Apple sold 44 million iOS devices during the quarter.

    Gross margins nudged down to 40 percent from 40.3 percent a year earlier. Operating margins were 34 percent. International sales declined to 60 percent from 63 percent.

    Apple announced another dividend, $2.65 per share, payable November 15.

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company ended the quarter with $121.3 billion in cash and investments, up from $117.2 billion in June.

    "Looking ahead to the first fiscal quarter of 2013, we expect revenue of about $52 billion and diluted earnings per share of about $11.75", Peter Oppenheimer, Apple CFO, says. Gross margins: 36 percent.

    Earnings per share and gross margins will decline, based on Apple guidance. During today's earnings conference call, Oppenheimer offered some reasons: 13 weeks during the quarter, compared to 14 a year earlier; stronger US dollar; and "most prolific product period in Apple's history". There new product designs, such as iPad 4, iPad mini and MacBook Pro, are "height of the cost curve", which is typical. What's different is the "number of products we have moving at once", CEO Tim Cook told financial analysts.

    But Apple's CFO also conceded the risks offering a lower-priced tablet: "we have been aggressive with the iPad mini".

    Challenge of Leadership

    Two days ago, Apple unveiled the new iPad mini and introduced iPad 4. Pre-orders start tomorrow. The smaller tablet reveals some of the differences between Cook's leadership versus his predecessor. Supply chain simplicity defined Apple for more than a decade, but that era is over. The mini expands base iPad configurations from seven to 14. However, when accounting for colors and carrier-specific models, which adds Sprint to AT&T and Verizon, Apple now offers 54 different iPad configurations. Imagine managing that supply chain this Christmas. I'm surprised Wall Street analysts don't fuss more about this kind of complexity and what it means for sales -- lost ones for a high-demand product -- and toll on gross margins.

    iPad mini poses some risk to sales of the larger model, because of lower prices (starting at $329). The move marks another difference in Cook's leadership, as he seeks to position Apple to lead the so-called post-PC era and to keep Apple platforms vital.

    There is also the aforementioned launch of so many new products at once, particularly for the holiday quarter. The move brings much risk (mainly to margins) but much opportunity (potential market share gains).

    Challenges surround Cook. According to Pew, Americans buy more Android tablets than ever before, dramatically chopping iPad's huge market share lead in just one year. Based on an August survey, iPad market share slipped to 52 percent from 81 percent a year earlier.

    Twenty-five percent of US adults have access to a tablet, according to Pew (22 percent as owners, 3 percent sharing with someone else in the household). Sixty-eight percent got their tablet within the last year, and 32 percent during 2012.

    Daily Android activations now total 1.3 million, up from 900,000 in June, according to Google. At that run rate, Android device sales, based on activations, work out to 117 million every 90 days. Looking ahead, IHS iSuppli now predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year, but iOS not until 2015. Cumulative sales passed iOS devices during summer -- 500 million.

    Slowing PC market also weighs on Apple. Calendar third quarter is typically strong because of back-to-school sales. Not this year. Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent from Q3 2011, according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner estimates 8.3 percent decline. The United States, a region recently in love with tablets, is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. Apple typically avoids the gravity pulling down the entire sector, as it did following the 2008-09 recession. Q3 is typically one of Apple's best, given the Mac's popularity among schools. But shipments in the United States fell 6.1 percent or 7 percent, respectively, according to Gartner or IDC.

    Then there is Microsoft, which tomorrow launches Windows 8 and RT, which are primed for touch and tablets, and the Surface slate. As Cook surveys the computing landscape moving into fiscal 2013, the decisions he makes now will determine Apple's future as early connected-device platform leader. But today Cook dismissed Surface, calling it "a very compromised, confusing product" -- that admitting he hadn't used the tablet.

    Results by Category

    Geographic. Revenue in the Americas reached $13.8 billion, up 43 percent year over year but only 8 percent sequentially. Europe: $8.02 billion, up 8 percent for the year but down 3 percent for the quarter. Japan: $2.37 billion, up 113 percent from a year earlier and 18 percent quarter on quarter. Asia-Pacific: $7.54 billion, up 15 percent for the year but down 4 percent for the quarter.

    China continues to be hugely important to Apple, and Cook specifically called out the country, which revenue reached $5.7 billion, up 26 percent year over year. iPhone rose 38 percent, Macs 44 percent and iPad 45 percent. For the year, China generated $23.38 billion revenue, or 15 percent for all Apple. China accounted for more than three-quarters of Asia-Pacific revenue.

    iPhone. Apple shipped 26.9 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal fourth quarter, up from 17.01 million a year earlier. That's a 58 percent increase, year over year. Wall Street analyst average estimate was about 26 million units. Apple counts shipments into the channel, typically making them several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. Despite iPhone 5's late-quarter launch, overall sales only grew 3 percent sequentially. Apple ended the quarter with 9.1 million units in inventory, up 800,000, but below targeted levels.

    Revenue rose 56 percent to $17.13 billion from 10.98 billion a year earlier. Sequential revenue rose just 5 percent.

    Cook described iPhone 5 sales as "extremely robust" but there is a "significant backlog".

    iPad. Apple shipped 14.04 million iPads globally during the quarter, up from 11.1 million. That's a 26 percent year-over-year increase but 18 percent sequential decline. During today's earnings conference call Oppenheimer said that "iPad sales were ahead of our expectations". Yes, but not Wall Street's. Apple ended the quarter with near-expected inventory levels.

    Cook partly excused iPad shipments to higher sales to K-12 education during the June quarter falling off, which is typical, during the September quarter. He also expressed that new product rumors acted as a brake on sales.

    Revenue rose 9 percent to $7.5 billion, from $6.89 billion year over year, but declined 18 percent sequentially. During today's earnings call, Apple executives conceded that average selling prices were lower, in part because of the $399 iPad 2. That situation foreshadows potentially greater now that iPad mini starts at $329.

    Several analysts pressed the Apple executives on iPad mini margins, which the CFO conceded are "significantly below" what's typical. But, unsurprisingly he boasted: "The difference between the iPad mini and the competition is profound". Cook called 7-inch tablets like Nexus 7 as "compromised".

    Computers. Mac shipments nudged up just 1 percent year over year to 4.9 millions. Wall Street consensus was about 4.8 million units worldwide. Laptops accounted for 80 percent of Mac sales. Apple ended the quarter with 3 to 4 weeks of inventory, which is lower than typical. This week Apple announced new iMacs shipping in December. "We'll be constrained for the full quarter in a significant way", Cook told financial analysts.

    Macs generated $6.6 billion revenue, up 6 percent year over year and 34 percent sequentially.

    iPod. Apple shipped 5.3 million iPods during fiscal fourth quarter, down from 6.62 million a year earlier -- a 26 percent decline. Apple ended the quarter with 4 to 6 weeks channel inventory. iPod touch accounted for more than half the total. iTunes revenue approached $2.1 billion.

    Retail. Revenue from Apple Store rose 18 percent year over year to $4.23 billion -- that's from an average 376 retail shops. Unit sales increased just 1 percent -- to 1.1 million from 1.096 million a year earlier. Apple opened 10 new stores during the quarter. Apple ended Q4 with 390 stores, 140 outside the United States. The stores saw 94 million visitors, up 22 percent from 77.5 million a year earlier. That works out to 19,000 visitors per store per week.

    MORE TO COME

    Photo Credit: nui7711/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/25/Microsoft__stand_up_to_Apple_'

    Microsoft, stand up to Apple!

    Publié: octobre 25, 2012, 8:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For a moment there I got really excited -- that Microsoft had pulled a brilliant marketing maneuver -- only to be disappointed. Within the hour I received email from the company's PR agency with subject line: "Microsoft announces Windows 8 global availability". Holy cow pies! A day early! Stop the presses. Sure enough the official press release proclaims: "Windows 8 arrives". Except it hasn't. You still have to wait until Midnight tonight. Bummer.

    I knew there was trouble when rushing to Microsoft Store online that Surface RT tablets and Windows 8 are still pre-order. When going back to actually read the fine print, sure enough the press release qualifies "beginning Friday". Excuse me for nit-picking semantics, but doesn't "arrives" mean now? (Granted, it's Friday somewhere in the world and has been for more than six hours. But the announcement and New York prelaunch don't coincide with anything like Midnight anywhere in the world.)

    I got excited, because it looked at first like Microsoft had pulled a nice work-around dirty Apple marketing tricks. Say, Microsoft, you blew a great opportunity give to Windows 8 -- and surely logistical headaches aligning the retail channel -- an early arrival.

    See, those bastards cunning marketers at Apple pulled a marketing coup on Microsoft. The software giant announced Windows 8's launch date and venue months ago. Last week, Apple suddenly invited the news media to a special October 23 event, where iPad mini debuted. Windows 8 is Microsoft's response to the post-PC era, where iPad leads the charge to another way of computing.

    So just before Microsoft's big day, Apple steals thunder and assures most blogs or news stories written about Surface or Windows 8 over the next couple days will mention iPad mini; seeing as how Windows 8 is so much about touch and tablets. Apple sure knows how to spoil a party, eh?

    But it's worse. Why would Apple be so kind as only preempt Windows 8's arrival? Same day the new operating system goes on sale, October 26, iPad preorders start. Considering just how much has been written about Apple rumors or news on the InterWebs, iPad mini will be gravity pulling stories away from Windows 8. Hey, blog networks and news sites only have so much staff. Apple splits the coverage, when Microsoft planned to rule the day.

    BUT...Early arrival would have put Microsoft front and center, catching bloggers and journalists off guard, and compelling editors to punch up the Surface and Windows 8 volume -- and hours ahead of Apple's quarterly earnings announcement. Perhaps in another universe, Microsoft has the last laugh, and buyers and TV news crews are rushing right now to retail stores.

    In this universe, modern Microsoft is too damn nice. Whatever happened to the killer instinct that made Microsoft great (and loads of enemies along the way). Meanwhile, Apple, which has a sweet-as-grandma-knitting-mittens public image, chops heads like some surly Samurai.

    Say, Microsoft, pull Office for the Mac and kill that skunkworks project for iOS devices. You've got no friends in Cupertino. Ban all Apple devices, except for those used to research the competition, from your Redmond campus. Ring up your patent attorneys and give Apple a little litigation to fight. Surely your huge patent portfolio has the chops to make Apple's "swipe to unlock" patent look like something a five year-old would doodle on a cereal box. Seriously, are you just going to bend over and take this?

    Photo Credit:  tankist276/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/25/New_Chromebook_is_Amazon_top_seller'

    New Chromebook is Amazon top-seller

    Publié: octobre 25, 2012, 6:51pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple should learn something from Google and Samsung. In a poll which results I'll post today, the majority of respondents tell us that iPad mini costs too much; prices start at $329. Meanwhile, the 11.6-inch Chromebook is priced just right. The WiFi model is Amazon's laptop top-seller, while the $329.99 3G model is No. 4 (and declining). Both models are sold out, like Google Play. Get one, if you can!

    Many of you want new Chromebook, which swaps x86 for ARM architecture. So far, 1,770 people have responded to buying poll "Why you buy $249 Chromebook?". More than 35 percent plan to get one within 3 months, while 15.37 already placed orders. How funny if Google's Chrome OS portable turned out to be autumn's ARM sleeper sales success, and not iPad mini or Microsoft Surface.

    Based on my using the new Chromebook for a week, I can say that it's a writer's dream machine. The keyboard is simply amazing, and the overall dimensions are lap or couch comfy. The portable is fanless and doesn't get too hot resting on the legs. But there's no gamer paradise here, and the ARM Chromebook often stops to catch its breath while climbing the hill of Flash ads.

    Mine is a love-hate relationship. The ergonomics are fantastic -- every bit as good, and in some ways better, than the similarly looking Apple MacBook Air -- but the performance is not. The ARM Chromebook is fast enough for most tasks, but I do more waiting than I'd like. Strange, though, the occasional huff-and-puff slowdowns prove to be a refreshing mental break from the tunnel vision of writing.

    Over at Google+, I've been communicating with geeky types considering new Chromebook, or even buying one.

    "I have ordered one from PC World here in the UK, even though I don't need another laptop, partly due to your excellent first impressions report", Siamak Masnavi writes. "Mine's arriving on Friday. Can't wait!" To which I respond: "I tried not to set expectations too high. I do hope you are satisfied".

    He answers: "I am aiming to use it exclusively for working with Google Docs/Sheets. But I could also take it on short trips instead of an iPad 3 or Nexus 7 because of the great keyboard and support for Adobe Flash. I am also hoping that Netflix support arrives soon".

    The point of the exchange: He doesn't need another computer, but $249 is an irresistible price. Think about it. For the price of the cheapest-selling MacBook Air, you could buy four Chromebooks. Performance won't be the same, but I can attest from using both that ergonomics are quite similar.

    My concern is one of expectations -- that many people will expect too much for the price. Masnavi rightly observes:

    If you are expecting the performance of a 2012 MacBook Air at a quarter of the price, I guess you will be disappointed...but I am not expecting to use it for video editing, 3D gaming, or mobile app development. Despite what the Google TV ads says, I don't believe that this is a machine for everyone. However, for lite/typical web browsing and office work, as well as email management, I am guessing it will be just fine.

    James Mason is "looking at this as a kids' laptop, as well as a secondary machine for myself. Need to persuade my wife & kids that Microsoft Word is not actually necessary for homework. ;-)"

    Bram Bout answers:

    My kids use the Samsung 550 Chromebook and love it. They have shown their teacher how they use Docs in school and then continue at home seamlessly which has impressed the teacher :). I'm thinking of pitching the new $250 model to our school, as they are about to replace a batch of MacBooks and I really think the Chromebooks are a better deal.

    Did you buy the ARM Chromebook? If so is it good enough for your needs?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/25/What_does_Bill_Gates_think_about_Windows_8_'

    What does Bill Gates think about Windows 8?

    Publié: octobre 25, 2012, 4:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Windows XP turns 11 today, as Microsoft begins launch preparations for the big 8, starting at Midnight tonight. My colleague Tim Conneally is in New York for today's big media event. Way to go, Microsoft. Why have one Windows 8 launch day, when you can stretch it out to two? The software giant needs the extra marketing push, what with Apple rudely preempting the big day with Wednesday's last-minute iPad mini introduction and Google doing something similar on Monday with an Android event that coincides with Windows Phone 8's debut.

    Windows XP and 8 represent watershed launches for Microsoft. XP brought the NT kernel, and all its stability and security advantages, to the consumer market. The operating system marked a major architectural change for developers, particularly software accessing hardware and the kernal -- that was suddenly taboo. As such, Windows XP broke many applications, mainly games, and was criticized for it. Windows 8 is in similar state of breaking the mold. For anyone forecasting the operating systems' doom, take a look back at stories about XP and analyst predictions about failure. I wrote some of them. Yet only this summer did Windows 7 finally upset XP as most widely used version. Don't count Windows 8 as dead before it comes to life, people.

    Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates was front and center for XP's launch. The company invited me to join eight other journalists for dinner with him the night before. I politely declined, anticipating that the government would use publicity about the launch to file more legal papers in the then contentious US antitrust case. So I stayed in Washington. Sure enough, I was right.

    Gates is on the sidelines for Windows 8. He and his wife spend the majority of their work time on philanthropy. CEO Steve Ballmer is center stage now. But what does Gates think of Windows 8? You likely won't find out from press interviews. There are no dinner invites now, not for those of us writing about Microsoft shindigs. I really hate mock Microsoft interviews, where someone from the company interviews someone else from it. Welcome to modern media manipulation -- the corporate blogosphere. But that's what you get from Gates this week.

    In the above video, Gates astutely says: "This is an absolutely critical product". That's an understatement. "It's a big step. It's key to where personal computing is going". We all know the direction: Cloud-connected devices and natural user interfaces like touch and talk.

    That's the other difference in another October 11 years later. XP debuted at the height of the PC's popularity, even as recession temporarily sapped sales. They're in decline again, severely during third quarter -- as the PC makes its long march into night and the dawning of a new computing era. Perhaps Windows 8 will be Microsoft's last, big PC operating system launch. May it be a good one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/24/Will_you_buy_iPad_mini_'

    Will you buy iPad mini?

    Publié: octobre 24, 2012, 6:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For those of you skydiving from the edge of space or returning from a week in some Fringe alternate universe, today Apple announced iPad mini -- so far the autumn's worst kept secret. Rumormongers got right the event and sales dates, product name and screen size but flubbed the price; sorry it's not $249 or $299, Bub. That's in another alternate reality. But do dream.

    I just have to ask, again: Will you buy iPad mini? I look forward to the impact facts will have on your answers. In February I asked: "Apple is rumored to be developing a smaller tablet. Would you buy an 8-inch iPad?" About 56 percent of the 3,624 respondents answered "Yes". That's a high number. But much has changed since, with Google Nexus 7 joining Kindle Fire at $199, Amazon offering 8.9-inch tablets and Apple choosing to price higher than many people hoped. So I ask the question again, offering new poll and your chance to comment.

    Apple's 7.9-inch tablet starts at $329, which unfortunately is right about what I expected. Following Amazon and Google to $199 or $249 just isn't Apple's style. But how odd that Kindle Fire HD 8.9" is in many ways superior at $299. Take screen resolution, for example: Amazon serves up 1920 by 1200 to the fruit-logo tablet's 1024 by 768. Both companies offer similar curated, end-to-end digital content platforms -- music, movies and more.

    Pre-orders start October 26, and WiFi models go on sale November 2. Apple will eventually offer six iPad minis -- three with LTE radios, which will be available about two weeks later. Price range is surprising -- $329 to $659. In the United States, cellular models will be available from AT&T, Sprint and Verizon in either black or white.

    How Does iPad mini Compare?

    iPad mini is the most expensive tablet in its size class and easily exceeds models with larger screen. For example, Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7-inch is $199 and 10 inch $349 -- from Amazon, and that's $50 for either off the list price; both have 16GB storage and WiFi, like entry iPad mini. If you're looking to spend a premium price on a 7.x-inch tablet, Apple will take your money to the bank. What I hope to learn from the poll is how many of you see value in paying more.

    Let's size up against the competition:

    iPad mini: 7.9-inch back-lit IPS display (1024 x 768 resolution, 163 pixels per inch); A5 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; 5-megapixel rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; Bluetooth; WiFi A/N; HSPA+/LTE (on three models); accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; microphone; battery unknown; and iOS 6. Dimensions: 200 x 134.7 x .28mm and 308 grams.

    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi: $329
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi: $429
    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi/LTE: $459
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi: $529
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi/LTE: $559
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi/LTE: $659

    Nexus 7: 7-inch back-lit IPS display (1280 x 800 resolution, 216 ppi); 1.3GHz Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage; 1.2MP front-facing camera; Bluetooth; WiFi A/N; accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; magnetometer; microphone; near field communications; 4325 mAh battery; and Android 4.1. Dimensions: 198.5 x 120 x 10.45mm and 340 grams.

    • Nexus 7 8GB WiFi: $199
    • Nexus 7 16GB: $249

    Kindle Fire HD: 7-inch LCD IPS display (1280 x 800 resolution, 216 ppi); 1.2GHz OMAP4460 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; front-facing camera; Bluetooth; WiFi A/N; accelerometer; gyroscope; microphone; 4400 mAh battery; and Android 4; Dimensions: 193 x 137 x 10.3mm and 395 grams.

    • Kindle Fire HD 16GB: $199
    • Kindle Fire HD 32GB: $249

    Amazon offers the non-HD Kindle Fire for $159. There are also two 8.9-inch models, in 16GB and 32GB configurations, and the aforementioned higher resolution display (1920 by 1200):

    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 16GB: $299
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 32GB: $369
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE 16GB: $499
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE 32GB: $599

    Early Reaction

    The comparisons speak for themselves. Something else: About a year ago, I asked BetaNews readers: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" Among the 2,929 respondents so far, 82.21 percent responded $299 or below, with 26.66 percent saying $199 and 51.38 percent $199 or less. Based on the poll, and your responses, Apple has overpriced iPad mini for the mass-market.

    1DaveN comments: "IMO the only market for this is the tiny percentage of people who want a real iPad, can't afford one, but can somehow scrape together the bucks for this mini. And if price is the trigger, why not opt for something of similar size but half the price?"


    Apple starts selling a smaller tablet on Nov. 2, 2012. Prices start at $329 (7.9" display; 16GB; WiFi). Will you buy iPad mini?

    BetaNews reader skruis responds: "Agreed. If people were too cost conscious to buy the larger device and instead opted for a smaller 7-inch device then even with the lower price of the mini, it's still not a guaranteed sale as the non-Apple devices are still cheaper. They'll sell but I don't see them dominating the 7-inch market".

    I also asked for reaction on Google+, and, whoa, did it come. Saeed W says iPad mini is "way too high for a 2nd screen device". Greg Vlahakis agrees: "$355 with tax is too much for most people..they could have been more competitive".

    "At its price point the Mini is a joke", Kevin Gault says. "Really Apple? A lower screen resolution compared to the Nexus 7, same battery life and an ancient UI. Way to go for more failure Apple".

    My analysis resonates with James Prudente's sentiments. "It seems clear that the price and build materials are designed to maintain their high margins", he says. "But at this price point it will seriously cannibalize full size iPad sales, which will negatively impact their revenues".

    "There's no doubt that there will be people who buy the mini irrespective of the price", Ramesh Prabhu observes. "Apple had this opportunity to send the rest of the small tablet manufacturers to the edge of the cliff, but blew it by pricing it at $329 + tax".

    The Google+ crowd isn't exactly hot on iPad mini; it is Android territory, after all. What about you? Will you buy iPad mini? Please take the poll above and give reasons in comments -- and, please, say whether you own other Apple devices and which ones.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/23/iPad_mini_is_too_big_for_Apple'

    iPad mini is too big for Apple

    Publié: octobre 23, 2012, 11:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    "Don't upset the apple cart" takes on new meaning for the company Steve Jobs cofounded. Supply chain simplicity defined his leadership, starting with the many products axed after he took the interim CEO title in early 1997. While complexity creeped into some product lines over the years, mainly iPod, Apple followed a streamline approach. Until today. Tim Cook oversees a suddenly complex tablet lineup, following iPad mini's introduction early this afternoon.

    Before today's event, Apple offered eight different iPad configurations -- that's without separately counting carrier-specific LTE models. The mini, which goes on sale November 2, brings the number to 14. It's a crowded lineup, with overlapping features and prices not seen from Apple since the early- to mid-1990s. Something else: Apple chose to price higher than what BetaNews surveys show people want to spend on a tablet, particularly in the mini's size class, and too close to other models, risking some sales cannibalization -- or worse, none at all, if customer confusion hurts sales.

    Fifty-four Configs

    The good: iPad's starting price is now less than ever -- $329, and that's sure to appeal to buyers looking to spend less than $399 for aging iPad 2 or $499 for entry fourth-generation model. But from there complexity creep follows each jump to higher amount. Briefly:

    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi: $329
    • iPad 2 16GB WiFi: $399
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi: $429
    • iPad mini 16GB WiFi/LTE: $459
    • iPad 4 16GB WiFi :$499
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi: $529
    • iPad 2 16GB WiFi/3G: $529
    • iPad mini 32GB WiFi/LTE: $559
    • iPad 4 32GB WiFi: $599
    • iPad 4 16GB WiFi/LTE: $629
    • iPad mini 64GB WiFi/LTE: $659
    • iPad 4 64GB WiFi: $699
    • iPad 4 32GB WiFi/LTE: $729
    • iPad 4 64GB WiFi/LET: $829

    Compare the 14 to what some other manufacturers offer:

    • Amazon: Six Fire HD models, two each for 7-inch, 8.9-inch and LTE, ranging from $199 to $499.
    • Google: Two Nexus 7s -- 8GB ($199) and 16GB ($249), both with 7-inch displays.
    • Microsoft: Three Surface configurations, starting at $499 and all with 10.6-inch displays.

    Only Samsung offers a tablet lineup near Apple's complexity, as it supports multiple operating systems (Android, Windows) and makes carrier specific models. In the United States, carrier-specificity for AT&T and Verizon means two configurations for iPad 2 WiFi/3G and three, adding Sprint, for every LTE model. So what is that? Another 13 configurations, which, granted, are more hidden from consumers? From manufacturing and distribution perspective, that's a logistically complex product lineup -- and that's without considering the confusing choices consumers will make.

    The more SKUs sold, the more traumatic managing inventory, particularly when a product is hotly demanded. For example, during the initial iPhone 5 sales rush, the local Apple Stores here in San Diego consistently had Sprint models available when sold out of those from AT&T. For some reason the 32GB Verizon model would often be available, too. Why that one is anyone's guess, and clearly Apple retail managers guessed wrong, which will be easy enough to do with iPad mini.

    But wait! From an inventory management perspective, the number of models is even more, because there are black and white colors. So the base 14 is really 28, but then there are carrier-specific models. Is my math right? Fifty-four? That's figuring 7 WiFi models in two colors (14) + 6 LTE models for three carriers (18) x 2 two colors + 2 WiFi/3G tablets from 2 carriers + 2 colors. I'm surprised Wall Street analysts don't fuss more about this kind of complexity and what it means for sales -- lost ones for a high-demand product -- and toll on gross margins.

    Complexity Creep

    Consumers can expect to be confused by all the choices -- and that's just looking at iPad mini and ignoring iPhone 5 and iPod models with flat screens. Before the mini, Apple offered one screen size: 9.7 inches. Now there are two, adding 7.9 inches. Screen resolution dramatically differs: 1024 by 768 for the mini and iPad 2 and 2048 by 1536 for fourth-gens.

    Someone shopping for the smaller iPad can spend as little as $329, get the lower resolution, 16GB storage and WiFi. The larger screen in same storage capacity is $70 more (iPad 2). But wait! The smaller tablet uses the new Lightning connector and has Bluetooth 4, while the larger one uses the older, 30-pin connector and offers Bluetooth 2.1. So while the screen is larger, some of the other tech is older and incompatible with newer gear and, presumably, some future Apple tech. The lower-cost tablet also comes with better cameras (5 megapixels front; 1.2MP back) and supports Siri, which isn't available on the costlier $399 iPad.

    Just wait until Christmas morning to see what these subtle differences will mean to Jack or Jane Consumer getting less than expected because grandma was sure bigger would be better -- and, hey, it costs a little more, too. You can be sure somebody will transform 7.9 and 9.7 and end up with the wrong size tablet.

    Look at the crowded and confusing configurations. Between $529 and $599 there are four different choices. The 7.9-inch iPad mini with 64GB storage and WiFi is $529. For the same price: iPad 2 16GB with WiFi and 3G. Now explain that difference to Aunt Louisa. For $30 more is the iPad mini with 32GB WiFi and LTE. So within $30, there are three different storage capacities and two different cellular technologies. But wait, at $599 is the iPad 4, with 32GB storage, WiFi and superior display -- twice the resolution.

    This lineup is recipe for customer confusion and good reason not to work for Apple this holiday season. Seriously, the company should offer counseling sessions for over-worked staff that have to explain this stuff.

    Then there is pricing, which I planned to include here but will break into a separate story. So briefly, I'll end with this: Amazon and Google have lowered pricing in this size class to between $199 and $299, which is consistent with what you say is acceptable. About a year ago, I asked BetaNews readers: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" Among the 2,929 respondents so far, 82.21 percent responded $299 or below, with 26.66 percent saying $199 and 51.38 percent $199 or less. Now match lower pricing expectations against Apple's higher pricing complexity, and there's trouble ahead.

    Do I suggest sales disaster? No. Apple's brand has strong sales pull, but confused customers aren't often happy ones and iPad mini is sure to suffer unnecessary shortages among some configurations. Again, why isn't Wall Street complaining? I say this: Simplicity sells, complexity smells -- and this lineup stinks like my neighbor's garbage.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/23/Apple_unveils_iPad_mini__pre_orders_start_October_26__sales_November_2'

    Apple unveils iPad mini, pre-orders start October 26, sales November 2

    Publié: octobre 23, 2012, 8:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Months of rumors have come to this: Yes, Virginia, there is a smaller iPad, and if they don't sell out, you could get one for Christmas. During a special media event today, Apple unveiled iPad mini.

    The new tablet's screen measures 7.9 inches, compared to 9.7 inches for fourth-generation iPad, also announced today. Screen resolution is 1,024 by 768 -- the same as iPad 2 and other tablets in the size class. The device weighs .68 pounds and is 7.2mm thick, or about one-quarter more than fourth-generation iPad. Apple claims 10-hour battery life. The tablet runs an A5 dual-core processor and packs a 5-megapixel camera on the back and another camera, mainly for video recording on the front. Contrary to rumors, prices start at $329, not $249.

    Apple's unveiling comes three days before Microsoft struts out Windows 8 and Surface tablets. Can you say slap in the face? Microsoft will get little coverage of its launches without some mention of Apple's device. iPad mini preorders start same day as Windows 8 debuts. It's a marketing coup, and nasty work at that.

    Some analysts are convinced that, like original iPad, the mini will be category changing. "Just as Apple has dominated the market for 9.7-inch tablets with its iPad, iPad 2 and new iPad models, the company is poised to rule the market for 7.x-inch products, driving rapid growth of the segment in 2012 and 2013", Rhoda Alexander, IHS iSuppli director, asserts.

    The analyst firm sees the segment's share of tablets rising from 24 percent in 2011 to 28 percent this year and 33 percent next. "The battle in the 7-inch space is highly spirited, with most of the other leading vendors already offering price-competitive products in this size range", Alexander says. "IHS predicts Apple will successfully position the smaller iPad as a device that will be attractive and easy to adopt for both new and returning customers. This will spur rapid sales growth and provide tough competition for other companies contending in this size range".

    Other competitors chose lower selling prices, such as Amazon Kindle Fire HD or Google Nexus, which both sell for $199. The entry-level iPad mini, 16GB with WiFi, sells for $329. The 32GB model is $429. Cellular models add $130 to the price and will go one sale about two weeks after the WiFi models.

    Pricing differences may not matter, as Alexander predicts supply shortages. "The major factor limiting shipments of the smaller iPad will not be demand, but a combination of production challenges and potential component supply issues", she says. "Reported production difficulties point to the likelihood that Apple is once again pushing design boundaries with the new product. Sources also indicate there have been some supply issues for parts used in the Apple Lightning connector and in the display. If Apple can resolve these issues rapidly, 2013 shipments and sales may exceed the current forecast dramatically".

    Today's mini debut comes just two weeks after Apple sold its 100 millionth iPad, CEO Tim Cook revealed during the media event. Apple in part positions the smaller iPad for the education market, which is surprising considering the company missed back-to-school buying season by many months. Of course, there is always next year, eh? Textbooks are major area of interest, with Cook claiming 2,500 US schools using iBooks textbooks.

    Cook claims that nearly every Fortune 500 is deploying iPad, which I find unbelievable. More likely, a large number are merely supporting devices employees bring to work -- a common trend that transcends iPad. But today, with complete refresh and smaller iPad, Apple is sure to further capitalize on the bring your own device to work movement, if nothing else.

    Speaking of refresh, Apple did not change larger iPad's screen size or price, but did boost features, claiming -- and testing will tell -- 2 times performance overall and for graphics compared to third-generation iPad.

    Contrary to rumors, Apple will not retire iPad 2, which stays in the lineup at $399.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/23/Half_of_Apple_devices_already_run_iOS_6'

    Half of Apple devices already run iOS 6

    Publié: octobre 23, 2012, 7:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, during a special media event, Apple CEO Tim Cook revealed that 200 million devices already have iOS 6. That works out to half cumulative shipments -- 400 million. The company may update that number during its quarterly earnings call in two days.

    The number starkly contrasts with Android, where just 1.8 percent of devices are on newest version Jelly Bean. The difference demonstrates the extent of operating system fragmentation of one versus the other. Uniformity offers many advantages to developers and customers using their apps. Consider this: Jelly Bean released in mid-July, iOS 6 last month. So Apple reaches considerably more users with its newest OS than does Google. There is no comparison.

    Cook's focus on iOS 6 adoption deflects from one unsaid -- number of cumulative shipments, which the company recently put at 400 million. The number trails Android, which surged ahead of iOS during summer. At last count: 500 million devices.

    Daily Android activations now total 1.3 million, up from 900,000 in June, according to Google. At that run rate, Android device sales, based on activations, work out to 117 million every 90 days. Looking ahead, IHS iSuppli now predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year, but iOS not until 2015.

    The numbers tally is more than symbolic, as Apple seeks to re-energize the platform with the new iPad mini. Android's numbers by and large come from cell phones, where, according to Gartner, the operating system's sales share is more than three times Apple's. iPad is the tablet leader, by considerable margin, but quarterly handset shipments dwarf the other platform. By the numbers, Android wins the smartphone wars. Tablets still favor Apple.

    In October 2009, I explained why "Apple cannot win the smartphone wars". iPhone is to Android handsets what Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. The Mac's rocky start in 1984-85 gave way to great success because of several killer applications, with desktop publishing being among the most important. But by the mid 1990s, Windows PCs pushed down Mac market share. iPhone follows similar path.

    Today's event is all about recharging iOS platform momentum around iPad, capitalizing on strong brand awareness and early market share lead and extending apps appeal to developers and customers.

    Platforms succeed for combinations of reasons leading to network effects:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • The platform is broadly available
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    But the underlying most important: Third parties make money, lots of it. As Android numbers far exceed iOS, the Mac-Windows comparison looks like the more likely scenario. Even if Android wins the platform wars -- and that's no certainty -- Apple doesn't necessarily lose. The market clearly is consolidating around two major cloud-connected platforms.

    With regards to money and potential making it, Cook put out some numbers: $6.5 billion paid to developers. Additionally: 700,000 apps in Apple's App Store -- 275,000 for iPad.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/23/Chromebook_sells_out'

    Chromebook sells out

    Publié: octobre 23, 2012, 5:08am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Somebody believes Google's marketing claim that the $249 Chromebook is "for everyone". Just five hours ago, I reported the device's availability. It's not anymore. A spokesperson confirmed this evening that Google Play sold out of the portable during its first few hours of availability "with more stock coming soon".

    Google introduced the new Chromebook, which uses ARM processor rather than x86 processor, on October 18, with pre-orders starting same day. What's different today: Google selling the portable direct from the Play store, alongside Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7. Samsung manufactures the portable, which shape, 11.6-inch screen and overall size resembles Apple's MacBook Air. But Google makes a value push, by selling a computer with similar benefits for one-quarter the price.

    Stated differently: You could buy four ARM Chromebooks for the price of one MacBook Air. Looked at another way: A small business could buy direct from Google a smartphone ($349 Galaxy Nexus), tablet ($199 Nexus 7) and laptop ($249 Chromebook) and still have $200 left compared to the price of Apple's entry-level laptop.

    Of course, we don't know how many ARM Chromebooks Google stocked. But given the marketing push -- two page ad in Friday's New York Times being example -- the search giant surely prepared some early sales rush. Then there is the price, which I stated in my first-impression review as devastatingly appealing -- all but irresistible. It's almost a no-brainer "yes".

    What's most surprising to me, is the interest. No one could accuse BetaNews readers of being Google lovers. Three days ago I asked: "Will you buy $249 Google Chromebook?". Surprisingly, among the 1,474 respondents, only 51.96 answered "No". I expected a much higher number, considering what Chromebook represents. The computer is designed to be always connected, relies almost completely on cloud applications and services and doesn't run Microsoft Office. Different often doesn't sell. But then there's the price, which makes taking a chance, if nothing else, appealing.

    Among respondents, 12.96 percent said that they have or will pre-order, with another 19.81 percent planning to purchase within 3 months. Buying polls are never reliable. What people say they want to do often isn't what they do. However, if even a fraction of the one-third of respondents bought (and kept) $249 Chromebook within the first three months, the cloud computer would be huge success. Remember, Google isn't making a volume play, particularly with Windows 8 launching this week, but one of expanding mindshare. Chromebook is at this juncture more about advocating a different digital lifestyle.

    BetaNews reader IT advisor is "thinking about buying one". He continues:

    I'll keep my desktop machine at home for heavy computer tasks. But the Chromebook looks appealing to take on the road. When traveling, I just need basic features. Mainly email and web browsing. For this, the cheaper ARM-based Chromebook would be better suited than the x86 version, as the ARM one has longer battery life.

    At $249, you wouldn't need to insure it if you went traveling, as it's not the end of the world if you lost or broke it (besides, all your documents would be in the cloud). The keyboard would suit anyone who touch-types, as tablets aren't very suitable for fast 10-finger typing.

    Aaron Hurt: "It's absolutely at the right price point. I've been using an Eee PC 901a as a Chromium laptop just for the couch or in the car and it was 'usable' but not very functional. I've already bought into the entire Google Ecosystem and this just makes sense. It should be a fantastic complimentary system to my Nexus 7 and should be more useful for school work on Google Docs/Drive. I'll be in for one, maybe two if my wife steals mine".


    Will you buy $249 Google Chromebook?

    Web designer Spike Pecan has "owned and loved for more than a year -- is not designed to do the same things. It is designed for web access, and cloud-based applications and storage. I have NEVER found myself wishing I could design vector-based objects on my Chromebook, any more than I would think my cell phone is deficient because I can't run Photoshop on it. The Chromebook does what it is supposed to do, and it does these things extremely well. Kudos to Google and Samsung for changing the rules of the game. Cloud-based access is the future, like it or not".

    And you?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/22/Google_s__249_ARM_Chromebook_isn_t__for_everyone___but_could_be_for_you__first_impressions_review_'

    Google's $249 ARM Chromebook isn't 'for everyone', but could be for you [first-impressions review]

    Publié: octobre 22, 2012, 3:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This week, Google will demonstrate real commitment to Chromebook, by bringing to market a lower-cost model with refined Chrome OS and package primed for mass-market buyers. Until retailers started taking preorders on October 18, the current generation Chromebook, Samsung Series 5 550, sold for $449 and its predecessor for $329. The newest model's $249 price is devastatingly appealing -- all but irresistible. It's almost a no-brainer "yes", particularly for most anyone wanting Apple MacBook Air's svelte size and empowering ergonomics without the hefty price tag.

    But there's more here tempting than selling price. Chrome OS has reached near mass-market usability, supported by cloud apps and services that will be good enough for most people. Google even provides Chrome Remote Desktop (beta) for accessing other computers. That's right, you can connect to Macs or Windows PCs, run applications and get to data. While PC marketers and geeks focus on faster and bigger, real world performance is more measure of what you need than what they offer. The new Chromebook needs to pass the "good enough" test, and does so in many ways.

    But what's good enough for some isn't everyone, and that's particularly true here in part because of new architecture. Earlier models pack x86 processors, while the new one has ARM, like the chip architecture used for most smartphones or tablets. Here: 1.7GHz Samsung Exynos 5250 dual-core processor. Netflix isn't available, for example, and there is trouble streaming Amazon video at any reasonable quality. Overall performance doesn't match the Series 5 550 and certainly not many current laptops. But for many uses, the new Chromebook is good enough and simply remarkable for the price. It isn't meant to be the computer that does everything, just can-do what lots of people need most.

    One question this post seeks to answer: Is the device "for everyone", as Google marketing claims.

    Before continuing, I want to discuss organization of this first-impressions review. There are three main sections: Hardware and performance; software and user experience; buying profiles. I expect techies will be more interested reading the lead section first, while other people might want to jump to one of the others right away. Please keep in mind that while I have used a Chromebook as my only PC since late May, I have only spent about three days with the new model. That's why this review is a first-impression.

    One Strong ARM

    Google introduced the Chromebook concept in December 2010, shipping 60,000 Cr-48 test models. In June 2011, Acer and Samsung released first-generation models with 11.6-inch glossy and 12.1-inch matte displays, respectively. For two months that summer, I used the Samsung model, the Series 5, as my primary PC, but later gave up in part because of performance. In May 2012, Samsung launched the second-generation Chromebook, which I used as my only PC since. The newer, lower-cost model marks a stunning evolution, by adding ARM to x86 support.

    New architecture. ARM brings advantages but makes trade-offs. For example, like smartphones or tablets, the $249 Chromebook is fanless and runs super cool. Lower-power consumption improves battery life at lower clock speed but also sacrifices performance. Samsung should have included 4GB memory, particularly considering the 2GB there is slower 800MHz, to liven responsiveness. I'll explain more why, mainly because of Flash, in section "Meet and Greet".

    ARM also means there's more Samsung in the new model than ever before, which includes the microprocessor. That makes the new Chromebook a lot closer to an end-to-end product that Apple might make. There the similarities to MacBook Air are striking, and the portables could easily be confused at a glance. I'm surprised Apple fanboys aren't yelling "Copycat!" already.

    Keyboard and Trackpad. Compared to MacBook Air, the new Chromebook is a helluva bargain, some 750 bucks less. The costlier computer is metal vs plastic for the other. Screen resolution is similar, but MBA display is considerably brighter, around 400-nit vs 200-nit, which isn't bright enough for my tastes. The 550 is 300-nit. Otherwise, the $249 Chromebook display is remarkably sharp, offering vivid colors, which is surprising for matte. I prefer matte to glossy, because the latter is all but useless in sunlight.

    Keyboards are similar, and I can only described Samsung's as exceptional. There's something about the touch of the keys and overall ergonomics that make writing quite joyous. I can only say "wow". The trackpad is excellent, too, actually one of the best I've ever used. Combined with dimensions and screen size, the ergonomics match and in some ways exceed MacBook Air. Think about that, if writing is your priority.

    Specs. 1.7GHz Samsung Exynos 5250 dual-core processor (ARM); 11.6-inch matte display, 1366 x 768 resolution, 200-nit brightness; 2GB RAM; 16GB SSD; SD-card slot; Webcam; USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports (one each); WiFi A/N; Bluetooth 3.0 compatible (dongle required); HDMI port; Chrome OS 23. Weighs 2.5 pounds (1.1 kg) and is 0.8 inches thick.

    By comparison, the Samsung Series 5 550 is 3.3 lbs (1.48 kg), while MacBook Air weighs even less -- 2.38 pounds (1.08 kg). The 550 also comes with older Chrome OS 21 (more on that in section "Meet and Greet").

    I have only done preliminary battery-life testing, but early assessment is 6 hours or more, depending on use. Google and Samsung state 6.5 hours.

    Benchmarks. Over at Google+, Harry Evangelou asked if I could run the Peacekeeper benchmark. I don't think much of benchmarks, but a lot of you do, so I acquiesced. The $249 Chromebook delivered 971 and the 550 model 1848. However, that was logged in, with extensions running. Using Guest mode, they benchmarked 1202 and 1975, respectively, on battery. The ARM model nudged up to 1212 when plugged in to electrical.

    Performance. Yesterday, over at ZDNet, James Kendrick posted a comparison review between the ARM and second-gen X86 Chromebooks. He writes: "It's barely noticeable but the new Chromebook with the ARM processor seems just a step slower". I don't agree. The $249 model is noticeably slower than the one costing $200 more. The benchmarks bear this out, too. The newer starts up a tad faster, about 9 seconds, and near-instantly from sleep.

    Speed is subjective. What is too fast or too slow? Someone moving from the Cr-48 will see marked improvement, while the Series 5 user gets something better, just not great. By comparison, 550 owners may be dissatisfied. Mileage on other computers will vary. My daughter has the 13-inch aluminum MacBook purchased in October 2008. It's a painful performer, and the ARM Chromebook is speedy, by comparison.

    The question to ask: Is it fast enough? I can't answer for you. For me, the ergonomics so appeal that I'm willing to give the 11.6-inch Chromebook a good long test. Chrome OS does a surprisingly good job managing tasks and tabs, something I'll further discuss in the next section. As such, the operating system on Samsung ARM delivers overall smoother performance than many Windows PCs running x86 processors, subjectively.

    In terms of price-performance, this computer is plenty fast enough for $249. What? You expect a Porsche for Datsun pricing? Most people should be satisfied for the price. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung sees a higher return rate for people finding the computer to be too slow. I say: Give it a chance, people. I am. You might be surprised in the end.

    Wireless. Like its predecessor, the new Chromebook is Bluetooth 3.0 compatible, meaning if you provide the dongle. WiFi covers all the letters users should care about -- a,b,g,n -- but I observed strange behavior. Amazon won't play videos at acceptable quality (see section "Meet and Greet" for more) and speedtest.net shows lower-than-expected wireless throughput -- 3Mbps to 8Mbps, with one odd one topping 18Mbps, yesterday. Several tests today topped 20Mbps. On watching the speedtest speedometer push past 20Mbps but then record 8Mbps, I now believe the test doesn't run right, with Flash running on ARM being the problem.

    Meet and Great

    Chrome OS is a work in progress that evolves faster than the hardware, and on the ARM Chromebook changes are like "wow".

    Chrome OS 23. The user experience is immediately surprising, because the OS is so polished, especially compared to the version shipping on second-generation Chromebooks. My Samsung Series 5 500 has Chrome OS 21.0.1180.92, stable-channel "lumpy". The newer one is 23.0.1271.39, stable channel "daisy". Settings on both portables is "stable" channel. Will Google skip over v22, and why is 23 stable and not beta? These are the mysteries of Chrome OS development that mark a dramatic surge forward in consumer appeal.

    In April, with Chrome OS 19, Google introduced new program manager "Aura", which is quite evolved four numeral versions later. There is spit and polish everywhere, and the UI takes on more elements from Android, subtleties like swapping the settings wrench icon in the upper right-hand corner to three vertical lines. Aura's earlier rough appearance is now smooth, and little things, like the Apps List staying where last used, remove annoyances and increase usability. Google introduced the feature in August.

    'Get Started'. Out-of-box first impression means everything, and it's more important for Chromebook than many other portables, since the laptop is meant to be used nearly always connected and changes some computing fundamentals, like accessing all apps in the browser and storing content in the cloud. For Chrome browser users, the different usability model shouldn't be so different. Others will need some education, and Google provides it.

    The new Chromebook starts into a meet-and-greet screen -- the new "Get Started" app, which provides information in 16 areas, such as creating documents, making video or voice calls, printing, using web apps and working offline. Users can even "schedule a call with a Chromebook Guide to get a personalized tour of your new Chromebook". Everything about the out-of-box experience fits with the "for everyone" marketing.

    Setting up Chromebook is as easy as logging into your Google account. Users of previous models will find all their settings immediately synced and migrated. So the apps and desktop used on one follow you to another. Setup is that simple and maintenance about equally. Google dispatches new versions, with new features about every two months and most content automatically saves to the cloud. Easy is the best way to describe any Chromebook, from setup to ongoing management to daily use. If you can navigate a browser, you can use Chrome OS and content and settings follow you from device to device.

    Applications. Google provides lots of utility via Docs, Drive, G+, Music, Talk, Voice and YouTube, among many other services. Some products, like Docs and Gmail, are available offline. Chrome Web Store offers access to plenty more apps, and you will be surprised at the selection. That experience isn't much changed from what I laid out three weeks ago about the Series 5 550 ("Chromebook changed my life").

    Make no mistake, there are plenty of good apps for getting lots done, and they often load faster than their desktop counterparts. With desktop software, your PC bears the burden of loading lots of bloated code locally. With web apps, the heavy lifting is done on the server. This is important, and perhaps what Kendrick meant: Apps performance is about the same, or just slightly slower than the 550. But once a bunch of tabs are open, or even a couple with Flash, the $249 Chromebook loses something. It's not as snappy -- web pages take a little longer to load. Most people should be satisfied enough, though. It's not bad by any means.

    Some of that sluggishness has to do with tab switching. On the Series 5 550, the Intel procesor and 4GB of memory deliver enough. Even with 20 tabs open, operations are smooth. On the first-generation ARM model, like I observed on the second-gen x86, Chrome OS recovers RAM (rather than maintaining large swap file) by prioritizing tabs. So even with a half-dozen open, I see this behavior, such that when going to an idled tab, Chrome OS refreshes the page. For some services, like WordPress, content returns. For others, such as Google+, the typed content flushes away. The process also disengages the group chat service BetaNews uses.

    Hulu, Netflix and YouTube. Who doesn't watch video on the web these days? If ARM Chromebook is "for everyone", then it must do video well. Hulu experience is quite good and a little better than YouTube. Full-screen 720p video is smooth but not silky. There are no apparent dropped frames, but they're there. Playback doesn't so much stutter but stagger.

    Amazon Instant Video is a real shocker, and the service appears to misidentify connection speed. When logged in or using Guest mode, Amazon delivers low-quality video streaming, asserting connection is only 384Kbps. That makes the video service all but useless.

    Netflix is a total non-starter. It's not available. Period. On Google+. Magnus Danielsson rightly explains why: "The Netflix App uses Native Client, which is tied to x86. This won't work until they finish the LLVM based Portable Native Client". So if the new Chromebook really is "for everyone" then Netflix should be available. If you want the video streaming service, the computer isn't for you.

    Flash. There are reasons why Adobe has largely given up Flash on ARM. On the $249 Chromebook performance is wonky, depending on what Flash, where. Video works, and apps do much better. Since many Chrome apps are Flash based, the whole cloud OS paradigm would fail without it. Flash apps are no real problem. I often use iPiccy Photo Editor to process images, for example. The Flash-based service runs just fine. Startup is a tad slower than the 550 Chromebook but still faster than launching most software apps on a PC.

    Flash ads are another matter, and they are deadly. If I open more than a few blogs that run Flash ads, trouble starts. These sites load painfully slow -- and disappointingly BetaNews is among them. I saw this same problem on the first-generation Samsung Chromebook -- the one with only 2GB of memory. Its ARM successor should have 4GB, like the Series 5 550 -- Flash would be better. So Adobe's tech is mixed benefit/trouble. With the exception of games, don't sweat Flash apps. You want them, you got them. But beware Flash ads, if not already using some kind of blocking extension.

    For Whom?

    Google's marketing tagline for the new Chromebook is "for everyone". That raises the question: "Is it?" Absolutely not. Until testing the $249er, I used the 550 as my only computer for five months. I'm a fan and would love to recommend the new portable "for everyone", but can't, which is too bad. Chrome OS delivers a surprisingly good computing experience, and Google primped this model for the masses. There is much to like about the $249 Chromebook, and at least for this week I will use it as my only computer, While I can't say $249 Chromebook is "for everyone", it is right for most anyone, and that could be you. Perhaps me, too.

    So, then, who is this computer for?

    • Anyone living the Google lifestyle. The new Chromebook will sync with all the stuff they've got, while freeing them up from using Macs or Windows PCs.
    • Home users looking for an affordable new computer. Like MacBook Air, this is a couch or carry-anywhere laptop. Actually, the new Chromebook is remarkably comfortable in the lap. I wrote some of this review from the love seat, while music videos played on the TV (Hey, it is Sunday).
    • Anyone wanting a poor man's MacBook Air. The Chromebook sells for $750 less than the Apple laptop but is physically about the same svelte size, also packs 11.6-inch display and delivers a terrific keyboard. For the price of one MBA, you can buy four new Chromebooks. Think about it.
    • Writers. The keyboard is nothing short of fantastic. I can't exactly describe how much better is my typing speed on the $249 Chromebook, compared to most every other laptop to feel my fingertips.
    • Students, or perhaps parents buying for them. The new Chromebook is easily carried and cheaply replaced if lost or stolen, and recovering data is as easy as logging into a Google account.
    • Educators. The $249 Chromebook offers the price advantage of tablets or netbooks with better performance, less maintenance hassle (and presumably lower ongoing management cost) and a great keyboard. Students can log into any Chromebook as guest or using Google ID. Their settings go with them, so they are not bound to a single portable.
    • Small businesses. The advantages are similar to education: Buying price, management, productivity apps (used in the browser), total cost of ownership. Imagine outfitting an entire office of 10 for $2,490, including most of the needed apps.

    I can't yet say that the 11.6-inch Chromebook is good enough for me. But I want it to be. I'm demanding; if good enough for me, it's probably good enough for you.

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/19/Will_you_buy__249_Google_Chromebook_'

    Will you buy $249 Google Chromebook?

    Publié: octobre 19, 2012, 9:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday, Google suddenly unveiled, in cooperation with Samsung, the first ARM-powered Chromebook and for remarkably affordable price -- $249. There also is a $329.99 model, that includes 3G. Both are available for pre-order now from major retailers, and Google Play will join stores selling the WiFi-only model next week.

    The question: Will you buy? It's the right time to ask, because the price is so appealing. From my initial testing, about 24 hours now, it's hard not to recommend this new Chromebook, if for no other reason than price. But as I'll further explain in my forthcoming first-impressions review, there are plenty of trade-offs for the price -- and benefits, too.

    For Whom?

    At this early stage of testing, I see two major buying categories for the new Chromebook: Someone who considered an older model (but was put off by the price), or even purchased one, and buyers looking for something else that doesn't require purchasing a new PC. The latter group could include everyone owning one or more aging PCs to those new to computing and put off by it. Easy is the best way to describe any Chromebook, from setup to ongoing management to daily use. If you can navigate a browser, you can use Chrome OS.

    Google and Samsung unveiled the second-generation Chromebook, the Series 5 550, in May for $449. A 3G model sells for $549. I wouldn't recommend either 3G Chromebook. The cellular radio simply is not good enough, when Verizon, which provides the service, is largely standardized on much faster 4G LTE.

    How do the WiFi models compare?

    $249 Chromebook: 1.7GHz Samsung Exynos 5250 dual-core processor (ARM); 11.6-inch matte display, 1366 x 768 resolution, 200-nit brightness; 2GB RAM; 16GB SSD; SD-card slot; Webcam; USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports (one each); WiFi A/N; Bluetooth 3.0 compatible (dongle required); HDMI port; Chrome OS 23. Weighs 2.5 pounds (1.1 kg) and is 0.8 inches thick.

    $449 Chromebook: 1.3GHz Intel Celeron 867 dual-core processor (x86); 12.1-inch matte display, 1280 x 800 resolution, 300-nit brightness; 4GB SDRAM; 16GB SSD; Intel HD graphics; webcam; two USB ports; Bluetooth 3.0 compatible (dongle required); DisplayPort; WiFi A/N; Gigabit Ethernet; 4-in-1 media card slot; and Chrome OS 21.

    Yesterday, BetaNews reader Bobby Frank asked: "Should I swap out the two Samsung 550's i just bought last week for my teenagers for this new model and save myself a total of $500? Will this new model perform as well? Btw, is an ARM processor better than the one x86 in my kids' current Samsung 550?"

    I answered:

    Performance is absolutely slower on the $249 Chromebook. The Q is what's good enough for the money. I really like the keyboard and overall ergonomics better of the cheaper model. At the request of someone on Google+, I did quick Peacekeeper benchmarks yesterday from my live account (extensions loaded) rather than guest account: 971 for $249 Chromebook, 1848 for the 550. The newer one has Chrome OS 23, but the older is (supposedly) up to date at Chrome 21.

    Bottom line: I find video to disappoint on the cheaper model compared to the older one. If the teens do Netflix and YouTube, this might not be best choice. Otherwise, the higher screen resolution, better keyboard and coolness (no fan needed with ARM) make up for what performance what your teens will loose from the 550.

    I will rerun the same benchmarks from guest mode for my first-impressions review. Meanwhile there is another value proposition regarding both Chromebooks. The cheaper one comes with 100GB Google Drive storage -- two years, for free.


    Will you buy $249 Google Chromebook?

    Ten Things to Think About

    Yesterday, I posted some, quick initial reaction that might help you deciding whether or not to buy. I add to them here.

    1. The screen is 200-nits, which is a little too dim for my tastes.

    2. Display temperature is different from the Series 5 550 Chromebook. Blues are bluer. I like it overall.

    3. Colors really pop. This is one of the best matte screens I've seen, surprising in the price class.

    4. In brief YouTube tests, full-screen 720p video is smooth but not silky. There are no apparent dropped frames, but they're there. Playback doesn't so much stutter but stagger. This is a step back to Samsung's original Chromebook, which I found to be disappointing.

    5. Performance definitely lags compared to the 550. It's not as snappy -- web pages take a little longer to load. Most people might be satisfied enough. It's not bad by any means, just not as good.

    6. Google specs say Bluetooth 3.0 compatible, which is true of the 550 -- if you add a dongle.

    7. Volume and overall audio fidelity is superior streaming Google Music than the 550. But that could be different Chrome OS version (23 vs 21). The 550 audio has improved over several OS releases.

    8. Like MacBook Air, this is a couch or carry-anywhere laptop. Actually, the new Chromebook is remarkably comfortable in the lap, and the keyboard just totally rocks.

    9. I'm going to be really disappointed if the performance misses, because I like the form factor, screen resolution, keyboard and Chrome OS version better than the 550.

    10. There's much to like for the price. I think $249 is more than reasonable for what you get.

    Something Else

    Everyone considering the $249 Chromebook should ask what value matters for the performnance? The portable isn't meant to be the computer that does everything, just can-do what lots of people need most.

    BetaNews reader danman1111 gets it: "$249 is the right price! I recently commented that a $500 Chromebook couldn't compete with a $500 tablet. But a $250 Chromebook, perfect. This will really be a challenge to MS, since a Chromebook will do most of what a PC will do for half the price. Imagine buying a Chromebook for the price of a windows license. Sure it will take from OSX too, but I imagine that MS will be hurt much more and MS won't have an answer for this".

    Well, lots of people -- including trade analysts making big predictions, spoke similarly about netbooks. Where are they today? Looks like they're Chromebooks.

    Yesterday on Google+, Shankar Uprety asked: "Just curious how well flash works with this new ARM processor?"

    I responded: "That's easy enough answer. Many Chrome apps are Flash based. So the whole paradigm would fail without it. I often use iPiccy Photo Editor to process images. The Flash-based service runs just fine. Startup is a tad slower than the 550 Chromebook but still faster than launching most software apps on a PC".

    Flash is good enough, even for modest gaming. But $249 Chromebook is no scream machine (well unless you buy it expecting that and scream in frustration). There is lots of value somewhere, which I'll go through in my first-impressions review.

    So there remains the question. Will you buy $249 Chromebook? Please take the poll above and explain why or why not in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/19/Who_will_buy_Microsoft_Surface_RT__Could_be_you'

    Who will buy Microsoft Surface RT? Could be you

    Publié: octobre 19, 2012, 6:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Poll results to question "Will you buy Surface RT?" are in, and the numbers are surprising. Among the 1,530 respondents so far, 43.46 percent won't buy the tablet. That's actually a considerably lower number than I expected for a new device running a new operating system from an old technology company. Just shy of 24 percent of you already pre-ordered -- and good thing. Microsoft apparently already sold out the entry-level, $499 model, which delivery date is now "within 3 weeks". The other two tablets still deliver by October 26, launch day.

    Another 18.1 percent of respondents plan to buy within three months, which works out to 41.84 percent between now and the end of January. If Surface really does that well, Microsoft will have helluva hit. If. What people say they will do isn't often what they do. Buying polls reflect intentions, which can change for all kinds of reasons. Little things, like early reviews, social media buzz or cash to spend.

    Something else: Comments don't exactly sync with poll results. Many more of you commenting expressed reservations, at the least.

    BetaNews reader deadbirdgolf "bought 2 two" -- both 64GB models, which come with keyboard cover. That's a $1,398 commitment before tax.

    Bob Grant would "rather get one of the newer Android tablets for less, and do almost everything the RT does. (including having a dedicated external keyboard/mouse)". Meanwhile, nvic "Won't buy because of the ARM architecture. Might consider a Pro model though whenever it comes out, since I do need something beyond a desktop that runs my normal software".

    I had wondered how many people would answer this way: "No thanks, I am waiting for iPad Mini", Ashma Randi Sharma comments.

    Lonewolfe:

    Pretty sure I am going to get myself a RT and Pro. Content consumption (music, Internet, etc) and note taking on the longer battery life RT and content creation and media (3D Design, audio editing) on the Pro. It'll still come into a smaller form factor than the super-laptop I am using now (and probably about the same price, $1,700 laptop with $1,200 out of pocket). My Zune will not be retired. My WP8 will tie in nicely and my overall lifestyle fits perfectly with the Surface tablet.

    JohnnyCanuck asks: "1366 x 768 resolution and no GPS? You've got to be kidding me. Will stick with my ASUS TF700T, thanks".

    Commenter soggybiscuit expresses a common sentiment: "Windows RT will fail, get windows 8 full version, regular windows is guaranteed to be around for another 10 years".


    Microsoft's 10.6-inch tablet launches Oct. 26, 2012 for $499 starting price (32GB). Will you buy Surface RT?

    IT advisor agrees:

    One-hundred percent chance WinRT will flop. Full Windows will live on, but the mini Windows RT on the ARM processor will die a quick death.

    There are already two powerful incumbents in the market, iPad and Android. To dislodge an incumbent, you have to have a product that's either more open or a product that's absolutely revolutionary. Windows RT is neither. To make a no-hope situation even worse, WinRT is going to market with too few apps, at too high a price. Android is the real competitor, and Android will ultimately overtake Apple and win the tablet market.

    As I said, full Windows will live on for years ahead, but people who buy these Windows RT tablets are going to be left with pieces of junk in a few months when the RT platform collapses and disappears.

    If you bought Surface and would like to review it, please email me, joe at betanews dot com. We love reader reviews, and this is an important product for Microsoft. You can help others considering buying the tablet.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/18/Microsoft_Q1_2013_by_the_numbers___16.1B_revenue__53_cents_EPS'

    Microsoft Q1 2013 by the numbers: $16.1B revenue, 53 cents EPS

    Publié: octobre 18, 2012, 10:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Eight days before Windows 8's big launch, Microsoft served up expected, dismal news about its successor, in the wake of disastrous third-quarter PC shipments. They sapped Windows division revenue and profit, keeping to a recent trend. There was never a question of negative impact, merely how bad -- as Wall Street analysts expected overall company revenues to decline. The question everyone should ask: Can Q4 be any better than this?

    For fiscal first quarter 2013, ended September 30, Microsoft revenue fell 8 percent to $16.1 billion, year over year. Operating income: $5.31 billion, down 26 percent. Net income: $4.47 billion. Earning per share fell 22 percent to 53 cents. The results are impacted by a $1.36 billion, or 13 cents-a-share, deferral related to Windows 8 and Office 2013 launches.

    Without the deferral, Microsoft would have reported $17.4 billion revenue (flat year over year); $6.7 billion operating income (down 7 percent); and 65 cents earnings per share (down 4 percent).

    Average analyst consensus was $16.42 billion revenue and 56 cents earnings per share, for the quarter. Revenue estimates ranged from $16 billion to $16.87 billion, with estimated year-over-year decline of 5.5 percent. Microsoft announced results after the bell.

    "While enterprise revenue continued to grow and we managed our expenses, the slowdown in PC demand ahead of the Windows 8 launch resulted in a decline in operating income", Peter Klein, Microsoft chief financial officer, says. "Multi-year licensing revenue grew double-digits across Windows, Server & Tools, and Microsoft Business Division products as businesses commit to our technology roadmap".

    In a stunning turnabout and indication just how weak is the PC market, Microsoft's Server & Tools division generated more revenue and income -- a first -- than Windows & Windows Live. When including the deferral, Windows division revenue fell by 33 percent, income by 50 percent.

    PC Crisis

    For more than a year, the PC market demonstrated consistent resistance to growth. But third quarter, which usually gets back-to-school buying lift, delivered steep declines. Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent year over year, according to IDC, shockingly surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner puts the decline at 8.3 percent. The United State is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. For the better part of a year, analysts excused declining PC shipments as market anticipation for Windows 8. But the slowdown during back-to-school buying season foreshadows weakness ahead.

    "The third quarter has historically been driven by back-to-school sales, but US PC shipments did not increase, not even sequentially, from the second quarter of 2012", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. "There was great hope through the first half that 2012 would prove to be a rebound year for the PC market", Craig Stice, IHS senior principal analyst, says. "Now three quarters through the year, the usual boost from the back-to-school season appears to be a bust".

    He adds: "Optimism has vanished and turned to doubt, and the industry is now training its sights on 2013 to deliver the hoped-for rebound. All this is setting the PC market up for its first annual decline since the dot-com bust year of 2001".

    The PC market slowdown hit Windows harder but still sapped Office.

    Q1 2013 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $3.24 billion, down 33 percent from $4.87 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $4.55 billion, up 8 percent from $4.22 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $5.5 billion, down 2 percent from $5.64 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $697 million, up 9 percent from $641 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.95 billion, down 1 percent from $1.97 billion a year earlier.

    Q1 2013 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $1.65 billion, down 50 percent from $3.27 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.75 billion, up 12 percent from $1.57 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.65 billion, down 2 percent from $3.7 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $364 million, up 29 percent from $514 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $19 million, down 94 percent from $340 million a year earlier.

    Division Highlights

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices. Results presented here include the deferral.

    Windows & Windows Live. Weaker than-expected PC demand hurt the division during fiscal first quarter. Revenue fell by 33 percent and income by a stunning 50 percent. Still, volume-license sales, which represent about 25 percent of the total, rose by double-digits, helping to insulate against PC market malaise.

    According to Microsoft's 10-Q filing: "Windows Division revenue decreased from the prior year, due mainly to the deferral of $783 million of revenue related to Windows 8 Pre-Sales and $384 million of revenue related to the Windows Upgrade Offer. Windows Division revenue was also negatively impacted by a decline in the PC market, decreased inventory levels within distribution channels as OEMs and retailers began to prepare for the Windows 8 launch, and continued higher relative growth in emerging markets, where average selling prices are lower than developed markets".

    Even when removing the deferral and presales, division revenue fell by 9 percent year over year.

    Typically Microsoft sees some falloff in Windows license sales ahead of a new version launch, but third quarter was unusually severe. "Retailers were conservative in placing orders as they responded to weak back-to-school sales", Kitagawa observes. "By the end of September, retailers were focused on clearing out inventory in advance of the Windows 8 launch later this month".

    One reason; Manufacturers will roll out new design concepts, including convertibles and slates, supporting Windows 8, giving all parties even more reason to make store shelves as bare as possible ahead of October 26.

    Looking ahead, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is optimistic: "The launch of Windows 8 is the beginning of a new era at Microsoft". To that end, Windows 8 presales are up 40 percent compared to its predecessor.

    Server & Tools. The division was Microsoft's star performer and foreshadows much positive about the overall server software strategy. The division is insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements, which sales increased by 19 percent.

    Revenue rose about 8 percent year over year and operating income by 12 percent. The division's rise above Windows & Windows Live is a dramatic turnabout. Even when removing the deferral and Windows 8 presales, revenue was still $141 million more.

    According to the 10-Q: "Product revenue increased $215 million or 6 percent, driven primarily by growth in SQL Server, System Center, and Developer Tools, reflecting continued adoption of the Windows platform. Enterprise Services revenue grew $121 million or 13 percent, due to growth in both Premier product support and consulting services".

    Business. Revenue and income both fell 2 percent year over year. Like Server & Tools, Business division is largely insulated against sluggish PC sales. Sixty percent of revenue comes from annuity licensing to businesses. Multi-year licensing revenues rose by 8 percent.

    According to the 10-Q: "MBD revenue decreased, mainly reflecting $189 million of revenue deferred primarily related to the Office Deferral, offset in part by overall increased sales of the 2010 Microsoft Office system. Business revenue increased $142 million or 3 percent, primarily reflecting growth in multi-year volume licensing revenue and a 6% increase in Microsoft Dynamics revenue. Consumer revenue decreased $275 million or 25% driven by the Office Deferral and a decline in the PC market".

    Online Services Business. Revenue rose by 9 percent and the operating loss decreased by 26 percent. Online advertising revenue grew by 15 percent, or $83 million, to $655 million -- growing largely from search.

    Entertainment & Devices.  Revenue fell by 1 percent, but operating income decreased by 94 percent year over year. Microsoft shipped 1.7 million Xboxes during the quarter, down from 2.3 million a year earlier. According to the 10-Q: "EDD revenue decreased slightly, mostly due to lower Xbox 360 platform revenue, offset in part by Skype and Windows Phone revenue. Xbox 360 platform revenue decreased $418 million or 24 percent, due mainly to lower volumes of consoles sold and lower video game revenue, offset in part by higher Xbox LIVE revenue".

    Xbox Live memberships rose by 15 percent. Skype users made 120 billion minutes of calls, up 58 percent.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/18/New_Google_Chromebook_is__249__swaps_x86_for_ARM'

    New Google Chromebook is $249, swaps x86 for ARM

    Publié: octobre 18, 2012, 7:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google and Samsung are giving Chromeboook a mighty big makeover -- smaller screen, lower price and something unexpected: ARM processor. Say goodbye to x86, baby, and hello to $249 selling price, which is $200 less than Samsung's Series 5 550 model. The architectural change comes as Microsoft and its OEM partners prep ARM-based Windows RT computers for release in just eight days. Like Windows 8 systems, future Chromebooks will have either ARM or x86 processors.

    ARM means there's more Samsung in the new model than ever before, which includes the microprocessor. That makes the new Chromebook a lot closer to an end-to-end product that Apple might make. Judging from Google-Samsung success with Galaxy Nexus, which feels integrated all the way -- hardware, services and software -- the new Chrome OS device promises much. Kilogram for kilogram, the device is ready to stand against MacBook Air, which offers same screen size and similar dimensions but starting price is $750 more. Then there are ultrabooks, some of which sell for even more than Apple's laptop.

    Remember, I switched from the high-end MacBook Air to Series 5 550 Chromebook about five months ago. Performance is similar all the way, and in many respects better. So it's not unreasonable to place some lofty expectations on the ARM-based model. That said, only testing will tell, and I'll offer a full first impressions report within a couple of days (If not for Google and Microsoft earnings coming later this afternoon, sooner). Architectural change will be the truest test of Google's cloud promise to date. Will web apps run as well, or at all? I'll let you know.

    But I'll say this. There's no mistaking the design similarities to MacBook Air, which can't be accidental. Will performance be good enough, by comparison? Testing will tell.

    Quick specs: Samsung Exynos 5 dual-core processor; 11.6-inch display, 1366x768 resolution, 200-nit brightness; 2GB RAM; 16GB SSD; SD-card slot; VGA camera; USB 2.0 and 3.0 ports (one each); Bluetooth 3.0 compatible; HDMI port; Chrome OS. Weighs 2.5 pounds (1.1 kg) and is 0.8 inches thick. The new design moves the ports to the back from the side.

    I have some reservations about the processor's real power and memory easily could be inadequate. Samsung's newer x86 Chromebook is fast compared to the original's sluggishness, and RAM is a major reason; 2GB in the old, 4GB in the new. So my trepidation runs high, regarding memory. I'm not loving the idea of 200-nit brightness, but, again, only testing will tell. Google states 6.5 hours battery life, which is good but I would expect more from an ARM processor.

    Google's tagline for the new Chromebook is "for everyone", which reveals all you need to know about the target market. That starts with the $249 price, which is tough to beat. Plenty of people griped about the current Samsung x86 model costing too much for what they get -- $449 for WiFi-only, $549 with Verizon 3G wireless added. I see $249 as a pretty irresistible price, assuming performance is there. That's for WiFi-only; there is no 3G model at this time. Yesterday, Derrick Wlodarz offered refreshing perspective about Surface and Chromebook prospects in k-12 education, in part because of their easier manageability to say iPad. The new Chrome OS-based mobile cranks up the pricing appeal.

    That goes for anyone who embraces the cloud and/or the Google lifestyle. I could outfit my home office with the new Chromebook ($249), Galaxy Nexus smartphone ($349) and Nexus 7 tablet ($199) for $797 -- less than just MacBook Air or most ultrabooks. Sure, there's no Core i processor. But do you need it? Particularly for cash-strapped students, sole-proprietors and small business owners the answer will be no. Then there are home users looking for a new PC but not wanting to spend big bucks.

    "Many people use the Chromebook today as the perfect additional computer for their home", Sundar Pichai, Google senior veep, claims. "For families, it’s easy to use and share: for kids doing homework on the couch, parents catching up on emails at the kitchen counter and grandparents staying connected on video chat". That's our household experience.

    Google, and also Samsung, make a big value play here -- leveraging the cloud. To facilitate that, the new Chromebook comes with 100GB free Google Drive storage for 2 years.

    "Starting today, the new Samsung Chromebook is available for pre-order online from Amazon, Best Buy, PC World and other retailers", Pichai says. "Next week it will be available for sale from these same online retailers as well as the Google Play store. You can also buy them at over 500 Best Buy stores across the U.S and over 30 PC World and Currys stores in the UK".

    Pre-orders start at 3 pm EDT. Note that Google will sell direct starting next week.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/18/Google_looks_to_steal_Windows_Phone_8_thunder_with_competing_Android_launch'

    Google looks to steal Windows Phone 8 thunder with competing Android launch

    Publié: octobre 18, 2012, 6:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Could the end of October be any more jam-packed? October 29, same day Microsoft launches Windows Phone 8 in San Francisco, Google will hold an event in New York for Android -- presumably for the next Nexus device(s), just about the worst kept tech secret(s) of the month. Microsoft just can't catch a break. This week, Apple sent out media invites for an October 23 shindig, possibly for iPad mini, coming three days before Microsoft launches Windows 8 and Surface tablets.

    Yeah, it's a tough month to be Microsoft -- what, with the company's future hanging on the three products and post-PC, connected-device era stumpers Apple and Google looking to dampen Windows' big days. But what a month for gadget geeks -- and the October 26 and 29 events coming on my three sisters' birthdays (twins, in case three on two days puzzles you): Android devices, iPad mini, Surface, Windows 8, RT and Phone. And, hey, what about some of those new smartphones, like LG Optimus G?

    Simply Meanness

    Google sent out invites to "The playground is already open...Android event" late evening yesterday. I didn't receive one, and must thank Boy Genius Report from which I, ah, borrowed the above graphic. There's meanness behind the timing, with Google, like Apple, stomping on Microsoft's grave long before Windows is dead and buried. There's plenty of breath in the lungs, but you may hear otherwise with bloggers and reporters distracted by post-PC darlings Apple and Google. Need I chronicle exactly how many rumor stories posted this month about iPad mini or new Nexus devices? Make them stop. Please!

    I actually feel sorry for Microsoft. The company already has started the ad blitz for Windows 8 and Surface and surely will spend hundreds of millions (billions if you believe the rumors) to promote the new stuff. But bloggers, reporters and other writers are part of that marketing effort, and they will be distracted. Sharks smell blood in the water.

    Microsoft needs the launches to be big. PC shipments collapsed during third quarter, in part as smartphones and tablets sap sales. Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent year over year, according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner's estimate is a more generous 8.3 percent decline. The United States, a region recently in love with tablets, is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. For the better part of a year, analysts excused declining PC shipments as market anticipation for Windows 8. But the slowdown during back-to-school buying season foreshadows weakness ahead. iPad mini stands to undermine Windows PCs' fourth-quarter recovery.

    Windows Phone's situation is dire, to say the least. Combined Windows Mobile and Phone OS share in the strongest cellular mobile market, the United States, is just 3.6 percent on smartphones, according to comScore. That compares to 52.6 percent for Android and 34.3 percent for iOS. Still, there's a glimmer of hope. During second quarter, based on global handset sales, Microsoft mobile OS share rose to 2.7 percent from 1.6 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner. Third-quarter data isn't yet available.

    Elephant in the Room

    By comparison, Android smokes all other platforms combined. Global market share reached 64.1 percent in Q2, up from 43.4 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner. This summer, cumulative Android device shipments (mostly phones) reached 500 million, surpassing iOS for the first time (400 million). IHS iSuppli predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year -- 2015 for iOS to reach the same number. Currently Android activations now total 1.3 million, up from 900,000 in June, according to Google.

    The point: Android is a really big elephant in the room, and Google capitalizes on geography. Those journalists flying into New York for the Windows 8 launch could spend a couple extra days there and attend Google's shingdig (I would if going).

    As for what to expect from Google, the prevalent rumor is multiple Nexus devices from different manufacturers, which would be smart. Under the scheme, as rumored, manufacturers would adhere to specific guidelines that, if nothing else, ensure immediate updates to the newest Android versions. Key benefits:

    • Diminish Android fragmentation
    • Open up market for "pure Google" devices
    • Increase access to Google lifesytle services
    • Combat OS fracturing from tailored Androids like Amazon's
    • Separately, let OEMs continue offering customized skins, such as TouchWiz
    • Meet customer demand for unlocked devices that can receive custom bootloaders

    In business, there's no such thing as fair play, and Microsoft won't get any this month from Apple or Google. Say, Steve Ballmer, will you return the favor, or what?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/18/Developers_give_Internet_Explorer_10_for_Windows_7_Preview_cold_reception'

    Developers give Internet Explorer 10 for Windows 7 Preview cold reception

    Publié: octobre 18, 2012, 2:29am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Whoa, and I thought BetaNews commenters were a rowdy lot. Today, Microsoft announced that Internet Explorer 10 would come to Windows 7 next month as a "preview". I would think that would be welcome news, but not to cranky complainers at Microsoft's IE blog.

    "We will release a preview of IE10 on Windows 7 in mid-November, with final availability to follow as we collect developer and customer feedback", Rob Mauceri, IE group program manager, posts. "We look forward to getting your feedback on IE10 on Windows 7, and will provide another update when the preview is available".

    Among the first comments:

    • "Why preview? We want to develop optimized sites now! WTF".
    • "Too Little to late, you really drop the ball on the this MS".
    • "A preview, really? 100k people and you can't develop anything in time".
    • WHAT! i thought IE10 RTM would be out on 26th Oct along with windows 8. Not happy, Microsoft!"
    • Wow, just wow! Total Epic Fail! You promised developers a version of IE10 BEFORE Windows 8 went to RTM so that we could provide some feedback to help fix the bugs before you committed to a release!"

    By the way, it's unclear from Microsoft's commenting system how many different people these five really represent.

    With new Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox versions coming out about every six weeks, Internet Explorer development does lag, by comparison. What? Hasn't it been three years since Microsoft released IE9? Perhaps if rivals didn't rev so fast, Microsoft wouldn't appear to be so slow.

    One commenter pleads with Microsoft to do better:

    If you could provide more frequent updates on current work being done on IE, and make this blog less of a futile confrontation between Microsoft marketing and angry commenters, and more of a useful, informative and relaxed place, it would be a welcome move. You could start by answering (reasonably civil) comments more often and pressing your management to drop this excessive silence on anything that could cast you in a bad light (slipping schedules, controversial decisions, rival browsers performing better...). Shutting down honest communication in favor of marketing is doing you much more harm than good.

    "It's been over a year since the last Preview for Windows 7", writes another commenter. "It's unfathomable that it's taken so long. It's unfortunate there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of feedback (including legitimate issues) on Connect that haven't even been addressed. It really goes to show how mixed up the IE development team's priorities are if IE10 RTM's GA won't be next week.. or even next month".

    Are these people being fair to Microsoft? Being the brunt of negative comments myself, Microsoft gets my sympathy.

    Photo Credit:  Dudarev Mikhail/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/17/Tough_luck__iPad__Android_owners_read_tablet_publications_more_often'

    Tough luck, iPad, Android owners read tablet publications more often

    Publié: octobre 17, 2012, 8:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    More Americans are discovering what I did, after buying the original iPad more than two years ago: Reading ebooks, magazines and newspapers on a tablet is an immersive experience and often much more satisfying than print. Today, comScore says that in August, two out of every five US tablet owners read a newspaper or magazine and one in 10 did so almost every day.

    The numbers' meaning is greater when taken in context of another. Pew says that during the same month, one in four Americans used a tablet (22 percent as owners, 3 percent borrowing one belonging to another household member). Make no mistake, magazines and newspapers are going digital in ways like nothing seen on the Internet, because of publishers' ability to deliver richer content -- at that, more frequently -- and actually make money doing so.

    "Tablets are fundamentally redefining how people consume news and information, with the format more conducive to reading longer form content than PCs or smartphones", Mark Donovan, comScore senior veep, says.

    I totally understand. In January 2010, days before iPad's unveiling, I wrote: "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other". Then unexpectedly, in June 2010: "I was wrong about Apple iPad". What I couldn't understand without using the tablet: How intimate size, shape and touch made content or the immersive experience reading it. Hence, my retraction of the earlier assertion:

    I find there are fewer reading distractions, and content is better presented than on a laptop and browser. I'm more focused and retain more of what I read. For reasons not easily explained, I find myself more thoroughly reading iBooks than defaulting to the skimming I sometimes do with physical books. Part of this immersive experience is the technology, but also how iPad is used. Apple's tablet is a sit down and focus device, as much because of size and shape as screen and user interface. The totality -- physical design and software benefits -- is immersion.

    The experience isn't exclusive to iPad. I do most of my reading -- that includes Google+ and Feedly (for RSS) -- on Nexus 7. My plan is to let all my print subscriptions (even "Entertainment Weekly", which costs me just $10 a year in print).

    Android nudges Ahead

    I'm not alone on Android. In comScore's survey 6,000 tablet owners, Android nudged ahead of iPad by nearly every frequency category -- that despite popular convention Apple's platform has better periodical selection. Overall, 12.1 percent of Android tablet owners read newspapers almost every day compared to 12 percent for iPad. But the number is 12.8 percent for Amazon Kindle Fire and 13.4 percent for Barnes & Noble Nook. Similarly, 9.4 percent of iPad owners read a magazine or other periodical almost every day compared to 10.4 percent for all Android tablets and 11.3 percent for Kindle Fire. By the way, the Amazon and B&N tablets both use Android.

    iPad only pulls ahead of Android tablets in one frequency category: magazines and other categories read "once to three times throughout the month". Amazon and Barnes & Noble are driving forces behind this trend, as both offer some amazing deals and selection on newspapers and other periodicals. Google Play now also offers wide selection; just yesterday, in a surprising move, the search giant released a magazine web reader for Chrome.

    Meanwhile a larger trend looms. In August 2011, Apple had overwhelming US tablet share -- 81 percent, according to Pew. But by August, iPad had dropped to 52 percent share, with Android tablets rising to 48 percent from 15 percent. Thirty-two percent of tablet owners purchased in 2012.

    Perhaps neither trend is lost on Apple, which will hold a special media event on October 23, presumably to launch iPad mini. Kindle Fire and Nook are 7-inch tablets on which reading frequency typically exceeds larger iPad and which sales helped dramatically push up Android share among Americans.

    Regardless of platform, more tablets, and increase newspaper and other periodical reading on them, is a potential boon to publishers looking to charge for content (via subscriptions rather than free on the web) and to offer more to advertisers (captive audience, better metrics about readers and more interesting -- even interactive -- marketing opportunities).

    "In the case of online newspapers, tablets are now driving 7 percent of total pageviews, an impressive figure considering the relative infancy of the tablet space", Donovan says. "Publishers that understand how these devices are shifting consumption dynamics will be best positioned to leverage this platform to not only drive incremental engagement among current subscribers but also attract new readers".

    Something else: Readership is highest among a desirable demographic: 25-to-44 year olds: 47.5 percent for newspapers and 49.3 percent for magazines and other periodicals. But younger readers -- 13 to 34 -- is close: 41.5 percent and 48.8, respectively, for the same categories.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/17/Business_spends_b_b_b_big_on_Big_Data'

    Business spends b-b-b-big on Big Data

    Publié: octobre 17, 2012, 7:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    IT organizations will spend 28 billion bucks on Big Data this year, Gartner says today. Expect $34 billion next year, if the forecast holds true. But big spending surprisingly doesn't much benefit enterprise software vendors. Most of the money goes into adapting what businesses already have, with the trend generating just $4.3 billion in software sales this year.

    "Despite the hype, big data is not a distinct, stand-alone market", Mark Beyer, Gartner research vice president, says, "but represents an industrywide market force which must be addressed in products, practices and solution delivery". Biggest spending, some 45 percent a year, goes into content analytics and social network analysis -- that sounds like "data mining" to me. But, hey, analysts make money coining terms and offering consulting services around them.

    "In 2011, Big Data formed a new driver in almost every category of IT spending", Beyer claims. "However, through 2018, Big Data requirements will gradually evolve from differentiation to 'table stakes' in information management practices and technology. By 2020, Big Data features and functionality will be non-differentiating and routinely expected from traditional enterprise vendors and part of their product offerings".

    Another change is more immediate, with Gartner predicting that leading-edge IT organizations will incorporate Big Data into their business practices and systems architectures by 2015.

    "Big Data will evolve to become a standardized requirement in leading information architectural practices, forcing older practices and technology into early obsolescence", Beyer predicts. "As a result, Big Data will once again become 'just data' by 2020 and architectural approaches, infrastructure and hardware/software that does not adapt to this 'new normal' will be retired. Organizations resisting this change will suffer severe economic impacts".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/16/AT_T_starts_LG_Optimus_G_preorders_Oct._16__sales_Nov._2'

    AT&T starts LG Optimus G preorders Oct. 16, sales Nov. 2

    Publié: octobre 16, 2012, 12:17am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    AT&T's hottest smartphone of the season (well, so far) arrives in 18 days, and it's not iPhone 5. America's second-largest carrier has queued up the LG Optimus G, which will be available for $199.99 on contract -- that means two-year commitment. Optimus G specs impress, particularly that quad-core Snapdragon S4 processor, but the software somewhat disappoints. The device ships with Android 4.0.7, not successor Jelly Bean unveiled in June. Upgrade may be months away.

    Older software mars what otherwise is a beauty: 4.7-inch TrueHD IPS+ display, 1280 x 768 resolution, 15:9 aspect ratio; 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 Pro processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB storage (internal and card, expandable to 80GB); 13-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras, zero-lag shutter; 4G LTE; Wi-Fi; A-GPS; MHL; DLNA; near-field communication; Bluetooth 4.0; and 2,100 mAh battery. Measures 131.9mm x 68.9mm x 8.45mm and weighs 145 grams.

    Are you tempted by this beast? I might be if not for LG's skin and (cough, cough) Ice Cream Sandwich. Smartphones like this one perpetuate the Android fragmentation problem, and for what reason? Android 4.1 released to the public in mid-July, but Google announced it weeks earlier. What? Four months isn't enough time to test and deploy the newest version? I know the pesky Federal Communications Commission approval process slows up everything, but c`mon LG! You can do better than that.

    Perhaps you're not as fussy as me and are ready to plunk down two C-notes starting tomorrow. Share with the class in comments and why or why not there's an Optimus G in your future.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/15/What_Windows_8_Pro_means_to_you__and_Microsoft__too_'

    What Windows 8 Pro means to you (and Microsoft, too)

    Publié: octobre 15, 2012, 10:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft announces calendar third-quarter earnings in three days, and during the conference call, as usually is the case, some financial analyst almost surely will ask about the percentage of professional to consumer versions sold, since the former typically yields higher margins. But that question may soon be a thing of the past, as Microsoft seeks long-term gains from a little short-term pain. The Redmond, Wash.-based company is quietly, but quite deliberately, trying to put Windows consumer, once called Home, out to pasture (hopefully with a bullet in its bytes).

    The signs are everywhere. In April, Microsoft reduced the number of Windows editions to three -- 8, Pro and RT -- or four when looking at volume-licensing-only Enterprise. Most people can't buy Windows 8 Enterprise or RT (which is preloaded only). They also can't buy the consumer edition -- yet -- and Microsoft makes it awfully damn easy to get Pro. Existing users of most any version of Windows going back to XP can, until Jan. 31, 2013, upgrade to 8 Pro for $39.99. That's a helluva bargain, and the lowest launch promotional price for a professional Windows edition ever. Meanwhile, buyers of new Windows 7 PCs starting June 2 get a $14.99 free upgrade -- to Pro 8. Last week, Microsoft and retailers started taking boxed Windows 8 Pro upgrade preorders for $69.99. Windows 8 "consumer" upgrade isn't available. Is the pattern clear enough?

    The current Pro push departs from previous launch emphasis on Windows Home. For example, Microsoft offered limited-time promotional three-license Windows 7 Home Premium Family Pack at launch three years ago. Additionally, the promotional PC upgrade was for like edition, such as Vista Home Premium to similar Windows 7 product. More broadly, since Windows Vista, Home Premium has been the mass-market version pushed on new systems and at retail. Suddenly, for Windows 8's launch, Pro pushes ahead of consumer -- and that's a welcome development. Something else: Microsoft also removed "Home" from the product name, so the consumer edition is simply Windows 8.

    I don't suggest that during this release cycle Microsoft will completely do away with Windows consumer, which debuted with XP in October 2001. Before XP, Microsoft offered a NT-kernel-based OS for businesses and DOS/Windows for consumers -- well, clearly after Windows 95 shipped. Windows XP brought the NT-kernel to the mainstream. Vista added more editions -- and way too many of them. Windows isn't toothpaste, but it is, or was, a monopoly product. Microsoft created choice by arbitrarily pulling out features it chose to make multiple versions. But these editions ultimately didn't reflect the wants of the mass-market, which largely consolidated around Home for consumers and Professional or Enterprise for businesses.

    For far too long, Windows Home makes up too much of the install base. Windows 8 marks a feature-push forward. Home edition was never good enough, because it lacks security and networking features that most anyone would want -- not just businesses -- particularly as more people work from home at least some of the time. Encryption, group policies and domain join are among the critical features Pro users get and Home ones don't, and that's for Windows 7 and much as its successor. Apple OS X offers these capabilities out of the box, with one version for everyone. One should be Microsoft's goal, too.

    Financial analysts will wince, though. Compared to previous launches, Microsoft practically gives away Windows 8 Pro -- quite literally carving rather than slicing off margins. Windows 7 Professional upgrade, as does its successor, lists for $199.99. But during the launch promotion, upgraders save $130, which is a difference of 65 percent. So there's no confusion, the $39.99 and $69.99 promotional prices are both upgrades. The one is available digitally delivered starting October 26 and the other packaged software comes with DVD and can be preordered now. The $39.99 price is a difference of 80 percent from the packaged list price. Again, never has Microsoft offered Windows Pro for so little to so many during launch. The approach risks margins for market share gains from now until January 31. Surely that will concern anyone watching the company's bottom line.

    The OEM market also directionally changes. Last week, CEO Steve Ballmer affirmed Microsoft's transformation into a "devices and services company". As part of "Windows reimagined", the company emphasizes convertibles and tablets -- the latter category running Windows 8 Pro (on x86 processors) and Windows RT (on ARM chips), and neither is based on Home. Shop around today and you'll find the majority of new PCs come with Windows 7 Home Edition, not Professional. Microsoft also wants to lead the OEM market to Pro, too, for which presumably they pay higher licensing fees.

    Consumer version isn't going away -- heck, some retailers sell the Windows 8 OEM consumer upgrade for $99.99; preorder, of course. Windows 8 also remains as a lower-cost option for PC manufacturers offering less-costly systems. But broadly, Microsoft wants the mainstream Windows market to go Pro or RT, moving away from differentiation by arbitrary features to one around chip architecture (x86 or ARM).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/15/Windows_reimagined___Only_Want_You_'

    Windows reimagined: 'Only Want You'

    Publié: octobre 15, 2012, 5:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, hello, Windows 8 advertising. Microsoft smartly chose tonight's "The Walking Dead" season 3 premiere (and perhaps other programs I didn't watch) to kick off marketing for the new operating system. Considering post-PC advocates treat Windows as something like an undead creature, there's certain appropriateness to using the popular AMC series.

    I'm stoked about the first commercial, "Windows 8 is coming soon", which begins with blast-off countdown "10, nine, eight, eight, eight..." I love the exploding laptop, because everything is changed, baby. The spot moves fast, uses jump cuts to bounce around and tells you absolutely nothing specific about Windows 8 other than release date: "10-26-12".

    But Microsoft shows off the modern UI over and over and lots of young folks having fun. Eagles of Death Metal track "Only Want You" energizes the emotion and sense of something quite alive going to shake up your life. Bring it on, Microsoft.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/14/Saturday_Night_Live_iPhone_5_skit_pits_tech_bloggers_against_Chinese_peasant_laborers'

    Saturday Night Live iPhone 5 skit pits tech bloggers against Chinese peasant laborers

    Publié: octobre 14, 2012, 5:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Last week's Saturday Night Live Season opener, with Daniel Craig hosting, really disappointed. But last night's show returned to form, with host Christina Applegate. Among the highlights, and somewhat appropriate for a host with "Apple" in her name, is a skit about iPhone 5. SNL is often best when using humor to make social commentary and, whoa, does it in the new episode.

    I have embedded the official video from NBC but can't be sure it will be visible to international readers. If you can't view the SNL skit, try this user-posted YouTube video (and hope NBC doesn't demand its removal).

    Applegate appears as host of show "Tech Talk", which focuses on "iPhone 5 and its plethora of glitches and design flaws". Three bloggers then go on to complain about the device -- everything from Apple Maps misdirection to iPhone 5 being simply too thin.

    "Whoever built these iPhones, I don't know what they were thinking", says the Gizmodo blogger. "Let's ask them", Applegate answers. "Joining us now are three peasant laborers from the factory in China where these iPhones are manufactured". Hilarity follows.

    Talk about shock journalism. If only it was real. The skit is American self-deprecation at its funniest. In re-watching the segment this morning, I laughed again and reflect about tech-gadget obsession and priorities that should matter more than the newest Apple rumor or gadget. Please do likewise.

    The skit ends with Applegate asking the peasant workers if they have complaints about American products. They can't think of any because America presumably doesn't manufacture anything.

    "Does diabetes count as a product?"

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/14/Amazon_tells_Kindle_customers_to_expect_buying_credit__thanks_to_ebook_price_fixing_settlement'

    Amazon tells Kindle customers to expect buying credit, thanks to ebook price-fixing settlement

    Publié: octobre 14, 2012, 3:18am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I bought my first ebook in 1999 and in recent years stopped purchasing print altogether. My wife is a relative ebook newbie, so I am surprised that she and not me received an email today from Amazon about a forthcoming purchasing credit. Perhaps you got a similar message.

    In April, the Justice Department accused Apple and five publishers -- Hachette SA, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster -- of fixing ebook prices. Three publishers settled; MacMillan and Penguin, along with Apple, refused. The three publishers also settled with states attorneys general, agreeing to put $69 million in a fund for consumers. The Amazon purchasing credit is product of the settlement.

    There's still a February hearing ahead before the settlement is approved (well, presumably), after which consumers receive anywhere from 30 cents to a buck thirty-two for each ebook purchased between April 1, 2010 and May 21, 2012.

    Antitrust watchdogs accused the six parties of fixing prices by forcing a different selling model on ebook sellers -- one that guaranteed higher pricing. Apple sought the arrangement for iPad, which went on sale April 3, 2010 (hint: start date for the ebook settlement benefit is related).

    In December 2010, I asked "Is someone fixing ebook prices?" after observing nearly uniform pricing across ebook stores. The Feds and states later answered that question "Yes".

    Text of the email my wife received today:

    Dear Kindle Customer,

    We have good news. You are entitled to a credit for some of your past ebook purchases as a result of legal settlements between several major ebook publishers and the Attorneys General of most U.S. states and territories, including yours. You do not need to do anything to receive this credit. We will contact you when the credit is applied to your Amazon.com account if the Court approves the settlements in February 2013.

    Hachette, Harper Collins, and Simon & Schuster have settled an antitrust lawsuit about ebook prices. Under the proposed settlements, the publishers will provide funds for a credit that will be applied directly to your Amazon.com account. If the Court approves the settlements, the account credit will appear automatically and can be used to purchase Kindle books or print books. While we will not know the amount of your credit until the Court approves the settlements, the Attorneys General estimate that it will range from $0.30 to $1.32 for every eligible Kindle book that you purchased between April 2010 and May 2012.

    Alternatively, you may request a check in the amount of your credit by following the instructions included in the formal notice of the settlements, set forth below. You can learn more about the settlements here:
    www.amazon.com/help/agencyebooksettlements

    In addition to the account credit, the settlements impose limitations on the publishers’ ability to set ebook prices. We think these settlements are a big win for customers and look forward to lowering prices on more Kindle books in the future.

    Thank you for being a Kindle customer.

    The Amazon Kindle Team

    More information about the states attorneys general settlement and benefits to you can be found here.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/12/Windows_8_Nexus_7_packaging_separated_at_birth'

    Windows 8-Nexus 7 packaging separated at birth

    Publié: octobre 12, 2012, 7:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What the frak? Did Microsoft hire the same artist for Windows 8 packaging that Google used for Nexus 7? Because I am absolutely struck by similar color choices and graphic fluidity. You wouldn't confuse the boxes on a store shelf, because the products would be nowhere near one another. But one wonders if Google tapped a new trend in graphic box design, and Microsoft just copied along.

    Before posting, and as sanity check, I asked colleague Tim Conneally about the boxes. "The similarity is kind of shocking", he responded. "That gunmetal grey color was nowhere to be seen in tech two years ago".

    But the similarity only starts with these boxes. Microsoft has five different Windows 8 box designs, and color choices for three remind of the default background Google uses for Android 4.1.

    Is this just concidence, case of Microsoft copying Google or me making something of nothing?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/12/Preorder_Windows_8_NOW'

    Preorder Windows 8 NOW

    Publié: octobre 12, 2012, 5:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Two weeks to launch, Microsoft's newest operating system is available for preorder -- that's standalone software or preinstalled on new PCs available from Acer, ASUS, Dell, HP, Samsung and Sony. Upgrade price is $69.99 for Windows 8 Pro, which in the United States is available from major retailers, including Amazon, Best Buy, Microsoft Store, Newegg, Office Depot and Staples.

    "Customers outside the US will also have an opportunity to reserve Windows 8 Pro during this promotion, via participating retailers worldwide such as Best Buy in the United States, Future Shop in Canada, Walmart in Mexico, Casas Bahia in Brazil, Dixon’s in the UK, FNAC in France, Yamada in Japan, Suning in China and many more", a Microsoft spokesperson tells BetaNews. "We also recommend checking with local retailers for more information".

    Building your own system? Newegg also stocks OEM versions -- $139.99 for Windows 8 Pro 64-bit. That's full product, not upgrade. Those willing to wait and wanting to pay less can upgrade most older Windows versions on October 26 for just $39.99. Update: Reader Brian Fagioli says Newegg will discount the $69.99 upgrade by $10 when using this promo code: EMCJNJH82.

    Bargain Basement

    Microsoft has never sold Windows for so little. Windows 7 Home Edition upgrade lists for $119.99 and Pro for $199.99, although street prices tend to be $30 and $50 less, respectively. In July, I polled BetaNews readers about the $40 price. Sixty-two percent of respondents who qualify for the discount plan to upgrade.

    The upgrade price ends January 31, and I have to wonder about the $69.99 offer, too. Amazon says Windows 8 Pro upgrade list price is $199.99, which is same as the older version. So, if you really want a good deal on the new operating system, don't wait. Microsoft appears ready to sacrifice margins for market share but only during the first three months of sales. Windows 8 will cost more later on.

    Preorders start as Office 2013 releases to manufacturing. Businesses and developers can get the software in mid-November. Everyone else waits until next year. Say, could launch be in February, after higher Windows 8 prices kick in?

    Grim Reaper

    Windows 8 PCs can't come to market fast enough. On Wednesday, Gartner and IDC released third-quarter PC shipment estimates, and, whoa, they are grim.

    Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent year over year, according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner: 8.3 percent decline. The United States is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC.

    Gartner and IDC analysts are guardedly optimistic about Windows 8 lifting Q4 numbers, following a year of disappointing shipments. Others warn of continued troubles.

    "There was great hope through the first half that 2012 would prove to be a rebound year for the PC market", Craig Stice, IHS senior principal analyst, says. "Optimism has vanished and turned to doubt, and the industry is now training its sights on 2013 to deliver the hoped-for rebound. All this is setting the PC market up for its first annual decline since the dot-com bust year of 2001".

    Last Stand

    Windows 8 represents Microsoft's last stand, combined with major desktop and server software upgrades across the line. Never has the company released so many products so close together, so carefully coordinated (that's features as well as logistics) and so optimized for the cloud.

    On Tuesday, CEO Steve Ballmer released a letter to customers, partners and shareholders, repositioning Microsoft as a "devices and services company". Contrary to arm-chair punditry about Microsoft trying to become Apple, Ballmer instead articulated where Microsoft has been going for years. The cloud-connected device era is here and Microsoft embraces it to maintain computing relevance.

    "A great example of this shift is Windows 8", Ballmer explains, "with beautiful hardware that will light up with our consumer cloud services. Windows 8 unites the light, thin and fun aspects of a tablet with the power of a PC". The productivity suite is part of the experience. "The ultimate experience with the new Office for both consumers and businesses will come when it is paired with a Windows 8 device and delivered as a cloud subscription service with Office 365".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/12/Appeals_court_ruling_is_big_trouble_for_Apple_and_Judge_Lucy_Koh'

    Appeals court ruling is big trouble for Apple and Judge Lucy Koh

    Publié: octobre 12, 2012, 4:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Rarely since I started reporting tech legal cases 15 years ago is an appellate order so clear: "We hold that the district court abused its discretion in enjoining the sales of the Galaxy Nexus". More: "Reversed and remanded". Ouch.

    Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the preliminary injunction that US District Judge Lucy Koh imposed against Samsung Galaxy Nexus and sent the case back to her. Matters are worse for Koh and Apple, if this 18-page order foreshadows anything about the recent jury verdict against Samsung.

    That's because the ruling questions Koh's judgment about fundamental matters regarding "irreparable harm", and the appeals court chides her for accepting Apple's arguments. Koh sided with Apple throughout the recent jury trial, which appeal will go to the same judges that slapped her around good today. She still can vacate the jury verdict, and I'm on record demanding that she should.

    So, there's no confusion, I refer to separate patent cases before Judge Koh. One went to trial, and a nine-member jury found for Apple and against Samsung on August 24. The other case is still pending, and it's for that one she issued the preliminary injunction barring Galaxy Nexus sales. Separate the cases may be, they're still about patents and eventually headed to the Federal Circuit court of appeals. Koh's lack of good judgment in one could easily be issue in the other before the same judges. Perhaps they sent her a warning.

    This is no trivial matter, with Samsung claiming jury misconduct with none other than the foreman and release of court documents showing Apple lawyers played loose with the facts. If the appellate judges so chastise Koh here, surely matters could be a whole lot worse in a jury case with questionable record.

    Galaxy Nexus

    Let's look at today's ruling, then I'll put it in context of the other case.

    Apple contends that the Samsung smartphone, which Google helped develop, violates a search patent and that sales of the offending device would prevent people from buying iPhone. Koh agreed and imposed a preliminary injunction. Samsung appealed and was granted a stay.

    Today, the appellate court found that Koh applied flawed reasoning presented by Apple and overstepped her authority: "We hold that the district court abused its discretion. To begin with, to the extent the district court endorsed Apple’s articulation of the causal nexus test, it erred as a matter of law". But the court went further in five-page section "Likelihood of Success":

    Having held that the district court’s irreparable harm determination was an abuse of discretion, we would ordinarily refrain from addressing other issues. Here, however, it is in the interest of judicial economy that we address a limited aspect of the district court’s likelihood of success analysis that may become important on remand -- claim construction.

    The judges then go on to present a grim analysis that puts the case's future in jeopardy and again questions Apple's arguments and Koh's accepting them.

    Jury Trial

    The Galaxy Nexus patent case really has little to do with the jury trial recently finished. The players are the same, but the appeals court must rule based on each case record not between them. That said, mistakes Judge Koh makes in one she easily could make in the other. As more information is revealed post-verdict, Samsung's chances of a successful appeal look better and the jury proceeding appears more like a kangaroo court.

    In early September, I presented numerous reasons why "Judge Koh should vacate the Apple-Samsung verdict". For starters, foreman Vel Hogan, a 67 year-old engineer, convinced other jurors to accept his wrong interpretation about prior art. Samsung nearly built its entire defense around the idea that Apple patents are invalid because other products predated them.

    Since my post, Samsung filed a motion arguing misconduct by Hogan and alleging that he sought revenge against the company. (I think the former allegation has more merit than the other.) Two issues standout:

    • Hogan failed to disclose a prior legal proceeding during jury selection.
    • That proceeding involved Seagate, in which Samsung is major stakeholder, that led Hogan to file for bankruptcy.

    Samsung raises reasonable doubt about Hogan, not just as juror but foreman, and his influence over the jury.

    Meanwhile, Judge Koh has been unsealing documents in the case, and some offer a startlingly different story than Apple presented at trial.

    Groklaw's Pamela Jones has done a remarkable job combing through the unsealed documents and comparing them to the court record. For example, Apple painted Samsung out to be a copycat, which was central to several areas of the case -- particularly "trade dress", referring to a product's look and feel, that Apple contends Samsung copied from iPhone and applied to devices like Galaxy S II.

    But in context, Samsung's internal communications were about applying good design principles, observing how iPhone exhausted some and transcending the device and its user interface. For example, the head of Samsung's mobile division encouraged his team to view iPhone as impetuous to change. Some points:

    • "In regards to exteriors, do your best not to create a plastic feeling and instead create a metallic feel". At the time, iPhone had plastic feel.
    • "As for UX, see to it that it is a UX that is easy to use regardless of age, occupation, and level of education, that it’s a UX that’s not like a UX, that, just like the flow of water, its alarm rings when you wake in the morning then out comes the news while you’re getting ready to leave for work, see to it that you’re able to come up with that kind of UX". This aptly describes TouchWiz UI's widget/live content approach. The newest version is called "Nature".
    • "Our biggest asset is our Screen. It is very important that we make Screen Size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the Function of ebooks". Samsung went larger (5.5 inches with Galaxy Note 2), while Apple kept smaller screen size.

    Jones' assessment (which I concur with):

    To my reading, Apple is distorting what this exhibit was really about. It was not about copying. It was about learning and being inspired and then doing something better. If they wanted to copy, they'd have made the screen smaller to match the iPhone. Instead, they correctly saw that the trend would be toward larger screens, and they were already doing that and saw it as superior to the iPhone. So, they analyzed where they were strong and where they were weak, and the pep talk spoke to both.

    The point: The jury verdict looks increasingly vulnerable, and one could interpret the appeals court of sending Judge Koh a subtle but directed message today. She can still do justice by throwing out the verdict and ordering a new trial.

    Photo Credit: JustASC/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/11/PC_market_collapses_ahead_of_Windows_8_launch'

    PC market collapses ahead of Windows 8 launch

    Publié: octobre 11, 2012, 8:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you can't figure out why CEO Steve Ballmer talks about reinventing Microsoft as a "devices and services company", Jay Chou, IDC senior research analyst, has an answer. "PCs are going through a severe slump". That's being polite in mixed company, when the F-word is so much more appropriate. Third-quarter PC shipments accentuate an already dreadful trend. Analysts expected slowing shipments as the market prepares for Windows 8, but nothing quite like this. The seasonal back-to-school lift collapsed, with even Mac shipments slowing.

    Global PC shipments fell 8.6 percent year over year, according to IDC, surpassing the minus 3.8 percent forecast. Gartner's estimate is a more generous 8.3 percent decline. The United States, a region recently in love with tablets, is in free fall, with shipments down 13.8 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 12.4 percent according to IDC. For the better part of a year, analysts excused declining PC shipments as market anticipation for Windows 8. But the slowdown during back-to-school buying season foreshadows weakness ahead.

    Back-to-School Bust

    "There was great hope through the first half that 2012 would prove to be a rebound year for the PC market", Craig Stice, IHS senior principal analyst, says. "Now three quarters through the year, the usual boost from the back-to-school season appears to be a bust, and both AMD and Intel’s third-quarter outlooks appear to be flat to down".

    Declines aren't just global. "The third quarter has historically been driven by back-to-school sales, but US PC shipments did not increase, not even sequentially, from the second quarter of 2012", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says.

    In earlier quarters, even when other manufacturers saw declines, Apple continued a hearty growth track. Q3 is typically one of Apple's best, given the Mac's popularity among schools. But shipments fell 6.1 percent or 7 percent, respectively, according to Gartner or IDC. Apple is the bird in the coal mine, and it just croaked.

    "Retailers were conservative in placing orders as they responded to weak back-to-school sales", Kitagawa observes. "By the end of September, retailers were focused on clearing out inventory in advance of the Windows 8 launch later this month".

    Schools typically buy new tech when needed, not when released. Apple launched OS X Mountain Lion near the start of back-to-school buying, while Microsoft guaranteed free upgrades to Windows 8, which goes on sale in 15 days. From perspective of need and timing, there's no reason to wait -- unless perhaps if education bought something else.

    Canary in Coalmine

    Declining Mac shipments foreshadow much. Apple doesn't announce calendar third-quarter results for two weeks, but Q2 shows an important trend -- at least in the education market. Recent iPad sales wins include 11,000 to Mansfield Texas Independent School District and 25,000 to the San Diego Unified School District. "We sold more than twice as many iPads as Macs to US education institutions", Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said about calendar second quarter, in July.

    The point: iPad takes away some Mac sales and Gartner and IDC analysts have acknowledged similar tablet trend for Windows PCs.

    Once again, tablets lift their screens and raspberry PCs. Despite continued computer manufacturer or trade analyst denials, tablets offer so much at a time when personal computers offer so much less. "While the industry has been focused on shaving excess inventory and preparing to launch a new generation of products, consumers have been looking at alternative devices like tablets", David Daoud, IDC research director, concedes.

    The big, new Windows PC designs are all fourth-quarter gambles, but consumers and even some businesses aren't waiting around for them. Twenty-five percent of US adults have access to a tablet, according to Pew (22 percent as owners, 3 percent sharing with someone else in the household). Sixty-eight percent got their tablet within the last year, and 32 percent during 2012. Considering selling prices for 10-inch tablets are about the same, or even more, than laptops, each pad purchase is potentially one taken from PCs.

    Keeping Faith

    "The hard question of what is the 'it' product for PCs remain unanswered", Chou says. "While ultrabook prices have come down a little, there are still some significant challenges that will greet Windows 8 in the coming quarter". Microsoft and its OEM partners bank much on Windows 8 tablets, which may be the only hope.

    But Windows 8 is a leap of faith, because businesses aren't buying either. "Professional PC shipments in the US began slowing in the second quarter of this year, and they continued the trend in the third quarter", Kitagawa says. "The results indicate that the replacement peak may have passed in the professional sector".

    Daoud remains a Windows 8 believer. "As vendors line up innovative new products and designs, consumers are likely to respond positively during the tail-end of 4Q12, and that means a potential return to positive growth at the end of this year". But how can he not be, given IDC's client base?

    Other analysts can't keep the faith. "Optimism has vanished and turned to doubt, and the industry is now training its sights on 2013 to deliver the hoped-for rebound", Stice says. "All this is setting the PC market up for its first annual decline since the dot-com bust year of 2001".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/10/Get_a_life__Microsoft_isn_t_trying_to_be_Apple'

    Get a life! Microsoft isn't trying to be Apple

    Publié: octobre 10, 2012, 10:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday's Steve Ballmer "devices and services company" letter unleashes a torrent of idiot punditry. I can only laugh at the sheer stupidity of writers infatuated with the idea Microsoft wants to be Apple, or putting forth such lunacy to sack pageviews.

    Read Ballmer's 1,300-word missive again. Microsoft's focus on devices and services has little to nothing to do with Apple. The cloud-connected device era is here and Microsoft embraces it to maintain computing relevance. The company has been on this course for years. Research and development takes time, and the good ship Microsoft is too large to change course in a few months -- or even a few years. The sheer number of carefully coordinated new (and largely changed) products shipping simultaneously (or soon after) clearly indicates a massive undertaking long planned.

    Twisted Tongues

    But tongues will wag, and I bear the knife to cut them out. Among the nonsense "Microsoft wants to be Apple" posts:

    The list could go on and on. Sadly, colleague Wayne Williams joins it, with twisted missive: "Microsoft wants to become Apple, but can't". But he can keep his tongue.

    A few things are true about today's journalism: Lots of writers are clueless, and conflict sells. Then there's the longstanding Apple-Microsoft competition that pumps pageviews. Too bad in this generation of "write every rumor, don't sweat the facts" journalism everything is subject to interpretation and twisted meaning. Seriously, read Ballmer's letter and compare it to these "being like Apple" stories, then ponder what that means for every new gadget rumor story you read. If bloggers, journalists and other writers can't get the clear facts straight, how can they hearsay?

    Microsoft's Makeover

    I'll explain. Nowhere in the letter does Ballmer mention Apple or remotely allude to the company. He writes about Microsoft and plans to reinvent his company, and this isn't for the first time.

    Reinvention really started with Azure's introduction four years ago this month. The cloud operating system, which opened to the public in February 2010, marked the start of a long trek leading to central focus on devices and services, and supporting anytime, anywhere, on-anything computing.

    Microsoft's cloud path had a destination: Windows and supporting products in 2012 and Office System in 2013. The strategy around them isn't about Apple. Microsoft has several immediate objectives:

    • Preserve the relevance of the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack
    • Extend that apps stack to the new one emerging around the connected cloud
    • Broaden the older Office-Windows ecosystem for developers and other partners
    • Provide customers with more device choices and access to their stuff anytime, anywhere, on anything
    • Give enterprises better tools to manage devices they provide workers or those that employees bring to the office

    I have written lots about this ongoing transition over the years. More recently: "I'll tell you something about Windows", in July 2011: "Microsoft may not be talking concretely about a future beyond Windows, but the company is clearly preparing for one -- or at least a different one. Hence, the emphasis on ARM processors, which will make Windows available on more devices than PCs...The future of Windows is a utility supporting applications and services".

    What's different now, Ballmer is finally talking about the future beyond Windows, or better stated Windows PCs. As I expressed yesterday, under Bill Gates, Microsoft sought to put a PC on every desktop, with software innovation driving that effort. Ballmer describes post-PC Microsoft as the aforementioned "devices and services company", which aptly spotlights the fundamental shift in progress. Again, it's a change long-time coming and is about changing computing eras -- PC to connected devices -- not Apple.

    Correct Context

    The "Microsoft wants to be Apple brigade" is largely caught up in one section of Ballmer's letter: "There will be times when we build specific devices for specific purposes, as we have chosen to do with Xbox and the recently announced Microsoft Surface". Now read that same sentence in context:

    We will continue to work with a vast ecosystem of partners to deliver a broad spectrum of Windows PCs, tablets and phones. We do this because our customers want great choices and we believe there is no way one size suits over 1.3 billion Windows users around the world. There will be times when we build specific devices for specific purposes, as we have chosen to do with Xbox and the recently announced Microsoft Surface. In all our work with partners and on our own devices, we will focus relentlessly on delivering delightful, seamless experiences across hardware, software and services. This means as we, with our partners, develop new Windows devices we'll build in services people want.

    Ballmer frames Microsoft devices around partners and makes it clear that both will provide devices -- not only the software giant, which is the Apple way, by the way. There's no way in hell that Microsoft will just suddenly drop its OEM partners and go all end-to-end hardware, software and services. That's simply not Microsoft's DNA. When Ballmer talks about devices and services, he refers to a larger ecosystem that includes Microsoft, 640,000 partners and 8 million developers. That's quite different from Apple, which licenses its platforms to nobody.

    But there's other context here. Sometimes partners aren't enough. That's why Microsoft developed Surface, which too many numbskulls hold up as proof the future is the Apple Way. Get a life!

    As I explained in June, "Surface is Project Origami's revenge, against Apple and Microsoft's hardware partners". Four years before iPad, Microsoft sought to bring a touchscreen tablet to market, selling for $500. It's no coincidence iPad's starting price is the same. But Windows OEMs couldn't deliver a product for that price. I explained:

    You have to understand something about Ultra-Mobile PC. This was Microsoft's baby, although it was presented as a partnership with hardware manufacturers at launch. Microsoft developed the concept...Six years later, Microsoft makes another attempt at bringing the concept, now vastly evolved, to market. Only this time, the company won't rely on OEM partners. Microsoft isn't so much competing with OEMs, but pushing around them.

    That's context for understanding what Ballmer really means. The focus now is more connected devices and cloud services than PCs. Microsoft's business model is still very much about providing platforms and development tools. That's a business Apple could do more to copy, not the other way around.

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/10/You_can_forget_iPad_mini'

    You can forget iPad mini

    Publié: octobre 10, 2012, 6:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I did something quite shocking yesterday -- talk to my boss on the phone. Yes, we both occasionally get sentimental about such old-fashion communications. Among the topics: iPad mini, which is perennial rumor topic recently. Neither of us could quite fathom why or for what price a smaller Apple tablet makes sense. A new survey makes iPad mini all the more perplexing, and all the less a good idea.

    According to an August TechBargains.com survey of 1,332 shoppers, 50 percent wouldn't buy iPad mini, while 45 percent would purchase iPhone 5. Meaningful context: The shopping comparison site conducted the survey before either product was announced, equally gauging sentiment based on rumors. Only 18 percent of respondents would buy the tablet. But that low number only hints at the deep level of disinterest.

    "Given Apple’s recent success it would be easy to assume that all new Apple products will be wildly popular. Our survey results indicate that theory is no longer the case", Yung Trang, TechBargains.com president, says. "According to our survey respondents, the so called iPad Mini will not be highly coveted because consumers are questioning the necessity of a smaller iPad, especially if they own an iPad or an iPhone".

    Calling Cannibals

    That's my problem, too. A 7-inch or 8-inch iPad doesn't fit right in the lexicon of Apple mobiles. iPhone 5, with its 4-inch screen, ranges in price from $199 to $399, while iPad goes from $499 to $829. Surely Apple wouldn't price the device any lower than $299, and $199 or less is where the device needs to be given Amazon Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7. But even at $299, iPad mini risks cannibalizing larger Apple tablet sales, which the company has far from exhausted.

    That's the key point. The tablet is still a huge growth market. Apple hasn't yet fully capitalized sales. IDC predicts 1.2 billion smart device -- connected PC, tablet and smartphone -- shipments this year and 1.4 billion in 2013. Shipments should top 2 billion by 2016, when tablet share will be 13 percent, up from 10 percent this year and reduce PC share to 24 percent from 31 percent. Meaning: The market has lots of headroom yet to grow.

    Under Steve Jobs' leadership, Apple methodically nursed iPod revenues by introducing lower-priced models only after maximizing revenues among costlier tiers. iPad mini would break that proven pattern. I think it's way too soon for Apple, which has shown with Macs lots of people will pay more, to introduce a smaller, lower-cost model. There's too much risk iPad mini will cannibalize the larger model's sales, while offering little market share benefits.

    The TechBargains.com survey bears this out. Existing Apple device owners are most likely to purchase iPad mini (27 percent), while those owning Kindle Fire or no tablet at all equally plan to buy (16 percent). These are not encouraging numbers and granted only represent a small sample from a shopping comparison site.

    Shifting Strategy

    When Jobs assumed control of Apple in early 1997, he almost immediately cut product lines. That approach proved a sensible strategy. By offering less, Apple could do more for customers and shareholders by reducing manufacturing and distribution costs and decreasing shopping complexity. iPad mini would add unnecessary complexity to the product lineup, increase manufacturing and distribution costs and quite likely cannibalize sales of a successful, high-margin product.

    Something else: Jobs tended to make decisions that defied competitive concerns, whereas iPad mini could only be in response to them. If successor Tim Cook takes such a "look at what the competition is doing" approach, it would mark a fundamental change in Apple's longstanding business model. I can see why he might look at competition and worry.

    According to Pew, the US tablet has fundamentally changed in just one year. Twenty-five percent of Americans regularly use a tablet -- 22 percent owners, 3 percent sharing another in the household -- based on a summer survey. A year earlier, Apple had overwhelming tablet share -- 81 percent. But by August, iPad had dropped to 52 percent share, with Android tablets rising to 48 percent from 15 percent year over year. Thirty-two percent of tablet owners purchased in 2012.

    Apple's dilemma, at least in the United States: Market dynamics are rapidly changing and time to lock in customers is early on, before they purchase apps and peripherals and commit their personal stuff to tablet platform or cloud service. But is that reason enough to do a smaller Apple tablet now? I don't think so, and the TechBargains.com survey strongly suggests iPad mini is a foolhardy endeavor.

    Photo Credit: catwalker/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/10/Steve_Ballmer_asks_customers__partners_and_shareholders_to_believe_in_Microsoft'

    Steve Ballmer asks customers, partners and shareholders to believe in Microsoft

    Publié: octobre 10, 2012, 1:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Microsoft's CEO released his annual shareholder letter, which also is meant for customers, employees and partners. Steve Ballmer's looking back-peering ahead missive comes as the company stands on a precipice between the PC and cloud-connected device eras and seeks reinvention through an unusually strong late-year release cycle that includes Surface tablets, Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Server 2012.

    Under Bill Gates, Microsoft sought to put a PC on every desktop, with software innovation driving that effort. Ballmer describes post-PC Microsoft as a "devices and services company", which aptly describes the fundamental shift in progress. Services focus reminds of IBM, which dominated the mainframe era the PC displaced. This devices and services ambition "impacts how we run the company, how we develop new experiences, and how we take products to market for both consumers and businesses".

    Ballmer spends much of the 1,300-word letter rationalizing the importance of devices, new form factors and Microsoft's capability to help businesses "realize the benefits of the cloud". He boasts about these benefits around the two flagship products: "The ultimate experience with the new Office for both consumers and businesses will come when it is paired with a Windows 8 device and delivered as a cloud subscription service with Office 365".

    While explaining that Microsoft will continue to work with partners on Windows PCs, tablets and phones, Ballmer states "there will be times when we build specific devices for specific purposes, as we have chosen to do with Xbox and the recently announced Microsoft Surface". From that perspective, "devices and services company" alludes to more end-to-end hardware, software and services products, much like what Apple does today. That said, he calls the "new era at Microsoft" an opportunity for the "8 million developers building apps for our devices" and "for the more than 640,000 partners worldwide". Meaning: Microsoft isn't going into the build-its-own devices business.

    During fiscal 2012, which ended June 30, Microsoft generated $73.7 billion in revenue, Ballmer observes. By comparison, Apple generated more during the first six months of this year -- $74.2 billion. My how times have changed.

    I can't emphasize enough what the next product release cycle means to Microsoft, and that includes Office System 2013 software coming next year. The Redmond, Wash.-based company is attempting to preserve and recover computing relevance during a massive move to anytime, anywhere, on-anything computing that threatens the longevity of the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. That understanding is important context for reading Ballmer's letter. He's not just blowing marketing smoke -- kissing up to the parties he writes to. He means every word.

    Full text of Ballmer's letter:

    Last year was a big year -- we delivered strong results, launched fantastic new products and services, and positioned Microsoft for an incredible future.

    For fiscal year 2012, revenue grew to a record $73.7 billion. We also maintained strong cost discipline resulting in cash flow from operations of $31.6 billion, an increase of 17 percent from the prior year. In addition, we returned $10.7 billion to shareholders through stock buybacks and dividends.

    We delivered these results while preparing a pipeline of new and updated products that will launch in the year ahead. To best understand what we are about to deliver and what we're building toward, it's important to recognize a fundamental shift underway in our business and the areas of technology that we believe will drive the greatest opportunity in the future.

    Our Business: Devices and Services

    Last year in this letter I said that over time, the full value of our software will be seen and felt in how people use devices and services at work and in their personal lives. This is a significant shift, both in what we do and how we see ourselves -- as a devices and services company. It impacts how we run the company, how we develop new experiences, and how we take products to market for both consumers and businesses. The work we have accomplished in the past year and the roadmap in front of us brings this to life.

    Devices With End-User Services

    We will continue to work with a vast ecosystem of partners to deliver a broad spectrum of Windows PCs, tablets and phones. We do this because our customers want great choices and we believe there is no way one size suits over 1.3 billion Windows users around the world. There will be times when we build specific devices for specific purposes, as we have chosen to do with Xbox and the recently announced Microsoft Surface. In all our work with partners and on our own devices, we will focus relentlessly on delivering delightful, seamless experiences across hardware, software and services. This means as we, with our partners, develop new Windows devices we'll build in services people want.

    Further, as we develop and update our consumer services, we'll do so in ways that take full advantage of hardware advances, that complement one another and that unify all the devices people use daily. So right out of the box, a customer will get a stunning device that is connected to unique communications, productivity and entertainment services from Microsoft as well as access to great services and applications from our partners and developers around the world.

    A great example of this shift is Windows 8. Windows 8 will come to market Oct. 26, 2012, with beautiful hardware that will light up with our consumer cloud services. Windows 8 unites the light, thin and fun aspects of a tablet with the power of a PC. It's beautiful, it's functional, and it's perfect for both personal and professional use. Xbox Music, Video, Games and SmartGlass apps make it possible to select a movie from a PC, start playing it on the TV, and finish watching it on a phone. SkyDrive, our cloud storage solution, effortlessly connects content across a user's devices. Bing's powerful search technologies in Windows 8 will help customers get more done. Skype has a beautiful new Windows 8 app and connects directly into the new Office.

    Office, too, is taking a major leap forward. The new Office was designed from the ground up for Windows 8 and takes full advantage of new mobile form factors with touch and pen capabilities. It unlocks new experiences for reading, note taking, meetings and communications and brings social directly into productivity and collaboration scenarios. The combination of a Windows 8 tablet with OneNote and SkyDrive has truly revolutionized how to take notes, annotate documents and share information. The ultimate experience with the new Office for both consumers and businesses will come when it is paired with a Windows 8 device and delivered as a cloud subscription service with Office 365.

    Services for the Enterprise

    Fantastic devices and services for end users will drive our enterprise businesses forward given the increasing influence employees have in the technology they use at work -- a trend commonly referred to as the Consumerization of IT. It's one more reason Microsoft is committed to delivering devices and services that people love and businesses need.

    Today, businesses face a number of important opportunities and challenges. Enterprise IT departments are tasked with deploying technology that drives the business strategy forward. They decide what solutions will make employees more productive, collaborative and satisfied. They work to unlock business insights from a world of data. At the same time they must manage and secure corporate information that employees access across a growing number of personal and corporate devices.

    To address these opportunities, businesses turn to Microsoft. They count on our world-class business applications like Microsoft Dynamics, Office, Exchange, SharePoint, Lync, and our business intelligence solutions. They rely on our technology to manage employee corporate identity and to protect their corporate data. And, increasingly, businesses of all sizes are looking to Microsoft to realize the benefits of the cloud.

    Helping businesses move to the cloud is one of our largest opportunities. All the online services people use today -- both from Microsoft and other companies -- run on servers in datacenters around the globe. The volume of Internet services used will continue to grow as people connect to the Internet from more devices for more purposes -- fueling incredible opportunity in our server business. Unique to Microsoft, we continue to design and deliver world-class cloud solutions that allow our customers to move to the cloud on their terms.

    For example, a company can choose to deploy Office or Microsoft Dynamics on premises, as a cloud service or a combination of both. With Windows Server 2012, Windows Azure and System Center infrastructure, businesses can deploy applications in their own datacenter, a partner's datacenter or in Microsoft's datacenter with common security, management and administration across all environments, with ultimate flexibility and scale. Our business customers tell us these capabilities are critical to harnessing the power of the cloud so they can reach new levels of efficiency and tap new areas of growth.

    Our Future: Big Opportunity

    There's a remarkable amount of opportunity ahead for Microsoft in both the next year and the next decade. As we enter this new era, there are several distinct areas of technology that we are focused on driving forward -- all of which start to show up in the devices and services launching this year. Leading the industry in these areas over the long term will translate to sustained growth well into the future. These focus areas include:

    • Developing new form factors that have increasingly natural ways to use them including touch, gestures and speech.
    • Making technology more intuitive and able to act on our behalf instead of at our command with machine learning.
    • Building and running cloud services in ways that unleash incredible new experiences and opportunities for businesses and individuals.
    • Firmly establishing one platform, Windows, across the PC, tablet, phone, server and cloud to drive a thriving ecosystem of developers, unify the cross-device user experience, and increase agility when bringing new advancements to market.
    • Delivering new scenarios with life-changing improvements in how people learn, work, play and interact with one another.

    We are uniquely positioned to lead in these areas given the breadth of our devices and services portfolio, as well as our large, global partner and customer base and the growing Windows ecosystem.

    It truly is a new era at Microsoft -- an era of incredible opportunity for us, for the 8 million developers building apps for our devices, for the more than 640,000 partners worldwide and, most important, for the people and businesses using our products to reach their full potential.

    We see an unprecedented amount of opportunity for both this year and the long term. Although we still have a lot of hard work ahead, our products are generating excitement. And when I pause to reflect on how far we've come over the past few years and how much further we'll go in the next one, I couldn't be more excited and optimistic.

    As always, thank you for your support.

    Do you believe him?

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/10/_Google_in_a_box__version_7_improves_enterprise_search'

    'Google in a box' version 7 improves enterprise search

    Publié: octobre 10, 2012, 12:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Google updated its enterprise search product, upping the number of supported languages to 60, better improving Big Data capabilities, increasing scalability and providing document previews with search results.

    "Administrators can easily add content sources from secure storage, cloud services or the public web and social networking sites", Matthew Eichner, general manager of Google enterprise search, says. "GSA 7.0 also provides Google-quality search for SharePoint 2010, making for a more simple and intuitive, all-in-one search experience".

    Google's enterprise search competitors include Autonomy, IBM, Microsoft and Oracle, among others. New SharePoint capabilities specifically target Microsoft, which stands between Google and any meaningful success in the enterprise.

    GSA 7.0 targets Microsoft FAST Search Server for SharePoint, which is available in three editions. Google's timing presumably isn't coincidental, as Microsoft extends SharePoint capabilities to Office 365 and ramps up v2013.

    Eichner highlights key GSA 7.0 benefits:

    • Document preview -- view thumbnails and flip through full-screen document previews right alongside search results.
    • Google Translate -- secure and automatic translations display in search results, in more than 60 languages.
    • Updated language capabilities -- including parsing the complex morphology of Arabic, Chinese, Japanese and Korean to improve results. Expert search -- tap into your organization’s knowledge graph, and instantly collaborate with colleagues who have answers.
    • New interface - a more beautiful search experience rolling out with the GSA 7 series.
    • Improved scale - a single rack of GSAs could now fit the equivalent of the entire Google.com index in 2000 -- 1 billion pages.

    Google Search Appliance 7.0 is available now. Like earlier versions, price varies depending on number of documents indexed -- last I checked around $15,000 for a half million of them.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/09/Google_updates_Nexus_7_to_Android_4.1.2'

    Google updates Nexus 7 to Android 4.1.2

    Publié: octobre 9, 2012, 8:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I typically don't post about minor Android updates, but Nexus 7 is popular among some BetaNews readers and this release reportedly comes with something many users have pined for: Desktop/launcher in landscape mode.

    Jean-Baptiste Queru, technical lead for the Android Open Source Project, explains in a post on the Android Building Google group: "We're releasing Android 4.1.2 to AOSP today, which is a minor update on top of 4.1.1. As a note to maintainers of community builds running on Nexus 7: please update to 4.1.2 at the first opportunity. Future variants of the grouper hardware will have a minor change in one of the components (the power management chip) that will not be compatible with 4.1.1. The build number is JZO54K, and the tag is android-4.1.2_r1".

    He wouldn't say when or even if the update would be available for Galaxy Nexus -- Google's other stock Android device.

    Nexus 7 owners should be able to get v4.1.2 over the air -- not that I've been offered it yet. If you can't wait, try this. Thanks to Derek Ross for the download link.

    Landscape launcher/home screen isn't top of my feature list. You?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/09/Windows_Server_2012_Essentials_released_to_manufacturing'

    Windows Server 2012 Essentials released to manufacturing

    Publié: octobre 9, 2012, 8:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For those of you still pining for Small Business Server, you'll have to settle for its successor, which is available now for evaluation following its RTM. Microsoft expects the software to be available in "all channels" by November 1 -- or after Windows 8 launches in 17 days. However, preloaded systems will likely come later, but before year's end, while server manufacturers conduct final testing and create system images.

    Unlike its predecessor, Windows Server 2012 Essentials adds more cloud utility around a straightforward concept: Provide small businesses or sole proprietors with access to their important information anytime, anywhere and on anything.

    Sinead O'Donovan, Windows Server Essentials director of program management identifies some benefits:

    • Enable a dynamic, modern work style with access from your devices by using Remote Web Access (RWA), and take advantage of Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 devices for a superior experience with rich modern "My Server" apps.
    • Enjoy peace of mind knowing that your data is well-protected by complementing your on-site backups with Windows Azure Online Backup, as well as utilizing integrated support for the new Windows 8 File History feature.
    • Choose the email and collaboration option that’s right for you, whether that’s in the cloud with Office 365 or a hosted service provider, or running on a local server.
    • Quickly and easily respond to increasing data capacity needs with support for Storage Spaces, which allows you to create elastic, resilient storage for your files and folders.
    • Run the line-of-business applications that you depend on by leveraging our greatly improved application compatibility, now with a single logo certification for all Windows Server 2012 editions.
    • Purchase with confidence knowing that your technology investment can easily grow to Windows Server 2012 Standard if the needs of your business grow.
    • Deploy today with full support for 19 languages, all releasing simultaneously.

    Microsoft claims 23,000 downloads for the pre-release Preview version over eight weeks. Final evaluation software is available for download here. This code -- HHRHF-YMNJW-RPGCC-VV68W-BWMVY -- activates the software, which is 64-bit and can be purchased and converted to perpetual license.

    Photo Credit:  Sergej Khakimullin/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/09/Malware_targets_bargain_hunters'

    Malware targets bargain hunters

    Publié: octobre 9, 2012, 6:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    They say the best things in life are free. There's another saying about when stealing, you get what you deserve. When it comes to software, that's more than what you bargained for. Or so claims Microsoft, which warns malware writers increasingly exploit people's desire to get for free something they should pay for.

    Yesterday, the Redmond, Wash.-based company released its first-half 2012 "Security Intelligence Report" -- 134 pages for your reading pleasure. Today, Microsoft's Joe Blackbird highlights one of this volume's findings: bargain-hunting exploits for movies, music and software.

    Microsoft identifies three trends, none new but all increasing:

    • Free or fake software or content loaded with malware
    • Activation key generators used to steal content
    • Poisoned search engine results

    "The typical situation starts with users looking for some software or media such as movies or music for free, or for a reduced price", Blackbird explains. "They surf the web looking for the file and perhaps also a crack or license key generator (Keygen) so that they don't have to purchase it. This is where the malware distributors step in and attempt to get between these users and the software or media that they are looking for".

    In the first scenario, users download what they think is legit software that contains malware. For example, colleague Mihaita Bamburic identifies an exploit using a fake game from Google's Chrome Web Store. Users may also download what they think is legit software that has been cracked, meaning activation thwarted, but also is loaded with malware.

    The second scenario probably applies to more than a few BetaNews readers. Surely some of you use key generations to activate software or access content you didn't pay for. Microsoft specifically highlights Win32/Keygen, which technically isn't malicious but often leads to malware.

    Tim Rains, director of Microsoft Trustworthy Computing, explains: "In the first six months of 2012, the threat family Win32/Keygen, representing software activation key generators, was detected nearly five million times. Keygen detections have increased by a factor of 26 since the first half of 2010 and today Keygen is the number one consumer threat family worldwide, rising above other prevalent threat families like Pornpop, Blacole, Conficker and FakePAV".

    The bigger problem: "More than 76 percent -- that’s approximately 3.8 million of the 5 million aforementioned Keygen detections -- of computers reporting Keygen detections in the first half of 2012 also reported detections of other malware families". China's rate is highest, by far. But the chart above also shows surprisingly high Keygen infection rate in the United States.

    Of course, Microsoft's calling out this problem is self-interested, since key generators are used to pirate its software. But there's another area of self-interest, regarding the third scenario: Searching for bargains, free software or key generators.

    "In that method of infection, malware distributors hide exploits in webpages that attempt to take advantage of unpatched software vulnerabilities to compromise these bargain hunter's computers", Blackbird says. "In other words, it's not just downloading license key generators, cracked software or free media files that expose users to malware; the act of visiting web pages of unknown origin, claiming to provide this type of free software download, is risky activity".

    He observes the use of Blackhole to poison searched pages with malware. Interestingly, and coincidentally, Sophos warns that Bing searches are highly susceptible to Blackhole poisoning, particularly images. Based on a field test: 65 percent, compared to 30 percent for Google.

    Credits: maraga/Shutterstock (photo); Microsoft (chart)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/09/Microsoft_Store_is_EVERYWHERE'

    Microsoft Store is EVERYWHERE

    Publié: octobre 9, 2012, 2:28am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There is no appropriate way to express how aggressive will be Microsoft's retail blitz to support the launches of Surface, Windows 8 and Windows RT (on October 26) and Windows Phone 8 (on October 29). In 18 days, the software giant will have retail shops open in 27 states and three Canadian provinces. Many of the locations will be what Microsoft calls "holiday stores", which are more kiosks than shops but retail presence nevertheless. The company announced the pop-up shops about a month ago, but as important product launches approach the sudden retail blitz takes on looming significance.

    The stores' importance cannot be understated, and their value is much bigger than selling new products. The shops will create big brand presence during the holidays and give many shoppers reasons to buy something with a Microsoft logo rather than the bitten fruit. (Say, if there's a bite out of the Apple, shouldn't that make it forbidden fruit in the classical biblical/literature sense or used goods from a purely commerce perspective. I certainly wouldn't pick a bitten apple from the grocery store. Funny that Apple's partially eaten logo doesn't put off more people.)

    Combined, new corporate and Windows logos, redesigned operating system user interfaces, Windows 8/RT tablets or convertibles, Surface and Windows Phone 8 devices relaunch the Microsoft brand in a big way. The company will use holiday 2012 as major first step to reinvent the brand and its overall image -- that's with investors as much as existing or potential customers. Retail -- particularly Microsoft Store, where the company controls customer experience -- is the glue binding bigger branding efforts together.

    Microsoft Store is where shoppers will see value at its finest, and that's sure to be a big emphasis. The shop here in San Diego offers some of the best deals on hardware or software anywhere. I do mean low prices or big discounts. Apple Store is located just four doors down, and as I observed Christmas Eve two years ago the experience contrasts sharply with Microsoft's shop. The one pulls wealthier, individual shoppers and the latter families, while emphasizing value.

    Stretching for the Goal

    Currently, Microsoft operates 27 permanent stores, with another opening in Toronto, Ontario November 16. Shops are also planned in Ohio and Puerto Rico, but dates aren't officially disclosed. Thirty-two holiday stores will open October 26. The question: How many of them might become permanent fixtures. If I were a mall manager, Microsoft is one tenant that would be top of list to keep, by offering an enticing deal on prime space. For the holidays, Microsoft will have open nearly 80 retail shops, which number is a long leap from where it started.

    The first two Microsoft stores, in Arizona and California (and a café in France), opened in October 2009. I visited the Mission Viejo, Calif. shop on Black Friday, the following month.

    Microsoft Store San Diego opened June 24, 2010, on the same day Apple launched iPhone 4 to huge crowds, bringing the number to just four. Thirteen months later, Microsoft had opened just 11 stores, suggesting weakening retail commitment. In Spring 2011, several idiot-pundit posts asserted the retail expansion was over. I strongly disagreed.

    Then, during the annual partner conference in July 2011, Microsoft COO Kevin Turner boomed: "We're going to open up to 75 more stores over the next 2 to 3 years and continue to bring our stores outside the US as well".

    The 32 holiday stores achieves that goal, if only temporarily, and it's unfortunate Microsoft couldn't expand faster -- and that means beyond North America. Apple operates nearly five times more shops in 14 countries. The stores provide a focal point for the Apple lifestyle, around digital activities like listening to music and watching, making or sharing videos. That lifestyle is now largely mobile, driven by iPad and iPhone.

    Digital Lifestyle

    Branded Microsoft stores aren't about generating profits. Making money is merely a bonus. The goal should be selling a Microsoft lifestyle and engaging customers, which are particularly important given the new product launches and the company's attempt to establish more mobile lifestyle around its stuff or that from partners.

    Microsoft's inability to achieve 75 permanent stores undermines the broader branding and corporate reinvention. I regard the need to lean on temp shops as a failure to achieve the stated goal, and even 75 is too few considering Microsoft's larger brand and image ambitions. Changing tech retailing is another consideration.

    In June 2010, I explained how "Apple and Microsoft stores are the future of technology retailing". Here in San Diego, the two companies and Sony operate tech boutiques in the same mall. All three sell products through other retailers, too, but the qualitative difference in consumer buying experience differentiates the company operations from larger stores like Best Buy or Walmart. While they also offer sales, service and customer support, the experience isn't as specialized.

    For Microsoft, which pitches new lifestyle messaging starting October 26, larger retailers won't be enough. Its own retail shops will matter much more. For example, Best Buy or Walmart won't educate consumers about the benefits of the new Microsoft lifestyle -- not when staff has so much else to sell and lacks specialized sales training.

    For many Americans, Microsoft Store will be everywhere this holiday, although nowhere like Apple shops. My question: Will Microsoft Store be anywhere when the holidays end and pop-up stores close?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/04/Digital_music_sales_set_to_break_record'

    Digital music sales set to break record

    Publié: octobre 4, 2012, 11:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This week one of my colleagues posted to group chat: "The CD player turns 30". To which I asked: "What's a CD?" And someone else took the question seriously: "Compact Disc". Duh, I know that. But does anyone younger than 10? It's a serious question given a prediction Nielsen makes.

    The analyst firm expects record-breaking digital music tracks sales in 2012 -- that means in excess of last year's 1.3 billion. The number already exceeds 1 billion, and Nielsen forecasts digital album sales will grow 15 percent year over year. My, how times have changed.

    Let me ask. When was the last time you bought a CD? I can't even remember. My last five digital purchases, all albums: "Soft Universe", pnau; "Pack Up The Plantation: Tom Petty & the Hearbreakers Live!"; "Ghost Notes", Matthew Barber; "Layla and Other Love Songs", Derek & the Dominoes (on sale for $2.99); and "A Night at the Opera", Queen (also on sale for $2.99). I purchased all from Google Play, where I still can't buy ($@%#^!) Green Day albums.

    "As we look ahead, it’s clear that digital music purchases -- and consumption through streaming sources -- will continue to grow, and that consumers’ appetites for digital music will change at the speed of technology", David Bakula, Nielsen senior veep, says. These trends will no doubt continue to shape the way that music is discovered, marketed, consumed and sold".

    Funny, how convenience suckered us all into buying up billions of digital tracks that audio fidelity and bit-rate are so much less than those on CDs.

    If you're old enough -- or perhaps with new trends young enough -- to remember vinyl, yes, the headline is a pun (and violation of BetaNews editorial style).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/04/Save_the_date__or_maybe_not_____Windows_Phone_8_launches_October_29'

    Save the date (or maybe not) -- Windows Phone 8 launches October 29

    Publié: octobre 4, 2012, 10:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I must take a moment to share the love -- the exact same given me by the Windows Phone team offered in return. Nothing! Bwhahahaha. Microsoft sent out invitations to a Windows Phone 8 event -- hey, you know it's the launch -- for October 29. Not that I received one. (Yes, I checked spam messages.) Apologies to the good editors at Wired. I lifted the invite image from you. It reads "save the date" -- well, I guess not.

    The phone OS event comes just three days after Microsoft launches Windows 8 and Surface tablets in New York City. I have three sisters, and their birthdays are October 26 and 29. Should I regard these product launches as presents or distractions, since Microsoft will have me too busy writing about the new stuff to celebrate with them? Well, girls, there's always Google+ Hangout or, maybe, just maybe, Skype. :)

    Windows Phone 8 OEM partners aren't waiting around to unveil new devices, such as the Samsung ATIV or Nokia 920 and 820 -- both of which are now confirmed for AT&T here in the United States.

    By comparison, Windows 8 manufacturers out new products or prices, too. For example: Acer Iconia W700 and HP ElitePad 900, just this week.

    The lyric to that awful, sappy song goes: "Your the wind beneath my wings", which surely Microsoft hopes Windows 8 will be for the phone OS. These launches so close together aren't coincidental. Both are huge undertakings, and one is more than enough for any company. Given the sorry state of Windows Phone adoption, there can't be lift enough.

    Combined Windows Mobile and Phone OS share in the strongest cellular mobile market, the United States, is just 3.6 percent on smartphones, according to comScore. That compares to 52.6 percent for Android and 34.3 percent for iOS. Still, there's a glimmer of hope. During second quarter, based on sales, Microsoft mobile OS share rose to 2.7 percent from 1.6 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner.

    Looks like Windows Phone has the potential to go somewhere, which surely is anywhere up with market share so low. As for me, playing off another song lyric, "if you're going to San Francisco", I'm not.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/04/Could_five_new_Nexus_devices_possibly_debut_November_5th_'

    Could five new Nexus devices possibly debut November 5th?

    Publié: octobre 4, 2012, 9:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For the second time in a week -- once being a rarity -- I write about new Android device rumors. There's renewed buzz about five Nexus branded devices coming within the month. Talk of five, instead of the typical one, started in May from Wall Street Journal. Soon after, writing for Talk Android, Robert Nazarian claimed that five new Nexus devices would come on November 5, which is the fifth anniversary of Android's release -- well, in beta. The OS wasn't officially available for public consumption until the T-Mobile G1 launched about 10 months later.

    This rumor actually makes sense to me, not that I really believe it. Nazarian cited a single source and hasn't much pursued the topic since. But it's oh-so convenient the idea that five Nexus devices will debut as a fifth-anniversary thing. It's a tempting enough rumor. Do you believe it, or even hope it's true?

    I just love the unbridled enthusiasm of fanboys sometimes. Student Seth Dickens exclaims about the new five devices rumor: "Oh mai Jesus. Please let this be 100% true!" Well, you can only use one -- okay perhaps two with well-trained opposable thumbs.

    Yesterday, Taylor Wimberly, writing for Android and Me, posted a corroborating rumor: LG Optimus G Nexus, coming in November. Other rumors perculate as I write. Better sourcing -- meaning someone on the record -- would help make me more the believer. Among them: 32GB Nexus 7. Yeah, I'll take one for Christmas, thank-you.

    One undercurrent is fairly consistent among the multi-device rumors and has been since the Journal's story: That Google is launching a new Nexus program, devices will ship with stock Android but manufacturers can offer limited -- and I do mean limited -- customization options.

    "The major news here is that all the stock Android Nexuses, regardless of the manufacturer, will have their UI overlays that supposedly differentiate the brands, as just a theme available via a separate customization center", My Android Life Claims. "It was high time, if you ask us, and something millions of Android users have been demanding for a while now".

    Under the scheme, as rumored, manufacturers would adhere to specific guidelines that, if nothing else, ensure immediate updates to the newest Android versions. Key benefits:

    • Diminish Android fragmentation
    • Open up market for "pure Google" devices
    • Increase access to Google lifesytle services
    • Combat OS fracturing from tailored Androids like Amazon's
    • Separately, let OEMs continue offering customized skins, such as TouchWiz
    • Meet customer demand for unlocked devices that can receive custom bootloaders

    Zigurd Mednieks, who is a startup CTO and Android book author, captures my sentiment:

    Now they are getting it right. Google has long needed to have more open and transparent relationships with OEMs. Picking winners is hard, and who knows which product formulation is going to be a monster hit. This will also speed up updates, if Nexus-compliant OEMs get access to Android updates and can either deliver timely updates, or deliver a HAL layer to Google that enables Google to provide updates directly.

    A Google-guided multi-Nexus device strategy is hugely sensible and smartly timed, if rumors be true. Android already won the smartphone wars and makes surprising gains on tablets. Globally, as measured in phone sales, Android OS share was 64.1 percent during second quarter, Gartner reports.

    According to Pew, 25 percent of Americans own tablets, with Android making huge gains against iPad. From July to July, measuring tablet ownership, iPad share plummeted from 81 percent to 52 percent, while Android skyrocketed from 21 percent to 48 percent. But...Kindle, which runs hugely-customized Amazon Android, makes up 21 percent of the green-robot tablet share.

    So for both markets, the Nexus strategy makes sense as way of stabilizing the platform.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/03/US_smartphone_market_consolidates_around_Android__iPhone'

    US smartphone market consolidates around Android, iPhone

    Publié: octobre 3, 2012, 1:42am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In a move appropriate for another two-party presidential election season, there is now little room for three dominant smartphone operating systems. The US market is now decisively consolidated around just two, Apple and Google platforms, as rivals -- including BlackBerry and Windows Phone -- make brisk retreats.

    For the three months ended in August, Android and iOS had combined 86.9 percent smartphone subscriber share -- that's up from 82.8 percent at the end of May, according to comScore. August 2011: 71 percent. As combined share approaches 90 percent, a third-party contender looks less likely. Both potential candidates lost share during the three months, all gobbled up by the leaders.

    Android share increased to 52.6 percent from 50.9 percent, while Apple grew to 34.3 percent from 31.9 percent. Year earlier: 43.7 percent and 27.3 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, during the three months, BlackBerry share fell to 8.3 percent from 11.4 percent and Microsoft platforms Windows Mobile and Phone to 3.6 percent from 4 percent. August 2011: 19.7 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively. Combined, year over year, Microsoft and Research in Motion mobile operating systems lost 13.5 points, while Apple and Google platforms gained 15.9 points.

    The point: The two dominant platforms also took share from others, mainly Symbian, giving up nothing for the others. The trend forebodes trouble as Microsoft and RIM launch new operating systems -- Windows Phone 8 and BlackBerry 10, respectively.

    Among manufacturers of all devices (smart and not), Samsung share remains stuck, largely unchanged -- down slightly -- for most of 2011. In August: 25.7 percent, up from 25.3 percent a year earlier. Apple, by comparison, made tremendous gains, with US subscriber share rising from 9.8 percent to 17.1 percent August to August. At this pace, Apple tracks to take the No. 2 spot from LG this year.

    While Apple and Samsung are posed to become the overall phone leaders, there is plenty of room for a third or even fourth major competitor. LG and Motorola retreats are significant but not blood loss like Microsoft and RIM smartphone platforms. Fourth-ranked Motorola's share fell to 11.2 percent from 14 percent year over year, while LG retreated to 18.2 percent from 21 percent. However, their losses all went to Apple, which subscriber share grew 75 percent year over year.

    To compile the data, comScore surveys 30,000 US cellular subscribers 13 or older. Two-hundred-thirty-four million Americans have cellular handsets; 116.5 million have smartphones, just shy of 50 percent.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/02/Apple_Maps_disaster_hurts_iPhone_5_sales'

    Apple Maps disaster hurts iPhone 5 sales

    Publié: octobre 2, 2012, 9:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Early results to BetaNews poll "Will iOS 6 maps keep you from buying iPhone 5?" are grim. Nearly 44 percent of respondents answer "yes", but when removing those who wouldn't buy the handset anyway, the result is much worse for Apple. Is it time to ask whether the Apple Maps offense should be a fireable offense? That one is for you in comments.

    As I write, there are 1,238 responses, 43.62 percent of which are "yes". Only 29.64 percent of respondents won't change their purchasing plans because of Apple Maps. However, 22.13 percent wouldn't buy iPhone 5 anyway. When removing these respondents from the results and only looking at the pool of potential purchasers, the number saying they won't buy iPhone 5 because of iOS 6 maps is 56 percent.

    Mapgate, Mapocalypse or whatever else you would call it is a disaster for Apple. The remedy isn't difficult: Restore the mapping experience that iOS users had with earlier versions by bringing back, even if temporarily, Google's product.

    Perhaps Apple believes that, like iPhone 4 Death Grip, bad press will die down. Except bad buzz didn't just go away. Apple's CEO, then Steve Jobs, apologized (okay, kind of and grudgingly) and offered Death Grip remedy by giving away free bumpers. Successor Tim Cook apologized for Apple Maps but offered no real remedy other than to suggest alternative apps, like Microsoft's Bing, or using Google's web service.

    BetaNews reader Julie Digs Design expresses exactly why Cook's remedy isn't enough: "I use the map app significantly more than any other maps because I don't have a car and I live in a city. This new feature doesn't have transit and walking directions at the ready (like the google app did). My train has already left by the time I wait to switch to the third party app to get my transit directions!"

    Using another program doesn't change map defaults throughout iOS 6, which is part of the problem using something else.

    "It would've been great if Apple could've compromised and licensed the Google data like Navigon did" snworf suggests. "Apple could've licensed this temporarily into their Maps app and removed it when they had things further along".

    Dennis McClune puts Apple's response in larger context: "The Corporate ethos will likely keep me from ever buying any Apple crap".


    Apple has apologized for its new home-grown maps app, which gives errors and misdirections. Will iOS 6 Maps keep you from buying iPhone 5?

    Xuanlong goes farther:

    Apple Maps will indeed keep me from buying anything from Apple. It's not the maps themselves that are the problem, but the problem that they represent: that Apple doesn't care about it's customers. Putting profits before people is bad enough, but when a petty feud with Google comes before customers too, I think it really begs the question of what Apple's priorities are. It certainly doesn't seem to be pleasing their droves of loyal fans who they are so quick to screw over.

    "Just the iPhone 5 hardware is not enough to make want to upgrade my 4s", Richard Young comments. "The maps suck just the same on both models".

    "The map application wouldn't stop" commenter Bob "from upgrading, but all the other issues like dents and scratches showing right out the box or after a few days of normal use will".

    neutrino23:

    We just bought two of them in our family. I've been driving through half a dozen states on both coasts the past two weeks using Apple's map app and it worked fine for me over hundreds of miles. It did misplace two businesses (which was easy to fix) but it also found one Starbucks which Google Maps on an older phone didn't find. This has been overblown by tech writers. A year from now we'll forget about this and move on to some new reason why Apple is a terrible company wich doesn't innovate and overcharges.

    Commenter JC sees the situation differently: "This is more than just an app, with wrong directions, locations & lack of details can stop people to find restaurants, stores, hotels etc etc., so is extremely bad for marketing for other companies".

    edstreiff:

    My wife and I did a side-by-side at the Verizon store, and it was clear that the Google Maps on her iPhone 4 running iOS 5 were much better than the iPhone 5 and Apple Maps. It couldn't even find a restaurant that had been open for 5 years, nor could it find the address of the restaurant because the map had no data for the development that it was in, which again had been developed over 5 years ago. Google found the restaurant, had street view of the development and newer, clearer satallite photos".

    Colleague Wayne Williams calls Apple Maps a "huge downgrade" in his review. That and a little lost. In one turn-by-turn test, iOS Maps directed him on a four-and-a-half hour, 248-mile, drive in the wrong direction.

    Photo Credit:  Robert Kyllo/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/02/For_every_8_pageviews__one_comes_from_phone_or_tablet'

    For every 8 pageviews, one comes from phone or tablet

    Publié: octobre 2, 2012, 5:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Americans still love their PCs for sitting back and surfing the web, but, hey, it's the post-PC era, baby and times are changing. In August, 13.3 percent of web pageviews -- from browsers, not apps -- went to mobile phones or tablets, according to comScore. That's double the number in a year.

    Mobile phones accounted for 9 percent of pageviews and tablets 4.3 percent. The latter foreshadows the category's huge potential to disrupt the PC-browsing paradigm. Tablet install base is tiny compared to handsets.

    For example, globally, 267.3 million smart devices -- connected PCs, smartphones and tablets -- during second quarter, according to IDC. Smartphones accounted for 59 percent of the total, while just 10 percent for tablets.

    Still, PCs dwarf tablets in the present, accounting for 86.7 percent of pageviews in August. However, that's a 6.4-point drop year over year.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/02/Is_new_Google_Nexus_device_imminent__Sensible_'

    Is new Google Nexus device imminent? Sensible?

    Publié: octobre 2, 2012, 12:36am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I typically don't write about rumors, since too many are obvious (and so look like someone simply guessed and wrote a story), while others aren't adequately sourced (who and why is uncertain). But readers have asked me today about the next Google Nexus device following new rumors it's coming within 30 days.

    Duh, I can reasonably speculate that based on Google's past two Nexus phone launches October is reasonable debut. But something is different this year: Way fewer rumors, which could mean: 1) There is no imminent Nexus; 2) Google has cooked up something special. Or 3) You tell me another reason. It's the silence that has my interest more than the noise.

    Details leaked in a steady stream before Galaxy Nexus' unveiling a year ago this month. There wasn't much left to know before the official event, which Google and Samsung delayed. They had planned to announce Oct. 11, 2011, but postponed, partly to respect Steve Jobs, who died on the 5th. Apple pushed ahead with iPhone 4S launch plans, by comparison. Competitors waited eight days.

    It's not unreasonable to speculate the next Google Nexus device debuts this month, but those missing rumors do baffle. Has Google got the lid on information screwed down so tight, or perhaps no handset is ready? That could be plural, if other rumors prove true and Google Nexus phones are available from different manufacturers; rumors are louder.

    What a month to blow out the next thing. iPhone 5 is now available in 31 countries, less than two weeks after launch. Windows 8 hits the streets in 25 days, with a heapload of supporting convertibles, tablets (some running Windows RT) and Microsoft Surface. Then there are continued rumors about iPad-mini, also supposed to drop in October. Then there are Amazon Kindle HD 8.9-inch tablets, available for preorder now, and going on sale about when the Next Nexus thing could, if announced in October.

    October is Halloween month. I dunno whether to call it trick, or treat? Or maybe just a lot of cavities for salivating gear geeks.

    Looking Back

    Other Nexus device launches offer some context for what Google does next or when.

    Jan. 5, 2010: The search giant announces the HTC-manufactured Nexus One -- the first "pure Google" device following the G1's debut in September 2008. Nexus One marks a sea change for Google, which sells the handset direct and uses it as a reference design for developers and device manufacturers.

    Google brought to market in January 2010 features Apple wouldn't attempt to match for 18 months. I wrote on launch day: "With Nexus One and Android 2.1, Google is doing what Microsoft failed to with its March 2007 Tellme acquisition: Offer a more natural mobile phone user interface. Voice should have been it, but Microsoft failed to bring the technology to Windows Mobile in a big way. By comparison, Google has been hot on voice search".

    I bought two, one for my tech-illiterate wife, who months earlier had returned iPhone 3GS within 30 days of purchase.

    Nov. 15, 2010: Google Chairman Eric Schmidt unveils the Samung-manufactured Nexus S -- on sale in the United States about one month later. Google moved up to 4-inch display nearly two years before iPhone. I returned to T-Mobile as carrier when buying Nexus S. I would eventually get four Nexus S phones, two on T-Mobile and two later when switching back to AT&T. My mom still uses Nexus S today.

    Oct. 19, 2011: Google and Samsung debut co-designed Galaxy Nexus running Android 4.0. Sales start internationally about a month later, and through Verizon in early December here. Verizon's Galaxy Nexus doubles storage to 32GB and adds 4G LTE.

    I bought one, temporarily switching to Verizon. I loved Galaxy Nexus LTE but couldn't afford splitting the family between carriers. I later switched to AT&T and sold the Galaxy Nexus for about the cost of Verizon's early-termination fee.

    In April, Google starts selling Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ direct, for $399, supporting AT&T and T-Mobile high-speed data bands. Phone now lists for $349. I bought two, giving up iPhone 4S. My wife uses the other.

    Last week, I bought iPhone 5 to review and toyed with switching out Galaxy Nexus. But I couldn't find enough compelling reasons to give up the Android -- then there is my Apple boycott. I returned iPhone 5, and Apple refunded my full purchase price. There are at least two other BetaNews writers using Galaxy Nexus, and I'm not the only iPhone-switcher.

    June 27, 2012: Google unveils the ASUS-manufactured Nexus 7, which goes on sale in mid July. The $199 tablet delivers a great user experience, running Android 4.1, and at remarkable $199 pricing. Soon as my wife saw the tablet, she asked for one. So long Kindle Fire.

    Looking Ahead

    So what next?

    Google had the clear spotlight announcing Nexus 7 in summer. iPhone 4S launch and Steve Jobs' death overshadowed Galaxy Nexus' debut -- that, and late US launch. A year later, October and November crowd up with some big product announcements, bigger if Apple drops iPad mini into the gadget harvest.

    What Google needs is something big. It's too soon for Android 5, which leaves 4.2 in its absence. Another Nexus phone would be nice, but the competition is heated now. A year ago, Americans chose from fewer than a dozen LTE handsets. Now, with iPhone finally adopting, LTE is nearly standard. HTC One X and Samsung Galaxy S III remain among the most appealing Androids; their features won't easily be beat.

    Then there is Windows Phone 8, which less a concern now but still a distraction, with new handsets from Nokia and Samsung, among others, in the queue.

    Nexus tablet with cellular radio or even display screen could have been big, but larger Kindle Fire HD has LTE. Still, new phone and tablet couldn't be ignored.

    I don't bubble with enthusiasm about a new Nexus device debuting in October. But Google commands attention right now. Stock price is record high, and above Apple; marketing is aggressive and compelling; and overall product set better and leaner since Larry Page took the CEO's chair in April 2011. From that perspective, now is time.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/01/Will_Apple_Maps_keep_you_from_buying_iPhone_5_'

    Will Apple Maps keep you from buying iPhone 5?

    Publié: octobre 1, 2012, 6:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's the question I should have asked nearly two weeks ago, instead of or perhaps in addition to "Will Apple Maps keep you from upgrading to iOS 6?" Surely the Cupertino, Calif.-based company must worry about such circumstance. On Friday, I asserted this concern as top reason CEO Tim Cook apologized for so-called "mapgate".

    Apple has a real problem. The new maps app, which replaces the one Google provided for five years, misidentifies locations, gives wrong directions and lacks details. Considering just how popular mapping and local search are to smartphone users, the bad publicity is sure to keep somebody from buying iPhone 5. That Cook's remedy is telling iOS 6 customers to use another mapping program spotlights just how bad is the situation and how great the concern bad publicity will hurt device sales.

    "If Apple was really truly sorry, it would restore the Google Maps app that it obliterated", It Advisor comments. That's crux of it. Cook's apology is more about protecting Apple -- brand image and iPhone 5 sales -- than doing anything for customers.

    2twotees agree: "This workaround suggested by Apple doesn't do a damn thing for apps that use maps as part of their app. Shame on Apple for being so hard-headed. Get Google Maps back if you want to please your customers. Don't send us off on some goose chase workaround".

    Apple should be more concerned. Fifty-three precent of respondents to the iOS 6 poll answer "yes" that Apple Maps will keep them from upgrading. Twenty-one percent will upgrade, but a nearly-equal number don't have iOS devices. When removing the latter group so that the survey only includes responses from iOS device owners, the number waiting jumps to 68 percent. Of course, BetaNews readers tend to be more in-the-know and likely don't represent all iOS device owners. Still, it's helluva big number.

    To date, Apple has pretty good track record moving iOS device owners to the newest version. But the maps debacle risks rifting the platform, at least temporarily.

    PuzzledObserver comments: "That is shocking! An apology?!? It's the users' fault! There are plenty of places to go, why would they decide to go where the map is wrong? Apple accepts no apology no fault. In a few weeks, any iPhone 5 customer will be compensated by a plastic case. End of story".

    BetaNews commenters sure are an opinionated lot, and often discussion breaks down along party lines -- meaning which fanboy camp so-and-so belongs to. Reader jfplopes offers refreshing perspective:

    No one can argue the fact that Apple did a great job introducing new types of devices to the mainstream. Just like Microsoft was a key part of pushing the PC to the mainstream, or Google in bringing real improvements to the web.


    Apple has apologized for its new home-grown maps app, which gives errors and misdirections. Will iOS 6 Maps keep you from buying iPhone 5?

    But now it's 2012. And this is the fact. I criticize Apple just as I would criticize any other company that simply isn't doing their job as they should. I can't accept people defending Apple and bashing other companies when Apple introduces to the market features that are in beta as if they are fully released products.

    At least Apple called Siri beta when introduced in iOS 5, although most people wouldn't know given the heavy TV advertising. I would call iOS 6 maps less than beta, after using the feature. Siri still is no better than beta, as I found out reviewing iPhone 5 last week. Google Now/voice search is remarkably good at getting to information asked for, while Siri has problems understanding speech and giving up anything. "Search the web" response gets old real fast.

    For many people, Apple Maps will be a step backwards. But many others may see iPhone 5's other features as leap enough forward. Is that you? Please respond to the headline question in comments below or take the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/10/01/Fickle_Americans_sure_return_lots_of_tech_devices'

    Fickle Americans sure return lots of tech devices

    Publié: octobre 1, 2012, 4:51pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Smartphone is the most commonly returned consumer electronics device, according to a new NPD study. The category accounts for 10 percent of all returns or exchanges, followed by PCs. More broadly, 18 million Americans took back or sent back some CE device during the previous 12 months. We are a fickle lot, indeed.

    If you ever wondered why Apple, Google and other companies post so many how-to videos, preventing returns or exchanges is one reason. While 57 percent of returnees cite defective product as reason, the real numbers can't be that high. People are dissatisfied, often because they don't understand how the device works.

    "Making sure the consumer knows how to use their new device, whether it be a smartphone or a PC, and knowing how to use it before they leave the store helps increase product and retailer satisfaction", Ben Arnold, director of NPD industry analysis, says. "Earlier this year our Tech Support Services Study found a majority of consumers used tech support for troubleshooting and how-to-support, not for product repair, just more evidence that these devices are working but that consumers are having trouble operating them".

    NPD cites device complexity as factor, with features like Internet connectivity, proximity sensors and touchscreens dumbfounding many purchasers. Some manufacturers do better, or worse, than others, but the analyst firm wouldn't say which ones. However: 60 percent of smartphone returns, and 52 percent of flat-screen televisions, are for the same brand. High returns create negative brand perception, a problem improved education and tech support could resolve.

    Case in point: Flat-panel TVs are among the least-returned CE devices, just 4 percent. While the devices are complex, many retailers provide in-store support before purchase or installation services afterwards.

    "Retailers have an opportunity with exchanges to show consumers they can provide quality and value", Arnold says. "As technology devices become more complex and connected, pre-and post-sales support becomes more important in keeping returns low and consumer satisfaction for brands and retailers high".

    NPD recommends that retailers offer more in-store education, extended services plans or warranties and better post-purchase support as means of preventing returns.

    Have you returned a tech product in the last six months? What?

    Photo Credit: Viorel Sima/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/30/Can_iPhone_5_survive_a_coffee_spill_'

    Can iPhone 5 survive a coffee spill?

    Publié: septembre 30, 2012, 7:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Waterproofing is one of the hottest trends in tech, as manufacturers release more devices resistant to spills and dunks. But this isn't a feature Apple touts for recently-released iPhone 5. Still, with all that aluminium and glass casing, you've got to wonder: Can iPhone 5 take a spill and survive? Android Authority puts the handset to the test.

    Darcy LaCouvee is back, from Hong Kong, with the same iPhone 5 used in last week's drop test that left Samsung Galaxy S III shattered and Apple's mobile merely scuffed. The good folks at Android Authority sent me a link to the video on Friday, but I waited to post, seeing it as good Sunday fare. Three tests: Coffee spill, coins and keys scratching and full water immersion for 15 seconds.

    You'll have to watch the video to find out if iPhone 5 survived any or all the tests, but LaCouvee's closing comment says much: "The bar has been raised. Android manufacturers are going to have to create better-quality devices from here on in if they want to compete with the iPhone 5". Remember, this is Android Authority not some iPhone idolater website.

    By the way, LaCouvee speaks about the rice trick like it's common knowledge but perhaps not for some readers. Sometimes water-damaged phones can be saved by putting them in a container of rice, which soaks up the liquid, for about a day. Buddy of mine dropped his iPhone 4 in the backyard swimming pool and pulled it out in a few seconds. The malfunctioning device revived after using the rice trick. What a guy. He gave the water-damaged/recovered iPhone 4 to his wife and replaced it with the 4S.

    Everyone evaluating iPhone 5, or any other smartphone, should ask about water resistance, particularly those idiots people who talk and text on the toilet. Surely someone has dropped iPhone in the commode, where, depending on what's in there, pulling it out quick might not be an easy option.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/28/AMC_cajoles_DISH_subscribers_with_free__The_Walking_Dead__streaming_event'

    AMC cajoles DISH subscribers with free 'The Walking Dead' streaming event

    Publié: septembre 28, 2012, 8:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Welcome to weird news Friday! We went from Apple CEO Tim Cook's iOS 6 maps apology to a Steve Jobs sculpture made from his trash. Now this: AMC launches a bizarre retaliatory campaign against DISH Network. Following a contract disagreement, DISH killed AMC on its service. Now AMC uses hit TV show "The Walking Dead" to kill DISH. Who are the real zombies here?

    The only living beings may be AMC marketers, who cleverly disguise payback as promotion. Starting today, DISH customers can sign up to stream the first new zombie episode when it airs October 14. Prominently displayed: "This is a one-time only event for DISH customers. Switch TV providers now to see the rest of Season 3 of The Walking Dead".

    But there's more! AMC also operates a "Switch from DISH" site, where existing subscribers can change providers. That site went live before the contract expired in July.

    In another sign of attack, AMC speaks for DISH but does so in an uncredited statement:

    "To gain leverage in an unrelated lawsuit, DISH has decided to deny their customers access to AMC shows including 'The Walking Dead'...DISH has stated it has no plans to bring back AMC. DISH customers who want to watch the entire season at the same time as the rest of the country should switch television providers now. Time is running out".

    DISH takes a different position. The day before pulling AMC, Dave Shull, DISH's senior veep of programming said: "A significant portion of any pay-TV bill goes to fees for content providers like AMC Networks. AMC Networks requires us to carry low-rated channels like IFC and WE to access a few popular AMC shows. The math is simple: it's not a good value for our customers".

    DISH brought in ASX.TV, HDNET Movies and Style to replace the AMC channels. Shull claims that AMC has devalued its programs by offering so many television programs on services like iTunes, while providing fewer compelling movies.

    Unquestionably, AMC original programs like Mad Men and The Walking Dead appeal -- I watch them? Don't you? Eh, perhaps don't answer if a DISH subscriber.

    But I'm fussy. The Walking Dead just isn't as lively as the early episodes. The show spent too much of last season on the farm. Boring! Now, judging by the last episode aired, the cast is headed off the farm into prison. I guess that about sums up where AMC sees DISH subscribers.

    Will you switch?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/28/Sorry__Tim_Cook__apology_not_accepted'

    Sorry, Tim Cook, apology not accepted

    Publié: septembre 28, 2012, 6:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple's CEO is "extremely sorry" about the "frustration" the company's homegrown maps app "has caused our customers". Sorry isn't good enough because it's directed at the wrong place. Apple replaced Google Maps in the newest version of iOS on September 19, and even Cook admits "we fell short on this commitment" to "make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers". Simply stated: Apple Maps app sucks, but he apologizes about the wrong thing.

    Cook's letter of apology should go further and get to the root problem: Why Apple ditched Google Maps in the first place. Before his death, Steve Jobs told his biographer that Google's Android essentially is a stolen product, a copycat: "I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this". Apple bombs Android competitors with patent lawsuits, risking fallout in the form of legal precedents that could hurt all tech companies. Apple's dumping Google Maps, and also YouTube, from iOS are warfare tactics -- and bigger than copying concerns when looking at local search as future ad revenue opportunity. Apple customers are collateral damage from nuclear fallout that is the new mapping app.

    Misdirection

    What exactly is Apple's priority? Competitors or customers? Microsoft lost its way chasing Google. Now Apple charts similar path. Four months ago, I started a personal Apple boycott because of abusive patent litigation but weeks ago expressed desire to end it if the company stopped the thermonuclear war. Other people are angry, too. At Google+, #boycottapple typically ranks highly among trending topics.

    Something else: Why didn't Cook apologize sooner? Rage against iOS 6 Maps started with the first reviews about 10 days ago. As a journalist, I always ask this question: Who benefits? That applies to today's letter to Apple customers. Who benefits from Cook's apology? I see some social network postings praising him for coming clean. I might agree if he had done so, say, during the first three days of negative responses -- when mainstream journalists asked questions but got few answers.

    Instead, Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller gave non-response: "We launched this new map service knowing that it is a major initiative and we are just getting started with it. We are continuously improving it, and as Maps is a crowd-based solution, the more people use it, the better it will get".

    Apple is a company for which brand image, and marketing supporting it, is paramount. An admission of guilt soon after iOS 6 released risked overshadowing iPhone 5's September 21 launch in 9 countries. But a week later, as the handset goes on sale in 22 more countries, the maps controversy has gone on long enough to be a real marketing problem.

    BetaNews commenter arcana112 calls Apple's map strategy "arrogance in its purest form. At this stage they feel that they can literally throw anything at their customers and they will gladly eat it up".

    Perhaps Apple execs expected the company's typical Teflon coating -- favorable blog, news and social media response -- would be protection enough. Instead, iOS 6 is a wildfire of controversy that needs to be extinguished.

    Last week, I asked: "Will Apple Maps keep you from upgrading to iOS 6?" So far, 54 percent of you answered yes. Only 21.34 percent will upgrade, which coincidentally is exactly the same number that don't have iOS devices. But I asked the wrong question. More appropriate: Will Apple Maps keep you from buying iPhone 5?" Surely Apple is concerned with that answer.

    The point: Cook's apology is self-serving. It's not about customers, but Apple. The same can be said about the thermonuclear war.

    Wrong Direction

    iOS 6 Maps is a surprising experience, shocking for anyone accustomed to Apple usually delivering above-average one. Colleague Wayne Williams calls Apple Maps a "huge downgrade" in his review of the product. My experience isn't much better, as expressed in my iPhone 5 review. Across the web, torrents of complaints rage about Apple's product -- that it's a downgrade from Google Maps, places are misidentified and directions go the wrong way. Testing iOS 6 maps, I searched for "fashion valley" inside San Diego's Fashion Valley Mall and got a map for Skin Valley in Paris.

    Customers wouldn't be here, if Apple partnered more than competed. I'm amazed Apple allows as many Google apps as it does on iOS, with Chrome being most striking. Not that it's by any means fair play. Apple favors mobile Safari, which is the only default browser and one given a speed advantage over rival products. By the way, in June I asked "Will you swap Safari for Chrome as your primary mobile browser?" Fifty-six percent of you answered "yes".

    It's unfair to totally blame the thermonuclear war. Apple is well-known for controlling customer experiences end to end. Mapping is one of the most-used applications, particularly as more people rely on smartphones for navigation and local search. About three-quarters of US smartphone owners use location-based services, with mapping programs ranking among the highest, according to Pew Research.

    Obviously Apple wants to control the user experience. But why not go in stages, by introducing Apple Maps but keeping Google's product, too? Then customers have a fall-back option while Apple improves its product over time -- and that's what it takes. Apple can't match Google's rich product overnight.

    BetaNews reader bitslasher observes:

    They rushed it out, and in the process tarnished their brand and reputation. When the iPhone was in development it was delayed for years until it felt it was ready. What would have been the harm in waiting for another year? IMHO going out with something half-baked is worse than going out with nothing at all. No one would have been any the wiser and in a year it would have been a lot better, no doubt.

    So why not go slowly? It's a question of Apple priorities. Google Maps is a parasite. Writing for the Washington Post, Dominic Basulto smartly asks: "Remember what algorithms were to search? That’s what maps are to mobile". Yes, absolutely. Apple decided to cut off Google Maps completely to make way for its own product, even if hugely inferior.

    Mobile is the future of computing, and smartphones lead the way. IDC predicts shipments of smart devices -- connected PCs, smartphones and tablets -- will reach 1.2 billion units this year. Smartphones make up 59 percent of the segment. These mobiles are more personal and more present (meaning nearly-always carried) than PCs. Eyeballs are potential ad dollars that Apple surely wants to tap long term. The advertising tie-in to local search through maps is mindboggling. Apple wants a cut of that pie, to control it.

    Writing for All Things Digital John Paczkowski uses unnamed sources to chronicle the process leading to Apple dumping Google Maps and rushing its homegrown product to market. Google wanted more branding, Apple demanded turn-by-turn navigations, he claims. The only real certainty: Apple wasn't willing to go on providing the best experience to customers, choosing instead to put other priorities first. C`mon, what good are turn-by-turn navigations if they lead people to the wrong destination?

    Cook's apology is as misguided as the directions Apple Maps gives.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/28/Apple_apologizes_for_iOS_6_maps'

    Apple apologizes for iOS 6 maps

    Publié: septembre 28, 2012, 3:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This morning, Apple posted an apology from the CEO about iOS 6 maps, which replaced the mature Google product available in the five previous versions of the operating system. Complaints about misidentifications and misdirections flooded the web, starting with the software's release on September 19.

    The letter, posted on Apple's website and signed by Tim Cook, is a rare mea culpa. Ironically, Cook's temporary remedy: Use map apps like Bing or do what colleague Wayne Williams suggested yesterday -- create a shortcut to Google Maps web app. Wayne's Apple Maps review shows exactly what's wrong with the experience he describes as a downgrade.

    The apology:

    To our customers,

    At Apple, we strive to make world-class products that deliver the best experience possible to our customers. With the launch of our new Maps last week, we fell short on this commitment. We are extremely sorry for the frustration this has caused our customers and we are doing everything we can to make Maps better.

    We launched Maps initially with the first version of iOS. As time progressed, we wanted to provide our customers with even better Maps including features such as turn-by-turn directions, voice integration, Flyover and vector-based maps. In order to do this, we had to create a new version of Maps from the ground up.

    There are already more than 100 million iOS devices using the new Apple Maps, with more and more joining us every day. In just over a week, iOS users with the new Maps have already searched for nearly half a billion locations. The more our customers use our Maps the better it will get and we greatly appreciate all of the feedback we have received from you.

    While we’re improving Maps, you can try alternatives by downloading map apps from the App Store like Bing, MapQuest and Waze, or use Google or Nokia maps by going to their websites and creating an icon on your home screen to their web app.

    Everything we do at Apple is aimed at making our products the best in the world. We know that you expect that from us, and we will keep working non-stop until Maps lives up to the same incredibly high standard.

    Tim Cook
    Apple’s CEO

    Is this apology good enough for you? It's not for me, and I'll explain why in a follow-up post.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/28/Chromebook_changed_my_life'

    Chromebook changed my life

    Publié: septembre 28, 2012, 1:27am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Four months ago, I put aside (and later sold) MacBook Air for the Samsung Series 5 550 second-generation Chromebook and never looked back. They say three times is a charm, and that proves true with my third foray using a laptop running Chrome OS. The first two proved life-changing, as I adopted a partial cloud computing lifestyle. Now I live a vigorous, charmed cloud life, which includes Android embrace.

    Chromebook isn't easy, because it demands a thinking reset. I had to put aside concepts about everyday computing, fear of losing Internet connection and perceptions about hardware configurations and what's good enough performance value. Something else: When I started this journey, in December 2010, Chrome OS wasn't good enough, because there weren't enough supporting cloud apps. That has changed dramatically, because of Chrome Web Store and how much desktop-like utility Google now brings to cloud services like G+ or YouTube.

    There are many ways here I will recount how Chromebook changed my life, but one demands more immediate attention. For more than a year before the 550 arrived, I felt unsettled about Apple's relentless attempts to thwart innovation by litigation -- those damn patent lawsuits. But I didn't feel technologically empowered enough to do what my mind demanded: Boycott Apple. I planned to try by switching to an ASUS Pad 300 Android tablet in late May. Google contacted me about Chromebook just as I prepared to start that journey. Six weeks later, I had replaced MacBook Air with Chromebook, iPhone 4S with Galaxy Nexus, Apple Mail with Gmail and generally abandoned my long Apple lifestyle -- declaring independence on July 4th. My mom and wife use Chromebook, too.

    Trial and Triumph

    I first used Chromebook in December 2010, when Google dispatched 60,000 Cr-48 test models to willing early adopters. The portable challenged my concepts and compelled me to think more about storing stuff in the cloud and consuming more app services in the browser. Then the first commercial Chromebooks, from Acer and Samsung, launched on June 15, 2011. I tested one right away, but didn't begin my next important journey until July 31, 2011, when I switched over to using the Chromebook as my primary, and later only, PC. I kept that up until the first week of October, when, because of disappointing performance, Chromebook retired.

    The journey resumed in late May, as previously mentioned, and continues to this today. The 550 Chromebook is my only computer and delivers all the performance I need. But making the leap required shedding concepts. By the specs, Samsung's second-generation Chromebook is hugely underpowered: 1.3GHz Intel Celeron 867 processor (dual-core); 12.1-inch matte display (1280 x 800 resolution; 300 nit); 16GB solid-state drive; Intel HD graphics; 4GB SDRAM; webcam; two USB ports; DisplayPort; WiFi N; 3G (on some models); Gigabit Ethernet; 4-in-1 media card slot; and Chrome OS. The operating system stack supports Bluetooth, which therefore can be added by dongle; I did for my wife, who demands a mouse.

    I would never pay for a modern Mac or Windows PC specced this way, yet here I am happily moseying along on a Chromebook that performs handsomely. The portable boots up or wakes from sleep in seconds; recovers from crashes about as fast (not that there are many); and handles all the tasks I need from it, pleasantly.

    Moving back to Chromebook was like putting on a new pair of shoes that fit right and offer adequate arch support, unlike the older pair. Chrome OS is as familiar as Google's web browser, and I already had moved some of my life to cloud. Now I've taken up residence.

    Before adopting the Chromebook lifestyle four months ago, I:

    • Primarily used desktop applications -- now the browser consuming app services
    • Used Chrome, Firefox and Safari -- now just Chrome across devices with seamless sync
    • Stored all my files to local hard drive or USB disk -- now they reside on Google Drive
    • As previously mentioned, primarily used Apple products -- now my computing soul belongs to Google
    • Used iTunes to listen to music stored on a USB drive -- now stream my library of 13,000 tracks from Google Music
    • Relied on a PC password to protect locally stored data -- now 2-step verification on all cloud sites that offer it

    My computing lifestyle transformed over the summer, but the process really started in December 2010 when first using the Cr-48.

    Cloud Cover

    I chose to write about Chromebook today because of midway timing. Four months ago last week, I started this new journey while one year ago next week the old one ended. I'm miffed that, with my bad luck, over at The Verge Louis Goddard today posted "Life with a Chromebook: three months of love and hate in the cloud: Can one man survive without 'Counter-Strike' and Photoshop?" Timing is coincidental, damn it. His story popped up in my Google+ feed this afternoon, but I won't read it until after posting mine.

    But his headline is good segue to applications. Under other circumstances, a Chrome OS portable wouldn't be an option for me, and that easily could be the case for you. Chromebook is not for:

    • Demanding gamers
    • Software developers
    • Heavy video producers
    • Professional photographers
    • Desktop software-dependent software users
    • Anyone who can't maintain a persistent Net connection

    I don't much game and don't develop software. YouTube provides all the video-editing features I need. Cloud photo-editing apps more than meet my requirements, although they would better satisfy if supporting camera RAW. Most any software capabilities I need are satisfied by web services. AT&T U-verse provides nearly always-on Internet connection (there has been one outage, when all San Diego went dark, since our household started using the service in February 2008). I'm an easy Chromebook candidate today, but you might not be.

    You can comfortably use Chromebook as an everyday business PC, as long as your stuff is accessible from the browser and supports Flash and adopted or open browser standards -- of course, you need persistent web connection for most things (but not always as there are offline apps). Most people using a traditional PC would need constant connection, too. Google's tight integration to its services and the surprisingly good choice of third-party web apps are major reasons why Chromebook can be good enough. Chrome OS satisfies all I need to do on a daily basis.

    But that's a simplification. I've used desktop software my entire computing life. Letting go concepts that cloud services couldn't be enough proved challenging at first, particularly for intensive tasks like photo and video editing. My preconceptions limited how rapidly I received cloud benefits. Need helped me to push the limits.

    For example, I process a good dozen images for BetaNews every day. That requires a photo editor, and to my surprise there are several good ones. I typically use iPiccy. There's an Instagram extension, and I recently started using the clever and cute PicMonkey, too.

    Typically, photo-editing is faster in a browser than in any desktop software I used on MacBook Air. Yeah, scratch your head at that -- and think. In the cloud, the heavy computing is done on the server. With desktop software, your PC bears the burden. The difference is striking in other ways. As I type, 19 Chrome tabs are open, and Chromebook is as fast and responsive as if there was only one. iPiccy is among the open tabs, and I don't see any performance hit from this or others with cloud services replacing desktop application functions.

    Restating: Accepting this benefit meant a change of mindset. Because I had a firm concept about which experience should be better. That presented a barrier to my realizing the many cloud benefits or willingness to step from the perceived safety of earth -- leap off the cliff, so to speak -- into the cloud.

    Jocular Journey

    Chromebook is by no means perfect, just more than good enough for my particular computing needs. Google releases a new version of Chrome OS about every two months (soon after the newest browser build enters the stable channel). I've actually seen three updates since May, and each brought improvements or remedied quirks. Example: I had to crank volume control nearly full to get loud enough sound from my Bose speakers, now it's good enough less than half way. Another example: Google Drive integration is available, from the file menu.

    I'm not a big fan of the mixed desktop and browser motif, something Google introduced weeks before the 550 Chromebook released. The Chrome Web Store, which was laughable a year ago rocks today -- and presentation is pleasant and much more navigable.

    But Google offers the biggest benefits, as it improves other services and provides integration points to them. I want even more. For example, the only share option for photos is to Picasa. What about Google+ or other services?

    Still, I am hugely satisfied with Chromebook. Battery life is exceptional, the matte screen readable outdoors in direct daylight and some models (well, mine) have Verizon 3G radios with 100MB free bandwidth a month.

    I've written quite a number stories about my journey. Among them:

    What can I say. I like. I like.

    But it's not enough. In many ways, I like Android more and get huge utility from the even larger selection of apps and touchscreen devices. What I really want is an Android-Chrome OS. Perhaps that's the next journey. Say, Google, can you take a hint?

    By the way, I embedded the video above because the dad uses a Chromebook, and I relate. My daughter started college last month. But she won't give up her four year-old aluminium MacBook.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/27/PC_is_no_longer_personal_computer'

    PC is no longer personal computer

    Publié: septembre 27, 2012, 6:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Do you own a Windows laptop, iPad and Android smartphone? Welcome to the post-PC era, which transition IDC describes as "profound". During second quarter, smartphones and tablets commanded 69 percent of smart device shipment share, dwarfing PCs.

    "Recent shipment data clearly demonstrates that we have fully entered into the multi-device era, where individuals are buying and using multiple devices per person, most often with different combinations of operating systems", Bob O'Donnell, IDC vice president, says. "The implications of this development on application developers, device makers, Web service providers, businesses and even individuals is profound".

    The days of the PC being the device or one acting as main hub are over.

    For about three decades, a single device defined computing -- and with Windows dominance a largely singular platform for applications developers and other third parties. That's changing at a fast pace and creating headaches for enterprise IT.

    Manufacturers shipped 267.3 million smart devices during second quarter, up 27.4 percent annually but only 2.8 percent sequentially. Revenue rose 16.3 percent year over year to $131.5 billion but declined 2.7 percent quarter on quarter. That reflects weakness in the US market and increased price commoditization.

    In the United States, unit shipments fell 7.8 percent from 2011 and 5 percent from second quarter to 47.4 million. Revenue declined even more -- 8.6 percent annually and 10.3 percent sequentially, to $24.8 million. Saturation is major factor explaining these falls.

    IDC predicts smart-device shipments of 1.2 billion for the year and 1.4 billion in 2013 -- 27.4 percent and 19.2 percent year-over-year increases, respectively. Shipments should top 2 billion by 2016. In that year, Asia-Pacific will lead other regions with 800 million units, followed by the Americas (600 million) and Europe, Middle East and Africa (530 million).

    Smartphones lead Asia-Pacific's rising importance. For 2012, IDC predicts shipments to China will surpass the United States, becoming the top region. In 2011, US share was 21.3 percent compared to 18.3 percent for China. This year, China is expected to reach 26.5 percent, while the United States falls to 17.8 percent.

    Not surprisingly, smartphones dominate the smart device market -- 59 percent share this year growing to 63 percent in 2016. That's 15.8 percent compound annual growth rate. But tablets are growing fastest and quickly encroaching on sacred PC turf. Globally, IDC predicts that tablets will reduce PC share of smart devices to 24 percent in 2016 from 31 percent this year. IDC predicts 22 percent CAGR for tablets, with share rising to 13 percent from 10 percent during the forecast period.

    However, tablets are unpredictable, since most the of growth so far is in mature markets, leaving the majority of the world untapped.

    Word of caution: IDC and most other analyst firms have to date grossly under-estimated smart-device growth rates. Smartphones, and Androids particularly, far exceed projections made even two years ago. In such rapidly changing market, tablet shipments could easily exceed forecasts or even fall below them. There, netbook is case study. The category analysts were so sure in 2009 would be big today collapsed, particularly after Apple released iPad two-and-a-half years ago.

    Photo Credit: Digital Storm/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/27/Why_pay__199_for_iPhone_5_when_you_can_spend__3_500_'

    Why pay $199 for iPhone 5 when you can spend $3,500?

    Publié: septembre 27, 2012, 12:40am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This afternoon, I received email with subject line: "The iPhone 5 is available on eBay -- now!" Oh, yeah? I thought the device is pretty much sold out. So I took a peak.

    Twenty-two are listed from the link that eBay provides -- to 64GB models, which by far cost the most. Bargain price: Black Sprint model for $750 new, from a seller in Florham Park, NJ. But wait! The price was too good, and the item sold while I wrote this paragraph. For the big spender, a seller from Newark, Del. offers the black Verizon for $3,500. Say, does that come with free AppleCare+ warranty? And a car to drive it home?

    A buyer in Las Gatos, Calif. won't be undersold. He has the 64GB white Verizon for just $2,000. The only other bargain -- a term used cautiously -- is a 32GB black Sprint model for $789. Less than a week after launch, iPhone 5 is not available for full price from Apple or carriers. Subsidized pricing: $199 (16GB); $299 (32GB); $399 (64GB). There's quite the price premium then on eBay.

    I don't see many iPhone 5 listings on San Diego Craigslist. Among them: 64GB black for $1,100. For three hundred dollars less, another seller has the 16GB white.

    What about the 4S? For three Ben Franklins, you can buy a water-damaged 16GB Verizon model on eBay. Hey, I spend this much on broken tech all the time. Don't you? But someone wants the phone. There are seven bids. Oh the desperation! Three-fifty, as in $3.50 not $350, is the high bid. Nearly none of the first 100 iPhone 4S auctions have bids, with the highest being $11.50. There are 55 pages of these phones.

    I looked at San Diego Craigslist, and asking prices for iPhone 4S look lots lower to me than previous years. I easily sold my 32GB black in May for over $500. I don't see anything that high in a cursory look today. There are a couple 32GB models for around $400, but most sellers ask much less.

    That makes me wonder about the iPhone 4S aftermarket, if it's going to be anywhere as good as previous release transitions. In the past, I successfully sold older models for enough to pay for newer ones. How about you? Have you tried to sell iPhone 4 or 4S? Successfully? Not?

    Perhaps you bought or sold iPhone 5. Now there's a story for comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/26/Who_puts_faith_in_Apple__who_in_Google'

    Who puts faith in Apple, who in Google

    Publié: septembre 26, 2012, 6:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Some companies really know how to maximize marketing, and drive up their share price in the process. In March, Apple used a countdown clock to boast about 25 billion App Store downloads. Google's mobile store reached the same number this week, announced with little fanfare today.

    Apple shares traded for about $531 then, but rose sharply following the app milestone and thereafter fairly consistently in the wake of a series of well-marketing managed announcements or product releases, topping $700 this month. There are daily reports across the InterWebs about record share price. Meanwhile, more meager marketer Google, which share price also flies record high this month -- above Apple, at $764.89 peak -- is largely ignored. Perhaps pro-Apple bias contributes to the silence? Whatever, Google has big numbers of its own.

    Play the Numbers

    No question, App Store downloads still dwarf Google Play, but the Android shop steadily gains on Apple, which isn't surprising given the huge number of supporting devices. For example, during second quarter, Android's global phone sales share was 64.1 percent compared to 18.8 percent for iOS, according to Gartner. During the quarter, cumulative Android sales topped iOS for the first time, 500 million to 400 million, respectively, according to Google and Apple. IHS iSuppli now predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year, but iOS not until 2015.

    For now, Google Play has some catching up to do. But not everywhere. Google boasts 675,000 apps, which doesn't include those available from rivals such as Amazon or other third-parties. Google allows Android users to sideload apps from other stores; Apple does not. Earlier this month, Apple announced 700,000. In June, number topped 650,000 apps (up 100,000 from March) and 30 billion downloads.

    To celebrate 25 billion, Google will offer five days of discounts. Jamie Rosenberg, Digital Content director, explains:

    Every day you’ll be able to choose from a collection of apps from some of the world’s top developers including Gameloft, Electronic Arts, Rovio, runtastic, Full Fat and more. And all for just 25 cents. We’ll also be offering some special collections like 25 movies you must own, 25 banned books, 25 albums that changed the world and our 25 top selling magazines, all at special prices. Visit Google Play a little later today to check them out.

    Well, that's one way to try and close the distance on App Store.

    True Believers Investors

    But as a journalist, I can't keep from thinking about marketing hype (Apple), or lack of it (Google), and the media's obsession with the fruit-logo company and its stock, while largely ignoring the search giant's performance. So there's no question about conflict of interest: I have no investments, which means I don't own either Apple or Google stock.

    I had to laugh the last two days, as analyst client reports, blogs and news stories worried about 5 million iPhone 5 sales during launch weekend as being too low, leading to all kinds of crazy punditry and predictions. Seriously, the stock-obsessed self-impose manic depression. Get a life!

    As I asserted nearly two weeks ago, "Android wins the smartphone wars". Apple can't ship enough iPhones to close the distance. Ever. But the company can consistently use marketing muscle, manic investors and Apple-obsessed analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers to keep the hype high and share price with it. As long as you all are united, you're investments are sound. You are the Apple faithful and worship at the altar of "one more thing".

    Ye of Little Faith

    Meanwhile, the rest of us move on. On September 24, I bought a 16GB iPhone 5 and posted a review yesterday. I purchased the smartphone with half a mind to keep it, despite my recent Apple boycott, even paying for the extended warranty. The camera is exceptional and there is much else I liked about the handset. But the benefits didn't out-weigh the expense and some features I regularly use just couldn't compare to Galaxy Nexus running Jelly Bean.

    What cinched my return: Haircut; I needed the phone number to local cutter Barber of Seville. I used Google Now/voice search, which brought up the information. Siri kept insisting I said "Barbo of Seville". I had enough.

    Before returning iPhone 5 to Apple Store, I dropped by the local AT&T corporate shop to activate a new SIM card for Galaxy Nexus. There something quite remarkable happened. I bumped into a friend not seen for months. He had come to tidy up business following purchase of a new Android last week. He lives in another town. Perhaps Mr. Spock could calculate the odds of our being there at the same time, because I can't.

    My friend is a long-time, committed iPhone user -- since the original released in 2007. I do mean die-hard. But he lost his 4 a couple weeks ago and, painfully he says, limped along with his wife's iPhone 3. Last week, he shopped for a new phone, and given iPhone 5 launched around the same, I surely would have expected him to be front of queue. But he had grown tired of the sameness, and another friend recently bought Samsung Galaxy S III, which impressed him. So my buddy asked the sales clerk about Androids and bought one instead of once again jumping on the iPhone launch bandwagon.

    Wow.

    I returned the Jesus Phone less than 24 hours after purchase. My buddy no longer is a believer. Who else has lost faith? You, perhaps?

    Credits: Steve Mann/Shutterstock (photo); Google (chart)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/26/Google_Apps__terrible_mistake'

    Google Apps' terrible mistake

    Publié: septembre 26, 2012, 4:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Update: Or was it mine? I read the support document to mean "download" as "open" rather than "save". If that's the case I stand corrected, not something you see often in my stories. Damn, who's the jackass now? :)

    Some days feel like I live in a parallel universe. How did I miss this? On October 1, Google Apps drops support for Office 2003-07 formats. That means no way to download .doc, .ppt or .xls documents. Am I the only person thinking this ranks among the mothers of jackass ideas?

    As a Chromebook user, I see disaster ahead. Nearly all documents people send me are the older Office formats, not .docx, .pptx or .xlsx. Starting next week, Google takes away my ability to open them in Docs (save might still be possible). I presume that even today, the majority of stored corporate documents are these older x-less, non-open-XML formats. So Google Apps' Office 2003-07 format assassination will leave many businesses in the lurch, giving even more of them reasons to stay with Microsoft -- or to go back.

    If I worked for the software giant in marketing, October 1 would be champagne day, baby. Google sets up helluva great counter-marketing opportunity. Hell, this sells itself. Office 2013 supports older binary formats just fine. Even better, just as Google chops off a hand, Microsoft extends one. The new Office adds full support -- that's open, edit and save -- for ODF 1.2, PDF and strict open XML.

    Google touts "open principles", which makes some sense moving away from proprietary binary formats. But another definition of open is ignored: open access to what people widely use. Google closes that up next week.

    Personally, there's a silver lining in this cloud. I have asked writers for months to stop writing stories in Word, as a few of them do. Word-written stories present problems converting and posting as HTML on our content management system. (Smart quotes are evil!) The few authors that file Word docs (rather than directly to the CMS) will have to adapt.

    But for businesses that still save to the binary formats or have a heap load of documents in them, suddenly Google's cloud productivity suite is a less compelling choice. You can be sure Microsoft sales people will pound the doors raving about Office 365 and 2013 as the better productivity options.

    Photo Credit: Armin Rose/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/25/Is_iPhone_5_right_for_you___review_'

    Is iPhone 5 right for you? [review]

    Publié: septembre 25, 2012, 6:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Based on some quick testing, I can confirm the expected: iPhone 5 is best for someone already living the Apple lifestyle, being invested in companion products or services, including (and perhaps particularly) iCloud. iPhone 5 is also excellent choice for someone migrating from a feature phone. Flip and brick phone users will amaze at the handset's thinness, lightness and marvellous features.

    I'm convinced Apple has two main target markets for iPhone 5: People with older models and those migrating from dumb phones, and there is a whole lot of the latter. Smartphones accounted for just 36.7 percent of all handset sales in second quarter, according to Gartner. The global market growth potential is yet huge.

    Many people living the Google or Microsoft lifestyles will be somewhat to largely disappointed by iPhone 5. Microsoft fans are worse off, even though iOS apps like Bing and SkyDrive are available. Google offers many more apps supporting its services, and they provide a solid foothold. Google and Android go better together, but iOS should be good enough for most people -- well, except those wanting maps.

    Photo shooters should consider iPhone 5. I'm incredibly impressed based on my limited testing, largely done indoors with low or defuse lighting. Colors are bright and accurate, objects clear and well-illuminated and shutter response fast. I haven't the luxury of using HTC One X or Samsung Galaxy S III, so can't compare. Otherwise, iPhone 5 is the best phone camera I've ever used. I'm actually quite disappointed with how much better are the photos than from my Android, which easily matched iPhone 4S.

    iPhone 5 is not for anyone looking to customize the user experience, freely install custom ROMs, easily access live data or who values choice over curation. On iPhone, Apple controls the experience. Those people looking to take control should choose Android.

    Plenty of Magic

    I assert the "who's it for" based on taking Apple's newest mobile out for a test run. None of the BetaNews writers has iPhone 5, and Apple sends us nothing, but we really should do some kind of comprehensive review. What the hell, I decided to buy one, even if temporarily. There is a return policy, after all.

    Around 11 am PDT September 24, I stopped by Apple Store Fashion Valley looking for iPhone 5. Two models were in stock, both black, 16GB AT&T and 32GB Verizon. Not one of the 20 people I waited with chose the larger-capacity model from the nation's largest cellular carrier.

    Buying process is unchanged from previous models, and I activated in the store over the air, restoring from an early-May backup in iCloud. Since I use a Chromebook now, OTA activation was crucial to purchase, since Google's OS doesn't run iTunes. Tip: Restoration requires Wi-Fi, so hang around the store or resume at home. I'm surprised, since the phone comes with (supposedly) speedy 4G LTE. But, hey, you got to save that cellular data, eh?

    iPhone 5's aluminium back quickly shows fingerprints.

    Before continuing, I want to identify four distinct user benefits that distinguish iPhone 5 from the 4S and earlier models:

    • Better performance
    • Larger, brighter display
    • Faster cellular data speeds
    • Photo-shooting experience

    None of these alone is groundbreaking. Combined, and together with other refinements, however, they're meaningful: iPhone 5 is a work of art improved. Apple chose to make a good thing better rather than drastically different. But judging by geekdom whining about lack of Apple innovation, the approach is risky. Many people expected more.

    The original iPhone stood apart from all other phones, not just smart ones, for its humanness. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to proximity gave it a human quality. Apple imbued the quality by cleverly using different sensors measuring proximity and orientation. But other than Siri's introduction with iPhone 4S, Apple has done little to extend this humanness since the 3GS.

    Is this approach sound? Considering how many more feature-handset users there are than those with smart ones, iPhone has plenty of magic yet to spread -- again presuming that Apple's largest target is the former category. Great thing made better is good approach in a growth market when the majority of potential buyers have heard of your product but haven't purchased it.

    Dark and Mysterious

    iPhone 5 is handsome and its dimensions remind me of the original iPod nano released in autumn 2005. If Steve Jobs was still alive and launched this handset, perhaps he might have announced it last (instead of first) during this month's media event and positioned it as a nano phone. While Galaxy Nexus functions endear, its appearance is unappealing to me -- too corporate industrial. iPhone 5 is dark, mysterious.

    The overall iPhone experience isn't new to me. I've owned every model, but gave up iPhone 4S about four months ago in protest of Apple's patent system abuse -- litigating rather than innovating. However, for this test, I switched from the Google-Samsung co-developed Galaxy Nexus running Android 4.1, a handset I really enjoy using. But physically the smartphone is too big for my tastes (135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams).

    iPhone 5 is much thinner and lighter (123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm, 112 grams). I find the Apple device much more comfortable to hold than Galaxy Nexus. However, the screen is way too narrow for my tastes. The display is 4 inches compared to its predecessors' 3.5 inches, but the extra screen size is a misnomer. While iPhone 5 is taller than say the 4 or 4S, it's the same width. That 4 inches is measured horizontally, mitigating the actual usable size increase over 3.5-inch models. For just about any function in portrait view, including web browsing and magazine reading, iPhone 5's screen is too narrow, which the increased height accentuates. Similarly, in landscape mode there is no added height, giving squished sense compared to most other smartphones.

    The user experience isn't bad, just not as good as what I'm accustomed to using a phone with different screen dimensions. Users of older Apple handsets or those moving up from feature phones, should find the screen roomy enough.

    The display is bright, too. I am stunned and disappointed to find iPhone 5's to be considerably brighter than Galaxy Nexus. Auto-set to about one-quarter brightness, Apple's mobile dazzles compared to the Android at two-thirds brightness. I don't have accurate data on nit measurement for both phones. In bright sunlight, iPhone 5 is easily usable. I wouldn't say the same for Galaxy Nexus.

    I can't speak for battery life, not yet having the phone long enough. But I can say that first day usage burned down the charge faster than iPhone 4S or Galaxy Nexus. That could be result of all the updating of apps and sync restoring content. Charge dropped from about 58 percent to 5 percent seven hours after turning on the phone, which is about half what I expected. I recharged before going to bed. Six hours later, charge dropped to 99 percent, which is exceptional and about 2 percent better than typical with iPhone 4.

    As a phone, I find volume to be clear, but a bit tinny compared to Galaxy Nexus, which has more treble. Callers complain more about audio quality on iPhone 5 than the Samsung, which surprises me. AT&T coverage is so terrible in my home, broken "I can only hear every other word" call complaints are common.

    Full specs: 4-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 1136 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); Apple A6 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE (bands vary by model and region); 8MP rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording (back), 720p (front); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; 1440 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 6.

    Apple Core

    Basic functions are unchanged from iPhone 4 or 4S. Home, volume and mute buttons are laid out the same way, and the software uses similar user interface motif as iOS 5. The differences are subtle, so much that many users may not be consciously aware of benefits, even though Apple gives them. Once again, familiarity is priority. Bottom line: Apps are on a grid, though a fifth row of them, and can be consolidated into folders or swiped screen to screen. I prefer Android's approach, where users get several home screens to pin favorite apps or to place active widgets.

    Apple isn't hot on active content, which I presume has something to do with limitations placed oh how iOS manages multiple apps. Multitasking is muted, quite deliberately, presumably to maximize performance and minimize battery drain. That's not to suggest iOS is incapable of running background processes, and there certainly are push notifications. Apple merely reigns apps and processes more than does Google with Android.

    However, there is one place where imposed limitations will matter. GSM models can surf the web and make calls at the same time, while CDMA models, at least US ones, cannot. It's my understanding -- and correct me if mistaken -- that such capability would require a second radio that iPhone 5 from Sprint and Verizon lacks. Unlike some Androids.

    Performance satisfies. Greatly. iPhone 5 packs Apple's A6 processor, which delivers handsomely but I suspect memory/storage has something to do with that. Judging by start-up time (iPhone 5 is considerably faster than Galaxy Nexus) and other general performance, it feels to me like there is fast-data access improving performance. I haven't time to play intensive games but did view some HD videos. Oh yeah. They look good. Bottom line: iPhone 5 is speedy.

    iPhone 5 HSPA+ (left), LTE (right)

    Something else faster will matter to many people. iPhone 5 finally gets 4G LTE, which hugely improves data speeds. AT&T service sucks in my apartment, which explains my abysmal first dozen tests, the majority of which delivered less than .5Mbps. But three blocks away, with LTE lit up: 22.62Mbps downstream and 20.54Mbps upstream. Now that's respectable. For anyone doing social photos or videos, those LTE speeds will matter. Of course, they're not unique. Apple catches up to about two dozen other smartphones packing LTE.

    Regarding fast social sharing, iOS 6 Facebook joins Twitter being available throughout the operating system. But Apple still closes out other social sharing apps. On Android, from the camera or photo gallery, for example, users can share to pretty much any app that taps Google APIs. So instead of using iPhone 5's camera and going to a separate app, then accessing the gallery and sharing, users can share directly to Instagram, Skype, Tumblr and other services.

    More broadly, I find the newest Android, Jelly Bean, to be much more navigable and intuitive than iOS. Google consolidates app functions, offers more consistent navigation options and keeps settings with apps rather than forcing users to go elsewhere. Android notifications also are superior to the feature Apple copied. iOS 6 notifications are cluttered and those scrolling off the page are easily missed.

    Wrong Direction

    Apple Maps has received harsh criticism from many iOS 6 users and reviewers. My initial test: Apple Store Fashion Valley on September 22, and an unfair one really since cellular radios aren't active on the iPhone 5 display models. Meaning: no GPS assist, or so I presume.

    Nevertheless I choose what seems like an easy search: "fashion valley". Surely my current location couldn't be that hard. Right? Apple Maps lives up to its filthy reputation. The query brings up "skin valley", which is in Paris. I laugh. Not knowing what other searches people had conducted or whether Apple Maps uses earlier queries for new ones, I switch phones and try again.

    On the second iPhone 5, I start with "fashion valley mall", which locates the up-front parking garage outside the shopping center. Finally, I input "fashion valley" again and get the mall. So iOS 6 maps scores one for two exact same location searches.

    Apple Maps (left), Google Maps (right)

    At home, two days later, with GPS active, it's second chance time, and I'm stunned. I know someone who used to live at "52 Vista Drive, Caribou, Maine". First, I search using Apple Maps, which misidentifies the street as "Vesta Drive" but correctly locates the street. There are no real details besides roads, but nevertheless the right place. Google Maps shocks with "no results found: 52 vista drive caribou, maine".

    For more traditional searches, Apple Maps simply can't compete for accuracy or level of detail. It's an absolute downgrade from Google Maps, which isn't even available as a separate downloadable app. Visually, Apple Maps appeals and shows promise. But I wouldn't recommend the app for anyone who regularly uses a map app, particularly for local search. Yet.

    YouTube also is missing, but can be downloaded. Chrome, G+ and Play Books are among the many other Google apps available. You can live the Google lifestyle on iPhone 5, and the search and information giant has brilliantly established a beachhead on enemy territory. And why not? Google should want its services consumed wherever users go.

    By the way, I wouldn't recommend iPhone 5 to any heavy Google services user if not for Chrome and G+. They make the difference. The browser offers main benefits of its Android counterpart, including tab sync. Google+ is visually more appealing in almost every way, but doesn't offer the same granularity of information as its Android counterpart. For example, when adding a user to a post using "+", the iOS app displays a pretty photo while the Android one also shows if the person is in the user's Circles.

    Shoot Me

    For me, camera is the killer phone app, which is why for years I preferred Nokia handsets. It's one of the main reasons I chose Galaxy Nexus. While only 5 megapixels, the phone camera offers near-zero shutter and panorama shooting. iPhone 5 brings both benefits, and in my limited testing produces clearly superior photos.

    My testing put extra demands on the phone cameras -- high or low contrast and dim lighting situations. Both cameras lock focus perfectly nearly every time, even low light -- that's often a challenge for other phones. Both do remarkably well auto-setting ISO, f-stop and shutter speed. But consistently, iPhone 5 produces sharper, richer, better light-balanced photos. I can't express how much this disappoints me, because I had thought highly of Galaxy Nexus' camera until now.

    However, iPhone 5's camera, like so much of other built-in features, is one-size fits all. There are just a couple options -- high dynamic range and grid -- and little else. Galaxy Nexus provides much more, including scene settings and white balance adjustments. Other shooters from Nokia and Samsung offer even more options. iPhone 5 is great for point and click, which is probably how most people will use it. But Androids offer more control.

    Galaxy Nexus (left), iPhone 5 (right)

    Something else: There is a much better selection of photo apps on iOS and add-on hardware for iPhone. SmugMug's Camera Awesome remains my favorite photo shooting app. It's not yet available for Android. Just iOS.

    Dollars and Sense

    iPhone 5 isn't for everyone. First, buyers will want to qualify for full subsidized pricing -- $199 (16GB), $299 (32GB), $399 (64GB) -- with, from US carriers, two-year contractual commitment. AT&T offers some customers an early, not-so-great discount option: $200 off the full-retail price. That makes the 16GB model $449, not exactly a bargain when agreeing to another two years contractual imprisonment.

    Something else: I highly recommend most buyers consider paying $99 more for AppleCare+. I usually discourage people from getting extended-warranties, but Apple's is a bargain should your phone ever be broken -- surely you never drop yours. Phone prices are subsidized, but replacement cost isn't. How would you like to spend more than 600 bucks for another iPhone 5? AppleCare+ extends the standard warranty to two years and guarantees a replacement iPhone if damaged up to two times for an additional $49 each instance. AT&T insurance costs considerably more, just when calculating the deductible and ignoring monthly fees.

    iPhone 4S owners have much less to gain than those with older models. However, the aforementioned benefits -- particularly the camera and LTE -- are reason enough, particularly considering the high resale value of older, well-cared for models. Even then, not everyone shoots photos, while others get all the needed fast data from hotspots.

    Android users with handsets running Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean should sit tight, particularly if heavily connected to Google services or having purchased lots of apps. For those folks using phones with older Android versions, iPhone 5 is a good upgrade, particularly if smaller appeals more than larger handsets. That said, I love that robot, as you should, too -- and if you want control or freedom to customize, forget iPhone 5. Buy an Android.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/24/Microsoft_enters_the_Windows__RT_era_'

    Microsoft enters the Windows 'RT era'

    Publié: septembre 24, 2012, 7:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm having one of those "duh" moments this afternoon, actually it started in the AM. Gartner analysts today profess the obvious: Windows 8 is a gamble, but one Microsoft must make to stay relevant. Really? Like we haven't said similarly here at BetaNews, and others elsewhere, for months. Given, the only good news today seems to be iPhone 5, and we're all so tired here of promoting Apple's Jesus Phone (could the Second Coming really get this much press), anything Windows 8 is welcome.

    Something more: Gartner analysts finally go on record clearly stating that the post-PC era -- what I call the cloud-connected device era -- is here; not coming someday, but upon us now. Well, the transition phase anyway. That's worth putting on record for your reference and our future stories.

    Sunny Cloud

    "When the PC dominated personal computing by providing a single device for messaging, Internet access, gaming and productivity, Windows was a powerhouse for Microsoft". Michael Silver, Gartner vice president, says. "However, smartphones and tablets, led by the iPhone and iPad, have changed the way people work, making the PC just one of several devices people use. The PC is increasingly simply a peer with other devices". Damn it, I still can't escape iPhone-something.

    In March, Gartner analysts called 2014 (if not sooner) end of the PC era, claiming that the cloud will replace the PC as the "center of users' digital lives". Once the hub, the PC will be among many devices connected to the cloud as primary digital lifestyle hub. I declared "The PC era is over" in February 2010 -- and not for the first time, since it is in fact a transition.

    The PC isn't going away. Rather its role is changing as its relevance diminishes. There are three eras in the modern computing age: Mainframes, PCs and cloud-connected devices. In the 1980s computing and informational relevance shifted from the mainframe to the personal computer in part because of lower costs and greater availability. PCs cost much less than mainframes and made information more available, essentially more mobile, to more people. Similar transition is happening today, as cloud-connected mobile devices make more information available to more people in more places than do PCs. Computing and informational relevance shifts once again. The mainframe didn't go away because of the PC era, the mainframe's relevancy simply declined. The PC won't go away, but its relevancy is declining.

    Silver's statement is no small one. Gartner targets enterprise customers, not consumers. So it's quite the big deal for one of its long-tenured analysts to say that cloud-connected devices "have changed the way people work" and to diminish the PC's role.

    Microsoft executives and product managers aren't dumb about what's happening. If anything, Windows 8's revamped touch-friendly user interface and development of Windows RT for ARM processors show how much top brass has put aside their post-PC denial and embraced the inevitable. I see Windows 8 very much as Microsoft's effort to maintain the relevance of its hugely successful Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. Same can be said about Office 365 and 2013. Gartner analysts see similar trend, but emphasize something else.

    New Dawn

    "Windows 8 is not your normal low or even high impact major release of the OS" Steve Kleynhans, Gartner research vice president, says. "It's the start of a new era for Microsoft -- the RT era -- which follows the NT era, which began in 1993 and is just now starting to fade out. Microsoft eras seem to run about 20 years, so the technology underlying Windows 8 will last a long, long time".

    The RT era is all about cloud-connected devices running on ARM, which also marks a fundamental platform shift away from Intel processors. From at least one perspective that shift changes the definition of what is a PC -- or has been one for more than three decades.

    Still, "Microsoft's approach is very different from Apple's and Google's, where phones and tablets have much more commonality than PCs and tablets", Silver asserts. "This plays to Microsoft's strength in PCs, leveraging it not only to enter the tablet market, but also to improve its share of the smartphone market".

    Perhaps, yes, but Microsoft still seeks to redefine the personal computer while seeking to keep its apps stack relevant. This is a point often lost in discussions about the post-PC era. Microsoft's apps stack has a place beyond the PC, with Office's long availability on Windows Mobile (and now its successor) being example, as are Azure and cloud-hosted server software.

    For businesses heavily invested in Microsoft's platform, the RT era will bring many new form factors supporting it. This platform shift is a huge risk for Microsoft, and its enterprise customers, too. Is it a bet with big pay-off? That's the $640,000 question.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/23/Give_Apple_and_iPhone_5_a_break'

    Give Apple and iPhone 5 a break

    Publié: septembre 23, 2012, 7:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    iPhone 5 is not a revolutionary device. Does it really need to be? No. Despite the geek freak-out that iPhone 5 isn't innovative enough, I don't doubt the handset will sell really well. What matters: Is it better enough? From my first impression, playing with one inside Apple Store, yes. More importantly, the device will be better enough for many people moving from feature phones to smartphones but shocked by the huge physical size of other devices.

    Apple already has a successful post-PC product and supporting ecosystem of applications, cases, peripherals and other stuff. iPhone 5 isn't the be-all, end-all Apple cloud-connected device but the flagship in a platform continuum. Why else, for example, would the company also offer iPhone 4 (free) and iPhone 4S ($99)? iPhone 5's challenge is to be better enough, and if it's not for some buyers -- say, either the 4 or 4S is good enough -- older models are still available for less. To understand what iPhone 5 is not, you need to understand what Apple is and why the new handset actually is more than upgrade enough.

    Platform Continuum

    Many critics point to competing devices and call iPhone "catch-up". They're right, when looking at the larger display (4 inches up from 3.5 inches) and 4G LTE. The same arguments made today about the superiority of Android or smartphones like Samsung Galaxy S III are markedly similar to those about Windows PCs compared to Macs. For years, Microsoft partners offered systems with beefier hardware specs. On a spec-for-price comparison, Windows systems long outpaced Macs -- and in some respects they still do today. Cheapest Mac is $999.

    But Apple product managers don't much look at competing products, and they never have. Particularly since Steve Jobs' second coming, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company matches features and prices against its own stuff, prioritizing benefits based on customers living the Apple lifestyle and maximizing margins over market share. Apple would rather sell one thing for 300 bucks than 30 for $10. The latter priority puts profits before matching competing devices. The point: Criticisms that iPhone 5 isn't feature comparable to competing products is nothing new, and Apple doesn't care. Many of the people whining about lack of iPhone 5 innovation are the same kind of folks wagging accusations years ago -- some still today -- that Windows PCs are superior to Macs.

    From Apple's perspective, iPhone 5 fits into a continuum of pricing and features. For example, iOS derives from OS X, which in the last two releases inherited features from mobile operating system. The platform is a continuum from the cheapest iPhone to the most expensive Mac. Similarly, price is also a continuum from the free iPhone 4 to the $2,799 MacBook Pro with Retina Display, as I first explained in January 2010. Each product line follows a continuum of prices -- iPod from $49 to $249; iPhone from $0 to $399; MacBook from $999 to $2,799.

    There are increasingly fewer differences in uses among Apple hardware products along the spectrum. The iOS and Mac OS products have wireless capabilities, surf the Web, run applications (including traditional productivity suite apps) and consume or produce digital content. The range of hardware capabilities is limited by size, processing speed, storage capacity, etc., but not really software as Apple offers more of the same applications or features across the entire continuum. Apple seeks to offer single-user experience across all its devices, regardless of hardware features.

    Innovation by Iteration

    You can blame Jobs and his ego for Apple's current innovator's dilemma, where by showcasing so-called "one more thing" products -- some of them category changing like iPod, iPhone and iPad -- people expect even more. But in looking closely at business realities, Apple more often innovates by iteration.

    The company announces a big, new showstopping thing then iterates -- incrementally improves -- the product over time. The process is essential to Apple maximizing margins. These cooler-than-anythings typically have initial higher selling prices or same as the replaced product(s). Plenty of buyers demand the newest, coolest product, and they're willing to pay a premium price to get it. To many of these buyers, the tech gadget is as much an accessory -- statement of their coolness, superiority -- as useful product.

    Apple engages in a tried-and-true retail practice. It's good business. Clothing stores take a similar approach. There are teens who must have the newest wears from Aeropostale, American Eagle or Hollister at full price; they can't wait for sales. They want to be cool. Apple sometimes charges more for fashion, just like clothiers. Remember the black MacBook, which cost $150 more than the white model, simply for the color? Same can be said of some features. I know people who paid more for MacBook Pro with Retina Display not because they need the higher resolution but having it means something to them. They feel better about themselves for it.

    As a product's lifecycle progresses and Apple maximizes margins at the front end, incremental improvements begin. The company typically starts by offering better hardware for the same price. Later, Apple adds substantially better hardware or features and cuts the price.

    Smartphone is good example of this process. The iPhone 4S design somewhat differs from the "one more thing" model that went on sale in June 2007, and hardly at all from the 4. But the user interface, basic features and most functions only incrementally changed since. The original iPhone lacked 3G, video and MMS, but offered slicker user interface, a capacitive touchscreen, more enjoyable media playback and better calling features than comparable handsets.

    The first iPhone was less and more comparatively, then. But buyers paid. Apple and AT&T sold the 1st generation iPhone for $499 or $599 at launch; Apple lowered the price to $399 a few months later. New models brought lower prices -- $199 and $299. Apple continued offering iPhone 3GS for three years, maximizing margins over time, while capturing buyers looking for a cheaper phone. Now iPhone 4 has that role.

    Target: Feature Phone

    iPhone 5 is the next evolution. There are big improvements and yet few -- and they follow a longstanding Apple trend: Use size, whether bigger or smaller, as a differentiator. The company incrementally improves features while changing the device's design and form and in ways that maximize margins in production and distribution. Meaning: A radically new form factor costs more to produce than one similar to its forebears. iPhone 5 is taller than its predecessor but same width and basic form factor is otherwise not that different from the 4 or 4S.

    The handset features a 4-inch display with 1136 by 640 resolution and 326 pixels per inch. The new model marks the first major change in display size since the original launched five years ago. iPhone 5 is 7.6mm thick -- that's 18 percent thinner than its predecessor -- and 20 percent lighter at 112 grams. My first impression: iPhone 5 is lightweight, pretty and feels good in the hand. Screen is bright and crisp. Marvellous.

    The changes in form, added new features (the camera will surprise many people) that will make iPhone 5 better enough for many existing customers and appeal to people upgrading from feature phones. Apple's target market isn't people using Androids but those with feature phones. For them, iPhone 5 is a huge upgrade -- granted, as would be something like Galaxy S III.

    But the S3 and other Androids will be a huge, and for some buyers insurmountable, leap in size. Imagine going from a flip phone to a 4.8-inch screen. iPhone 5's 4-inch screen, slimness surely will appeal to many feature phone users, and that's without factoring in the aforementioned cool factor. Remember: The majority of handsets still in use today are feature phones. There's a huge market yet for smartphones, but not necessarily one for huge mobiles when something smaller and sexier is available.

    Most of iPhone 5's critics are existing smartphone users, particularly non-Apple devices. They expect Apple to match features and prices against competing handsets, but the company has other priorities. Maybe people whining about Apple's lack of innovation should re-examine their priorities.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/21/Use_your_Android_phone_to_cheat_the_transit_authority'

    Use your Android phone to cheat the transit authority

    Publié: septembre 21, 2012, 8:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Say, do you remember those phone hacks of the 1970s -- free calls using a whistle inside Capt'n Crunch cereal boxes? Or perhaps you recall the 1980's version, depicted in movie WarGames with a soda can pull top? Supposedly you can relive the underground hacking days, quite literally, using an Android app to get free subway rides.

    My boss spotted a ZDNET story about this little, ah, gimmick from the Intrepidus Group. Due to a Near Field Communication-chip flaw, would-be digital turnstile jumpers can reset some transit cards to their original state using an Android app. That's another 10 free rides for you, bud.

    In the video above, a Samsung Nexus S, which ships with stock Android and has NFC, is used to borrow subway rides (yes, we know it's stealing). Too bad iPhone 5 doesn't have NFC, eh? Of course, iPhone users won't risk phone profiling from transit cops.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/21/Which_survives_the_drop_test__iPhone_5_or_Galaxy_S_III_'

    Which survives the drop test, iPhone 5 or Galaxy S III?

    Publié: septembre 21, 2012, 5:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I love these informal drop tests. They're unscientific (remember Chaos Theory, anyone?) but still give a glimpse of what to expect in real-world situations. Android Authority conducts one of the first, taking advantage of global time zones and iPhone 5 launching in Hong Kong long before the lines seriously queued in the United States today.

    Darcy LaCouvee drops iPhone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S III from three different heights, in what he calls typical scenarios: pulling from the pocket, about four feet high (when lifting to ear) and from the head (here about 5 foot 6 inches). For anyone considering either of these flagship smartphones, damage from drops is a serious consideration. Because most carriers subsidize purchase prices, replacement costs can be considerably higher -- more like $600 instead of the original $200, for example.

    Something else: Apple provides affordable additional protection. Samsung, like most other smartphone manufacturers, does not. AppleCare+ adds an extra year to the warranty and cheap phone replacement, all for $99 at time of purchase (or within 30 days subjected to gruelling phone inspection). Apple Store will replace busted iPhones up to two times, for $49 each instance. But do you even need that? Watch the video and decide.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/21/iPhone_5_launches_in_9_countries'

    iPhone 5 launches in 9 countries

    Publié: septembre 21, 2012, 4:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    On the chance you just arrived back from some alternate universe -- where Windows Mobile handsets with big, bulky keyboards are most popular -- iPhone 5 debuted today in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, United Kingdom and United States. Apple Stores around the globe opened at 8 am local time, some to long lines -- despite 2 million preorders in the first 24 hours.

    In the United States, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon carry iPhone 5 today, while several regional carriers start sales on September 28. US buyers with freedom to pick from any carrier should choose carefully. Apple's new handset comes with 4G LTE but with trade-offs. Sprint and Verizon models offer global LTE radios but cannot access data and cellular networks at the same time, meaning you can't talk and surf the web. AT&T's iPhone 5 does both, but offers limited LTE bands; it's not a globetrotter.

    Prices are unchanged from previous models, and Apple didn't increase storage capacities or provide SD-card slots to add more: 16GB ($199); 32GB ($299); and 64GB ($399). iPhone 4 is available in 8GB capacity for free and 4S with 16GB storage for $99. These prices are all subsidized and require carrier contract, assuming you qualify, which in the United States from AT&T, Sprint or Verizon means two-year commitment.

    If you really want iPhone 5 right away, Apple Store or local cellular carrier shop is likely best chance. The smartphone is already backordered at the company's online store, with estimated ship times of three to four weeks. Line waiters, or even those showing up at retail shops today, stand best chance of getting iPhone 5 -- unless they preordered, of course.

    In seven days, iPhone 5 goes on sale in another 22 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

    Apple introduced iPhone 5 on September 12 and started taking preorders two days later. Since, the company's stock soared, topping $700 a share for the first time. On September 21, 2011, Apple traded at $412.14. Today it topped $704, up from $660.59 on September 11.

    iPhone 5 features a 4-inch display with 1136 by 640 resolution and 326 pixels per inch. The handset is 7.6mm thick -- that's 18 percent thinner than its predecessor -- and 20 percent lighter at 112 grams. The new model marks the first major change in display size since the original launched in June 2007. Then there is the aforementioned LTE as another big benefit.

    Full specs: 4-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 1136 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); Apple A6 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE (bands vary by model and region); 8MP rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording (back), 720p (front); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; 1440 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 6. Measurements: 123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm, 112 grams.

    iPhone 5 has a new dock connector and, unless buyers score some future adapter, isn't compatible with existing peripherals -- everything from the car charger to speaker docks. Buyers invested in iPhone peripherals -- or with other Apple stuff, since the connectors among devices are now incompatible, too -- should think before buying.

    Many people expected more from iPhone 5. Wayne Williams asks: "Hey, Apple, where's the innovation?" -- yet identifies five great things about the new handset. Meanwhile, Mihaita Bamburic gives "Five reasons iPhone 5 disappoints".


    Will you buy iPhone 5?

    Last week, I asked "Will you buy iPhone 5?" As I write, 1,732 people have taken the poll, with 70.04 percent answering "no". That number starkly contrasts with the results to our iPhone 4S buying poll, to which 60.4 percent of respondents answered "yes".

    If you bought iPhone 5, we'd like to hear what you think about the handset. Better: We'd love to publish your review with byline, bio and photo. If interested, please email joe at betanews dot com. Otherwise, people comment below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/21/Will_Apple_Maps_keep_you_from_upgrading_to_iOS_6_'

    Will Apple Maps keep you from upgrading to iOS 6?

    Publié: septembre 21, 2012, 12:32am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I've wanted to ask this question all day. But we needed an Apple Maps review first -- Wayne Williams delivered a good one -- and it needed a few hours live on the site. But I can refrain no longer. Will Apple Maps keep you from upgrading to iOS 6?

    Considering the bad reaction to Apple's homegrown replacement for Google Maps, it's no idle question. About three quarters of US smartphone owners use location-based services, with mapping programs ranking among the highest, according to Pew Research. If you're among them, and actually would like to reach a destination using an Apple device, iOS 6 may not be for you. That is if the default mapping program is your primary one.

    Wayne's review tells of a nearly 250-mile misdirection in Apple Maps turn-by-turn directions. He describes the new app as a "huge downgrade. And the problem is it’s so far behind what Google offers that I just can’t see it ever getting good enough to compete. Apple is supposedly all about the user experience, but here it’s replaced a great experience with a poor one. Like swapping the old YouTube app with Tim Cook’s VHS collection or giving users MySpace in place of Facebook".

    Commenter Loon says the "paragraph sums it up so nicely!"

    But not everyone is troubled. BetaNews reader Bladeforc3 says Apple Maps "works fine for me by using postcodes instead of names; much easier and with thought it does let you edit the final match. [You] just have to get used to it. I find this a heck of a lot smoother and you can see more than Google Maps".

    ghostface147: "For me, it works great. However, I would be replacing it with the Google Maps version if they ever publish one on the App Store".

    A commenter going simply by David has different experience: "it's a complete rubbish! It's calculating routes form my home that are ridiculous. Google was doing just fine including my 12 months trip to SE Asia where maps are not that up to date. With this I wouldn't dare to go there without a backup paper map. Such a disappointment".

    Perhaps you've seen some of the, ah, interesting headlines -- and, remember, Apple usually gets good ones. Certainly nothing like these:

    Dan Gillmor nicely sums up the situation:

    Google must be thrilled to see Apple cut off its proverbial nose to spite its face with the currently horrendous iOS mapping app -- and the Internet is having great fun with the mess. Keep in mind, though, that Apple has far more cash than Google and is obviously willing to spend whatever it takes to catch up and surpass the competition.

    This afternoon, the InterWebs buzzed about a report from ad network Chitika claiming that iOS 6 upgrades reached 15 percent of devices in just 24 hours. That despite "Apple’s in-house Maps app failed to impress". In response I asked on Google+: "Yes, but because of the Apple Maps disaster, how many upgraders are sorry for it?"

    Lawrence Guzzetta has "#noregrets For what i use it for, The maps app works as well as the old maps app". Well, he did work for Apple 20 years ago.

    "I don't think most people upgraded just for the Maps app", Bud Porter responds. "I know I didn't. I much prefer Waze, anyway. I don't know that I could use a mapping app without realtime information being fed to it from people actually on the street".


    Early adopters complain Apple's new home-grown maps app has errors, misdirects. Will Apple Maps keep you from upgrading to iOS 6?

    Greg Hortin sees things differently, asking: "Downgrade your out of the box experience and disadvantage users to get one up on a competitor?"

    So, will you upgrade or wait? Did you upgrade and regret it? Or did you upgrade and are satisfied? Please answer in comments below and take the poll above.

    Photo Credit: Eugene Buchko/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/20/Is_patent_peace_possible_in_our_lifetime_'

    Is patent peace possible in our lifetime?

    Publié: septembre 20, 2012, 3:05am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, in response to Motorola's requested, massive Apple product ban, Dan Gillmore posts to Google+: Come on, Google, don't abuse the patent system the way Apple does. Sheesh". I've seen similar sentiments expressed elsewhere. Gillmore and others are wrong. Google isn't playing Apple's game, but trying to end it. If Apple won't negotiate willingly, a show of force may be the only way to achieve patent peace.

    Motorola Mobility is now a Google subsidiary, so legal demand from the one really comes from the other. From one perspective, the request is so sweeping as to dwarf any of the claims Apple makes against competitors like HTC and Samsung. Moto seeks a ban on virtually every Apple device -- iOS or OS X -- sold in the United States. It's reasonable to look at Google and to question whether the tactics are heavy-handed. They are not.

    US International Trade Commission received the complaint in late August. Yesterday, the organization agreed to open an investigation. According to ITC:

    The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain wireless communication devices, portable music and data processing devices, computers, and components thereof that infringe patents asserted by the complainants. The complainants request that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order...Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the US Trade Representative within that 60-day period.

    Motorola alleges that Apple violates seven patents, and one of those -- granted about six years ago -- applies to OS X devices, too. An adverse ruling, and worse product ban, would be devastating to Apple without some reasonable workaround. ITC isn't reluctant, either. In May, US Customs seized incoming shipments of HTC's then newly-released One X handset, complying with a patent ruling in Apple's favor. That said, opening an investigation is far from blocking iPads, iPhones and MacBook Airs.

    But the threat gives Apple reason to question its patent bullying ways and whether or not an end to hostilities is in order. Motorola's patent attack isn't abuse but attempt to end it. Google wants to bring an end to the patent war by putting reluctant Apple into a position where it must accept cross-licensing agreements. Think rationally. Google doesn't want to stop these products, which people use to consume its services, from shipping. The search giant hugely benefits when consumers use its services on hundreds of millions of iOS or OS X devices.

    Mutually-Assured Destruction

    Google announced the $12.5 billion Motorola Mobility acquisition in August 2011, and it wasn't rocket science then (or now) to see the huge and valuable patent portfolio as major impetuous. As I explained then, Google seeks intellectual property benefits, among others, by:

    1. Building up a portfolio that eventually will lead to cross-licensing deals with heavy-hitters Apple and Microsoft, thus ending the most distracting and potentially debilitating claims against Android licensees.

    2. Increasing Android licensees' confidence in the platform. As I've stated before, Apple's patent and other intellectual property claims again HTC, Samsung or other Android licensees is about deterrence -- stalling for time.

    Two days later, I asked: "Can Google-Motorola Mobility bring stability to the force?". Explaining: "It's not unusual for patent claims to be prelude to cross-licensing deals. Big companies use these to strengthen their intellectual-property portfolios and to fight off patent-troll lawsuits".

    Microsoft is the model of cross-licensing deals, which the company uses to protect customers as much as its own interests. Apple has resisted them and only came to the negotiating table with Nokia (and reaching a cross-licensing deal) after being sued. Nokia had the patent chops, the appropriate portfolio, to compel Apple to deal.

    Motorola has a well-deserved reputation for being overly aggressive -- yes, trolling -- in its patent pursuits. Google already has started to reign in the beast, meaning: The ITC complaint is not business as usual.

    The search giant seeks through its subsidiary to compel Apple to negotiate. Is the threat enough, or will it take an adverse ruling to bring CEO Tim Cook and company to end hostilities affecting Android? We will see. But I don't doubt Google's objectives, meeting force with force to achieve through cross-licensing agreements patent peace in our time.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/19/_The_Next_Big_Thing__isn_t_iPhone_5'

    'The Next Big Thing' isn't iPhone 5

    Publié: septembre 19, 2012, 7:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Samsung has revived its "The Next Big Thing is Already Here" marketing campaign with new videos, one of which posted about an hour ago to YouTube. Like its predecessors, the 90-second spot mocks people waiting in line to buy iPhone, something going on right now at Apple Stores around the globe. Doors open at 8 am local time on September 21 for iPhone 5's official launch.

    The South Korean electronics giant started the ad campaign in November 2011, following release of iPhone 4S. This year, the commercials come first and are sure to continue afterwards. This spot carries forward the storyline for at least one character -- that is for anyone who has watched the series. It's clever storytelling for advertising.

    In the original spot, a guy with glasses and cap had the choice line, calling a friend claiming to be artistic a "barista". In a later commercial, cap guy switches to Samsung Galaxy S III from iPhone. He's in the new spot waiting for iPhone 5. "Welcome back", one line waiter says. Another: "Guess that Galaxy S III didn't work out". Oh, but it did. He still has the phone. "I'm just saving a spot in line for someone". The someone is one of the best marketing punchlines I've seen in years and sears sterotypes about who wants iPhone 5.

    Some of the best advertising is about you and how product X, Y or Z makes your life better. It's part of the allure of Apple nomenclature, by the way -- the "i" products. You read iPad, iPhone or iPod but the connotation is something bigger: I, the capital letter. When I stands alone it is capitalized and refers to you, the subject. You read iPhone but really say IPhone as in my phone. Subliminal connotations have emotional hooks that, whether people want to admit it or not, impact buying decisions. Ask yourself: How often do you buy something ultimately because it feels right?

    Samsung takes a different aspirational approach, by stripping back "i" product allure, and the idea that life will be better for buying iPhone. Surely it's not better waiting in line. "They should have a priority line for people who waited five times", one guy wearing sunglasses quips.

    "This year we're finally getting everything we didn't get last year", says someone referring to iPhone 4S. Like big screen, but, uh-oh, someone points out S3's is bigger. Faster data. "We've had that for awhile", says a S3 user. The commercial calls out iPhone 5's dock connector change, other shortcomings and additional Galaxy S III benefits -- all while slapping around the iPhone hipster set. It's great fun.

    Later videos released earlier this year lost some of the originals' charm, with "The Thing called Love" high among the stinkers. The new 90-second spot revives what made the first commercials appealing.

    Samsung needs the appeal-factor, and not just because of iPhone 5. Following Samsung's loss in the court case against Apple last month here in California, Samsung's brand image is tarnished. The campaign, and complaints iPhone 5 isn't as revolutionary as some people expected or simply catches up to other handsets, is more important now than in 2011.

    And the commercials were effective last year. In the weeks following the ad campaign's start, Samsung perceptions rose above iPhone in the United States, according to YouGov BrandIndex.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/19/What_do_you_think_of_iOS_6_'

    What do you think of iOS 6?

    Publié: septembre 19, 2012, 5:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, two days before iPhone 5 launches, Apple releases iOS 6. We'd like to know what you think of the software, particularly compared to the previous version. Several features are sure to cause reaction, with Facebook integration and Apple's new maps app, which replaces the one from Google, being high among them.

    To be honest, given my Apple boycott and iPhone-toting daughter going off to college, I have no iOS device for testing. I can't review, and my best Apple-using writers are in Europe and likely won't blast out anything until tomorrow. But we need reaction today, particularly if iOS 6 turns out to be the update some of you won't want to apply. Judging from some of the reaction on Twitter, many of you should wait -- lest Apple Maps directs you to the river bank instead of your local financial institution.

    Please offer your iOS 6 reaction and review in comments below -- or send full review to me (joe at betanews dot com) with photo and bio. I love to publish reader reviews, and for those of you complaining in comments that Apple doesn't get a fair shake here, right the wrong by writing your review.

    iOS 6 is available as an over-the-air update for iPhone 3GS, 4 or 4S, two most recent iPads and fourth-generation iPod touch or later. Sorry, the new version doesn't support the original iPad.

    Wrong Way, Charlie

    Before downloading, be warned if maps is a major feature for you. Some early reactions disturb.

    Long-time tech entrepreneur Anil Dash tweets: "By default, the maps experience in iOS 6 is worse than it was in iOS 5. Who benefits from that?" His niceness about the experience stops there. Dash, who used pre-release software for months and more recently final code continues:

    The classic criticism that thoughtless Apple haters use against the company is that it makes products that are pretty but dumb...But this time, they're right: Apple's made a new product that actually is pretty but dumb. Worse, they've used their platform dominance to privilege their own app over a competitor's offering, even though it's a worse experience for users...

    It's evident that fundamental mapping features like venue search and directions are significantly worse than in the Google versions. Here in Manhattan, where I live, basic search by building names is profoundly degraded in Apple's maps search. "Bloomberg" doesn't find the Bloomberg Tower; on Google Maps it's the first result. Searching for its address "731 Lexington Avenue" yields that address on Lexington Avenue in Brooklyn. It's fine to think that perhaps I wanted the address in Bed-Stuy, but even appending "NY, NY" or "Manhattan, NY" still yields the Brooklyn address. Google maps has none of these comprehension issues.

    Dash isn't alone. Effi Obefiend tweets: "Wow the IOS6 map update for Malaysia is SERIOUSLY gimped". Uh-oh, and this: "The news IOS6 appstore is nice. Really look like GooglePlayStore now". I haven't seen. Is Apple really copying Google here?

    Twitter user Shane, from Ireland: "Hahaha iOS6 street map thinks Dublin Zoo is across the road from Temple Bar (it's confusing it with Zoo hair salon) [img88.imageshack.us]".

    Perhaps your experience will be better.

    The Goody Bag

    Before downloading consider some of these more notable new features in iOS 6:

    1. Facebook integration. iOS 5 brought Twitter, its successor goes for the larger social network. Users will be able to share to Facebook from just about anywhere in the operating system. Take a picture, for example, and post to Facebook. However, Android offers more flexibility, by letting developers tap into APIs for sharing. So someone taking a photo can share to a much wider choice of services, such as Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter and many others right from the camera app.

    2. Maps. For the first five versions, Apple relied on Google. No longer. iOS 6 brings Apple's own app. Features include turn-by-turn navigation, real-time traffic information and flyover perspectives. Visually, based on previews, Apple delivers stunning maps and uses device sensors to provide more of a being there experience.

    3. Siri. Apple introduced the "personal assistant" feature on iPhone 4S and promises it will be better (how about works at all) this round. The new Siri is more like Google Now by using capabilities like location to offer more meaningful information, such as movies and restaurants.

    4. Passbook. Need to check into a flight or redeem a movie pass? Passbook can assist with both. Think of the feature as a pass and coupon manager available anytime, anywhere your iOS 6 device goes.

    5. Safari. The mobile browser finally catches up to the likes of Chrome and Firefox by offering tab sync. Chrome already fully supports open tab sync across devices, something Safari users only get with this update. Say, who's copying whom?

    So once again, please share your iOS 6 reaction and review, either in comments below or emailing joe at betanews dot com. If you email, please send photo and bio and expect we will publish the review with your byline.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/14/Android_wins_the_smartphone_wars'

    Android wins the smartphone wars

    Publié: septembre 14, 2012, 1:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In October 2009, I explained why "Apple cannot win the smartphone wars". That was just a year after Google launched the first Android handset, the G1, on T-Mobile and days after Verizon debuted the hugely-successful Motorola Droid. By end of that year, Android had paltry 3.9 percent smartphone sales share, according to Gartner. My prediction drew loads of criticism from the Apple Fan Club of bloggers, journalists and other writers.

    Fast-forward to second quarter 2012 and Android's global sales share is 64.1 percent for all phones, not just smart ones. iOS: 18.8 percent. My how times change. Increasingly, Android and iOS look exactly like Windows and Mac OS in the 1980s and 1990s, as I predicted would be the case.

    By the way, three years ago, Gartner prediced that for 2012, Symbian would be top-ranked with 37.4 percent share, followed by Android (18 percent) and iOS (13.6 percent). Opps.

    Two days ago, Android chief Andy Rubin revealed startling data: Cumulative device shipments reached 500 million, putting Google's OS ahead of Apple's for the first time. During Apple's calendar second quarter earnings call, CFO Peter Oppenheimer put cumulative iOS sales at 410 million through June 30. Strangely, yesterday, CEO Tim Cook reduced the number to 400 million. WTH?

    Looking ahead, IHS iSuppli now predicts that cumulative Android smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion next year, but iOS not until 2015. The war is over, and Android won.

    That puts context behind Steve Jobs statement to his biographer about beating Android: "I'm willing to go thermonuclear war on this". Hence Apple's willingness to bomb competitors with patent lawsuits and risk fallout, in the form of legal precedents, that could hurt all tech companies for years. Apple lost the conventional, competitive war. Nuclear is last resort.

    Clone Wars

    Apple never really had a chance. iPhone was too good to start, encroaching on territory dominated by too many established players.

    But what a start. Humanness made the original iPhone stand apart from all competing cellular handsets. Apple used a variety of sensors to imbue the quality. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to your proximity gave it the human quality. There really was nothing like iPhone in June 2007. A year later, Apple launched the App Store, opening way for a mobile computing platform in a way more compelling than rivals like Nokia. Competitors were sure to line up behind something else, and they did. Android. And Apple set the stage to repeat the history of an earlier competing era.

    Apple brought to iPhone (and later iPad) many of the strengths and weaknesses that made Macintosh an early success only later to fail. As I explained three years ago, iPhone is to Android like Macintosh was to DOS/Windows PCs. The IBM PC launched in mid-1981. About 18 months later, Compaq announced the 12.5 kg clone nicknamed "luggable". A year after Compaq started selling its IBM PC clone, Apple announced the Macintosh, in January 1984.

    Macintosh proved to be an industry-changing platform, but not sustainable. Microsoft licensed DOS, and later Windows, to anyone and everyone, while Apple controlled Macintosh. That everyone expanded rapidly, as Dell, HP and others released their own IBM clones. Apple couldn't win the "Clone Wars", because the competing platform allowed many more third-parties to make much more money. The resulting clone attack, essentially every other PC manufacturer against Apple, was too much for Macintosh. The PC ecosystem prevailed.

    Three years ago, I warned: "Another everyone else against Apple battle is coming, with Android looking to be the better OS around which an ecosystem grows and thrives. There's a Star Wars metaphor here somewhere. Apple lost out to DOS/Windows because of the attack of the PC clones. Now the droids are coming for iPhone".

    The Borg

    But perhaps there is a more appropriate sci-fi metaphor for Android. The Borg. Android is open source, and even with Google's leadership is developed as a collective. Apple wages war against a hive mind and companies that made mobiles long before iPhone. These competitors are motivated to win, and rapidly accelerating designs and breadth of models put Apple to task. The fruit-logo company produces at best one new phone a year. How many new Androids debut in a month?

    Then there is the expansive market opportunity. Thanks in part to iPhone, there is underway a rapid, global transition from feature phones to smart ones. Companies like Samsung and ZTE are motivated to grab as much market share as humanly possible during the transition. Conversion can only take so long before the market saturates.

    Two days ago, Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, warned that US smartphone saturation would mute iPhone 5 sales: "While the new iPhone may be a gigantic success around the world, the inevitability of similar success in the US is not quite so pre-determined".

    Markets are fast-changing. IDC predicts that smartphone shipments to the People's Republic of China will pass the United States this year, with Android being the big beneficiary. In 2011, US smartphone share was 21.3 percent compared to 18.3 percent for China. This year, China is expected to reach 26.5 percent, while the United States falls to 17.8 percent.

    iPhone's second-place status is assured, but consider that Android's sales share is already more than three times larger than that of iOS.

    Assembly Imitation

    But there is another fundamental problem, which like Apple's control-oriented approach to platforms, undermines its long-term competitive position -- that despite now being largest company in the world by market capitalization.

    Apple is credited for being an innovator, when in fact the company is a follower. Apple didn't invent the personal computer, laptop, MP3 player, software media player, app store, music store, smartphone or tablet. Apple partly, or quite shockingly, reinvented these categories. But the company was by no means first, even though there is much revisionist history asserting otherwise.

    Oded Shenkar says "Apple is itself a consummate imitator", in his book Copycats: How Smart Companies use Imitation to Gain a Strategic Edge. Apple has long practiced what he calls imovation -- that is imitative innovation. The approach defines many of the most successful companies.

    "More than anything, Apple is master of assembly imitation: it follows in the paths of many predecessors, which have existing technologies and materials to generate new technologies by recombining them", Shenkar says.

    If you look closely at the history of Apple, there is a consistent pattern: Great innovation in a new product category followed by iteration over a long period of time, but few great new innovations following the first. Apple essentially moves into a nascent or establish category and produces a remarkable product. But eventually development stagnates, with Apple reinventing in a new product category.

    The original iPhone changed the way people interact with cellular handsets, by making them more human, more responsive. iPad evoked something more: Intimacy with the device and content. But what followed the original inspiration? Iteration along the same design principles.

    iPod innovation really stopped with the nano in 2005. In 2007, iPhone was truly innovative. Can you say the same about iPhone 5 four-and-a-half years later? True, iPhone 5 is longer but not that different from 4S otherwise. What's so tragic is how little iPhone changed while competing products made leaps and bounds. iPad already peaked. What is there really different now other than a high-resolution display? Meanwhile, Samsung is on its second-generation pen-based tablet, with features ideal for Apple designer customers. How ironic.

    Imovator's Dilemma

    In many respects, Apple succumbs to the innovator's dilemma. Or perhaps the imovator's dilemma. Apple imitates and reinvents, while its competitors often imitate and extend. Shenkar observes that many pioneers often fall behind those who follow them. "Because imitators often differentiate themselves from the original, they are often more attentive to game-changing technologies".

    Take for example convicted copycat Samsung. While iPhone is largely unchanged, Samsung introduced larger displays, better screen technology, software enhancements not available on Apple's handset and opened up the "phablet" category with Galaxy Note. The result: Samsung is the world's leading handset manufacturer based on sales, according to Gartner. It wasn't long ago that the South Korean manufacturer ate Apple's dust.

    Samsung is but one of many Android device makers -- hungry companies looking to adapt and gain market share before the feature mobile-to-smartphone conversion is over. They innovate, while Apple iterates. Colleague Wayne Williams rightly asks: "Hey, Apple, where is the innovation?" It's not in iPhone 5, which features catch up to Android smartphones like HTC One X or Samsung Galaxy S III.

    Apple needed iPhone 5 to be remarkable. It's not. The Android Army is now unstoppable, short of nuclear obliteration. If Android device markers get tablets right, or even Microsoft and its Windows 8/RT partners, iPad is at risk, too. Amazon's Kindle Fire HD already foreshadows another category where innovation will trump iteration.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/13/Will_you_buy_iPhone_5_'

    Will you buy iPhone 5?

    Publié: septembre 13, 2012, 12:54am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Thanks to Tim Conneally's quips, I feel obliged to write this story today. But he knew I would ask: Will you buy iPhone 5? As usual, I've got a buying poll for you and opportunity to explain in comments why iPhone 5 is or is not just right for you or any member of the family (including cute Cubby kitty). As always, fanboys beating one another senseless isn't discouraged. There's nothing quite like Android-iPhone cat fights. So rake the claws, commenters.

    If your immediate answer to the question is "Yes!", slow down, put your brain in low gear and think for a moment. You must understand the implications of that decision, particularly if you bought doodads for earlier models.

    Let's start with the basics and work outwards. If you live in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom or the United States, preorders start in two days. Count them, one, two -- September 14. Seven days later, on the 21st, iPhone 5 goes on sale and in another 22 countries -- Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland -- on September 28.

    Prices are unchanged from previous models, and Apple didn't increase storage capacities or provide SD-card slots to add more: 16GB ($199); 32GB ($299); and 64GB ($399) -- that's under carrier contract, which in the United States from AT&T, Sprint or Verizon is two-year commitment, assuming you qualify for the subsidy.

    Apple will discontinue the 3GS and make iPhone 4 the freebee model, also lowering iPhone 4S price to $99. Remember, the discounted models are not the same as those available now. Apple typically only offers 8GB storage, which is what you should expect when iPhone 4 and 4S go cheap.

    Both the older models remain good values, considering how few new compelling features there are in iPhone 5. Much of that value comes from iOS 6, which releases on September 19. Craigslist and eBay should fill up with older iPhones pretty fast and provide larger-capacity older models for anyone wanting them.

    Why Not iPhone 5?

    While prepping today's liveblog, Tim quipped: "The iPhone 5 is purported to have a new proprietary dock connector which will render all previous docks, chargers, and accessories obsolete, but keep the royalty stream flowing without interruption. We expect Apple to present some sexy reason for the swap that avoids the mention of dump truckloads of cash". That's exactly it.

    iPhone 5 has a new dock connector and, unless you score some future adapter, isn't compatible with existing peripherals. Everything from the car charger to that fancy Bose SoundDock or competing model you recently bought. Really consider what this means if you've got beau coup bucks invested in iPhone peripherals -- or if you have other Apple stuff, since the connectors among devices are now incompatible, too. That's right, your iPad.

    For anyone now owning or soon buying iPhone 4 or 4S, expect some good deals coming on old-connector gear. That's another reason to stay clear of iPhone 5. Do plan on spending even more, if you don't.

    I call out the connector because Apple suddenly gives existing customers cause to switch. If, say, you've got 500 bucks invested in iPhone gear, competing handsets are less attractive. But if Apple connector changes demand reinvesting in new peripherals, there's good reason to look at all the options. Or even skip this upgrade opportunity and keep the existing iPhone longer.

    Why iPhone 5?

    So for what reasons should you consider iPhone 5? Not many, but there are a few.

    Larger Screen, now 4 inches up from 3.5 inches. Display resolution jumps to 1136 by 640 from 960 by 640; both 326 pixels per inch. Androids from HTC, Samsung and other manufacturers typically have larger displays -- 4.5 inches or more -- and higher resolution (1280 by 720).

    4G LTE. Apple is so late to fast data, it's laughable. But for anyone holding out for real 4G, iPhone 5 has got it. LTE really removes a reason not to buy iPhone. So go get it.

    Appearance. iPhone 5 is pretty, and Apple goes way over the top telling you why: "Never before has this degree of fit and finish been applied to a phone...Look at iPhone 5 and you can’t help but notice the exquisite chamfer surrounding the display. A crystalline diamond cuts this beveled edge. It’s what gives iPhone 5 its distinctive lines. Fitting for a phone so brilliant".

    Dual-band Wi-Fi. It's faster, so Apple claims, and many other smartphones already offer the capability. Say, isn't my Galaxy Nexus one of them?

    AppleCare+, which you can buy for iPhone 4S, too. Give Apple 99 bucks, and the company will replace your busted phone for another $49. It's a huge value, and probably a big money maker for Apple.


    Will you buy iPhone 5?

    By the Specs

    It's worth comparing iPhone 5 to the 4S and some Androids before making that big purchase decision:

    iPhone 5: 4-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 1136 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); Apple A6 dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), LTE (bands vary by model and region); 8MP rear-facing and 1.2MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording (back), 720p (front); accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; carrier locked; iOS 6. Measurements: 123.8 x 58.6 x 7.6 mm, 112 grams.

    iPhone 4S: 3.5-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 960 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); 1GHz dual-core processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); 8MP rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; 1432 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 5. Measurements: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm, 140 grams.

    Galaxy S III: 4.8-inch Super AMOLED display (306 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution; 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (64GB in future), expandable with microSD card; HSPA＋ 21Mbps (850/900/1900/2100), 4G LTE, GSM/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900); 8MP rear-facing and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC, Bluetooth 3.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; 2100 mAh battery; carrier locked; Android 4.0 and TouchWiz "nature" UI. Measurements: 136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm, 133 grams.

    Galaxy Nexus: 4.65-inch Super AMOLED display (315 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution (100,000:1 contrast ratio); 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; HSPA+ 21Mbps/HSUPA (4G LTE from Sprint or Verizon), 5.76Mbps (850/900/1900/1700/2100), EDGE/GPRS (850/900/1800/1900); 5MP rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC; Bluetooth 4.0; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; 1750 mAh (HSPA+), 1850 mAh (LTE); carrier unlocked; Android 4.0, or 4.1 (HSPA+ model from Google). Measurements: 135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams.

    The Question

    Will you buy? I wouldn't, even if I wasn't boycotting Apple. By all important measures, iPhone 5 plays catch-up to a wide assortment of Androids.

    Wayne Williams asks the right question: "Hey, Apple, where's the innovation?" He writes: "I can’t be alone in wanting to see something more daring and diverse come out of the Cupertino, Calif. corporation. A little invention to go with all this iteration...Really? Is this all you’ve got for us these days Apple? Larger and smaller variants of the same products?"

    Do you agree? Is iPhone 5 right for you? If buying, will you move up from another model?

    Please take the poll above and/or answer in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/12/Apple_unveils_iPhone_5__ships_September_21'

    Apple unveils iPhone 5, ships September 21

    Publié: septembre 12, 2012, 8:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today during a special media event, Apple unveiled its next smartphone, as expected.

    Pricing is unchanged from previous models: $199 (16GB); $299 (32GB); $399 (64GB). iPhone 4 is now free and the 4S $99. All prices are with contractual commitments.

    Apple starts taking preorders on September 14 and shipping one week later in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Singapore, United Kingdom and United States; in 22 more countries on September 28.

    iPhone 5 features a 4-inch display with 1136 by 640 resolution and 326 pixels per inch. The handset is 7.6mm thick -- that's 18 percent thinner than its predecessor -- and 20 percent lighter at 112 grams. The new model marks the first major change in display size since the original launched in June 2007.

    Apple packs in an A6 processor, bumps the front-facing camera to 720p and improves the rear-facing 8-megapixel camera, which now -- in a catch-up feature to Galaxy Nexus -- includes a panorama shooting mode. Aperture is a respectable f/2.4.

    In a long past-due feature, iPhone 5 supports LTE, capability long available from Android and Windows Phone competitors. The new handset, Apple's sixth, will be available from AT&T, Sprint and Verizon in the United States -- but again, no T-Mobile.

    As rumored, Apple changed the dock connector, essentially making obsolete existing peripherals -- that is without some kind of adaptor. Emphasis is now more on wireless, such as Bluetooth audio (something Nokia gave me more than three years ago) and WiFi for streaming or syncing.

    iPhone 5 is constructed of glass and aluminium and like its predecessors will be available in black and white.

    The unveiling marked a big departure from Steve Jobs-era events. CEO Tim Cook announced iPhone near the front of today's media gala, putting it even ahead of iOS 6. Typically, Jobs saved the big thing for the end.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/12/Apple_iOS_6_launches_September_19'

    Apple iOS 6 launches September 19

    Publié: septembre 12, 2012, 8:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you've got iPhone 4 or 4S, recent iPod touch or one of the two recent iPads, Apple will give you iOS 6, and you won't wait long. The Cupertino, Calif,-based company formally announced the release date, September 19, during a media event today.

    New iOS 6 features include FaceTime video over cellular, Facebook integration, Passbook for buying movie tickets and other passes, shared photo streams and new maps app, among others. Apple released a developer preview in June. Perhaps most notable among the new features is Apple's homegrown maps app, replacing the one long provided by Google.

    Unlike Android, iOS isn't nearly as fragmented. Manufacturers and carriers decide when to release new Android updates, and they're stingy about it. For example, based on the number of devices accessing Google Play in the 14 days prior to September 4, just 1.2 percent run Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, which is the newest version. The majority, 57.5 percent, run older Android 2.3 Gingerbread. By contrast, Apple controls updates and makes them immediately available to all supported devices.

    Still, more broadly, Android eclipses iOS. In the United States during second quarter, Android share was 59 percent to 31 percent for iOS, according to NPD. Globally, Android sales share was 64.1 percent but only 18.8 percent for iOS, according to Gartner.

    Some of the more notable new features in iOS 6:

    1. Facebook integration. iOS 5 brought Twitter, its successor goes for the larger social network. Users will be able to share to Facebook from just about anywhere in the operating system. Take a picture, for example, and post to Facebook. However, Android offers more flexibility, by letting developers tap into APIs for sharing. So someone taking a photo can share to a much wider choice of services, such as Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, Twitter and many others right from the camera app.

    2. Maps. For the first five versions, Apple relied on Google. No longer. iOS 6 brings Apple's own app. Features include turn-by-turn navigation, real-time traffic information and flyover perspectives. Visually, based on previews, Apple delivers stunning maps and uses device sensors to provide more of a being there experience.

    3. Siri. Apple introduced the "personal assistant" feature on iPhone 4S and promises it will be better (how about works at all) this round. The new Siri is more like Google Now by using capabilities like location to offer more meaningful information, such as movies and restaurants.

    4. Passbook. Need to check into a flight or redeem a movie pass? Passbook can assist with both. Think of the feature as a pass and coupon manager available anytime, anywhere your iOS 6 device goes.

    5. Safari. The mobile browser finally catches up to the likes of Chrome and Firefox by offering tab sync. Chrome already fully supports open tab sync across devices, something Safari users only get with this update. Say, who's copying whom?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/12/Cumulative_Android_device_sales_push_past_iOS_for_first_time'

    Cumulative Android device sales push past iOS for first time

    Publié: septembre 12, 2012, 7:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In what can only be described as a turning point for post-PC operating systems, cumulative Android device sales now exceed iOS, and in a shorter time period. Today, during a special media event, Apple reduced the cumulative number of iOS sales to 400 million -- that would be since iPhone's debut in June 2007. But yesterday, Google put Android sales at 500 million, from the G1's launch four years ago this month. The days of iOS' perennial lead are over.

    Android has been on the catch-up track for better part of the year. At the end of June cumulative iOS shipments were 410 million, according to Apple. Why CEO Tim Cook put the number at 10 million less today is anyone's guess. Days before the quarter ended, Google put cumulative Android shipments at 400 million. A few months earlier: 365 million and 300 million, respectively. Daily Android activations now total 1.3 million, up from 900,000 in June, according to Google.

    At that run rate, Android device sales, based on activations, work out to 117 million every 90 days. By comparison, during calendar second quarter Apple sold just 45 million iOS devices. Those numbers will mean much to developers deciding which platform is priority.

    Globally, on handsets, Android sales share was 64.1 percent in second quarter, but only 18.8 percent for iOS, according to Gartner. Where iOS exceeds Android is on tablets, but the numbers are much lower. More than 419 million phones were sold during the quarter, according to Gartner. NPD Display Search forecasts fewer tablet shipments for the year -- 347 million -- than Gartner says were sold in Q2.

    In October 2009, I explained why "Apple cannot win the smartphone wars". iPhone is to Android handsets what Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. The Mac's rocky start in 1984-85 gave way to great success because of several killer applications, with desktop publishing being among the most important. But by the mid 1990s, Windows PCs pushed down Mac market share. iPhone follows similar path.

    But since iPad's huge successful launch two-and-a-half years ago, iOS looked like winner of the larger platform wars. But these new numbers raise doubts.

    Typically, successful platforms share six common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • The platform is broadly available
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    Platforms succeed for combinations of reasons leading to network effects. But the underlying most important: Third parties make money, lots of it. As Android numbers far exceed iOS, the Mac-Windows comparison looks like the more likely scenario.

    Then again, the number of apps available in both stores is already so mindboggling -- 700,000 for iOS, 250,000 of them for iPad. That's the other network effect to consider: Investment. While Android rises above iOS, Apple's platform has huge first-to-market advantage and existing investment from developers and other partners. So Android's rise by no means is a sure winner. But it does represent an important change that shouldn't be overlooked long term.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/10/Nearly_three_quarters_of_US_young_adults_own_smartphones'

    Nearly three quarters of US young adults own smartphones

    Publié: septembre 10, 2012, 11:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, Nielsen sure knows how to rain on the iPhone 5 hit parade. Just two days before the handset's presumed debut -- Hey, Apple has a big media even on September 12 -- an Android storm pours down on iPhone rumors. Nielsen today says that 74 percent of Americans between 25 and 34 own a smartphone, up from 59 percent a year earlier, and more likely Android than Apple. Quick, someone grab an umbrella! And a dry towel. Kleenex too!

    Meanwhile, teens also are big smartphone owners -- 59 percent of 13 to 17 year-olds. Get this: 58 percent of all American teens have smartphones, up from 36 percent a year earlier. Now there's a group Apple, Android and Windows Phone makers should really want to get.

    "Among most age groups smartphones represent the majority of US mobile subscribers, but American teens were the age group adopting smartphones the fastest", Nichole Henderson, Nielsen analyst, says. "As teens increase in their share of smartphone owners, mobile carriers and manufacturers should consider how to market to this growing group".

    Can you say free phones and cheap data plans? Or none required at all? Major manufacturers already have the Facebook thing covered. What else is there? Pretty cases, cheap? More locked-downed messaging and video apps/services?

    More broadly, Android continues its dominance over iPhone, although I wonder about what handset the person writing Nielsen's press release uses. The PR claims "iPhone followed closely with a share of 34 percent of smartphone owners". Oh yeah? Android share is 51.9 percent. What's close about that? More than 17 points.

    Android share among new purchasers -- those people within three months -- is even higher: 58.6 percent, compared to 33 percent for iPhone.

    Nielsen surveyed more than 20,000 American mobile subscribers to compile the data. Fifty-five point-five percent have smartphones, up from 41 percent a year earlier.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/10/GoDaddy_is_down_'

    GoDaddy is down!

    Publié: septembre 10, 2012, 9:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    As I write, domain registrar and web hoster GoDaddy is inaccessible -- and a heap load of websites with it. Typically when sites go dark like this, they are under a direct denial of service attack. Anonymous claims responsibility, via Twitter, but there is yet no official word from GoDaddy as to the cause and whether there might be a security breach.

    About 90 minutes ago, GoDaddy tweeted: "Status Alert: Hey, all. We're aware of the trouble people are having with our site. We're working on it". Then 5 minutes ago: "So many messages, can't get to you all... Sorry to hear all your frustration. We're working feverishly to resolve as soon as possible". Well, I guess that confirms Twitter isn't hosted by GoDaddy.

    Tweets from several accounts presumably associated with hacktivist group Anonymous claim responsibility for bringing down GoDaddy. Interestingly, the one I most directly associated with Anonymous, YourAnonNews, doesn't explicitly. Two tweets: "#GoDaddy Outage Takes Down Millions Of Sites, Anonymous Claims Responsibility" referring to a TechCrunch story; "As #GoDaddy 's DNS servers are Tango Down'd #Anonymous trends world wide.. Interesting turn of events eh?"

    Meanwhile, Anonymous Operations tweets claims and gives some reasons: "All servers are Tango Down - http://www.godaddy.com | #Anonymous #AntiSec"; "By using / supporting Godaddy, you are supporting censorship of the Internet". "Please redirect your godaddy hate to @AnonymousOwn3r He is the 'leader' of Anonymous and a faggot. #derp Have #lulz with that".

    Anonymous Own3r was among the first to acknowledge the attack, tweeting: "#tangodown http://www.godaddy.com/"; and immediately after: "Hello everyone who wanna me to put 99% of the global Internet in #tangodown?"

    GoDaddy is the No. 2 trending topic on Google+ as I update (3:47 pm EDT). Posting to G+, web developer Joel Klein aptly describes what this means for GoDaddy customers:

    1) if you have a website hosted by them -- it's down
    2) if you have an email address by them -- it's down
    3) if you have a ftp storage by them -- it's down
    4) if you want to change a domains information -- you can't
    5) if you have a domain at Google apps, or goDaddy, or DomainsByProxy -- it will be affected (When TTL runs out)
    6) if you will call go daddy or visit them on the web -- you will get nowhere

    Klein sums up the situation better than I could. The number of affected sites is estimated to be in the tens of millions.

    Bertrand Van is one of the many people affected by today's outage:

    My www.DolwolfianPhotography.com website is actually down due to an outage at GoDaddy web host provider.

    You can have access to my website by the following address: www.DolwolfianPhotography.smugmug.com.

    SmugMug supports CNAME for redirecting domains to its websites.

    KOMarketing is having fun at GoDaddy's expense showing: "How we are staying occupied while #GoDaddy is down..." and posting a photo. Is that a meme in the making? Brett Lipton takes a different approach.

    David Fernandes: "Dammit +Go Daddy got my site down >(".

    At 4:04 pm EDT, GoDaddy tweeted: "Update: Still working on it, but we're making progress. Some service has already been restored. Stick with us". Oh yeah. Twenty minutes later, I still couldn't access godaddy.com. At 5:07 pm EDT, GoDaddy tweeted: "We're continuing our work to get back on track. This is our #1 priority. We'll keep posting updates here. Thanks for all the support". Fifteen minutes later, I briefly accessed the site. On refresh, I got a page with this message:

    We are experiencing problems. We understand this is impacting some customers and we take this situation very seriously.

    Everyone at GoDaddy.com is working to restore all sites affected by this outage as soon as possible.

    Please see updates on Twitter.com by following @GoDaddy or on Facebook.

    Thank you for your patience.

    --Scott Wagner, CEO

    Circling back to Anonymous' reasons: GoDaddy supported the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, leading to a boycott of the registrar on December 29. Dump GoDaddy Day received widespread support. Wikipedia joined many others, as I did.

    Today's takedown may do more to move customers from GoDaddy than the boycott. It's funny the things people will do for money, they won't for philosophic principles.

    Are you a GoDaddy customer? Is your personal site or business affected? Will you stay or switch?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/07/If_HTC_customer_satisfaction_is_so_high__why_are_smartphone_sales_so_low_'

    If HTC customer satisfaction is so high, why are smartphone sales so low?

    Publié: septembre 7, 2012, 11:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's my question after scanning a survey JDPower and Associates released yesterday. The firm ranks customer satisfaction on a scale of one to 1,000. For the eighth consecutive survey, Apple is tops with a score of 849. But HTC is second, at 790, which has me scratching my head trying to put two and two together and getting three. Perhaps my math should be similar for Apple, since Samsung, which scored 782, sells more smartphones than any other manufacturer -- that's here and abroad.

    My point: High customer satisfaction doesn't necessarily equate to big sales. There are many other factors to consider, particularly subsidized products like smartphones. Among them: Carrier contracts and pricing; device promotions; on-shelf experience in stores; handset look and feel; color choices; cases and other add-on options; carrier availability (no iPhone at T-Mobile USA, for example) and advertising, which Samsung does much more of than HTC -- or that's my observation. None of these reasons considers features, which aren't that different phone to phone as they used to be.

    HTC ranked eighth in global phone sales during second quarter, according to Gartner, with 2.2 percent market share. Samsung was first and Apple third. According to comScore, at the end of July, in the United States, where JDPower conducted the survey, HTC ranked fifth in cellular handset subscriber share (again Samsung and Apple were first and third, respectively). HTC's share is unchanged, 6.4 percent, from June. Samsung share: 25.6 percent. Apple: 16.3 percent.

    At HTC, hard times are the norm -- at least from a financial performance perspective. During second quarter, for example, profits plunged about 58 percent year over year. Even the Taiwanese manufacturer's crème de la crème phones suffered hardship, in May US Customs temporarily blocking import of the HTC One X over patent disputes with Apple. In July, AT&T slashed by half the well-reviewed phone's price.

    HTC could use a bit more correlation between customer satisfaction and sales.

    JDPower notes four key factors in determining smartphone satisfaction: "performance (33 percent); physical design (23 percent); features (22 percent); and ease of operation (22 percent)". Other factors are surprising. For example, features, such as operating system, camera or social media functions, don't appeal as much as they once did. Forty-seven percent of smartphone buyers primarily purchased because of features, down from 57 percent a year earlier (JDPower conducted the survey in June).

    Meanwhile price is more important, with 19 percent citing this as primary purchase reason, up from 14 percent a year earlier. Twenty-two percent of respondents said they paid nothing for their device.

    Smartphone owners who use social networking features and apps are more satisfied than those who do not (810 and 755 score, respectively) or those who game and do not (813 vs 752, respectively).

    Again these are all features generally available among different smartphones, which brings me to one differentiating feature purposely left out of the second-paragraph list and saved for here: Branding. Apple and Samsung both command strong brands, and advertising and other marketing investments are part of the effort. For example, last month I observed a Samsung phone charging station at my daughter's university. Brand presence like this is priceless.

    Some advice to HTC: It's long past time to better brand, and capitalize on customer satisfaction. What success can there be in high satisfaction among a lower number of people?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/07/Kindle_Fire_HD_is_bad_for_Android__worse_for_iPad'

    Kindle Fire HD is bad for Android, worse for iPad

    Publié: septembre 7, 2012, 4:02am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google is in a tough spot. Apple suddenly looks like an ally now that Amazon has unveiled Kindle Fire HD. Both companies stand to lose big time should the tablet achieve any meaningful sales success. Google Play doesn't offer strong enough ecosystem to battle with either iPad or Kindle Fire, but Amazon's tablet is more likely to scorch Android's earth. Amazon's vertical integration -- store, software and services -- is tight, as good as Apple's and in many respects superior. No matter which wins, Android loses.

    Here's the problem: Only Amazon has done any meaningful Android customization on tablets, creating a curated experience similar to Apple's. Like iOS, Amazon Android is tightly vertically and horizontally integrated with siloed services. Kindle Fire is designed to mainly work within the Amazon content/retail sphere and little outside it. Amazon runs its own stores -- everything from apps to movies -- while shunning Google Play. Meanwhile, Kindle Fire supports the custom Silk browser rather than the stock Android one or Chrome. Amazon Android is a competing platform/ecosystem within the larger, more open one Google champions. (The original Kindle Fire is customized Gingerbread and new HD models customized Ice Cream Sandwich.)

    As such, Amazon's objectives are contrary to Google's. Should any or all of the Kindle Fire models sell as well as I expect, they'll drive up Android shipments against iPad. But that's bad for the broader Android ecosystem. Amazon, and customers willing to buy into the curated experience, is the greater beneficiary, not the expanse of third-party developers or larger Android ecosystem.

    In April, I explained how "Google has lost control of Android", something the new Google Play/Jelly Bean/Nexus device strategy seeks to remedy. Forrester Research predicts that proprietary Android will surpass the Google Android ecosystem by 2015. Amazon leads the charge away from Google's open-source mobile platform to fatally-fragmented Android. Given Android tablets low volumes compared to iPad, and Kindle Fire's potential to ignite sales, Forrester Research's forecast is more likely overly conservative.

    Simply stated: Amazon offers so much for so little cost compared to Apple, while much more than every other Android tablet maker. Both companies command hugely successful and popular brands and rightly take the pulse of consumer markets.

    Stupid Apple

    Today's Kindle Fire HD debut makes Apple's patent war against Samsung look like a real idiot's play. CEO Tim Cook and lawyers chase the wrong adversary. Samsung already won the smartphone war, and it's not the one that matters. Tablet is the more important cloud-connected device category. The device already sucks away PC sales, is closer in functionality to the computers it replaces and is a category where Apple is overwhelming market share leader.

    During second quarter, iPad tablet share was 68.2 percent, up from 61.5 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Looked at differently, Apple tablet shipments exceeded Kindle Fire by 13.6 times. Meanwhile, NPD Display Search forecasts huge tablet gains that will suck sales away from PCs over the next five years. The analyst firm says that tablet shipments will exceed laptops by 2016. If not sooner.

    Apple should seek to preserve the iPad ecosystem at all costs, by any means possible. So why is Amazon free to just do as it pleases, to copy Apple nut and bolt without restraint? Amazon's entire tablet model emulates Apple's. Take a look at the Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE product page, for example. The page layout, aspirational language and action-oriented emphasis on benefits mimics that for iPad. Some of the Amazon product description headings: "stunning HD display"; "booming sound without distortion"; "revolutionary 4G". For iPad: "breakthrough retina display"; "5MP iSight camera"; ultra-fast 4G LTE". Look for yourself how similar are the layouts, bullet points and marketing language.

    But the copying that matters more is that previously mentioned: Curation. Amazon offers its own Android app store, music and movie stores, ebook store, web browser and customized media consumption software and services. Just like Apple.

    Amazon offers a curated experience that matches Apple's and, in some respects, exceeds it. For example, consumers can buy ebooks for Kindle Fire, but read them on their iPhone, Android handset or other device. Amazon allows movies and music on Kindle Fire or other devices. From Apple it's just devices supporting iTunes Store. People buying into the Amazon lifestyle get Kindle Fire plus something else. That's an added benefit not available from Apple or other Android tablet vendors.

    Something else: For all Apple's retail success, Amazon's breadth and depth is far greater. Kindle Fire taps into Amazon for more than just digital content and services but physical goods, all easily available. The $79/year Prime service adds many additional benefits, like free two-day shipping, ebook borrowing and free movie-and-TV show streaming. I've started re-watching "Fringe" from the first season. The Fox drama is available in HD for free to Prime members -- not at all on Netflix.

    Smart Amazon

    Amazon prioritizes features and pricing that matter for living one digital lifestyle around its cloud-connected services and retail store. Like Apple, Amazon offers a stack of content and services, but from there priorities digress, and this is why Cook and company blow the "Idiot Wind". Long term, Amazon Android and Kindle Fire pose much greater risk to iOS than does Samsung. Apple uses patent litigation to beat Samsung senseless, recognizing a direct competitor. Both derive profits from selling devices. To Amazon, devices are loss-leaders -- platform for profits somewhere else -- and more dangerous competitively.

    Just look at today's product announcements:

    • 7-inch Kindle Fire will sell for $159 when sales resume on September 14. That's $40 less than Nexus 7. Apple sells nothing even close to this price. Amazon offers comparable, or better, content and services.
    • 7-inch Kindle Fire HD moves into the $199 spot, offering higher-resolution display, better audio, dual-band Wi-Fi and twice the storage (16GB). A $249 model has 32GB storage. At both price points, storage is double both Nexus 7 models.
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" sets the price Apple must meet, if iPad mini rumors are true: $299 (16GB); $369 (32GB). Compelling feature is what Apple touts for iPad: High-resolution display. It's 1920 x 1200 and 254 pixels per inch, which is big for a price this small.
    • Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE is a big jump in price -- $499 (32GB); $599 (64GB). But Amazon's pitch is greater value compared to iPad, with the top-of-the-line Kindle Fire with LTE selling for same price as Apple's 16GB WiFi model. iPad with LTE and 32GB storage sells for $729 or $829 for 64GB.

    Kindle Fire HD puts Apple on notice, and the risks are great because Amazon can under-price iPad even sell at a loss -- as the retailer has done in the past. Apple relies on hardware revenues; Amazon doesn't. If Cook and company are looking the wrong way by trying to kill Samsung through litigation. Amazon means business, and quite literally with announcement today of Microsoft Exchange support.

    Kindle Fire is bad for Android, but much worse for iPad and iOS.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/06/_Bing_It_On__is_a_real_turn_off'

    'Bing It On' is a real turn-off

    Publié: septembre 6, 2012, 11:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's "Bing It On" marketing campaign is brilliantly conceived, but don't believe the results. The search comparisons leave out the most important piece of information: Location. Another: relationship. In my blind testing Google and Microsoft searches using Bing It On, the comparison is blind at worst, near-sighted at best.

    Bing It On is something like the Coke-Pepsi taste tests from the 1970s. People try both without knowing which is which and say which they like better. Here they blind test Bing and Google, with results presented side-by-side, left and right. But because the tests are anonymous, identity and location are missing elements, or they are for me. Also, both services now offer social graph search, which also is missing when tabulating the comparison. But wait! What about news or image searches, which I often do? Blogs and other sources? It's this richness the comparison lacks, so the taste is bland not sweet. As such, I find the comparison to be fundamentally flawed.

    I start my search simply with "comic books", assuming both will bring up local stores. Neither does up high, although the one on the right offers a bunch for the Bellevue, Kirkland and Seattle, Wash. areas. Neither suits my needs. The one on the right puts Wikipedia first, fifth for the other. So there are differences.

    For the second of five search tests, I get more specific: "comic book stores". The one on the left provides a map with stores near "Redmond, Washington". The winner!

    For the third test search, I try something else: Asking a question, which lots of people do when looking for information. "How big is Aroostook?", which refers to my home county in Northern Maine. The right one provides a direct answer set apart from search links: "6,829 sq miles (17,690 km)". There's an easy winner.

    Another question: "What is the best search engine?" It's clearly neither of these two. Both point to a lame about.com article followed by nine-year-old Search Engine Watch story.

    All this tasting makes me hungry, and lunchtime has passed by, so I search: "best burgers San Diego", which is hopeless without my location being available to either service. Both serve up a list from "sandiego10best.com" -- yeah like I really want to go there. Next "best burger" and "best hamburger" from Yelp. The one on the left delivers a list of local eateries with websites, addresses and phone numbers. While neither is great, that one stinks less so I choose it.

    In the end Google tastes better, with two wins (Aroostook and burgers) to Bing's one (comic book stores). The other two are draws, and among the five only Aroostook satisfies.

    So I wonder, how do these searches look when conducted separately? I haven't used Bing for awhile. Wow, what changes. For the worse! First off, even though Bing has my location associated with my Microsoft account, searching for comic books brings up no local search information. But I am rudely and repeatedly asked to join the Microsoft Rewards program. I also receive limited social search info, by refusing to sign into Facebook. Searching for "comic book stores" brings up the same kind of map as the blind search but with shops local to me.

    Over at Google, searching for both terms brings up a map with comic book stores. Proving my point: Lacking location info makes the blind test blind, or near-sighted at best.

    Would you like to Bing It On? Click away.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/06/Samsung_sells_20M_Galaxy_S_IIIs__but_did_you_buy_one_'

    Samsung sells 20M Galaxy S IIIs, but did you buy one?

    Publié: septembre 6, 2012, 9:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Confession is good for the soul, if nothing more than peace of mind. What better place than before the entire Internet? So we invite you to make your Galaxy S III confession. Yeah, your friends have iPhones and perhaps you feel sheepish about being different -- that you won't fit in for wanting something more, or at least something else. There's no longer reason to hide, or to look at your Samsung smartphone and feel guilty. You're not alone. Today the South Korean electronics giant says Galaxy S III sales topped 20 million in the first 100 days.

    Sure, 20,000,000 is a heap big many, but not near the number of iPhones sold -- 28.9 million in just the last quarter, according to Gartner. But don't worry. You're in large enough company to stand out, to confess your S3 love. In May, I posted a buying poll, to which 4,959 of you responded; 63 percent say they will buy (or by now have purchased) Galaxy S III.

    Perhaps you don't want to say not for feeling different but being the same as your iPhone friends and dirtied for using an imitation; Apple won its copycat case against Samsung, and maybe you don't want your friends looking down on you for it. At worst, Apple actually validates your S3 as being something special, if it's such a magnificent imitation. At best, your Samsung simply is better on its own, which is what I contend.

    Long before the verdict, many bloggers, journalists and other writers branded Apple hero and Samsung villain. They prosecuted the electronics company in the court of public opinion. As for the verdict, I explained two days ago why it's a miscarriage of justice, led by a jury foreman who misunderstood one of the most fundamental concepts about patents -- that after the judge provided 100 pages of instructions for his benefit. You needn't feel ashamed. Profess your S3 love.

    Somebody loves you: "I would like to express my sincere appreciation to customers who have chosen the Galaxy S III", JK Shin, Samsung mobile chief, says. "We will never stop providing the latest smart mobile technologies to help users live a life extraordinary". And if Samsung really is a copycat, as the US jury says, well you'll see more the "last smart mobile technologies" after Apple reveals them in iPhone 5, presumably next week, and Samsung follows up soon after with the S4.

    But don't you have that "smart mobile" tech now. Galaxy S III has LTE, but not iPhone. S3's screen is huge (4.8 inch), iPhone's puny (3.5 inch). Then there's Near Field Communications, expandable storage and more. Among the big benefits:

    • Front camera detects whether the user is looking at the phone and keeps the screen lit. How many times has your display gone dark while reading a website or ebook?
    • The phone can automatically turn on, if recognizing your face.
    • You're in the middle of texting someone and decide to call instead. Lifting the phone to your face places a call to the recipient.
    • Facial recognition identifies friends, tagging their social networking accounts. Right, Facebook and Twitter.
    • Voice commands are available in 8 languages.

    See, you should feel good about your Galaxy S III. Don't worry about iPhone idolaters and their obsession in the next big thing. It's already here!

    To celebrate the big, bad milestone, Samsung is releasing new colors: Amber Brown, Garnet Red, Sapphire Black and Titanium Gray. Pebble Blue and Marble White already are available.

    Now will you confess? As for my confession: I own Galaxy Nexus. What can I say? It's not iPhone 4S.

    Photo Credit: Sham Hardy

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/06/Will_you_buy_Nokia_Lumia_920_Windows_Phone_'

    Will you buy Nokia Lumia 920 Windows Phone?

    Publié: septembre 6, 2012, 5:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Nokia's fortunes and the future of Windows Phone tie to one device: Lumia 920 running Windows Phone 8. The Finnish handset maker revealed the smartphone yesterday in a joint announcement with Microsoft. This is the Windows phone you waited for, or did you? Perhaps you already gave up and bought Android or iPhone. What I want to know on this sunny September day: Will you buy Lumia 920? If so, when -- and why? If not, why not?

    Nokia and Microsoft need Lumia 920 and sibling 820 to succeed. Once the global phone leader, Nokia is now second to Samsung. During Q2, Nokia's global sales share fell to 19.9 percent from 22.8 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner. Meanwhile Microsoft's mobile platform share rose to 2.7 percent from 1.6 percent. But that's behind Samsung's Bada. Combined, Android and iOS have 82.9 percent share, forming a near impenetrable barrier of the likes Microsoft has never seen. Like Windows on PCs, Android and iOS command a broad ecosystem of applications, peripherals, developers, retailers and other services or providers.

    The stakes are larger than sales, or even profits, but branding. While a near no-show in the United States, Nokia is a hugely recognized and respected brand pretty much everywhere else. But the company couldn't find footing to compete with iPhone, which stormed the smartphone category Nokia created more than 16 years ago. If there is a comeback device -- that is for people not buying feature phones or low-cost smart ones -- Lumia 920 is it. Oh, and for those waiting for iPhone 5, which Apple is expected to announce September 12, the wait is over. Lumia 920 and Windows 8 are different, and there's some impressive hardware innovation here. But is that enough for you to buy? I want to know.

    Core specs: 4.5-inch PureMotion HD+ IPS display with 1280 by 768 resolution, 332 pixels per inch, 600 nits brightness and 15:9 aspect ratio; 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon 4 dual-core processor; HSPA+ and LTE (no T-Mobile USA HSPA support); 1GB RAM; 32GB storage (and 7GB SkyDrive free); 8.7-megapixel rear-facing camera (F/2 aperture, 26mm focal length and Carl Zeiss Tessar lens) with LED flash; front-facing camera; 1080p video at 30fps (back camera), 720p (front); image stabilization; Near Field Communication; Bluetooth 3.1; Assisted-GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; Wi-Fi Channel bonding; Qi Wireless charging; DLNA compatible; Magnetometer; ambient-light, proximity and orientation sensors; 2,000 mAh battery; and Windows Phone 8. Device also supports Active Sync, corporate email (like Exchange or Lotus Traveler) and Office 365. Nokia Music streaming for free is another benefit. Dimensions: 130.3 mm high by 70.8 mm wide by 10.7 mm thick; weighs 185 grams.

    Some buyers may wonder about the dual-core processor when quad-core is increasingly standard, but Windows Phone 8 is well-optimized to get more from less.

    The camera is among the stand-out features. The f/2 aperture is exceptional for a phone camera and the focal length just right for a prime lens. Nokia has a long history of producing the best phone cameras on the market.

    Qi Wireless charging is another worthy feature. Yeah, wireless charging. Say no more.

    Then there is the display: 600 nits is exceptionally bright for a smartphone and pushes past HTC One X. Of course, brightness burns battery life faster, so that's a concern.

    There's much to like here -- that without considering Windows Phone 8 benefits.


    Will you buy Nokia Lumia 920 Windows Phone?

    But there's a big problem for would-be buyers: Pricing and availability, neither of which Nokia disclosed yesterday. Surely Apple will give pricing and start selling iPhone 5 soon after it's announced. Today's charmer is tomorrow's farmer.

    So, will you buy? Please answer in comments below and take the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/06/Android_4_dulls_Droid_RAZR_s_edge'

    Android 4 dulls Droid RAZR's edge

    Publié: septembre 6, 2012, 1:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I expect better from Google than this. Its Motorola Mobility subsidiary today announced three seemingly sizzling new Droids coming to Verizon, but they're not running the current operating system but instead will be "upgradeable to Android 4.1 Jelly Bean by end of 2012". We've heard promises like this before on Verizon "with Google" devices. Just ask Galaxy Nexus or XOOM 4G LTE owners about the broken upgrade promises and the long wait for, well, nothing.

    Google officially released Jelly Bean in mid-July, when Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ models automatically upgraded, but CDMA models available from Sprint and Verizon did not. Hell, users still clamored to get from Android 4.0.2 to 4.0.4 on Verizon models and couldn't. C`mon, Google, you own Motorola now and should be able to do better. If Verizon is the problem, fix it! Droid users deserve some respect, and you owe them and Verizon, too. Because if not for Droid, the green robot might not be nearly as popular today. Hat tip goes to Apple, too, for helping Android along (next paragraph explains why).

    Apple launched iPhone in summer 2007 on a single carrier, AT&T, with exclusive multi-year agreement. Actually, AT&T relaunched with iPhone as what was then Cingular Wireless adopted the older, stodgy brand. Verizon was shut out. Then in late 2008, Google released Android on a single handset (G1) through T-Mobile USA. Verizon still had no iPhone, and nothing really to compete. The carrier turned to Motorola, launching the Droid brand in autumn 2009 backed by a splashy $100 million ad campaign. Suddenly Android had street cred -- from America's largest carrier -- and huge brand visibility.

    The operating system soared -- really started wooing consumers, developers and handset makers -- following the Droid line's stunning success. In 2010, Android sales grew 888.8 percent, according to Gartner. Sure, Verizon and Droid aren't solely responsible for the mobile platform's success, but there's a fairly straight line in sales that parallels overall Android market share increases over the 12 months following launch. Never underestimate the power of good advertising or a company's "bet everything" commitment to a new brand.

    Three years later, Droid remains a hugely important brand to Verizon. Just go into any of the carrier's corporate stores and see how much singage and shelf space Droid phones and peripherals get compared to even iPhone. Verizon should be first Motorola customer demanding the newest operating system, and Moto's new management should beg the carrier to take Jelly Bean. Hey, Apple is expected to announce iPhone 5 running iOS 6 during a September 12 event. But the newest Droids pack last year's Android? Please, someone pinch me, because surely this is a nightmare not reality!

    If any party has vested interest in promoting Jelly Bean, Google is it. This is where I should offer up-to-date version information, but it's out of date. The last available data is number of devices accessing Google Play the 14 days before August 1. Say, isn't it about time to update the info? Back then, Jelly Bean share on Android devices was 0.8 percent and predecessor Ice Cream Sandwich 15.9 percent. Fragmentation defines Android. There are eight Android versions with measurable device share. Largest: Android 2.3 Gingerbread: 60.6 percent.

    Oh, and by the way, Motorola has one of the worst records upgrading devices to the newest Android version. If any manufacturer should offer the newest Android on all devices, Google's own should be it.

    I know, I know, some of you will excuse Google, asserting that the Moto acquisition only closed in late May. So? Google and Motorola announced the deal in August 2011 and started working closely together before regulators cleared the merger. There's no good logistical reason -- and even less marketing one, with iPhone 5's launch imminent -- for the new Droid's to ship with the older thing. These aren't any Droid's either but RAZR's -- a previously hugely successful brand Motorola hopes to reinvigorate.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/04/Do_you_use_Google_Chrome_'

    Do you use Google Chrome?

    Publié: septembre 4, 2012, 11:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    To celebrate Chrome's fourth-anniversary -- well, in beta -- we're asking readers if and why they use Google's browser. The search and information giant released the first public test build, for Windows, on Sept. 1, 2008, with the one-oh release following just three months later. For a company renown for perpetual betas (wasn't it five years for Gmail), the rapid push to release build was uncharacteristic -- and foreshadowing. As Martin Brinkmann explains, Google set a rapid-release cycle -- new versions about every six weeks -- that transformed web browser development.

    Yesterday, Tim Conneally told his personal story about using Chrome, starting from the beta. I would like to hear your story, too. You can comment to this post, or, better, email me -- joe at betanews.com. I'd like more than a comment, but your story to which we can put your byline, bio and photo.

    The majority of respondents to a recent BetaNews poll use Chrome as their primary browser, while StatCounter puts global usage share ahead of Internet Explorer.

    As I write, 2,017 people responded to the poll: "Which is your preferred primary web browser, meaning when you can choose it?" As the question further states: "For personal computer, not phone or other device". Among respondents, 43.58 answered Chrome. Firefox follows (31.18 percent) and then Internet Explorer (16.26 percent). I've re-embedded the poll so that those of you haven't responded can.

    StatCounter tells a startling story. Take a close look at the chart embedded top. Internet Explorer global usage share was 67.16 percent when Chrome beta debuted. Four years later: 31.09 percent, less than Chrome (34.99 percent).

    But as Microsoft ramps IE 10 alongside Windows 8, the browser wars are conceptually set to start a new frontline. IE will be the only default-browser option on Windows RT, for example.

    However, what Microsoft can't match -- or won't because of close operating system ties and version-change, risk-adverse business customers -- is the rapid pace of Chrome development. In the three years since Microsoft shipped Windows 7, Google released 18 Chrome versions. Microsoft technically has released none, since IE10 isn't quite official yet.

    Chrome Reasons

    IE10 isn't on my radar, not unless I end up using a Windows RT tablet (a definite possibility) later this year. I use Chrome as my primary browser, and for lots of reasons. Among them:

    • Google services integration is amazing
    • User interface is clean and uncluttered while feature-filled
    • Chrome Web Store provides apps that are steps above typical plugins
    • Rapid-release cycle generally improves the browser about every few weeks
    • Chrome rarely crashes but when it does data restores so that no work is lost
    • Synchronization is exceptional -- more than bookmarks and passwords, open tabs across devices
    • Cross-platform: I can use Chrome on Google TV, PC, smartphone or tablet, with comparable user experience

    Not surprisingly, Google sees the fourth anniversary as marketing opportunity, posting a Chrome Time Machine for anyone wanting to see (or relive) development from beta to v21 stable release.


    Which is your preferred primary web browser, meaning when you can choose it? (For personal computer, not phone or other device.)

    Now let's look at you. Responding to Tim's story, Greg Miernicki says he "switched to Chrome when it debuted and never went back". DarkUFO: "Yep, same story here".

    Munim "moved from Firefox to Chrome a couple of years ago, and I have also been very happy with it. But of late, especially in the Linux versions of Google Chrome, I have been seeing a lot of instability. Lots of freezes and CPU spikes. I am wondering if I should go back to Firefox".

    Others aren't wondering, they're switching. "I originally used IE until about 2005 (I think) when I learned about Firefox", Joel Meaders comments. "I used it until I learned about Chrome. Just two days ago I got fed up with Chrome freezing way too often on a design/photography machine. I changed my default browser to IE9 and used it for the first time. I am impressed at how far Microsoft has come, and it was even faster than Chrome".

    Hector Macias Ayala: "Four years without it, and not planning to start anytime soon".

    What about you? Do you use Chrome?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/04/Judge_Koh_should_vacate_the_Apple_Samsung_verdict'

    Judge Koh should vacate the Apple-Samsung verdict

    Publié: septembre 4, 2012, 8:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Jurisprudence demands that US District Judge Lucy Koh right a terrible miscarriage of justice occurring in her courtroom. The Apple-Samsung patent dispute is nothing but a mock trial. The jury ignored key instructions, failed to complete a crucial checklist, made egregious errors on the final verdict form and reached a verdict after 21 hours of deliberations. The foreman misunderstood one of the concepts fundamental to the case -- prior art -- leading the jury astray. Then there is Judge Koh, who prevented Samsung from presenting key evidence or witnesses that could have made its defense and case against Apple more credible.

    Apple claims that Samsung copying iOS device designs and patents causes irreparable harm. But the greater injustice is against the South Korean manufacturer, which is branded a copycat and thief -- all while the victim of terrible misreporting by analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers. Samsung suffers irreparable harm here, not Apple. Judge Koh let this travesty occur on her watch. She should be ashamed and do what this malfeasance demands: Set aside the verdict. Best scenario: She should deny all claims by both parties, and let them sort it all out on appeal. Acceptable: Order a new trial. She let the case get out of control. Time is long past to reel it in.

    Let me be clear: This story is not sarcastic funmaking, like August 30's "Samsung is such a copycat". There, as a prelude to this story, I called the company's IFA Berlin announcements rip-offs of iPad and iPhone, using the kind of rhetoric observed among the Apple Fanclub of bloggers, reporters and other supporters. Samsung's IFA products are remarkably innovative and demonstrate just how effectively the electronics giant can compete and bring provocative, compelling products to consumers. These new products look nothing like Apple's.

    Kangaroo Deliberations

    The verdict came down on August 24, after less than 24 hours actual deliberations. That's a surprisingly short amount of time, considering Koh gave the jury about 100 pages of instructions and a checklist to complete. Had my daughter not been starting college that same day, I probably would have written something weekend of the 25th. Then came catch-up work after three days off. I started writing this post on August 31 but had the flu over most of the Labor Day weekend. Finally, it's ready.

    Jury foreman Vel Hogan, a 67 year-old engineer, started the talk-show circuit, so to speak, soon after delivering the verdict. In the embedded video, Hogan tells Bloomberg's Emily Chang that the jury set out to "focus right on the evidence". He continues: "I wasn't confused, but there were a few of the jurors who were confused". But Hogan was very confused. Groklaw's Pamela Jones explains: "He has revealed the biggest mistake of all made by the jury, one so large I don't believe it can be ignored. At a minimum, Apple shouldn't want to win like this".

    Hogan claims that initially the jury was divided and confused about prior art, which is crucial to determining a patent's validity. Samsung presented a defense largely about prior art that if accepted could invalidate most, if not all, of the disputed Apple patents. At home the evening of the first day of deliberations, Hogan suddenly realized that "I could defend this if this was my patent". This all starts at 2:14 in the video. Listen to the tone in Chang's responding "really". I don't believe him either. He answers: "Really". But not really. "And with that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for `em, they understood the points I was talking about".

    He goes on to explain his interpretation of prior art, which even as a layperson (and someone who has covered plenty of tech legal cases) makes absolutely no sense at all. Hogan believes that because Apple or Samsung software couldn't run on either's processor, there could be no prior art.

    "This is an odd statement considering that the test for obviousness is not whether features may be bodily incorporated into a prior art structure, but rather, what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art", patent attorney Scott McKeown says. Jones agrees: "His 'aha moment', as he calls it, and assuming what he says on the video is accurate, was based on a misunderstanding of what constitutes prior art".

    The impact of Hogan's misunderstanding cannot be understated. Fellow juror Manuel Ilagan tells CNET's Greg Sandoval about the foreman: "He had experience. He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art". Hogan made believers out of the other jurors, quite possibly misleading their interpretation of every patent.

    The BBC asked Hogan: "Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then we might have ended up with a very different verdict?" To which he replied: "I think so. But let's not say me specifically. Let's say if there had not been an individual who had the technical background, and there had not been an individual who had gone through the process, the verdict might have been different, or it might have been the same".

    Perhaps the verdict would have been different with someone of sufficient technical background or understanding of patents. Regardless, Hogan acknowledges, however tacitly, his influence over the jury.

    The Untold Story

    If only the problems stopped there. Perhaps Samsung should have hired better lawyers.

    Apple scored more successes with motions before the court than did Samsung, and I repeatedly had déjà vu. As someone watching from afar, the ongoing rulings felt like those in the Microsoft's US antitrust trial. US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's rulings from the bench repeatedly favored government lawyers. I felt similarly as Koh prevented Samsung from presenting witnesses, often because lawyers didn't file paperwork fast enough. There, fault lies on both sides. Samsung's lawyers should have filed on time. But Koh also should have put justice ahead of her timetable. Her rulings often favored Apple motions seeking to limit Samsung evidence or witnesses.

    Trials like this one are as much about storytelling as lawyering and perhaps more when presenting to a jury -- who tells the better story inside and outside the courtroom. The jury must decide based on the evidence before them. If good (Apple) or bad (Samsung) lawyering keeps out evidence, then the jury doesn't hear the whole story. It's the judge's duty to ensure both parties present their story, particularly in a potentially precedent-setting patent case.

    Meanwhile, as I observed three weeks ago, analysts, bloggers, journalists and other writers present a pro-Apple story, while ignoring the broader narrative.

    The extent of misreporting post-verdict is frightening. While driving home from my daughter's college dorm day of the verdict, I heard BBC report that Samsung was found guilty of "stealing Apple patents". The next day NPR reported that Samsung "stole Apple technology". Both statements grossly misstate the facts. The jury found that Samsung wilfully infringed Apple patents.

    The Verge's Nilay Patel, who is a lawyer as well as editor, looks at one common Apple patent myth: pinch-to-zoom, pointing out how much misreporting there is about it compared to how narrowly defined it really is.

    Apple's courtroom victory is largely built on misinformation:

    • The limited story Judge Koh allowed Samsung to present to the jury
    • Hogan's misunderstanding of prior art and his conveying the concept to fellow jurors
    • Ongoing misreporting, either because of Apple bias, poor research or legal misunderstandings

    Jones captures my sentiments about the case and what it really means:

    Samsung devices are flying off the shelves in America. People want them. But Apple doesn't want us to want them, or if we already do want them, they don't want us to be able to find them to buy them. And if we can find them, because Samsung comes up with workarounds, it wants to be sure Samsung's devices are uglier than Apple's and can't do as much. Noble values, indeed.

    Apple's weapons in this war are patents and design patents and trade dress and whatever there is at hand that the law foolishly puts into the hands of plaintiffs determined to use the courts against its competitors.

    P.S. That's not what courts are supposed to be for. And companies could try innovation instead of litigation.

    Judge Koh, you allowed this travesty to occur and empowered Apple to usurp fundamental principals behind patents -- that government grants a limited monopoly in exchange for full public disclosure that allows other parties to build even better products, spurring innovation, increasing competition and improving consumer choice. Instead, your careless courtroom supervision gave Apple the launch codes to set off Steve Jobs' thermonuclear war against iPhone's Android competitors. Shame on you.

    Photo Credit: Sebastian Duda/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/09/01/Finally__More_people_use_Windows_7_than_XP'

    Finally! More people use Windows 7 than XP

    Publié: septembre 1, 2012, 5:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Just in time for Windows 8's debut, its predecessor surpasses the version released 11 years ago. In August, Windows 7 usage finally exceeded XP, according to Net Applications. The operating systems released in September 2009 and October 2001, respectively. In-between, Microsoft shipped ill-fated Vista, which carries stigma reserved for few major Microsoft products -- Bob, Windows ME and Vista, most notably.

    NetApps released the findings today, as part of its monthly data dump on browser and operating systems. The methodology isn't exact and, contrary to many other reports, doesn't reflect market share but usage share -- and there is a huge difference. Market share typically measures something finite, such as X number widgets sold over Y time period. Usage share measures, say, the number of people using big screen and little screen TVs, and the same people might use both. More people may now use Windows 7 but some of them may also use XP.

    The XP-to-7 milestone is long-time coming and foreshadows that the transition to Windows 8 may be slower still, given that so many businesses and consumers so recently adopted the newest version. Microsoft faces the same insurmountable challenge now as in the past: The company is its own biggest competitor. New Windows versions largely compete with old, despite Mac share gains. For many users, 11 year-old XP was good enough, and that's the threshold Windows 8 must cross to exceed its predecessor: Be better enough.

    In June, NetApps predicted the switchover would take place in July, but the market moved slower than anticipated. In August, Windows 7 global usage share reached 42.76 percent, compared to 42.52 percent for XP. More broadly, on the desktop Windows is entrenched with 91.77 percent usage share. The Mac operating system follows (7.13 percent).

    Methodology relies heavily on Internet connections, which is fine for the desktop (where browsers have a long usage history) but not so for mobile. Smartphone and tablets are still too immature as Internet devices, which skews the data. For example, NetApps puts iOS usage share of the mobile/tablet segment at 65.94 percent, followed by Android (20.93 percent) and Java ME (8.37 percent). However, depending on the analyst doing the data, Android smartphone share is at least 60 percent globally, which is about the same as iPad in media tablets. However, phone volumes are considerably higher than tablets.

    Looked another way: At the end of June cumulative iOS shipments were 410 million, according to Apple. Days before the quarter ended, Google put cumulative Android shipments at 400 million. By that measure, Android and iOS usage share should be about even. The disparity reflects higher web browser usage among iOS device users, skewing the data and making NetApps' mobile usage data unreliable. It's no coincidence that NetApp's mobile browser usage share closely aligns with operating systems: 66.43 percent for Safari and 19.97 percent for Android browser.

    The point: It's wise to dismiss reports about how much greater iOS share is than Android. The data isn't yet reliable enough.

    Nor is it really reliable for Windows. The difference in usage share is slim, and not every copy of Windows everywhere will be measured by NetApps' methodology. For example, what about pirated XP copies or those used in retail point-of-sale systems that never connect to the Internet? In the real-world analysis, I suspect XP usage still exceeds Windows 7.

    But there's no way to know, and NetApps' usage share data is reliable enough to identify a trend and award Microsoft to usage share trophy so long sought from Windows XP.

    Photo Credit: UltraViolet/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/31/_The_Android_operating_system__clear_and_of_itself_was_not_something_that_infringed_'

    'The Android operating system, clear and of itself was not something that infringed'

    Publié: août 31, 2012, 9:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm watching a video interview Bloomberg's Emily Chang conducted with Apple-Samsung trial foreman Vel Hogan three days ago. At 9:17, he makes a provocative statement: "The Android operating system, clear and of itself, was not something that infringed".

    Do you believe him? I ask, because pundits fell over themselves this week claiming that the jury verdict means big trouble for Android and Google.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/31/Smartphones_shipments_soar_in_China__Android_benefits'

    Smartphones shipments soar in China, Android benefits

    Publié: août 31, 2012, 2:38am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    CEO Tim Cook describes China as Apple's second-most important region. For good reason. IDC predicts that smartphone shipments to the People's Republic of China will pass the United States this year. There's the question, which benefits more: Android or iPhone/iOS?

    "The PRC smartphone market will continue to be lifted by the sub-US$200 Android segment", Wong Teck-Zhung, IDC senior market analyst, says. "Near-term prices in the low-end segment will come down to US$100 and below as competition for market share intensifies among smartphone vendors. Carrier-subsidized and customized handsets from domestic vendors will further support the migration to smartphones and boost shipments. Looking ahead to the later years in the forecast, the move to 4G networks will be another growth catalyst".

    Android manufacturers already benefit. Buoyed by China, and also the United States, ZTE shipments grew 300 percent during second quarter and Samsung's 172.8 percent, according to IDC.

    For the year, IDC forecasts dramatic changes. In 2011, US share was 21.3 percent compared to 18.3 percent for China. This year, China is expected to reach 26.5 percent, while the United States falls to 17.8 percent.

    "That China will overtake the United States in smartphone shipments does not mean that the US smartphone market is grinding to a halt", Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, says. "Now that smartphones represent the majority of mobile phone shipments, growth is expected to continue, but at a slower pace. There is still a market for first-time users as well as thriving upgrade opportunities".

    As the United States cools and China heats up, Apple faces increasing competition from lower-cost Androids reaching people with lower incomes. "Regionally, we expect smartphone demand to flow down to lower-tier cities", James Yan, IDC senior market analyst, says. "After going through a period of sustained high growth, top-tier cities are likely to see decelerating smartphone growth rates. In contrast, secondary cities are expected to experience accelerated smartphone growth, with strong demand for low-cost models as well as high-end models, which are desired as status symbols".

    Android manufacturers increasingly offer larger selection of smartphones with broader features, such as dual-SIM capabilities, not available from Apple. As smartphone demand rises, regional white box manufacturers and larger brands like ZTE, or even Samsung, are best positioned to benefit.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/30/Kindle_Fire_is_so_successful__we_aren_t_making_any_more'

    Kindle Fire is so successful, we aren't making any more

    Publié: août 30, 2012, 9:26pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I've seen some desperate bone-headed, PR moves before, but Amazon's newest is one to long remember. When Apple announces a press event, the InterWebs erupt with speculation about what it can be. When product inventory is low in stores on some fruit-logo product, rumors explode about something new in the pipeline. Amazon has to work harder, issuing today a press release that Kindle Fire has sold out, ahead of next week's press event. Could the retailer be any less subtle, while revealing sales data that is absolutely nothing but meant to be something.

    BetaNews founder Nate Mook nails exactly what's wrong with Amazon's gambit to drum up excitement ahead of the September 6 event. Earlier today he forwarded the Kindle-Fire sell-out email, writing: "It's SOOOO successful. So we're not making any more". That sums it up.

    From the press release: "Today, Amazon announced that Kindle Fire is sold out, and that in just nine months, Kindle Fire has captured 22 percent of tablet sales in the US". Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos drops the big hint -- just so you won't miss what's coming next week: "Kindle Fire is sold out, but we have an exciting roadmap ahead -- we will continue to offer our customers the best hardware, the best prices, the best customer service, the best cross-platform interoperability, and the best content ecosystem".

    Cough, cough, I must wipe a tear for Amazon's tablet, taken away from us after just 48 weeks of sales. Kindle Fire extinguished before its time.

    Is the Fire out? Is that what Amazon really means, ahead of the new tablet we surely know must come next week. Kindle Fire flamed out in the Wilcox home. I gave my wife the tablet for Christmas 2011, and she loved it. Nothing could be better. That is until she spent seconds with the Nexus 7 I brought back from Google I/O in June. I ordered hers the next day. She loves Nexus 7 more. I was supposed to Craigslist her Kindle Fire weeks ago. Now that Amazon is sold out, perhaps this weekend will prove worth waiting to post.

    Amazon announced Kindle Fire in September 2011 (well, there's another "hint, hint" about what's coming on the 6th) and started selling (beyond preorders) in early November. Amazon claims that Kindle Fire is the top-selling item on the retail site, but doesn't say how many. Then there's the 22 percent tablet sales figure, for which there is no cited source. I wouldn't let one of our writers throw out that kind of data without sourcing it. Says whom?

    The sales figures are typical Amazon. Top-selling this or percentage-more that without any hard data by which to measure it. If Bezos goes to the doctor complaining about bladder problems and says he peed five times more today than yesterday or more today than any day this year, the practitioner will want to know how many times previously to make a diagnosis. There needs to be a frame of reference, and Amazon provides nothing.

    I like Amazon and frequently shop there. But, geez Louise, today's press release stinks of desperation to drum up something -- even a hint of excitement -- before the big day.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/30/Samsung_is_such_a_copycat'

    Samsung is such a copycat

    Publié: août 30, 2012, 7:33pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, I must agree with the jury in the Apple-Samsung patent trial, after seeing the shocking look-a-likes the South Korean electronics giant announced yesterday during IFA Berlin. Have you seen these Apple rip-offs? Samsung simply is shameless in its copying.

    For example, there's a new phone with large screen and stylus, as well as another with big zoom lens. The audacity of Samsung to take features from iPhone or iPad and offer them on its devices. The company just thumbs its nose -- or whatever gesture they use on the Asian peninsula -- at the American jury and US District Judge Lucy Koh.

    Galaxy Camera

    Let's start with the shooter, which is really an iPhone or iPod touch in disguise. Samsung's Galaxy Camera is all touchscreen on one side and big, whopping zoom lens on the other. What a freakin' Apple rip-off. iPhone and iPod touch are all screen on one side, with icons, too -- and they have cameras! Samsung's device will be available with Wi-Fi (like iPod touch) and also cellular radio (like iPhone). Look at the photo above and compare to your iPhone. I can hardly tell them apart!

    Other features: 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 4.8-inch HD Super Clear Touch Display, 308 pixels per inch; 16.3-megapixel camera, with F2.8, 23mm 21x zoom lens; 1080p video recording at 30 frames for second, 720p at 120fps; 8GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 3G/4G radio; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Bluetooth 4; 1,650 mAh battery; and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean. The device is 128.7 mm wide by 70.8 mm high by 19.1 mm deep and weighs 305 grams.

    Okay, I admit that iPhone doesn't have a big zoom lens yet, but iPhone 5 isn't released and everyone knows that Apple thought of this feature first anyway. Because that's what Apple does -- innovates first.

    Galaxy Note II

    There are more rip-offs, and who could ignore Galaxy Note II? Samsung already stole Apple's ingenuity with the first Note and now there's a second flaunting good old American know-how. For starters, both Notes come with a stylus -- ripped off from Apple Newton in the 1990s -- and what Samsung cleverly tries to disguise with new name S Pen. Ha! We aren't fooled. We know who copies whom.

    Galaxy Note II is nothing more than a large iPhone (look at the rounded corners) or small iPad. Say, it's really ripping off iPad mini's design. We know Apple will ship the tablet soon, because the Mac rumor sites are always right.

    Core features: 1.6GHz quad-core processor; 5.5-inch HD Super AMOLED display, 1280 x 720 pixels; 2GB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 8MP front- and 1.9MP rear-facing cameras; 1080p video recording (and playback); HSPA+/LTE; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; Near Field Communication; 3,100 mAh battery; TouchWiz UI; and Jelly Bean. The "phablet" measures 151.1 mm wide by 80.5 mm high by 9.4 mm deep and weighs 180 grams.

    Sure, Note II is sized in-between iPhone and iPad mini, but that's just a clever ploy to avoid more copying claims. This device is exactly how Apple would design iPhone Newton. Sharing, sync, search and stylus functions are all blatant Apple rip-offs.

    ATIV Windows Phone

    I suppose Samsung deserves some credit for skirting around some copying. Take the ATIV smartphone, for example. The jury found that Samsung had copied Apple iPhone icons and groundbreaking features like slide-to-lock. So Samsung dumps Android and Touch Wiz UI for Windows 8, which looks nothing like iOS. Clever, but what about those rounded corners?

    Core features: 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 4.8-inch HD Super AMOLED display; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; 8MP front- and 1.9MP rear-facing cameras; HSPA+; GPS; Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; 2,300 mAh battery; and Windows Phone 8. The phone measures 137.2 mm wide x 70.5 mm high x 8.7 mm deep and weighs 135 grams.

    Samsung's Windows Phone 8 gambit won't fool anyone, not as long as ATIV physically looks like iPhone. Turn off the screen, and who could tell the difference between the Apple and Samsung phones in a darkened room?

    Samsung Tablets

    The California jury threw Samsung a bone by deciding Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't copy iPad. But we know it does, because Judge Koh issued a preliminary injunction before the trial and refused to lift it after the verdict. Samsung dares to take on iPad with tablets running Windows 8 or Windows RT.

    The ATIV RT model packs a 10.1-inch display; 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 2GB RAM; 32GB or 64GB storage, expandable with memory slot; 5MP rear- and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; micro HDMI; NFC, Wi-Fi a,b,g,n; Wi-Fi Direct; 8,200 mAh battery; and Windows RT. The tablet measures 265.8 mm x 168.1 mm x 8.9 mm and weighs 570 grams.

    But wait there is another! The Series 7 Slate running Windows 8. Among the base features: Intel Core i5 processor; 4GB RAM and 128GB SSD.

    But those money-grubbing South Koreans couldn't bring themselves to copy Apple pricing. Oh, no! The Series 7 slate starts at $1,199, or $700 more than the 16GB Wi-Fi iPad. And Microsoft fanboys say Apple products cost more. Yeah, right. In your dreams, flunky.

    Samsung knows it's copying -- eh, really ripping off -- Apple designs and innovations. The launch venue tells all. Samsung announced these products in Germany, not the United States. Over here, the cops would cuff `em and throw away the key. If Samsung's smart enough to copy the most-compelling Apple features, it knows where not to introduce them to market. Not with the jury verdict so fresh -- hey, not even a week ago. Bwah, Samsung is such a copycat.

    You do know I'm being sarcastic, right?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/30/Why_we_love_Steve_Jobs'

    Why we love Steve Jobs

    Publié: août 30, 2012, 2:57am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In about six weeks, the InterWebs will flood with posts commemorating a tech visionary's passing. Steve Jobs died on Oct. 5, 2011. A year ago last week, he stepped down as Apple's CEO. Jobs is a colorful, iconic, flawed figure, who stands before us something more than mere mortal. That's because his public life has a literary quality that cuts to the core of our humanity.

    I got to thinking more about this today following a discussion with colleague Tim Conneally and questions answered for a CNN reporter about Microsoft (apologies to him, I removed those sentences and use them here). I asked Tim today: "Why is Steve Jobs so endearing? Redemption. What's that term in fiction about the hero's journey? Steve Jobs followed the path in real life". There's something Shakespearean, too -- the fatal flaw that humbles greatness. Mixed together, his story should be a great fictional work. But it's better and haunting being real life.

    Salvation Story

    Redemption is one of the most common fictional themes, and it is pervasive in American cinema. There are so many examples, I hardly can cite them. To name a few: Casablanca, Gladiator, Hoosiers, In the Line of Fire, It's a Wonderful Life, Star Wars I-VI, Tender Mercies, The Dark Night Rises, The Natural and The Verdict. A hero falls from grace and gets a second chance to right past mistakes. This is Jobs' journey, from the founding of Apple to his ouster soon after the tech-transforming Macintosh launches to his exile at NeXT to his return to Apple and the company's rise from rubble to riches.

    Apple neared bankruptcy when Jobs returned in late 1996, with the purchase of NeXT. By summer 1997, he stood before the Mac faithful as interim CEO and began the tough task of rebuilding Apple. For example: killing off products and ending the clone program that allowed third parties to build computers running the company's flagship operating system. Then Apple's reinvention started -- in 1998 with iMac's release, which set off a wave of translucent-designed products. In 2000, Jobs introduced the ill-fated G4 Cube, which flopped, leading Apple to overstock inventory, to announce a profit warning and to watch the share price collapse overnight.

    But in the midst of adversity, Jobs persevered. The path to redemption isn't easy in fiction, and no less so in real life. In one year, 2001, Apple launched iTunes, Mac OS X and iPod, while also opening its first retail stores. From there followed a nearly continuous line of successful products, culminating in iPad 18 months before Jobs' death.

    At critical junctures Jobs and Apple took great risks:

    • Launching architecturally-changed Mac OS X months before Windows XP.
    • Opening retail stores during a recession and while rival Gateway shuttered hundreds.
    • Releasing a MP3 player into a category where Apple had no expertise or design experience.
    • Debuting an online music store when CDs ruled the world and record companies resisted the concept.
    • Killing off iPod mini at the height of its popularity and replacing it with the diminutive iPod nano.
    • Developing and releasing a smartphone, on a single carrier, into a category with entrenched leaders like Nokia.
    • Defying pundits (I was one of them) and with iPad moving into the tablet category, where Microsoft, Sony and others had failed.

    There are no rewards without risks, and no redemption either. We love our fallen heroes, who succeed at second chances. As such, Jobs' story endears.

    Hero's Journey

    But Jobs' story is more than the path of the fallen to redemption. His is another literary concept -- the classical hero's journey, or monomyth, as described by Joseph Campbell. The hero follows a fairly well-defined path that in the broadest description has three parts: separation, initiation and return. In modern literature, Harry Potter is perhaps the most well-known example of the hero's journey. He begins life in a magical family, but his parents are killed, leading him to live with aunt and uncle. At 11, Potter learns he is a wizard and follows a path of training, hardship and mistakes that leads him to fulfill his destiny battling and defeating Lord Voldemort. But Potter doesn't act alone, assisted by Hermione Granger, Neville Longbottom and Ron Weasley, for example.

    Star Wars is another hero's journey, and yet redemption story, too. Luke Skywalker's parents are killed (or so he's told), leading him to live with aunt and uncle. He is called (and first refuses) to go with Obi-Wan Kenobi to study the ways of the Force. Like Potter, Skywalker walks a path of training, hardship and mistakes (he fights Darth Vader too soon), developing mystical/magical abilities along the way. But Skywalker doesn't act alone, assisted by Princess Lea, Han Solo and the Rebellion, for example.

    The redemption story is another's -- the elder Skywalker's fall from being the prophesied "chosen one" to Darth Vader to later repentance and restoration after killing the evil emperor.

    There's a real-life Hero's Journey quality to Jobs' life -- raised by adoptive parents, mentored by Steve Wozniak and set out on the journey founding Apple. But after being cast out, Jobs built NeXT and created Pixar (from the graphics company acquired from Lucasfilm). During the journey, and hardship, Jobs developed skills running two companies -- and seemingly magical good sense -- that he brought back to Apple. There Jobs vanquished not one but many adversaries, with Microsoft being the one mattering most to many long-time Mac users. But Jobs didn't act alone, assisted by Tim Cook, Scott Forstall and Jony Ive, for example.

    Jobs' tale is more tragic, for obvious reasons, which in some ways makes his journey and legacy all the more endearing (and sad, too).

    My point: There's something innately appealing -- and universal -- about the monomyth and redemption stories. Jobs' life imbues qualities of both. Then there is inarguable success. Who cannot stand in awe, denying it? Apple is the world's largest company, as measured by market capitalization -- a rubble to riches story in just 14 years, counting from when Jobs returned (at first) as interim CEO until he stepped down as chief executive because of ill-health.

    Jobs was known for his remarkable, aspirational product announcements and the seemingly magical ability to get people listening charged up to buy, believing perhaps living would be better for it. Jobs' life -- rise, fall and redemption -- is an aspirational story that transcends the best literature and speaks to the desires that make us all human.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/23/Microsoft_s_new_logo_is_branding_fail'

    Microsoft's new logo is branding fail

    Publié: août 23, 2012, 6:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Would someone please call the branding police and have them arrest Microsoft's entire executive team. The charge: Indecent logo.

    Today the software giant introduced its first major corporate logo change in about a quarter century. I'm all for a brave new look, except there's little brave or memorable about this one. Apple should call a holiday and give out champagne to celebrate. This is one big branding frak up.

    Gone, finally, is the sole us of Microsoft's name as brand identifier. The typeface is bolder -- not in posture, but quite literally -- and flatter (keeping with the 2D perspective oh-so prevalent in Windows 8). "The new Microsoft logo takes its inspiration from our product design principles while drawing upon the heritage of our brand values, fonts and colors", Jeff Hansen, GM for Microsoft brand strategy, says. "For the logotype, we are using the Segoe font which is the same font we use in our products as well as our marketing communications".

    Microsoft marketers modestly redeem themselves by adding the oh-so recognizable four-color square alongside the name. "The symbol is important in a world of digital motion", Hansen says. "The symbol’s squares of color are intended to express the company’s diverse portfolio of products". That's where the branding story ends and really should begin: With the four-color logo standing alone, without "Microsoft".

    The first consideration, and really only one in branding, is two-fold: Make it recognizable, keep it simple. Microsoft's new logo, like the old one, is neither. Generally speaking, company names spelled out make the worst logos. There are good reasons why businesses spend so much money developing graphic logos that identify them. People remember images better, and they are universal -- regardless of language.

    Logos have a long legacy, too, going back to families' coats of arms. That picture has been a way of identifying an entity -- whether a family or business -- for a long time.

    Apple does it Right

    Apple is the classic example of logo done right and executed brilliantly. The logo is recognizable, easily placed on products and put on all the hardware. You know when someone uses Apple gear. That's a way of broadcasting the brand; essentially it's free marketing from the users.

    Years ago, the Apple logo appeared upright when laptop lids were closed, which put them upside down to everyone else. Then some Apple brainiac reversed the logo, so that it's upright with the lid open, illuminated and visible to anyone passing by. That's sheer branding brilliance.

    Microsoft passed up a big opportunity to redo its logo right. That four-color square is highly recognizable because of Windows' success. Why not take something familiar, let it stand alone and represent Microsoft?

    I personally find the new logo visually appealing. But the issue here is branding and what people recognize. Names don't stand out.

    What's in a Name?

    Absolutely, there are successful companies without recognizable picture logos, using just company name. Google is great example this century. But Google also benefits from its name being a verb synonymous with search. Meanwhile, in the Android robot, Google has established an iconic subbrand, which stands alongside other recognizables like Google+ and YouTube logos.

    I wonder why Microsoft chose its name way back when, and how much is about the early days. Microsoft inherited the computing mantle from IBM, which is solely identified by name. But IBM stands for International Business Machines. Someone at the computing giant had the sense to turn the abbreviation IBM into a logo, by assigning each letter a color -- red for I, green for B and blue for M. It was a brilliant maneuver, which made the abbreviation a recognizable logo.

    "We’re excited about the new logo, but more importantly about this new era in which we’re reimagining how our products can help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential", Hansen says. I sure would like to share his enthusiasm, but acknowledge the new logo is better than the old one. If that's Microsoft's idea of reimagining, well...

    Perhaps with the four-color square standing alongside the name, Microsoft will someday transition to just the graphic logo. There's sense to that, and the only long-term good that can come of today's branding change.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/22/Microsoft_Slashes_Xbox_360_Kinect_price'

    Microsoft Slashes Xbox 360 Kinect price

    Publié: août 22, 2012, 11:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you live in the right region, the game controller now costs $109.99 US, Microsoft revealed today. Say, didn't Kinect sell for $149.99 yesterday? That's a helluva discount out of season.

    Microsoft's Larry Hyrb describes this as a "permanently reduced price". Well, it is for some -- North America, Latin America and Asia Pacific now and Australia and New Zealand on October 4. Europe, Middle East, Asia and Japan won't see permanent price cuts.

    Given the economic crisis in Europe, does it seem odd to anyone else that buyers there should pay more?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/22/MVPs__Microsoft_wants_your_video_tips'

    MVPs, Microsoft wants your video tips

    Publié: août 22, 2012, 9:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft loves its MVPs -- most valued professionals -- and for good reasons. The company sells few products direct, relying instead on the skills of third-parties to promote and service solutions. MVPs receive special status and act, among other things, as crucial evangelists.

    In case you missed it (I did being on vacation August 2), Microsoft is holding a contest for its MVPs through October 3. They submit "video tips" for which they can receive ongoing drawings for Microsoft points or grand prize, which varies by country. For example: Samsung Series 5 laptop in Canada and Dell Vostro in the United States.

    "The Microsoft MVP Award program has always been about celebrating the many ways community members help and educate others about Microsoft products", Jake Grey, Microsoft community program manager for Community & Online Support, says. "Video has become a thriving way for the community to share more about their lives, including sharing technical tips and how-tos".

    Videos must be between 40 seconds and 3 minutes and be about current Microsoft products, which means participants will have to save their Windows 8 or Server 2012 tips for later. Release to manufacturing isn't release enough for this contest.

    "With the Microsoft Community Video Tips sweepstakes, we want to highlight these great tips from the community, which cover anything from using the Windows 7 snipping tool or Excel’s remove duplicates feature, to highlight of a new Xbox Arcade game or describing what is so great about their favorite Windows Phone 7 apps", Grey says. "The community has a lot of valuable knowledge and resources to share, and through Microsoft Community Video Tips, we want to put a spotlight on how the community’s video tips can help make Microsoft users’ experiences with our products more useful and rewarding".

    To participate, according to Microsoft:

    Load the video up to YouTube, and include the tag #mstips when you upload it. Next, simply email mstips@microsoft.com with the subject line 'Community Video Tip Submission' and the following information:

    • Your name
    • Preferred contact email
    • Telephone number
    • Title of the video
    • Country of residence
    • Microsoft relationship status (i.e. community member)

    More information is available here, for US participants.

     Photo Credit: studio online/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/22/Windows_8_sports_a_spunky_new_UI__while_Chrome_OS_gets_an_apps_list'

    Windows 8 sports a spunky new UI, while Chrome OS gets an apps list

    Publié: août 22, 2012, 7:20am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For the other three people using Chromebook, Google hasn't forgotten us. Whoo-hoo! The company continues to iterate Chrome OS, and with each rev takes it further from the cloud and closer to earth. I like my Chromebook, but even I shake my head and laugh at the amazing innovations. Well, they were in 1995.

    Last year when first introduced to Chromebook, I worked solely in a browser. Now Chrome OS is this molten half-browser/cloud, half-desktop mutation -- like the two-headed creature from "The Thing". But the motifs are all ancient desktop OS, which is such a step back from the cloud-connected device era. Shouldn't Chrome OS move forward.

    Meanwhile, Windows 8 struts around its modern UI -- the one once called Metro -- like a peacock courting hens. Microsoft looks ahead to the post-PC future in ways you would expect from Google. After all, storks took that baby to the cloud and kept it there. Post-PC should be the air Google breathes. So why is the search and information giant oh-so fascinated with making the operating system more like what Windows was 30 years ago?

    Chrome OS has a toolbar now. That's gone in Windows 8. Translucency is another recent Chrome OS addition, something Microsoft also booted from Windows 8. For the newest stable release, Xiyuan Xia, Google software engineer and Apps connoisseur (I want to see the business card), reveals yet another amazing new feature. Do you see the apps list/launcher in the photo? That's it, baby! Oh yeah, Microsoft introduced the similar Start menu with Windows 95 and replaced it on -- you guessed it -- Windows 8. There's an omnibox search box now, too. Well, Windows only has had universal search since XP, which brings Chrome OS into the 21st century at least. This from the company which core business is search.

    The apps list isn't really new, just the presentation. Google introduced the feature with the last big Chrome OS makeover, which added loads of desktop-OS features -- and some of them are oh-so 1990s. You don't want to move around files on this OS, for example. It takes forever. I have Windows 3.1 flashbacks, the process is so traumatic. But back to the apps list: Google moves it to the cozy, pop-up menu from icons laid out on a desktop -- both, desktop motif and icons on top, being what 1980's innovations? Or where they 1990's?

    The last Chrome OS update introduced Google Drive integration, which is anything but. There's no sync, which is available to Mac or Windows users. For an operating system that's supposed to be about the cloud, I expect much better from something as fundamentally important as cloud storage. Google Drive feels so tacked on, rather than being really integrated.

    Meanwhile, Windows 8 looks good -- and different. You can see the changes and feel them under your fingertips. I have to say the same about Android 4.1 Jelly Bean, which makes Chrome OS' fall to earth feel all the more fatal. Performance is great, but it's tough not to look at Windows 8.

    Remember, I really enjoy my Chromebook. Imagine a critic's reaction.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/21/Why_not_just_wait_for_Windows_8_'

    Why not just wait for Windows 8?

    Publié: août 21, 2012, 12:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft is starting to make good on its Windows 8 Pro upgrade offer -- $14.99 for new PCs running the current version purchased between June 2 and January 31. Today, registration opened, for redemption when Windows 8 ships on October 26. PCs running Windows 7 Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional or Ultimate qualify for the upgrade, for which registration must be completed by February 28.

    While the program arguably is a benefit to Windows 7 PC buyers, Microsoft also double-dips licensing revenue. For back-to-schoolers who can't afford or don't want Macs (or Chromebook, not to be forgotten), Windows 7 is the only real choice. In another universe -- perhaps far removed from this one -- Microsoft shipped Windows 8 in time for these shoppers. But not here. (Perhaps in yet another far-flung reality Microsoft shipped, keeping with Mayan prophesies, Windows 2012 EOW -- End of World -- edition.)

    Microsoft holds back no stops on availability -- "140 countries worldwide, with 37 supported languages and 23 supported currencies", product evangelist Brandon LeBlanc blogs. That's fine, but why make Microsoft go to all that trouble when you can just wait?

    Call me old-fashion, but I would much rather buy a real Windows 8 PC than hack the OS onto Windows 7. Unless Microsoft has some secret sauce that removes all the crapware installed by OEMs -- as a hidden, free bonus -- I can think of few reasons why not to wait for Windows 8. You get a fresh image and drivers all optimized for Windows 8 and running the newest hardware. Then there are the new designs, primped out for the holidays -- maybe even a touchscreen or convertible model or two to pump your blood pressure.

    Come October 26, your Windows 7 PC purchased today, tomorrow or next week is going to feel all so old. While others revel in early adopter euphoria, you will choke back disappointment.

    Then there is Surface, running Windows RT, and no one outside Microsoft's inner circle knowing what it will sell for, all while rumormongers claim $199. I can't figure out if:

    • The Apple Core is behind the $199 parade, knowing rumors proved false will unleash backlash and disappointment, or...
    • Hopeful thinking runs amok, as the rumor is so-oft repeated everyone assumes it must be true (like "Beam me up, Scotty", which is popular misbelief), or...
    • Microsoft is doing the pricing equivalent of the lawyer's trial balloon to see what sticks, or...
    • Someone tapped a real inside source, and Microsoft is ready to sell for two-hundred bucks.

    I wouldn't want to spend big money on a new Windows 7 PC and another $14.99 now only to find out that Surface is cheaper and good enough (Hey, Office 2013, baby) down the road. That while ignoring pure-Windows 8 heart-causing palpitations PCs shipping in about two months.

    Why not just wait for Windows 8? Aside from students needing new PCs now, I can think of few good reasons why not to wait. And you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/20/If_Google__is_a_ghost_town__there_sure_are_lots_of_spooks_hanging_around_here'

    If Google+ is a ghost town, there sure are lots of spooks hanging around here

    Publié: août 20, 2012, 8:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I am totally tanked about Google+ offering custom URLs, which product manager Saurabh Sharma announced a week ago. For anyone looking to establish any kind of brand via the social network, custom URLs that look like this (https://plus.google.com/+joewilcox/posts) are more desirable than ones like this (https://plus.google.com/u/0/114738075629051960079/posts). Some people with verified accounts (I have one) are custom URL already (not my account). The change intrinsically increases Google+'s value compared to, say, Facebook, which already offers vanity names.

    Something else: Custom URLs may finally end the debate about Google+ popularity. There are ongoing blogs and news stories claiming the social network is a ghost town. That's not my experience. Critics claim there simply isn't enough public activity, while defenders say the amount of private Circling isn't easily measurable and makes activity seem much less than it actually is. I see the situation like this: If custom URLs are as valuable as I contend -- and they surely have proven to be elsewhere -- demand for them will show how little or how much Google+ matters across the social media landscape and whether it's a city building or ghost town making.

    My colleague Mihaita Bamburic posted a good rebuttal to the Google+ "ghost town" myth about three weeks ago. During Google I/O, Vic Gundotra, senior veep of Engineering, said that there are 250 million Google+ users -- 150 million are active and half of those daily.

    Big brand interest will tip off just how valuable Google+ is as a social network. The search and information giant isn't exactly rushing on brands' behalf. "At first, we’re introducing custom URLs to a limited number of verified profiles and pages", Sharma explains. "But over time we plan to offer custom URLs to many more brands and individuals". The pace raises reasonable questions about demand for custom URLs, and with it, how active Google+ is as a social network -- or not.

    Habitual Enough for Me

    By comparison, Facebook garnered immediate response for highly-coveted vanity URLs, and I missed out getting my name. Facebook flipped the switch at 8 pm PT on a Friday night three summers ago, when I wasn't anywhere near a computer. Someone else got "joewilcox", instead. I accompanied my daughter to Long Beach Airport, from where she flew back East to visit friends. Earlier that day, I received the Nokia N97 smartphone, which I loved.

    It's just as well I missed my name. I signed up for Facebook in September 2006 but have never been a big user of the service. Too much clutter, and even worse user interface design. Timeline is a mess. Since starting to use Google+ last summer, my social posting elsewhere decreased. Now I occasionally tweet, my Tumblr is silent and personal blog collects dust. Google+ is my hangout.

    Custom URL "joewilcox" is exciting prospect, given that Google+ is, next to BetaNews, where I write most. I prefer Google+ for many reasons. Among them:

    • User interface is clean, uncluttered, fast and fluid
    • Mobile client is even better and increasingly where I Plus most
    • Real names -- for the most part you know who you interact with
    • Interaction is simply the best I've found anywhere; I enjoy everyone
    • Circles control with whom you interact about what and when; brilliant
    • Search, tagging and trends improves discovery, even outside my Circles
    • Integration with other Google services is excellent and constantly improves

    There are other reasons, but those are good enough for now. Perhaps I could sum all the reasons to this: I enjoy Google+. I like the people. I have fun. I look forward to using the service.

    If Google+ is a ghost town, there sure are lots of spooks hanging around here. If the notion of spectres scares away Facebookers, I won't complain.

    Photo Credit: jagoda/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/16/Early_adopters_rush_to_Windows_8'

    Early adopters rush to Windows 8

    Publié: août 16, 2012, 9:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    A month ago today I asked: "Will you buy Windows 8?" About 1,500 of you answered the poll and offered more in comments -- to the story and others that followed. Now that Windows 8 is released to manufacturing and available to developers and to enterprises, it's good time to review your answers.

    About 45 percent of respondents plan to buy Windows 8 as soon as it's available -- more consumers (25.06 percent) than business users (19.55 percent). All total, 55.71 percent of you plan on buying Windows 8 within six months of availability (from August for businesses and October for consumers). Given our select audience, I don't expect adoption to be that high that fast for the broader market. However, considering that analyst data -- from Net Applications, among others -- puts XP usage higher than any other Windows version, there is potentially huge pent-up demand for Win8. Then there is something different -- the new user interface formally known as Metro. (Say, what's its name this week?)

    Microsoft needs Windows 8 to be big, as do its partners, particularly OEMs; it's more desperate now with most analysts reporting tablets sapping PC upgrades. Developers can always swim in the iOS tank. But, hey, do watch out for that Apple shark. This big white makes "Jaws" look like a guppy.

    The overall global PC market was flat year over year during calendar second quarter, according to Gartner and IDC. By comparison, US PC shipments were disastrous, falling 5.7 percent year over year, according to Gartner, and declining 10.6 percent by IDC's reckoning.

    Slow PC shipments sapped Microsoft's Windows & Windows Live division yet again during the quarter, with revenue down 13 percent. Operating income fell by 18 percent, or $511 million, in part because of a deferral related to Windows 8 upgrade guarantees. Microsoft and its partners need Windows 8 to start great out of the gate.

    So Will You Buy?

    Ben Craib answers "Yes! Go Windows 8!"

    Jeremy Poynton says "No way. For a simple, home, one desktop user very happy with Windows 7, Windows 8 is a ghastly mistake. Metro is grotesque. Fergeddahbahtit. And yes, I have tried a couple of previews, and given up in despair in no time at all. WTF were they thinking? If it had W7 interface, no problem".

    "Sold", skruis comments. "Three copies of Win8 for existing pc's/slates and two Surface likely orders (one Pro/one RT)".

    "I don't want to like Win 8 but, unfortunately, I seem to be pulled into its maw", reader TomL_12953 writes. Everything is faster and smoother than on Win 7 Ultimate SP1 even though 8 hasn't been optimized yet. I was determined to dislike it but the more I use it, the more I like it. Rats".

    Faith Roby: "Windows 8 is a no go. Hate the Beta Version and it is like Vista all over again!"

    "Windows 8 is far better then any operating system that's currently on the market. I use the beta version of windows 8 on both my desktop and laptop. It works flawlessly", Fred Reed comments. "Microsoft has finally come out with an operating system that actually works the way it's suppose to. It loads up without problems".

    Parker Kincaid: "The only way I'll wind up with Windows 8 is on a tablet like the Surface and that's if I even purchase a Windows-based tablet which will likely never occur. For a PC/laptop I am completely disinterested in Windows 8 and will be waiting until Windows 9 or whatever is is called".

    srkelley:

    Despite my Linux love I'm actually going to buy this. I'm mostly enjoying the Preview so far. I mean there are a few points of annoyance but in the end I'm liking the performance gains that I've received along with the knowledge that I'll be able to play the games I love more easily in Win8 (as compared to a Linux-only route). Wine works excellently most of the time but why bother with it when you can get the platform at a fair price?

    All the comments above are from a month ago to the original poll story. mshulman writes yesterday, following Windows 8's posting to MSDN and TechNEt: "Download complete and now installing Windows 8 on a new 8-core AMD system".


    Enterprises can get Windows 8 in August 2012, while consumers wait until October. Will you buy Windows 8?

    But dizzydavidh isn't as enthusiastic: "As a former system builder I just cannot see how anyone in their right mind can ever justify moving to a Windows 8 platform from 7...I have to agree with so many others that 8 will be flop and Microsoft is going to have to swallow a bitter pill as a consequence washed down with a large slice of humble pie for not having listened, at all it seems, to it's existing user base as to what they do and more importantly don't want from a new Windows release".

    WP7Mango: "I can certainly see the huge MS developer network making a lot of apps in a very short time frame...This is exactly what Microsoft need to deliver a large app store for Windows RT / Windows 8 as quickly as possible. As a developer myself, I'm delighted to see this".

    So, if you have access to Windows 8 already, did you download and install? And are you happy about it?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/15/Where_do_you_discover_new_music_'

    Where do you discover new music?

    Publié: août 15, 2012, 9:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    At 17, I hitchhiked with a friend from Maine to Boston, where was the regional Federal Communications Commission office. The agency heavily regulated radio, and I couldn't be a deejay without obtaining a Third Class license, which required a test and some math skills (yeah, just to spin vinyl). I flunked and thumbed rides a second time, passing the exam and getting a five-year license. My radio career started at college station WMEB.

    Much has changed about music since the late 1970s, when punkers rebelled against their disco-loving Baby Boomer siblings. But surprisingly much is the same, too -- or so Nielsen's "Music 360" report reveals. Radio doesn't dominate music discovery like it once did (I partly blame canned broadcasts for taking the personality out of the airwaves), yet remains top source: 48 percent of people find out about new music from radio. Friend recommendations is distant second (10 percent) followed by YouTube (7 percent).

    "While younger listeners opt for technologically advanced methods, traditional methods of discovery like radio and word-of-mouth continue to be strong drivers", David Bakula, Nielsen senior veep says. "With so many ways to purchase, consume and discover great new music, it’s no wonder that the consumer continues to access and enjoy music in greater numbers".

    Radio's role as primary music source has changed for some music listeners. For example, 64 percent of teens listen to music on YouTube, followed by radio (56 percent) and iTunes (53 percent). CDs: 50 percent. iTunes as third isn't all that surprising. Apple unveiled the MP3 playing software in early 2001 and iTunes Music Store little more than two years later. Most teens grew up with iTunes, much like the previous generation did CDs and the one before vinyl.

    But YouTube is still fairly new, comparatively. The service opened to the public in November 2005, but legal music services with reach, like VEVO, are fairly recent additions (late 2009). Confession: I listen to considerably more music on YouTube than radio, too. (But I discover more using Shazaam on my smartphone when shopping in stores or watching TV shows or movies.)

    YouTube's music popularity says much about video's popularity among US Internet users. According to comScore, in June:

    • 84.8 percent viewed at least one online video somewhere
    • Google sites had 154.5 million unique video viewers
    • Viewers spent an average 484.4 minutes watching videos on Google sites
    • VEVO and Warner Music on YouTube had 71.2 million unique viewers, watching an average 73.6 minutes of videos

    Google should really capitalize on YouTube's music popularity, even more than it does. The live events (Did you catch Lollapalooza?) are really good. Two days ago, Matthew Leske, Google's Hangouts on Air product manager, revealed the new Studio Mode, which allows stereo broadcasts. "Studio Mode optimizes your individual audio for music instead of conversation, and no else needs to change a thing", he explains.

    Perhaps I'm too old school, but I'd like to see live veejay broadcasts from Google or YouTube partners like VEVO. There are music and artist channels that have some auto-programming but where's the personal touch? MTV launched with 5 veejays -- and, depending on gender preference, a generation of music consumers crooned for heartthrobs Mark Goodman and Martha Quinn. These days the network is more NMTV -- no music-video television.

    Why shouldn't YouTube be a place for live music video broadcasts? Bring back the early MTV-days-like veejays, when there was much less overproduction and more feel of being in the studio, live, with them. Let people use social media to vote and share. Yes, some TV cable channels offer the latter. But social, music, video and the Internet better fit the YouTube generation.

    Hey, I'm just saying.

    Returning to Nielsen's survey, music is as mobile as ever, but changing:

    Music player apps are most prevalent, followed by radio and music store apps.

    • 54 percent have music player apps on their smartphones
    • 47 percent have radio apps on their smartphones
    • 26 percent have music store apps on their smartphones

    Strangely, I rarely listen to music on my smartphone. As mentioned above, I frequently use it to discover new music.

    And you? Where do you discover new music?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/14/How_much_would_you_pay_for_Microsoft_Surface_'

    How much would you pay for Microsoft Surface?

    Publié: août 14, 2012, 11:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    End of summer typically means slower news cycle and with it more ridiculous rumors and positively pathetic punditry than ever. For example, the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists squirms and squeals like a pack of hogs rolling in fresh mud -- they can't get enough of the Samsung trial under way in Northern California. Then there is Microsoft and the mini-revolt over the Surface tablet. Acer whines, Toshiba gives up Windows RT plans and everybody who is no one guesses just how low Microsoft will sell its tablet.

    The problem is one of conflicting objectives. Apple's iPad sells faster than bacon cheeseburgers (let's keep to the pig metaphor shall we) during the County Fair. Total shipments topped 85 million in July -- in about 27 months. Today, IHS iSuppli put Apple's second quarter tablet market share at 69.6 percent globally -- that's up 44.1 percent, or 11.5 points, sequentially. Yeah, from 58.1 percent in Q1. (Pop those eyes back your head now.) Meanwhile, Windows starts essentially from zero. Microsoft can't close distance on iPad fast enough, and sure-fire, proven way is offering a compelling alternative for much less.

    So Microsoft will make its own tablet, competing with OEM partners. Hence, the conflicting objectives, since the Redmond, Wash.-based company so depends on hardware manufacturers to sell its software. Surface will come in Windows 8 and RT versions, but it's the latter that has some OEMs squealing like pigs in the slaughterhouse. Microsoft is supposed to bring home the bacon not cut up partners for dinner. Pork chops anyone? Microsoft rarely sells any computing device that takes money from OEMs, but Surface RT is sure to do this. By how much is the question.

    Google chose a smaller (7-inch display), cheaper strategy ($199), with Nexus 7. Surface RT will be larger, 10.1 inches, and like other media tablets run on ARM-architecture. Pricing is anyone's guest, with $199 among the newer rumors circulating the InterWebs. No wonder Acer pleads for a more reasonable 500 bucks. Trust me, there's no margin for Acer or any other OEM at $199.

    Last week, Acer CEO J.T. Wang gave Microsoft a plaintive ultimatum regarding Surface, according to the Financial Times: "We have said think it over. Think twice. It will create a huge negative impact for the ecosystem and other brands may take a negative reaction. It is not something you are good at so please think twice".

    But $199 makes loads of sense to me. Microsoft needs to practically give away Surface RT to gain market share fast. iSuppli analyst Rhoda Alexander warns:

    With the expected entrance of the 7-inch version of the iPad in September, Apple is sending a clear message that it plans to dominate this market over the long term. Apple’s major media tablet rivals, Google and Microsoft, hope to challenge Apple in the second half of the year, but will be facing formidable headwinds with no sign that the market leader is backing off of its aggressive strategy in the market.

    Forgive my skepticism about the oft-rumored 7-inch iPad, but let's hypothetically assume Apple would release such a beast at $199 or $299. Surface will need to offer much more for much less to compete. Apple has got Microsoft's secret weapon to bear on the tablet market, too. Applications, and broad developer support, is foundation for Windows success. iPad, too.

    "A major component of Apple’s success to date is the company’s well-developed ecosystem of content and applications it had in place before entering the tablet market, and its absolute control of the hardware, software and operating system,” Alexander says. “When a customer buys a media tablet, what he or she is really doing is purchasing a key to that ecosystem, not just a piece of hardware". She's absolutely right.


    Microsoft's tablet is expected around Oct. 26, 2012. How much would you pay to buy entry-level model 32GB Surface RT?

    Hence, Microsoft plows into the tablet market with its own end-to-end product, leveraging the existing Windows ecosystem, which actually is weak on tablets and will be until there are more native apps.

    So Microsoft needs to give buyers a better reason to buy Surface RT. Lower price is it, baby, even if major OEM chief executes call paramedics after clutching their chests.

    I bring the price question to you. What would you pay for Surface RT? Quick specs: 10.6-inch ClearType HD display; 32GB or 64GB storage; microSD, USB 2.0 and Micro HD Video ports; 2x2 MIMO antennae; and Office 2013. Weighs 676 grams and is 9.3 mm thick. How much would such a tablet running Windows be worth to you?

    Well, $199 is a no-brainer for me, and I wouldn't think twice about $299 -- that's for the 32GB model. And you? Please respond in comments below and take our poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/09/Google_pays_record__22.5_million_for_Safari_cookies'

    Google pays record $22.5 million for Safari cookies

    Publié: août 9, 2012, 8:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The rumors were true. Today, the US Federal Trade Commission fined Google $22.5 million for putting its hand in the Safari cookie jar. Technically, the amount is a settlement, but effectively a fine. The search and information giant circumvented Apple browser privacy controls to mine personal data.

    Google isn't the only company accused of bypassing Safari privacy controls, but it is most answerable to regulators. The search company already is under 20-year oversight for violating the FTC Act. In October 2011, Google agreed not to misinterpret its consumer privacy practices.

    "The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all companies under an FTC privacy order", Jon Leibowitz, FTC chairman says. "No matter how big or small, all companies must abide by FTC orders against them and keep their privacy promises to consumers, or they will end up paying many times what it would have cost to comply in the first place".

    In February, Stanford grad student Jonathan Mayer discovered that Google and three other advertisers -- Media Innovation Group, PointRoll and Vibrant Media -- bypassed Safari cookie controls. "Unlike every other browser vendor, Apple enables cookie blocking by default", Mayer says. "Every iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Mac ships with the privacy feature turned on".

    These advertisers successfully placed tracking code on computers and iOS devices, despite Safari's default configuration to prevent such activity.

    Four days after releasing his initial findings, Mayer clarified them. "The circumvention behaviors affected all users, independent of whether they had a Google account, were logged into a Google account, or had made a choice about social advertising", he explains. "Google held an advantage over its advertising competitors that did not track Safari browsers. That advantage may have resulted in profit".

    A consultant working for the Wall Street Journal later confirmed Mayer's findings and more: Out of the top-100 websites, 22 installed tracking code on desktop Safari, while 23 sites on iPhone.

    According to the FTC, Google took advantage of a backdoor -- an exception allowing temporary cookies from the DoubleClick domain -- and placed others. So Safari users received tracking code even when cookies supposedly were blocked.

    The FTC charged Google with violating its October 2011 agreement, leading to today's record settlement.

    Photo Credit: gcpics/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/08/02/When_is_a_phone_camera_enough_'

    When is a phone camera enough?

    Publié: août 2, 2012, 9:12am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's the question I repeatedly asked while attending San Diego Comic-Con, which wrapped up about two weeks ago. Ian Lewis' "Let’s not blindly give every latest tech marketing prophet his profit", posted here Sunday afternoon, has me thinking about phone as camera again, in context of what's good enough.

    A year ago, I took to Comic-Con the Fuji X100 to shoot photos and Sony HDR-TG1 camcorder for videos. I processed and uploaded content on a Mac laptop. But July 2012, I was a month into an Apple boycott over patent bullying. I still have the devices but now use the Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook. It's plenty good enough for processing photos using cloud services to edit, but I wasn't too sure about videos and decided not even to bother. During Google I/O I shot video on Galaxy Nexus, uploading directly to YouTube. That worked out just fine.

    What Matters More

    Photos are tricky shooting from the phone, however, within a crowded, indoor venue. I almost never use the flash, because it's harsh and rude, particularly during crowded events like Comic-Con. The X100 is a simply astounding low-light performer and my first choice for indoor shoots. Galaxy Nexus is way more convenient, but produces much more noise -- meaning grain -- when used in low light. Are the phone's images anywhere as good as the camera's? Not the least. Are they good enough? For the immediate context, yes. But there are big trade-offs.

    I took the X100 for the second day of Comic-Con's four days and planned to carry it the other two. But I shot less than a dozen photos, posting just one. Meanwhile, I used Galaxy Nexus near constantly. I can snap, edit and upload from the device, which is exactly what I did, to Google+, over four days. The X100 stayed at home for the remainder of the event.

    This is my second go round with the Fuji X100. I sold my original last December, only to buy another a few months ago. I really like this camera. It's compact, but packs dSLR-size sensor (think Nikon D90), outstanding prime lens (meaning no zoom) and real viewfinder (optical-digital hybrid). I can shoot amazing photos with the X100. But doing so is lots of extra work, too. I need to connect the camera to a PC to process and upload images, and there's no geotagging. From Galaxy Nexus I can immediately upload pics to numerous services. There's an auto-upload function, too. Besides on-phone editing tools, Google provides others online for images uploaded via Google+.

    Convenience and immediacy proved to be more important, particularly as people responded to real-time posts. Some G+ commenters said they followed the show through my posts, further driving me to put immediacy over quality. In the context of shooting photos for print, say, the X100 is by far the superior choice for an in-door event like Comic-Con. But for immediacy -- and shooting for the web -- Galaxy Nexus proved good enough.

    Shoot Me

    But you wouldn't know that Galaxy Nexus could be a good-enough shooter given marketing and gadget geek bias about megapixels. Search for "Galaxy Nexus camera", and you will find lots of complaints about the phone only being a 5MP shooter, when Apple's smartphone -- or Samsung's S3 -- reach eight. But there's more to a good camera than megapixel count. It's my experience that for devices with smaller sensors, 5MP is typically optimal. Squeezing more pixels onto the same size sensor leads to distortion and other artifacts. It's a myth that more megapixels are better. Quality of lens and amount of software compression are other factors. Remember, 5MP was state of the art just a few years ago.

    What makes Galaxy Nexus even a contender is the zero-lag shutter Google promises in marketing and delivers in reality. The phone takes pictures as fast as any dSLR I've used and better than every compact camera. Tap and shoot. Immediately. This capability is far superior to having more megapixels. Go to your local phone store and test it. You'll be amazed.

    Then there is video. Days gone by, I would need to edit footage, adding titles, transitions, etc. using iMovie or other video-editing software. That's no longer necessary. Google provides basic editing capabilities on the phone and even more online. I can shoot and upload videos to YouTube right away, satisfying that immediacy need. Then go online and add the stuff I used to on Mac or Windows PC. The options aren't as fancy or pretty, but they get the job done and eliminate hours of work or delay from post-processing.

    Google I/O and Comic-Con both put the video-recording capabilities to the test. Galaxy Nexus shoots 1080p, but what about audio? What shocks me: How well the microphone picks up the principles speaking in overly noisy areas, which eliminates the need for post-processing audio. Is it exceptional? No. But it's more than good enough.

    Battery Life

    Some people will scoff and say iPhone 4S can do as good or better -- and there's no question the handset is a great shooter. But what about battery life? iPhone 4S has a fixed battery. Galaxy Nexus' is not. I generally get exceptionally good battery life from the Android -- even 24 hours with moderate use.

    During Comic-Con, I finally pushed the battery to the max, or beyond it. I got just 4 hours usage from my HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus. That's with near constant screen time -- shooting photos, shooting video, uploading video to YouTube and updating and checking Google+. Then I swapped batteries. You can't do that with iPhone 4S.

    Because venue WiFi sucked (provided by AT&T), all the online activity was done over HSPA+. I wonder if battery life would have been better with LTE, since video would have pushed to YouTube faster. I wouldn't be shocked to see battery life a couple hours longer.

    Day before yesterday, I sold the X100, and it went to a good home. For now, Galaxy Nexus is good enough in many situations, but by no means all. Starting today, I go on vacation for a week -- a rare occurrence for me. My daughter turns 18 and starts college in a few weeks. She and my wife deserve attention during this transition time.

    I'll step back from BetaNews altogether, but continue to post to Google+, where the interaction is fun and refreshing. During this week, I'll see just how good the phone camera really is, and I must admit to having my eye on the Sony Cyber-Shot RX100.

    If you're not on Google+, see ya August 9th.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/31/Twitter_was_wrong_to_suspend_Guy_Adams__account'

    Twitter was wrong to suspend Guy Adams' account

    Publié: juillet 31, 2012, 4:36am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Will you be next?

    If you missed the controversy, read colleague Ed Oswald's "NBC pressures Twitter to shutter account of journalist critical of Olympics coverage", then come back for my reasons why Twitter cocked up. Royally. His headline says it all, if you'd like to keep reading here. For a service often praised for supporting free speech, Twitter suppresses Guy Adams', presumably to protect a media giant and business partner. The suspension should matter to anyone using cloud services or supporting online free speech.

    Here's what we know: Adams was highly critical of NBC's Olympics TV coverage. Among the tweets he posted the email address of the president of NBC Olympics. The network complained, citing Twitter's privacy policy. The service suspended the account. As I write, the account remains suspended.

    Adams explains what happened in a The Independent story posted earlier today. He got just about as much response why from Twitter as we did. Ed and I both sought comment and got zilch. He emailed, and I called the corporate office. Twitter really doesn't want reporters talking to the media folks. Phone options are enter extension, customer service or communications. I chose comm and was instructed to email the press office. Hitting "0" did nothing, either.

    NBC does better, acknowledging in a statement obtained by BetaNews: "We filed a complaint with Twitter because a user tweeted the personal information of one of our executives". The offending Adams' tweet: "The man responsible for NBC pretending the Olympics haven't started yet is Gary Zenkel. Tell him what u think! Email: Gary.zenkel@nbcuni.com".

    Public or Private?

    The question then: Did Adams' violate Twitter terms of service? Since the service refused to directly speak for itself, let's turn to what's already online, starting with this:

    Posting another person’s private and confidential information is a violation of the Twitter Rules.

    Some examples of private and confidential information are:

    • credit card information
    • social security or other national identity numbers
    • addresses or locations that are considered and treated as private
    • non-public, personal phone numbers
    • non-public, personal email addresses

    Jumping to a linked page, Twitter states: "If the account is violating our policy, then you can file a report and we will investigate the account. If the account is in violation, we will suspend the account". Going back to the first page again: "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy".

    S-o-o-o-o, if Zenkel's email was posted somewhere else on the Internet, then by Twitter's own policy, Adams violated nothing.

    Finding out isn't easy, now that news of Adams' suspension is everywhere. I spent more than an hour this evening trying to find Zenkel's corporate email address, but because it's now everywhere in news stories, the search literally is for a needle in a hay field. I finally came up with an obscure page that I had seen earlier in an LA Times story. That's from organic search, and only after thousands of entries. Over at SearchEngineLand, Danny Sullivan found a few more -- and the same polluted search results.

    The irony: The account suspension did much more to publicize Zenkel's email address than Adams' solitary tweet, exponentially.

    By a strict interpretation of Twitter's "If information was previously posted or displayed elsewhere on the Internet prior to being put on Twitter, it is not a violation of this policy", what did Adams violate here?

    Broken Trust

    The real question: Why did Twitter act so quickly to squash Adams' NBC London 2012 coverage criticisms -- and granted there were many? Consider this: Just last week, NBC and Twitter announced a partnership for the games. Zenkel says in a statement:

    With the eyes of the world focused on London, there is no doubt that the conversation on Twitter will rage around the competition, the athletes and the incredible stories from the Games. This partnership with Twitter will enable NBC Olympics to make an enormous contribution to this conversation, bringing the swarm of attention surrounding the London Games our expertise, depth of content from our years of preparation, and the unique access to the Games only NBC Olympics has in London.

    There's an official NBC-supported Olympics Twitter page, with more than 1.3 million followers -- and 938 tweets as I write.

    So let me get this straight. Twitter supports free speech in far-fling countries like Egypt or Iran but not from UK journalists who criticize the cloud service's business partners? Is Twitter really protecting privacy or its NBC partnership? You can guess my answer. Twitter executed piss-poor judgment here, and despite the media storm -- around this, ah, event -- continues to do so.

    This morning, in response to a writer presenting a third-party source for a story, I wrote in group chat:

    In human relationships there is a misconception that love conquers all, that it's more important than anything. Actually, trust matters much more. Trust is the foundation of all relationships and framework for all cultural moral and ethical systems. In news, trust is a paramount. People need to trust that we report as accurately as possible. Even when I write snarky stories, there's still a relationship of trust.

    Trust is vitally important with cloud services like Twitter. You trust them with your information and, here, to be soapbox and hub for online relationships.

    As a journalist seeing one of my peer's free speech being suppressed, I lost trust in Twitter. Adams' account suspension was too quick and convenient. Twitter was wrong to suspend Adams' account.

    Photo Credit:  AR Images/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/27/Samsung_takes_a_bite_out_of_Apple_smartphone_share'

    Samsung takes a bite out of Apple smartphone share

    Publié: juillet 27, 2012, 9:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Like I wrote two days ago, "iPhone sales are slowing", all while Samsung's increase. Today, IDC released calendar second-quarter smartphone shipments, and Samsung and ZTE took share from every other major manufacturer, including Apple. Let's be clear: iPhone doesn't typically lose share. It's a persistent gainer. Well, that is, until now.

    Apple shipments into the channel increased by 27.5 percent year over year to 26 million units from 20.4 million. But global market share fell to 16.9 percent from 18.8 percent a year earlier. Meanwhile, Samsung smartphone shipments surged 172.8 percent to 50 million units from 18.4 million. Market share rose to 32.6 percent from 17 percent a year earlier. Quarter on quarter, Apple share fell from 24.2 percent, erasing most of the gains following the iPhone 4S launch last autumn. Meanwhile, Samsung rose from 29.1 percent.

    As I reported two months ago, the "Smartphone market consolidates around Apple and Samsung". Their dominance further solidified during second quarter. Combined, Apple and Samsung shipped nearly half of all smartphones -- 76.2 million out of 153.9 million.

    "Samsung and Apple have quickly become the global smartphone heavyweights though both employ somewhat different approaches to the market", Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, says.

    "Samsung employs a 'shotgun' strategy wherein many models are created that cover a wide range of market segments. Apple, in contrast, offers a small number of high-profile models", he continues. "While both companies have expanded their geographic presence in pursuit of market share, the two companies will inevitably come into greater conflict as both try to generate additional gains".

    Right now the gains favor Samsung's strategy. But the South Korean electronics giant also benefits from a big launch, flagship phone Galaxy S III. Meanwhile, the market waits for iPhone 5, or whatever Apple calls it. Apple could easily reverse course if sales surge following the new phone's release.

    Make no mistake, iPhone falls from great to good, which isn't necessarily bad. Samsung's success is especially good for Android, if for no other reason than sheer numbers of users. Developers typically follow the money. Historically, they support platforms that generate the most revenue, with Windows vs Mac OS being one of the most visible examples. That said, iOS isn't confined to smartphones. There's iPad, and Apple shipped 17 million in calendar second quarter, when cumulative iOS device sales reached 410 million, according to Apple.

    More broadly, Apple did gain share in overall phone shipments -- 6.4 percent from 5.1 percent -- putting it in third place. Samsung share rose to 24.1 percent from 18 percent. Smartphones accounted for 51 percent of all Samsung handset sales.

    Manufacturers shipped 406 million mobiles, up 1 percent year over year, 38 percent of them smartphones.

    What About China?

    But another player rises, and Apple had better watch its back. ZTE shipments rose a stunning 300 percent year over year -- 2 million to 8 million units -- with market share up to 5.2 percent from 1.8 percent. The gains thrust ZTE into the top five. While the Chinese handset market sells beyond its home market, ZTE sold the majority of its phones to China, IDC says. Something else: ZTE's rising share offers one more credible explanation for Apple's quarter-on-quarter setback in China.

    iPhone's introduction in China helped lift calendar first-quarter iPhone shipments but fell off dramatically during Q2. Apple generated a stunning $7.9 billion revenue in China during calendar Q1 but only $5.7 billion three months later. "Virtually all of the $2.2 billion sequential revenue decline was due to the iPhone sales in Greater China", Apple CEO Tim Cook told financial analysts on Tuesday.

    By dividing units shipped (26 million) by revenue generated ($16.245 billion), you get an average selling price of about $624 per iPhone. Analysts expected between 29 million and 30 million iPhones shipped during the quarter. If you multiply $624 by 3.5 million, you get around $2.18 billion -- or by how much Apple missed Wall Street consensus for fiscal third quarter earnings (which is synonymous with second calendar quarter). Notice also, that's about the same amount as the quarter-on-quarter decline in China. Hey, just saying.

    Cook brushes off iPhone sales declines:

    As a reminder in the previous quarter in our fiscal Q2, we launched the iPhone 4S in China, in January, we added China Telecom as the second carrier in March, and as we proceed across the quarter we increased the channel inventory to accommodate sales, and to reach our target inventory of four weeks to six weeks. The remainder of the sequential revenue decline is mainly attributable to the normal seasonality after the very successful iPhone 4S launch.

    Based on other geographies, iPhone sales tend to grow following a new product launch, at least for another quarter, or after opening up new channels of distribution. ZTE is another plausible factor that shouldn't be ignored by anyone evaluating iPhone's future performance. Same is true for Samsung. Combined the two are poised to squeeze Apple in its second most important market -- that's how Cook describes it.

    Much depends on third quarter shipments and what Apple delivers in the next iPhone and the broader marketing strategy against more diversified Samsung and ZTE product portfolios.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/27/Samsung_charges_up_Galaxy_smartphone_marketing'

    Samsung charges up Galaxy smartphone marketing

    Publié: juillet 27, 2012, 12:50am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm out of the office today attending Freshman orientation with my daughter. We were at San Diego State University for day-long lectures a month ago, but I saw something today either missed before or that is new (I'm convinced it's the latter). The East Commons has two Samsung charging stations that promote Galaxy S II and S3. It's simply brilliant marketing.

    Think about it. Education is considered to be an Apple stronghold; some of that is reality, some perception. Two days ago, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said about fiscal Q3: "We achieved all time record Mac sales to US education institutions during the quarter. We sold more than twice as many iPads as Macs to US education institutions. We are extremely pleased with these results".

    You would certainly have to agree seeing the Apple gear for sale at the SDSU Bookstore. This morning, students checked in incoming Freshman on iPads. Plenty of summer school students walking around today have iPhones.

    The Samsung charging stations establish an important marketing foothold in enemy territory. Placement is ideal, because the Commons is where students and faculty go to eat.

    Often the best marketing is subliminal branding. People see the brand regularly. Apple effectively does this with its logo's visibility on laptops and smartphones. Samsung won't get anywhere as much exposure, but anything is better than nothing -- and this is pretty good.

    Have you seen Samsung or other branded charging stations at educational institutions?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/26/iPhone_sales_are_slowing__deal_with_it'

    iPhone sales are slowing, deal with it

    Publié: juillet 26, 2012, 1:05am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple shares closed down 4.32 percent today, keeping with a trend started during after-hours trading yesterday. The real question: Could matters have been much worse, if not for the big carrot that came with the little stick? Apple missed fiscal Q3 Wall Street analyst consensus for revenue and income, but announced a big dividend and promise of more to follow. Performance was by no means bad, just not as good as forecast and the dividend, $2.65 per share, is something for shareholders to smile about.

    But behind the magic, I have to ask: Is Apple distracting shareholders and Wall Street analysts, making them look over there so they miss the trick going on over here? It's a question I can't answer but can only speculate about. Another quarter of results will reveal much. One thing is certain now: iPhone sales are slowing. There's no if about it, but why. Are people waiting for the new model or are Android rivals like Samsung pulling away more buyers?

    The Big Miss

    Analyst consensus for the quarter was around 29 million iPhones. Apple shipped 26 million, up 28 percent year over year but down 26 percent sequentially. Revenue declined 28 percent quarter-on-quarter. This is by no means the first sequential decline, but it's unusually severe, and the Street already expected as much as 19 percent Q2 to Q3.

    During yesterday's earnings conference call, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer gave a simple explanation: "Our weekly iPhone sales continue to be impacted by rumors and speculation regarding new products", adding later: "Regarding iPhone, we’re reading the same rumors and speculation that you are about the new iPhone, and we think this has caused some pause in customers purchasing".

    There you have it, iPhone 5 rumors. But if that's true now, why not a year ago? Fiscal third quarter 2011 led into release of iPhone 4S -- and lots of rumors about it -- and there was longer time between new models, meaning more pent-up demand. Yet iPhone shipments grew 183 percent year over year and 9 percent sequentially then.

    Distilling Distribution

    Something else: As distribution increases so should sales. At the end of the fiscal third quarter, Apple distributed iPhone through 250 carriers in 100 countries, up from 230 carriers in 100 countries the previous quarter and 186 carriers in 90 countries a year earlier (Q2 2011). Looked at differently, in Q3 2011, Apple shipped 20 million iPhones through 228 carriers and 26 million through 250 carriers a year later. But sequentially sales fell from 35 million, even as Apple added 20 carriers quarter on quarter.

    iPhone's introduction in China helped lift second-quarter iPhone shipments but fell off dramatically during Q3. Apple generated a stunning $7.9 billion revenue in China during Q2 but only $5.7 billion three months later. "Virtually all of the $2.2 billion sequential revenue decline was due to the iPhone sales in Greater China and about half of that $2.2 billion is attributable to changes in the channel inventory", Apple CEO Tim Cook told financial analysts yesterday.

    He then makes what strike me as contradictory statements:

    As a reminder in the previous quarter in our fiscal Q2, we launched the iPhone 4S in China, in January, we added China Telecom as the second carrier in March, and as we proceed across the quarter we increased the channel inventory to accommodate sales, and to reach our target inventory of four weeks to six weeks. The remainder of the sequential revenue decline is mainly attributable to the normal seasonality after the very successful iPhone 4S launch.

    Shouldn't sales continue to grow with addition of a new carrier and sustain or even increase three months or more later? If you look at other geographies, the pattern is more like this: Sales grow for at least several quarters after opening up new markets or channels of distribution. What's really going on in China? Is the top line of potential buyers who can afford iPhone already tapped out? I don't have an answer today.

    Those Damn Americans

    Some people will argue that smartphone adoption is slowing, at least in mature markets, as reason for iPhone's sequential declines. Using the United States as sample, that's not the case.

    Sequential iPhone activations dropped by 14 percent at AT&T. Verizon reports actual sales -- 2.7 million, down 15.6 percent quarter on quarter. AT&T's number isn't as reliable since activations don't necessarily mean new sales. It's common for people to sell or hand down an existing iPhone when replacing it. Last I checked, these count as activations, too. This in some ways explains the gulf between the carriers -- iPhone accounts for about 73 percent of AT&T smartphone activations and 45 percent of Verizon smartphone sales.

    So looking solely at Verizon, iPhone sales surged following release of iPhone 4S last year, but the overall number compared to all smartphones has consistently dropped since: 55 percent in Q1, 50 percent in Q2 and 45 percent in Q3 -- all while overall smartphone sales increased and Verizon added new 4G LTE models running Android.

    The broader market is more revealing. Today, comScore released a fresh take on smartphone subscriber data for the three months ending in April. For starters, the smartphone market continues to grow gangbusters in the United States, with more feature phone owners moving up than ever. A year earlier, 38 percent of feature phone buyers bought a smartphone as their next handset; 47.5 percent in April 2012. More telling: Which smartphone platform they choose.

    There's popular folklore spread by the Apple Fan Club of bloggers and journalists that Android users largely switch to iPhone. comScore's data disputes this: 54.2 percent of smartphone to smartphone buyers choose Android versus 33.5 percent for iPhone/iOS. The percentage going from feature phone to smartphone is greater: 61.5 percent Android compared to 25.2 percent for iPhone/iOS. The analyst firm doesn't reveal percentage based on starting platform, meaning how many Android smartphone owners go to iPhone or visa versa, just the destination. That's revealing enough.

    The smartphone market is fast-changing and volatile. Much can change in three months or six. But, today, iPhone sales are slowing. Year-on-year growth is down compared to previous quarters and years, while sequential growth is way down in Apple's fiscal Q3. Perhaps some people hold out for iPhone 5. Perhaps many others don't see iPhone 3GS, 4 or 4S as compelling, with their 3.5-inch screens and no 4G LTE.

    Consider this: The majority of new Androids sold right now run an older version of the operating system, while iPhones the newest iOS -- and still the Googles sell better. That says much about consumer priories, which is probably best for another post.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/24/Apple_Q3_2012_by_the_Numbers___35B_revenue___9.32_EPS'

    Apple Q3 2012 by the Numbers: $35B revenue, $9.32 EPS

    Publié: juillet 24, 2012, 10:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Uncertainty hung over Apple's fiscal third quarter coming into today's earnings announcement. Gulfs widened among analysts for overall revenue estimates and about how many iPads or iPhones were sold. No one expected poor performance, there was just more uncertainty about what and where than more recent quarters. Fiscal Q3 will be remembered as sea change coming, as Apple missed Street consensus for the first time in years and iPad sales surged against iPhone.

    For fiscal third quarter, Apple reported $35 billion revenue and net profits of $8.8 billion, or $9.32 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $28.57 billion and $7.31 billion net quarterly profit, or $7.79 per share. Apple announced fiscal Q3 results after the market closed today.

    Three months ago, Apple forecasted $34 billion in revenue with earnings per share of $8.68. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $37.18 billion revenue and $10.36 earnings per share. Revenue estimate range: $34.54 billion to $41.73 billion. This breaks an ongoing trend of the Street expecting more than guidance and Apple still beating consensus.

    Shareholders responded rapidly to the earnings miss, with shares down more than 5 percent in after-hours trading.

    Looking ahead, Apple forecasts $34 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 fourth quarter, with earnings per share of $7.65.

    As expected, Apple will issue a dividend, $2.65 per share, on August 16 to shareholders of record on August 13.

    Apple shipped 17 million iPads and 26 million iPhones during fiscal Q3. Analyst consensus was around 15.6 million tablets and 29 million smartphones.

    "We’re thrilled with record sales of 17 million iPads in the June quarter", Apple CEO Tim Cook says. "We’ve also just updated the entire MacBook line, will release Mountain Lion tomorrow and will be launching iOS 6 this Fall. We are also really looking forward to the amazing new products we’ve got in the pipeline".

    Cumulative iOS device sales reached 410 million at the end of March -- 45 million during fiscal third quarter. Apple has paid $5.5 billion to developers. There are 150 million iCloud subscribers.

    Gross margins rose to 42.8 percent from 41.7 percent a year ago. Sales in international markets accounted for 62 percent of revenue.

    Q3 2012 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.287 billion, down 19 percent from $1.58 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $3.646 billion, up 3 percent from $3.525 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.06 billion, down 20 percent from $1.325 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.571 billion, up 29 percent from $1.571 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $16.425 billion, up 22 percent from $13.31 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $9.17 billion, up 52 percent from $6.046 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $663 million, up 28 percent from $517 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $891 million, up 28 percent from $696 million a year earlier.

    Macs. I usually begin my segment breakdown with iPhone and iPad, but Mac shipments cast context onto the other discussions.

    During fiscal third quarter, Apple released new Mac Book Pros, which unsurprisingly lifted portable shipments (or what the company calls sales). Apple shipped 4 million Macs during the quarter, up from 3.947 million units a year earlier; growth was 2 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus was about 4.3 million units worldwide -- or 300,000 more than their year-ago estimate, which Apple missed. So Apple missed the Street. Again.

    During today's earnings conference call, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer says Mac sales to education were record.

    Apple ended the quarter with three to five weeks inventory, which is below normal levels.

    Mac shipments outpaced the broader market, which performance can only be called disastrous. Gartner and IDC released preliminary calendar second-quarter PC shipment estimates two weeks ago -- flat globally, but down 5.7 percent or 10.6 percent in the United States, depending on whether Gartner or IDC counts the numbers. IDC put Mac shipments down for the first time in years, while Gartner disagreed. Today, Apple answered both.

    IDC puts Apple US PC market share at 11.1 percent, down nearly 1 point year over year, while Gartner sees share rising -- from 10.8 percent to 12 percent. US performance foreshadows much, because it is the geography most affected by so-called post-PC devices, particularly smartphones and tablets.

    "Consumers are less interested in spending on PCs as [they] are other technology product and services, such as the latest smartphones and media tablets that they are purchasing", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. "This is more of a trend in the mature market as PCs are highly saturated in these markets". Something else the numbers reveal: iPad is cannibalizing Mac sales, even as it dents Windows PCs (see iPad, next, for more on that).

    In response to a question about iPad cannibalizing Mac sales, Cook deflected. "It's clear the PC market is weak", but he focused on a slowdown before introduction of the new MacBook Pro as major factor affecting Apple. He says that weekly sales were down before the product announcement and up afterwards.

    Cook says that Apple ended the quarter with a backlog of MacBook Pro orders, which he expects to clear out next month.

    Q3 2012 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.01 million units, down 13 percent from 1.155million units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 3.01 million units, up 8 percent from 2.792 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 6.751 million units, down 10 percent from 7.535 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 26.03 million units, up 28 percent from 20.338 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 17.04 million units, up 84 percent from 9.246 million units a year earlier.

    iPad. The tablet's impact on Apple simply cannot be understated. The company shipped 17 million iPads, generating nearly $9.2 billion in revenue. Analysts estimated about 15.6 million iPads for fiscal Q3, which represents the first full quarter of sales, following release of new iPad with high-resolution Retina Display.

    iPad was available in 97 countries and Apple ended the quarter "just within our target range of 4 to 6 weeks channel", Oppenheimer says.

    During the quarter, Apple sold 1 million iPads to education. Oppenheimer boasts: "We sold twice as many iPads as Macs to education". Additionally, iPad sales "more than tripled in the enterprise in the past year".

    Cumulative iPad shipments: 84 million.

    Following Gartner and IDC PC shipment numbers release, Needham & Company analyst Charlie Wolf dramatically revised his iPad shipment forecast -- to 20 million units from 13.5 million, Wolf issued an unusually long report with an unusual admission -- that his iPad sales estimate was "hastily formulated". Coming into the quarter, the analyst predicted iPad shipments would exceed iPhone. Apple answered him today, and I'll continue the discussion in the iPhone breakdown.

    "In the second quarter of 2012, the PC market suffered through its seventh consecutive quarter of flat to single-digit growth", Kitagawa says. Seven straight quarters?Is it any coincidence that Apple started selling the iPad eight quarters ago? Don't answer "no" too quickly. iPad's rapid gains, even its surge against iPhone is another sign that the PC era is over and in transition to the cloud-connected device era.

    Q3 2012 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $12.81 billion, up 26 percent from $10.126 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $8.24 billion, up 16 percent from $7.098 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $2.01 billion, up 33 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $7.89 billion, up 25 percent from $6.332 billion a year earlier.
    • Retail: $4.08 billion, up 317 percent from $3.505 billion a year earlier.

    iPhone. Wolf's sudden turnabout and iPhone sales data from both AT&T and Verizon raised  a shadow of fiscal Q3 in the days, even hours, before today's earnings announcement. Analysts expected about 29 million units. Actual: 26 million. So for a second major product category, Apple missed the Street.

    AT&T and Verizon foreshadowed mature markets. iPhone dipped for both carriers, down 14 percent and 15.6 percent, respectively. BTIG analyst Walter Piecyk says he expected 3.4 million iPhone activations on Verizon and 3.75 million on AT&T. Analyst consensus was 19 percent decline sequentially.

    The fall-off isn't surprising as  smartphone growth cools in mature markets and anticipation builds for iPhone 5 -- or whatever Apple calls it. Weekly sales are somewhat rocky because of iPhone 5 rumors, Oppenheimer says.

    Apple ended the quarter with iPhone available from 250 carriers in 100 carriers. iPhones in enterprise more than doubled in the last year, Oppenheimer says.

    Q3 2012 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.522 million units, up 2 percent from 1.487 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 941,000 units, up 2 percent from 922,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 173,000 units, up 15 percent from 150,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 593,000 units, down 4 percent from 620,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 791,000 units, up 3 percent from 768,000 units a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 6.75 million iPods during fiscal third quarter, down from 7.535 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for fiscal Q3 was about 6.35 million. iTunes generated $1.8 billion in revenue, with education important contributor. There have been 14 million download of the iTunes U app, Oppenheimer says.

    Apple ended the quarter with 4 weeks to six weeks iPod inventory, which is normal level.

    Retail. Apple Store generated $4.08 billion, selling 791,000 Macs, up from 768,000 a year earlier. Revenue per store was $11.1 million, up from $10.8 million. The stores had 83 million visitors, up 12 percent from 74 million in the same quarter 2011. Apple ended fiscal Q3 with 372 stores, opening 9 during the quarter.

    Hanging by itself is Apple TV; the company sold 1.3 million during the quarter and 4 million for the fiscal year so far. "It's still at a level we would call a hobby, but we're still pulling the strings to see where it takes us", Cook says.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/23/Is_demand_really_why_Google_stopped_selling_16GB_Nexus_7_'

    Is demand really why Google stopped selling 16GB Nexus 7?

    Publié: juillet 23, 2012, 9:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Over the weekend, Google pulled one of two Nexus 7 models from the Play store, presumably because of demand. The tablet is sold out pretty much everywhere, and had long wait times (3 to 5 weeks) for delivery, so that's not unreasonable supposition. However, a groundswell of user complaints also burst forth over the weekend, and largely directed at the 16GB tablet -- the one Google suddenly stopped selling.

    I honed in on the 16GB model after receiving email complaints, seeing others online but having absolutely no problems with the two Nexus 7s in my household. Both are 8GB models, which Google still sells and isn't the brunt-taker of end-user complaints. I got to wondering: Is it coincidence that Google stopped selling the model for which there are end-user complaints?

    The answer in some ways doesn't matter. The Nexus 7 launch is otherwise exceptional and shows how to effectively compete against iPad. But customer complaints, and quite possibly product defects, could mar the brand. Customer service frustration complicates the problems for people who bought direct from Google, as I did. In business perception is everything.

    Before continuing, I want to clearly state: There are no problems with the Nexus 7s in my household. My wife and I are both hugely satisfied customers. But I can't say if we would feel differently with the 16GB tablet.

    Screen Troubles

    Last week, Brian Fagioli enthusiastically wrote for BetaNews about Nexus 7. He was one mighty excited buyer. But last night, he contacted me in near distress about ongoing problems. Early this afternoon he emails:

    This nexus 7 has been a disaster. I like the device if it didn’t have the defects. Google blew it big time. I am not alone. Tons of people have dead pixels and the unresponsive right side of the screen is a well documented flaw. Not happy. I only have 15 days to request an RMA. I am trying to call to make an RMA and I cant get through! The customer experience has been horrible. Another flaw in pre-ordering with Google -- no store to return to! Had I bought it at Staples or Gamestop, I could walk in and return it. I am on hold 10 minutes as I type this!

    Most complaints I've seen online focus on the screen: Dead pixels, lost sensitivity, flickering and even detachment.

    Our own Tim Conneally has the 16GB Nexus 7. "I have noticed screen randomly flickering", he says. However, Tim emphasizes he only got the tablet two days ago and the flickering might not be what it appears to be:

    Jelly Bean comes with screen auto-dim turned on, so I can't tell if it was flickering because of a low battery and it was constantly switching between dimmest and mid-range dim. Since yesterday, I've had auto-dim turned off, and I haven't seen any flickering yet. I personally suspected it was a power issue and maybe not a screen issue, but if people are complaining of unresponsiveness and dead pixels, it could very well be screen.

    Tim makes the right observation. Too often user complaints stem from user error. For example, my wife complained that the image wouldn't rotate on her screen, like Kindle Fire. Sure enough, neither does mine. I checked settings, but there was no option to turn on screen rotation. I wondered: "How could Google leave this out?" Turns out the control is somewhere else, from the pull-down notifications menu. It's actually smart, accessible placement for the lock/unlock screen-rotation setting.

    "Coming Soon"

    Fagioli's complaints are more about overall usage experience and spotty performance. I recalled that he rooted his tablet and wondered about that. When looking at product problems, the first place is commonality. What do they all share in common. Android users like to tinker, and Google makes it easy on stock OS devices.

    "Rooting shouldn’t cause those problem, especially a dead pixel", he answers. Then it struck me that I had only seen complaints about the 16GB model, and my two eights are fine. His observations mirror mine: "From what I read online, the 16GB had the most issues, not the 8GB". That leads to question: Why did Google pull the 16GB model? Because that's something else many of the complaints share in common -- the higher-end model.

    Sell-out stories burst forth over the weekend -- and they're on blogs and news sites everywhere today -- after Google pulled the 16GB model. I wrote "Nexus 7 sells out" last week. I don't doubt that demand exceeds Google expectations. But more typically, companies continue to take orders -- Apple does it -- while upping manufacturing. What's so unusual: Google stopping sales. The status changed from 3 to 5 weeks to "coming soon".

    I asked retail expert Stephen Baker, who is vice president of industry analysis for NPD, if stopping sales because of demand is unusual. He answers:

    I think it is unusual but not weird to not give potential buyers a ship date on a product that is out of stock. Maybe they don't know when the next shipment is coming and they don't want to fool people into expecting something sooner. Maybe the inventory is already spoken for and they don't want to take people's money without a firm ship date. It is kind of customer friendly, I think, to not take orders for stuff that you don't know when it is going to be available.

    Sources close to Google tell me that's exactly the situation. But it doesn't answer the direct question.

    Google's Response

    A Google spokesperson declined to comment on the issue but noted there is a high-volume of demand for the 16GB model.

    Google Play customer support representatives are telling people calling in: "We've had incredible demand for Nexus 7 devices and the 16GB version is temporarily unavailable in Google Play while we get more in stock".

    Is that believable considering the complaints largely are about the 16GB model? Consider this: both tablets use the same screens. Shouldn't screen problems on one be the same as the other?

    That brings me to something else that 16GB models could share in common: The buyers. Presumably, Android enthusiasts would be the most likely to order the higher-end model and do so early on. If you know anything about the Android community, they're a vocal lot. My sources say that only a small number of devices have screen problems, which Google confirmed.

    Is this all just about a vocal minority with majority-size voice? In looking over forum posts and other online communities, that's as plausible explanation as any other -- perhaps more so. These users have high expectations that aren't necessarily met, and they're just as vocal -- perhaps more so -- about razing as praising Nexus 7.

    I am puzzled by something, that could be coincidence, but I'm left wondering. Within the hour after I contacted Google for comment, the 16GB model status changed to "Ships Soon", with delivery time of 1 to 2 weeks. But when I hit refresh, "Coming Soon" returned. Perhaps the 16GB model will be back soon.

    Did you buy 16GB Nexus 7? Are you satisfied?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/21/Nokia_and_Windows_Phone_are_misfits'

    Nokia and Windows Phone are misfits

    Publié: juillet 21, 2012, 12:58am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Some relationships aren't meant to be. That's how I felt about Microsoft and Nokia when they announced their partnership in February 2011. You've seen some of my missives: "Nokia does the Windows Phone death dance" (April), "Windows Phone can't save Nokia" (February) and "Windows Phone transition is killing Nokia" (July 2011), among others. Let's not forget the memorable "Windows Phone 7 Series is a lost cause", from February 2010.

    The problem is simple: Microsoft's usage philosophy around Windows Phone is fundamentally flawed and doesn't jive well at all with Nokia's enormous install base. As such, Nokia should never have cut the deal with Microsoft that replaced Symbian with Windows Phone. Symbian was the most widely used mobile operating system in the world when the companies cut the deal -- and in many geographies where Nokia remains market share leader, it still is. Seventeen months ago, new CEO Stephen Elop should have fretted more about holding onto existing customers -- how to move them to new Nokia handsets -- rather than compete with iPhone. The ex-Microsoft president doomed Nokia, instead.

    The Mighty, Fallen

    Financials don't lie, and they tell a wicked tale. Yesterday morning, Nokia announced second quarter earnings, and they were brutal -- operating loss of $1.01 billion. Nokia shipped 83.7 million handsets, down 5 percent year over year. However, smartphone shipments fell more severely -- 39 percent, from 16.7 million to 10.2 million units. Meanwhile, the Finnish manufacturer shipped 4 million Lumia Windows Phones. That's good from percentage-of perspective, nearly 40 percent, but bad with the number of overall smartphone shipments falling nearly as much.

    Now compare to Samsung, which, according to preliminary Q2 financials, shipped 50 million smartphones, or nearly five times more. This category, around which the market consolidates, should account for the majority of handset shipments when Samsung announces financials next week. By comparison, smartphones represent just 12 percent of Nokia volumes, while Windows Phone is but 4.8 percent. Remember again the context: Nokia's overall smartphone shipments declined.

    Feature phones still account for the majority of Nokia handset sales, and Symbian remains the dominant operating system by a huge margin. Nokia has the most success with these phones in emerging markets, for a number of reasons:

    • Market share is huge to begin with
    • Pricing is often competitive and localized
    • Brand is recognized, well-regarded and trusted
    • Distribution: Nokia has huge global retail reach
    • Pre-Elop strategy made feature phones more like smartphones

    Absolutely, Nokia struggled to find a footing in smartphones -- a category it created more than a decade and a half ago -- after Apple launched iPhone in June 2007. Certainly Nokia needed to do something, but abandoning its enormous customer base, which still buys hundreds of millions of mobiles, was a mistake. Windows Phone was doomed from the start, because, if for no other reason, moving from Symbian is so hard. There are lots of things Nokia could have done instead, and platform switch should have been at the bottom of the list.

    Glance and Gone

    But this isn't just a problem of dumping one platform for another, and all that customers and partners have built around the incumbent. The choice of platform matters, too, and Nokia picked poorly. Microsoft designed Windows Phone around a concept called "glance and go". The idea: Users get the information they need, mostly presented in tiles, and get off the phone. Microsoft starts from the design perspective that too many people spend too much time interacting with the mobile and not enough with other folks. That's certainly true in North America or major parts of Europe.

    The situation is different in many markets where Nokia is still so successful. Nokia's strength is everywhere but the United States and the market demand is upgrading people from feature phones to smartphones. For many of these people, their first Internet device is the phone, not a PC. They need apps and want to spend time on the device. The Windows Phone tile UI and choice of apps encourages the opposite. For them "glance and go" makes little to no sense. Microsoft's whole UI concept is about getting on the device and then off. That's fine if you're a business man in New York but not an entrepreneur in Nairobi.

    For example, according to the United Nations, Africa has more cell phone subscribers than the United States, and Africans primarily go online using their mobile phones -- that includes services like Facebook or Twitter. Africa leads other regions establishing mobile money networks that let cellular subscribers use their handsets like ATMs. Much of this activity takes place not on super sophisticated smartphones, but simpler mobiles.

    Users need advanced messaging capabilities, means of making mobile payments, advanced maps, robust web experience and lots of apps as they move up from dumb phones to smarter ones. Nokia abandoned work done in these areas to focus on Windows Phone, all while providing no real upgrade path from Symbian. (Of course, there are many other problems a platform switch represents that I won't rehash here; for more click the links in the first paragraph.) For many of these customers, Windows Phone is more likely to be glance and gone -- to Android or iOS, and if Nokia is lucky to another Symbian mobile.

    Ring the Belle

    Yesterday, writing for ZNet, Matthew Miller asks: "Should Nokia flip the Symbian switch back on to stem the tide?" He opines:

    Nokia should have continued Symbian development alongside of their embrace of a brand new and untested mobile operating system, Windows Phone, rather than cutting all the existing platforms off at the knees and throwing all their eggs into one basket that is precariously balanced on one company, Microsoft. As I stated in my review of the Nokia 808 PureView, Nokia still knows how to innovate and make fantastic products.

    To this day, from a hardware perspective, Nokia makes the best mobiles on the planet. They're sturdy and reliable, and advanced-engineered devices like the 808 PureView are innovation that makes anything Apple produces look like toys. Symbian Belle is a solid operating system that is in many ways superior to Windows Phone and capable enough alongside Android or iOS. Nokia has much more to gain by building devices of 808 PureView's caliber running Belle and more to lose from Lumia Windows Phones (just compare the sales figures above).

    It's business fundamentals stuff: Focus on existing customers and keeping them. In every business, the cost to keep existing customers is almost always less than acquiring new ones. The Windows Phone platform switch is a form of acquiring new customers, even if they own Nokia now. Then there are the hiddens cost to customers when moving from platform A to B. Imposing change increases chances customers will switch to something else, by removing all the platform dependencies already in place. If you present them with something new, they may choose something else.

    I don't suggest Nokia should abandon Windows Phone. But I do assert Symbian is a viable platform that could keep hundreds of millions of existing customers buying Nokia, particularly if devices like 808 PureView could be offered at reasonable prices.

    Better Belle than Windows Phone hell.

    Photo Credit: Mike Lau

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/19/Microsoft_Q4_2012_by_the_numbers___6.2B_charge_saps_record_quarter'

    Microsoft Q4 2012 by the numbers: $6.2B charge saps record quarter

    Publié: juillet 19, 2012, 10:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft closed its fiscal year in relatively good shape, despite globally slow PC sales that weighed down Windows division sales and product transition period that affected some others. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has a heap load of new products in queue for the next three quarters, causing some customers to delay purchases.

    However, a one-time $6.19 billion impairment goodwill charge, related to the Online Services Business, and $540 million deferral led Microsoft to post a 6 cents-per-share loss -- or $492 million, after taxes. The deferral covers upgrade guarantees related to Windows 8's launch.

    Adjusting for these items, for fiscal 2012 fourth quarter, ended June 30, Microsoft's revenue rose 7 percent to $18.6 billion, year over year. Operating income: $6.93 billion, or 12 percent increase. Net income rose 30 percent to $5.87 billion, or 73 cents a share. Earnings per share rose by 6 percent year over year. Microsoft announced fourth quarterly and yearly results after the market closed today.

    Average consensus was $18.13 billion revenue and 58 cents earnings per share, for the quarter. Revenue estimates ranged from $17.59 billion to $18.63 billion, with estimated year-over-year growth of 4.4 percent.

    For fiscal 2012, ended June 30, Microsoft's actual revenue was $73.72 billion, operating income $21.76 billion, and earnings per share $2. Adjusting for the charges, revenue rose 6 percent to $74.26 billion, year over year. Operating income: $28.5 billion, or 5 percent increase. Net income rose 23 percent to $23.15 billion, or $2.78 a share. Earnings per share rose by 5 percent year over year.

    Average consensus was $73.78 billion revenue and $2.64 earnings per share, for the year. Revenue estimates ranged from $73.26 billion to $74.29 billion, with estimated year-over-year growth of 5.5 percent.

    "We delivered record fourth quarter and annual revenue, and we’re fast approaching the most exciting launch season in Microsoft history", Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says. "Over the coming year, we’ll release the next versions of Windows, Office, Windows Server, Windows Phone, and many other products and services that will drive our business forward and provide unprecedented opportunity to our customers and partners".

    Q4 2012 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.15 billion, down from $4.74 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $5.09 billion, up from $4.64  billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $6.3 billion, up from $5.87 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $735 million, up from $680 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.78 billion, up from $1.49 billion a year earlier.

    PC Crisis

    For the seventh quarter in a row PC shipments hung like a shadow over Microsoft results, exacerbated by customers holding off purchases in anticipation of Windows 8's release. The operating system launches October 26, but volume-license subscribers can get it next month.

    A week ago, Gartner and IDC reported weaker-than-expected PC shipments during second calendar quarter, which coincides with Microsoft's fourth fiscal quarter. The overall global PC market was flat year over year, according to both analyst firms. By comparison, US PC shipments were disastrous, falling 5.7 percent year over year, according to Gartner, and declining 10.6 percent by IDC's reckoning.

    Falling shipments isn't necessarily bad. "Consumers are delaying purchases, and vendors and retailers are slowing down their PC activities to clear existing inventories", David Doud, IDC research director, says. "The situation is exacerbated by consumer notebook saturation, a slowing replacement cycle in the commercial sector, and the big macro-economic and political events affecting confidence and spending".

    Q4 2012 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $2.34 billion, down from $2.94 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $2.1 billion, up from $1.69 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $4.1 billion, up from $3.76 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $6.67 billion, up from $745 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $263 million, down from $13 million profit a year earlier.

    But there also is increasing tablet competition, particularly iPad. "Consumers are less interested in spending on PCs as [they] are other technology product and services, such as the latest smartphones and media tablets that they are purchasing", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. "In the second quarter of 2012, the PC market suffered through its seventh consecutive quarter of flat to single-digit growth", Kitagawa says.  Coincidentally, or not, iPad launched eight quarters earlier.

    IDC analysts are optimistic Windows 8 will pull the PC market back from the brink. "The announcement of a Windows 8 launch date, as well as broader communication of new features in the OS, are key steps that would help to address uncertainty about new product availability and help consumers and channels plan their purchases", Jay Chou, IDC senior research analyst, says. With respect to iPad competition, much depends on how Microsoft prices Surface, which may be the only Windows RT tablet that can compete with iPad on price.

    Breakdown by Division

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Slow PC shipments sapped the Windows & Windows Live division yet again, with revenue down 13 percent during the quarter and down by 3 percent for the year. However, when removing the $540 million deferral, revenue fell but 1 percent for the quarter and year. Operating income fell by 18 percent, or $511 million, in part because of the deferral.

    Windows sales to businesses grew by 1 percent year over year, while those to consumers declined by 2 percent. Microsoft's estimates for year-over-year PC shipments are in line with analysts: flat.

    More than half of enterprise desktops have Windows 7.

    Looking ahead to fiscal first quarter, Microsoft expects to defer $1 billion to $1.2 billion related to OEM presales and the $39.99 upgrade offer.

    Fiscal 2012 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $18.34 billion, down from $19.03 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $18.69 billion, up from $16.69  billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $24 billion, up from $22.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $2.87 billion, up from $2.6 billion a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $9.6 billion, up from $8.9 billion a year earlier.

    Server & Tools. Revenue rose about 13 percent ($568 million) year over year. The division is insulated against economic maladies, because about 60 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements. A 22-percent in these licenses fueled overall growth. Operating income rose 24 percent, or by $409 million.

    "Product revenue increased $431 million or 12 percent, driven primarily by growth in SQL Server and System Center.", according to Microsoft financial statements.

    Looking ahead to fiscal first quarter, Microsoft expects transactional sales to lag the hardware market -- not surprising given Windows Server 2012's launch (resulting in delayed purchases). Annuity license sales will grow in the low teens.

    Business. The division was the quarter's big overall performer (again), with revenue up 7 percent year over year and operating income up 9 percent -- that's by $418 million and $339 million, respectively. Revenue topped a stunning $6.3 billion. However, consumer sales fell 4 percent, or by $37 million. The same PC market malaise affecting consumer Windows also sapped consumer Office.

    Lync revenue by 45 percent and Dynamics CRM by 25 percent, bring subscribers to 2.7 million.

    Looking ahead to fiscal first quarter, Microsoft expects transactional sales to lag the hardware market, which in part reflects slow down ahead of Office 2013's release. Annuity licenses will grow in the low teens.

    Fiscal 2012 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $11.46 billion, down from $12.2 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $7.4 billion, up from $6.3 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $15.72 billion, up from $14.66 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $8.1 billion, down from $2.56 billion loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $364 million, down from $1.26 billion loss a year earlier.

    Online Services Business. Search and display ads drove up online advertising revenue by 8 percent, or by $55 million. The division posted a hugely operating loss -- $5.67 billion -- largely because of Microsoft's $6.19 billion write-off related to the 2007 aQuantive acquisition.

    Entertainment & Devices.The division's revenue increased a healthy 20 percent year over year, or $292, largely from recently acquired Skype. Microsoft shipped 1.1 million Xboxes during the quarter, down 39 percent from 1.7 million a year earlier. Meanwhile, Xbox Live memberships rose 15 percent.

    Windows Phone units rose 50 percent quarter on quarter. Skype calls rose by 50 percent to 115 billion minutes.

    Looking ahead to fiscal first quarter, Microsoft expects revenue to decline in the high teens.

    Editor's note: The writer misread Microsoft's press release, which states: "Operating income and loss per share for the quarter were $192 million and $0.06 per share". As such, this report wrongly stated Microsoft had a $192 million loss, when in fact it is operating profit. However, when accounting for taxes, Microsoft has a net loss of $492 million. We apologize for the error, which is corrected.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/18/Windows_8_launches_October_26'

    Windows 8 launches October 26

    Publié: juillet 18, 2012, 10:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Steven Sinofosky, president of the Windows & Windows Live division, announced the date during a Microsoft sales meeting this afternoon. Windows 8 follows other October launches -- its predecessor (Oct. 22, 2009) and XP (Oct. 25, 2001). Vista should have been as well, but Microsoft couldn't ship soon enough, unbelievably missing Christmas 2006.

    Microsoft plans to release gold code the first week of August and make Windows 8 immediately available to volume-license subscribers. Everyone else will wait for Windows 8.

    Windows Server 2012 release to manufacturing is expected around the same time, but Microsoft plans to make it widely available sooner, in September.

    The Big Risk

    Windows 8 is by far Microsoft's most ambitious version ever, and it's the riskiest undertaking, too. When viewed alongside Office 2013, Microsoft's new flagship operating system marks a dramatic directional change. After years of denial, Microsoft's leadership clearly accepts the transition from the PC to cloud-connected device era is well underway. For most of the Noughties, Microsoft acted like IBM during the last big computing era shift -- from mainframes to PCs -- and sought to preserve existing revenue streams and customers.

    Risk-adverse Microsoft is suddenly big risk-taker, pushing a jarring but enticing new Windows user interface (Metro), releasing its own tablet (Surface), lowering the initial upgrade price ($39.99) and making a priority native code development (WinRT). Considering that large businesses compromise the majority of Microsoft customers, and they typically resist change of any kind, the company takes major risks indeed.

    Microsoft needs Windows 8 to be the launch hoped for Vista. The 2007 "Wow" marketing campaign encapsulated what the company expected, but customers weren't wowed by Vista, which never gained much market acceptance. For last month, Net Applications puts Vista usage share at a paltry 7.29 percent. XP: 47.28 percent. Launch success is more than about sales but establishing positive perceptions -- that Microsoft is hip and Windows is cool again and just as much Apple. The fruit-logo company's iPad blindsided Microsoft, leading many PC upgraders to stick with the PC they have and augment their computing needs with the tablet. To that Microsoft needs an immediate response, and Windows 8 is it.

    Continuing an accelerating trend, second-quarter PC shipments disappointed again, in the United States falling 10.6 percent year over year, according to IDC. The market needs something. Ultrabooks are a start, but Windows 8 -- and perhaps tablet-centric Windows RT even more -- should be it. Right now, there are few affordable Windows tablet alternatives to iPad or new Androids like Google's Nexus 7.

    "Consumers are less interested in spending on PCs as [they] are other technology product and services, such as the latest smartphones and media tablets that they are purchasing", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. "In the second quarter of 2012, the PC market suffered through its seventh consecutive quarter of flat to single-digit growth", Kitagawa says. Apple started selling the iPad eight quarters earlier. Surely that's no coincidence.

    Seeding the Cloud

    Microsoft risk-takers have amassed an amazing arsenal. If the company fails to maintain computing and informational relevance, it won't be for lack of trying. Microsoft pushes cloud services as core features for Windows 8 and Office 2013. If you look closely at the marketing collateral and FAQs for the Customer Preview released this week, Office 365 is front and center rather than the desktop suite. As I explained two days ago, the new version really isn't about applications but the cloud. It's a hugely ambitious undertaking, looking to fundamentally change how customers use Office (cloud plus applications) and pay for it (monthly subscription). Such colossal change is risky to the core, because too many individuals -- businesses more so -- resist change.

    But combined with Windows 8, Office 2013 represents a cloud continuum as Microsoft puts connected devices ahead of traditional PCs while making them more part of the emerging device landscape. These devices empower people, by giving them access to more information at much lower cost, much like the PC did compared to mainframes a computing generation ago. Microsoft has been moving in this direction -- enabling access to data and information anytime, anywhere and on anything for some time -- but this product release cycle is a convergence across product lines. That's everything from Office to Windows to Windows Server to other Office System server software and more.

    The approach also embraces the BYOD (bring-your-own-device) to work trend and could extinguish it as a Wild West routine. Employees bring their own gear in part because so many businesses are so risk-adverse -- that is slow to change. But BYOD creates IT management and security problems that Microsoft seeks to solve with this cloud converged release cycle.

    Whether or not Windows 8 succeeds -- or any of the products in this dramatic release cycle -- is anyone's guess, and lots of people are doing just that. Here at BetaNews:

    BetaNews readers sure seem determined to make Windows 8 a success: 45.65 percent of respondents to our recent poll plan to buy the software as soon as it's available.

    Long before October 26, however, we'll have sense of how well Windows 8 may sell. By then, Microsoft's most important customers -- and hardest to please and least likely to upgrade -- will have had access to the software for nearly two months.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/18/I_don_t_know_whether_to_cheer_or_cry_for_Microsoft'

    I don't know whether to cheer or cry for Microsoft

    Publié: juillet 18, 2012, 8:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    From one perspective, 2012 looks like a great year for Windows Phone, with about 17 percent year-over-year growth in the United States. Outstanding! But, uh-oh, that's from a tiny base. Get out your magnifying glass -- share will rise from 3.5 percent to 4.1 percent, according to Strategy Analytics. Ah, yeah.

    The analyst firm's forecast is for actual number of smartphones sold, not shipped -- 123 million, 5 million of which will have Windows Phone. That's up from 101.8 million and 3.5 million, respectively, in 2011.

    It's quite remarkable how positively Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics executive director, spins the numbers. "Microsoft is making a determined push to crack the United States because it is the most valuable and influential smartphone market in the world". That's why I cheer for Steve Ballmer and Co. The pride is back!

    But Mawston adds: "However, Microsoft's US smartphone market share remains relatively niche at present and breaking the stranglehold of leaders Android and Apple will not be easy". Whaaaaaaaaaa, where's my hanky?

    "To grow further, we believe future versions of Microsoft's Windows Phone 8 platform will need to dramatically improve support for advanced technologies like multi-core chipsets, enhance the Marketplace app store, expand the number of phone models available from major partners like Nokia or Samsung, and consider reducing the license fees it charges per unit to smartphone makers", Mawston advises.

    Suddenly there's sense to Microsoft's Windows Phone 8 strategy that effectively makes even the newest WP7.5 handsets obsolete. None can upgrade to WP8. So to get it, buy a new phone. Brilliant, Microsoft!

    While Windows Phone lapdogs along, Apple's handset makes money faster than a US mint. Strategy Analytics estimates $150 billion in cumulative revenue over the first five years of sales.

    "The iPhone portfolio has become a huge generator of cash and profit for Apple", Mawson says. "A quarter of a billion iPhones have been shipped cumulatively worldwide in the first five years since launch". But wait!

    "However, there are emerging signs that the iPhone’s next five years could get tougher", he warns. "Some mobile operators are becoming concerned about the high level of subsidies they spend on the iPhone, while Samsung is expanding its popular Galaxy portfolio and providing Apple with more credible competition".

    Last month, Sameer Singh exposed how much Apple depends on iPhone subsidies and how severely they hurt carriers' profits. If you missed this two-parter, grab a coke and popcorn before reading his riveting analysis.

    As for Windows Phone market share, sometimes we laugh. Sometimes we cry. Sometimes we do both. I'm rooting for you, Windows Phone. My soft spot for underdogs is huge.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/18/Nexus_7_sells_out'

    Nexus 7 sells out

    Publié: juillet 18, 2012, 6:50am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google's tablet is off to a rousing debut. I doubt sales numbers will reach iPad standards, but Nexus 7 is nevertheless hotly pursued and reports from early adopters evoke pure delight. If you want one and haven't ordered, be prepared to wait. In the United States, delay is now nominal for the 8GB model -- 3 to 5 business days before shipping, according to Google Play. Prepare to wait three to four weeks for the 16GB tablet, however. That's from Google, which right now has best availablity following the first weekend rush.

    I preordered one for my wife on June 29, hours after returning from Google I/O. Soon as she saw my Nexus 7, Kindle Fire was history. Shipment notice dispatched while I was at Comic-Con on July 14, and the tablet arrived early afternoon yesterday. I watched a fairly consistent stream of Google+ posts all day, as those people who preordered received their tablets.

    Some people who didn't preorder got Nexus 7 sooner in stores -- Costco, GameStop and Staples, among others. Now, the majority of these shops are sold out. I called a couple local GameStops. The largest only received models for which there were reservations -- and 8GB at that. I asked when more might be available, and a sales rep told me, "Probably not for a month or more". GameStop online lists only the 16GB tablet, available in 3 to 4 weeks.

    In fact most of the online stores I checked -- everything from B&H Photo to Fry's Electronics and more -- only list the 16GB for sale, and backordered. That surprises me since the $199 price is as appealing as the features. The higher-capacity model sells for 50 bucks more.

    The 16GB Nexus 7 is special order from Staples, in stores -- forget online. However, I called my local store, where an associate told me that "every Staples in the area sold out". He expects 8GB tablets in stock by the end of the month and the larger capacity middle of August.

    What Google Says

    Google has posted updated shipping information, and not just for the United States:

    We’ve had incredible demand for our new Nexus 7 tablet and are shipping them as quickly as possible. When your device ships you will receive a notification from Google Play with a shipping tracking number. We will have all orders placed through July 13 processed and shipped soon. Orders placed after July 13 will ship according to the quoted timeframe when you purchased and we will update you with a tracking number when we've shipped. Thanks for your patience.

    Below are more specific details by country for devices ordered through July 13. If the below information is not true for you, and you ordered on or before July 13, please reach out to our support team so we can investigate.

    In the US:

    We’ve shipped all standalone Nexus 7 8GB orders (e.g.: those without a case, charger or Nexus Q). By the end of day on July 19 (PDT), we will have shipped all standalone Nexus 7 16GB orders placed through July 11 (PDT), and upgraded these orders to overnight shipping. We will process the remaining standalone Nexus 7 16GB orders by the end of next week with overnight shipping.

    If you ordered your tablet with a case, charger or Nexus Q, your Nexus 7 will ship this week with overnight shipping, in some cases ahead of the rest of your order. But don’t worry, the rest of your order will be on its way soon.

    In Canada:

    We’ve shipped all Nexus 7 8GB orders. We are in the process of shipping Nexus 7 16GB orders and will ship them in 1-2 weeks.

    In the UK:

    All Nexus 7 8GB orders will ship by July 20 (BST). All Nexus 7 16GB orders placed through June 30 (BST), will ship by July 20 (BST). The remaining Nexus 7 16GB orders will ship next week.

    In Australia:

    All Nexus 7 8GB and Nexus 7 16GB orders will be fulfilled by the end of day on July 19 (AEST) and will arrive in 3-5 days.

    Early Reaction

    Joy is pejorative across techdom. Nexus 7 owners are mighty pleased, if social network postings are any indication.

    Michael Dominick: "Loving the Nexus 7. I may finally have found a device I like more than my iPad well done #android. Makes me really want to refocuses a bit. Of course then I use the Kindle FIre and run back to the iPad or Nexus ;)"

    Coincidentally, as I started writing this section, Brian Fagioli chatted: "Unlocked, rooted and on a custom ROM already. Love this n7!" I replied: "Beats the hell out of iPad, doesn't it?" "Totally. I'm in love". He sold a first-generation iPad to buy Nexus 7.

    Fagioli isn't alone. "Not gonna lie, this Nexus 7 is the real deal. The ipad1 may be going into an early retirement", Erik Westin remarks.

    Linux creator Linus Torvalds received his Nexus 7 yesterday but has "absolutely nothing to report". Do get back to us, Linus.

    Rob Horton: "First impressions of my Google Nexus 7: Google has put forth a winner! Totally rocks!!!"

    Satisfaction with device and Jellybean is tasty cake, but people want -- and aren't getting -- the icing. "Loving the Nexus 7. Definitely the right size for a tablet", Michael Heller posts. "Of course, it is also letting me see that the Play Store selection for tablet apps can be a bit wonky. Not to mention the ever present issue of apps not being compatible with the newest Android update. I cannot understand why devs put a platform version ceiling on apps. If NBA Jam worked on ICS, there's no reason it shouldn't work on JB".

    Rashun Roc Mallory: "Loving the Nexus 7! Think I'm sticking with the pure Android experience for a very long time. I'm a believer lol. And I didn't think I'd like a 7 inch tablet -- boy was I wrong".

    Did you get Nexus 7? Do you love it? Do you not?

    I've already done a first-impressions review and likely will do another. What I'd really like is your review. In comments is fine, but for publication with your byline, bio and photo is better. Please email joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/17/Microsoft_moves_your_Office_to_the_cloud'

    Microsoft moves your Office to the cloud

    Publié: juillet 17, 2012, 4:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There's a reason CEO Steve Ballmer unveiled Office 2013 early this afternoon. Microsoft's productivity suite has a new face, so to speak. His presence communicates the company's commitment, particularly to businesses -- many of which are gun shy to big changes. The new version really isn't about applications after all but the cloud. Sure, the new suite is finger-licking good, however, it's what Microsoft offers beyond the device that matters more. The software giant is in process of completely reinventing Office for the cloud-connected device era.

    The new Office is just that -- a new office for you to do you work. Your new cubicle is outdoors, or anywhere you want to be. In this new workplace Microsoft wants you to pay differently, too, by pushing subscriptions instead of your paying once for perpetual licenses. Ballmer and Co. prefers to collect monthly fees, just like your cable provider. Subscription computing is the Holy Grail sought by Microsoft since the 1990s and something of a pseudo-achievement a decade ago with business annuity license contracts.

    Along with today's Office 2013 preview, Microsoft also announced four new cloud subscription plans. Office 365 will expand to "Premium" offerings Home, Small Business, ProPlus and Enterprise. The subscriptions will include access to Office 2013 apps on up to five PCs (Windows or OS X) or mobile devices.

    The forthcoming plans point to a simpler, more straightforward approach to Office 365, which current subscriptions are more complicated -- for example, using designations like P1 and E3 to describe them.

    Pricing and fuller plan details are expected in autumn, which tips off availability. According to Microsoft, the four new editions will be the following, available first as previews:

    Office 365 Home Premium Preview: Install Office on up to five PCs and get an additional 20 GB of online storage on SkyDrive so that you can save and share your documents online. Home Premium includes Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, OneNote, Access and Publisher.

    Office 365 Small Business Premium Preview: Ideal for businesses with up to 10 employees, each user can install Office, getting the same applications that are included in Office 365 ProPlus on up to five PCs per user, and enjoy professional email, shared documents and HD videoconferencing in an easy-to-manage solution that is hosted by Microsoft.

    Office 365 ProPlus Preview: Create up to 25 user accounts, with five installations of Office 365 ProPlus per user. It includes Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, OneNote, Access, Publisher, InfoPath and Lync.

    Office 365 Enterprise Preview: Get the benefits of Office 365 ProPlus combined with Exchange Online, including archiving and legal hold to fully manage your company's email in the cloud. It also includes SharePoint Online to manage and share documents and Lync Online to allow you to conduct meetings and collaborate across remote teams and team members.

    The final version of Office 365, when available, will include Office for Mac.

    Game Plan

    Microsoft has five major objectives behind its new Office platform strategy:

    1. Maintain the relevance of PC software. The transition from the personal computing to cloud-connected device eras is unmistakable. Cloud companies like Google shift computing and informational relevance to the cloud and drive it back to the device. Microsoft drives it the other way, leveraging off the huge Office System customer base. The strategy is sensible, but execution complicated and a process started years ago. This release cycle promises to be the one where there's seamless experience whether using software on a PC or over the Internet.

    2. Extend the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the datacenter. Microsoft dominates the most successful applications stack on the planet. But in the cloud-connected era, it's not enough, which relates to #1 and #4. Incumbency is a huge advantage, but not if BYOD (bring your own device) to work supplants you (There's no Office for Android or iOS). Microsoft bets that Surface, other Windows RT tablets, Windows 8 devices and the cloud will, along with Office System apps and servers, be the winning combination that keeps its apps stack the preferred choice, particularly among businesses.

    3. Take out Google Apps. Ballmer once treated the hosted suite as little more than an annoying gnat and later a yappy mutt. But Google racks up customers, by turning Apps, Gmail, Google Talk and other services into a suite that's "good enough" for much lower cost (typically ranges free to $50 per user/year); businesses are adopting Apps. Microsoft believes that Office desktop and cloud, particularly with revised subscription pricing and seamless sync, offer so much more. Again, turning incumbency back into a major asset is key.

    4. Provide customers what they want most. The PC is no longer the only device most people use, and Gartner claims that within two years the cloud will replace the personal computer as primary digital content hub. Stated differently: People want access to their stuff anytime, anywhere and on anything. Microsoft seeks to do just that without disrupting its major Office system revenue stream. The hybrid apps/cloud strategy seeks to have Microsoft's cake and let customers eat it, too.

    5. Make money. That seems obvious, but it's not. The Office division now generates more revenue and profit than Windows. Microsoft's challenge is how to rock the cart without spilling it over. That's why the cloud strategy is so important -- where for many customers Office 365 is primary product; they get productivity apps as part of the service, while paying ongoing subscription fees. If successful, Microsoft will further smooth revenue highs and lows. Meanwhile Microsoft ensures customers' software is up to date, which lets it deliver more benefits faster, removes IT management burdens and makes happy subscribers willing to keep paying. By comparison, out-of-date software that IT must qualify and test leads to dissatisfaction and defection (to services like Google Apps).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/16/Holy_Moly__Google_s_Marissa_Mayer_takes_over_Yahoo'

    Holy Moly, Google's Marissa Mayer takes over Yahoo

    Publié: juillet 16, 2012, 10:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Suddenly there's hope for the iconic Internet brand.

    After the market closed today, Yahoo named Marisa Mayer chief executive officer, someone with the chops capable of reviving the struggling online giant. Mayer is best known for her role at Google, where she has had huge influence over cloud products during much of the last decade.

    "I am honored and delighted to lead Yahoo, one of the internet's premier destinations for more than 700 million users", Mayer says. "I look forward to working with the company's dedicated employees to bring innovative products, content, and personalized experiences to users and advertisers all around the world". (That's about the most canned response coming from Mayer ever, I must say. What PR wonk wrote that?)

    "Yahoo's products will continue to enhance our partnerships with advertisers, technology and media companies, while inspiring and delighting our users", Mayer emphasizes. "There is a lot to do and I can't wait to get started".

    Mayer's G+ profile still has her working at Google, where she was vice president of Local, Maps & Location Services. She posts: "I'm incredibly excited to start my new role at Yahoo tomorrow".

    Giant Leap

    Obviously, CEO is a big step up from veep. But she is, or was, Google employee #20 and a visible one at that. She's a huge loss to Google and enormous gain for Yahoo. If among American tech executives there is a female version of Steve Jobs, Marissa Mayer is it. She has long been the public face of Google and most visible spokesperson. The Stanford graduate, who joined the search giant in 1999, leaves a huge hole behind her.

    "Marissa is a well-known, visionary leader in user experience and product design and one of Silicon Valley's most exciting strategists in technology development", David Filo, Yahoo cofounder says.

    "The board of directors unanimously agreed that Marissa's unparalleled track record in technology, design and product execution makes her the right leader for Yahoo! at this time of enormous opportunity," Yahoo Chairman Fred Amoroso adds.

    Yahoo stock rose more than 2 percent in early after-hours trading (to $16), which isn't surprising. After a series of dismal CEO choices, the cloud services provider finally picks someone with the right experience and proven track record. More significantly, Mayer shows real knack about consumer branding and online user interfaces. Her touch can be seen across a swath of Google products -- magic Yahoo desperately needs.

    However, working for a company on success track and running one heaving to keep pace are quite different. While Mayer had her share of the Google spotlight, she will find the glare blinding at Yahoo. Expectations will be high from everyone, as she tries to deliver immediate results while making longer-term changes Yahoo needs but shareholders may be impatient to accept.

    Brand Equity

    But Mayer brings more than just experience and wherewithal. She has established brand equity around her abilities and visibility at Google. Her personal brand image may rub a little shine onto Yahoo's iconic but somewhat tarnished one.

    Some of the sentiments expressed on Google+ today reflect her brand equity and real success at Google. "I just can't believe this! #MarrissaMayer but she will be the person that changes Yahoo for the better", Kurtis Washington shares.

    "If anyone can make Yahoo! cool again it's her", Joshua Grooms writes.

    Christina Collada, who also works at Google: "Exciting to see a women who I admire very much assume a CEO position in a such a major tech company, but also very sad to see her leave us!"

    Yahoo needs someone with Mayer's credentials and track record. In May, the company ousted Scott Thompson for fudging his résumé -- that after about five months on the job. Thompson replaced Carol Bartz, who Yahoo's board unceremoniously fired in November 2011. She replaced cofounder Jerry Yang, who was forced out, too.

    Yahoo burns through CEOs faster than San Diego's July 4th fizzled fireworks. Can Mayer be the exception? The answer has as much to do with what she brings as how she performs. Her personal brand equity and visibility at Google will raise expectations about just how well she will do.

    What Mayer will need most is time and patience the board of directors and shareholders were unwilling to give her predecessors. Good luck, Marissa. You'll need Steve Jobs charm to keep the hounds from snipping your high heels.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/16/Who_will_buy_Windows_8_'

    Who will buy Windows 8?

    Publié: juillet 16, 2012, 7:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Quite likely you, or somebody you know -- and as soon as possible.

    Early results are in for our Windows 8 buying poll, and many of you are ready to upgrade. More than 46 percent of you will buy the new operating system as soon as it's available to you. Volume-licensing subscribers get the software in August and everyone else in October. Twenty-one percent and 25 percent of respondents will jump in immediately, respectively. Nearly 55 percent will go Windows 8 within 3 months of release. The remainder either will wait much longer or not buy at all.

    Microsoft clearly wants Windows 8 to be big right from Day 1. The company will offer $39.99 upgrades, even from XP, to Windows 7 Pro through early next year. People running the Release Preview qualify, too. Aggressive pricing and generous upgrade policy are almost desperate moves, compared to past Windows launches. Microsoft has reasons to worry, with Windows PC sales way down and Apple selling OS X Mountain Lion for $19.99. Then there is the iPad phenomenon, which, in the United States, sucks sales from personal computers.

    Reacer donzebe is "going to upgrade my three computers from windows 8 Release Preview to windows 8".

    Jeremy Benisek answers: "YES!" Adding:

    Can't wait for Kinect on 65-inch TV running off my PC, Tablet(Touch, Pen) connected to my workstation! In the beta W8 has made life so much easier with domain-Microsoft ID linking. I for the first time took control of all my files on 7+ PC's in five different offices (and domains) with my Microsoft ID -- now I'm in control. Microsoft just build's the platform I think after a few months the dev will take off with new features, apps, services and new ways to interact...

    Today I use Kinect more than my remote for Netflix, Hulu, Zune, radio, music and all media related interactions. I use voice for my Video games and love it...So I believe in and support the input changes and Metro for PC, tablets and much more. I want more voice, touch, pen and Kinect-style interactions. Add 3D, and it's a match made in heaven.

    "Win8 seems to be faster that 7 and I love the system refresh function. However, the Metro UI is complete mistake on desktops", Tom Zolnierczyk comments. "Lack of Start button with search function is the biggest mistake MS could do. The ability of disabling Metro UI would convince me to purchase the system. I found myself being distracted going back and forward to find applications, etc."

    Neoprimal also answers "Yes, ASAP. So far every PC in my household runs either the same as 7 or better with 8. I'm planning to buy it even for my dusty old betsy machine. To those saying it's the same old OS, you're grossly off, but you likely said the same thing of 7 and Vista, adopted late and changed your tune".

    "Looks like a lot of people in survey are going with Win 8", observes view2share, who "after experimenting with the beast a couple of times, I have yet to return. Can find no redeeming quality about it, other than a quick restore feature. The Win 7 I have is just fine. The Win 8 made my head spin, looked a little cool for five to ten minutes, then it became a nuisance of sorts. Went back a couple of time to test it again, and still found nothing exciting there at all...Not sure if the new Mountain Lion will be all that much of an improvement -- overall desktop on Mac is a tad tired looking, but efficient. Anything is better than Metro".

    "Positives way outweight the negatives here. Everyone is so ready to slam Metro when, in actuality, I think Metro may be what keeps it relevant", Brandon Mills writes. "HTPC upgrades are a must. That's already two licenses sold to me. I'm already hooked on the Release Preview. Another license sold. There is also the Surface tablet I want as my tablet...The desktop is still there and usable. I use the desktop as my main IT work rig every day. If you arrange your Start Screen the way you want it, you may even prefer it to the old Start Menu".


    Enterprises can get Windows 8 in August 2012, while consumers wait until October. Will you buy Windows 8?

    Edna_Bucket: "Sweet mercy, Mr Wilcox, you're a caution, sir, a caution. Nobody is going to buy Windows 8, except Microsoft's marketing team and the Spaghetti Development Engineers who wrote it. They get a $39.99 employee discount, the lucky rascals".

    IT admin Loren Bordeaux disagrees: "Windows 8 will be huge. Many of the naysayers are likely people that just can't deal with change. I think what Microsoft has done with Windows 8 is brilliant. There will be some that just dig in their heels because it's not what they're used to but they'll be sadly left wallowing in the morass of historical UI experience of the last three decades".

    "Of course I'd buy Windows 8", smarterthanuare comments. "Microsoft has had a very, very long history of making the best consumer desktop operating system in the world. Windows Vista was more stable and significantly faster than Mac OS X at the time of its release. Windows Vista was less frustrating to use than any other consumer desktop OS. Windows 8 is even better. For the first time people who have never used a computer before can learn to use one in a few short minutes. Mac's have never been this easy to use and to this very day they crash constantly".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/15/Comic_Con_2012__Red_vs_Blue__video_'

    Comic-Con 2012: Red vs Blue [video]

    Publié: juillet 15, 2012, 5:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    On Day 3 of the Con, I spoke with two voice actors behind popular animated series "Red vs Blue", which is based on Microsoft's Halo series games. You know them as Agent Carolina and Agent Washington.

    The story Xbox gamers experience isn't enough, if 10 seasons of "Red vs Blue" is any indication. Episode 6 is live now. Uh-oh, Jen Brown suggests big trouble awaits Agent Carolina.

    (I shot this video, like others, using the Galaxy Nexus smartphone. But unlike the others, there's a problem with exposure and contrast, which I will try to fix in further post-production. I don't immediately have time with one more day of Comic-Con ahead.)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/15/Comic_Con_2012__Android_Collectibles_artist_Andrew_Bell__video_'

    Comic-Con 2012: Android Collectibles artist Andrew Bell [video]

    Publié: juillet 15, 2012, 5:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Android has one of the cutest and most-easily recognized mascots/brand figures around. But there's more to it than just being green. Dead Zebra produces a series of popular Android figure collectibles. Artist Andrew Bell started the company a dozen years ago and, sanctioned by Google, released the first Android designs in 2010. Bell and Co. created a special Comic-Con set, just 1,000 of them, for the event.

    Dumbrella is one of my favorite Comic-Con booths. I stopped by on Day 1 to look at Android collectibles only to find myself behind four people each holding the Comic-Con set purchased at the other end of the hall. Bell worked the booth, and they wanted autographs. What luck, I bought the $25 two-Android set earlier in the afternoon. He signed mine, too, and agreed to an interview.

    Born in England, but raised here, Bell is personable and unassuming. He's as likeable as the droids he and other Dead Zebra artists create. I shot the video using Galaxy Nexus, which Bell asked to see. He is considering buying one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/15/Comic_Con_2012__Kingdom_of_Loathing__video_'

    Comic-Con 2012: Kingdom of Loathing [video]

    Publié: juillet 15, 2012, 4:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Comic-Con ends here in San Diego. I'm headed downtown for my fourth day in a couple of hours. I've chronicled the show on Google+ and really should have posted here, too. To rectify this terrible oversight, I picked three video interviews most likely to appeal to BetaNews readers. First up: Zach Johnson, creator of online multiplayer game Kingdom of Loathing.

    Johnson can't quite finish KoL, which has been in beta for nine years. He signed autographs for an hour on Day 2 of the Con, and I could barely approach the booth. The fan base is hugely devoted, such that KoL is, as I understand, profitable based just on donations. There's more to come. A new game launched, coincidently, as the event opened. Johnson promises this one won't stay in beta as long.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/09/Will_you_buy_Windows_8_'

    Will you buy Windows 8?

    Publié: juillet 9, 2012, 6:27pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I told you so back in February that Windows 8 would debut in October -- not that it was rocket science to me. Nevertheless I wrote: "Windows 8 must RTM by end of August to make October launch, which is best timeframe assuring the channel is stocked for Black Friday". Today, Microsoft revealed that its next-generation operating system would release to manufacturing in early August and be available at retail in October.

    Microsoft's timing is sheer brilliance. We already know that Surface tablets will ship simultaneously with Windows 8, and OEMs have shown off a boatload of new models coming for the holidays. Apple plans to release OS X Mountain Lion this month, perhaps in days. Anyone considering a shiny new Mac suddenly has reason to wait. Will Surface or Windows 8 slates be worth the wait? Mountain Lion's user interface is oh-so yesterday, while Windows 8 Metro is oh-so tomorrow -- well, for anyone who actually likes it. Now that we know when, it's time to ask if you will buy. That's a question you can answer in comments and the poll below the fold.

    Enterprise Cornucopia

    But wait! Enterprises won't have to wait until October, neither will developers. Software Assurance subscribers will have access to Windows 8 when it RTMs the first week of August. Meanwhile, the Windows Store will be open for business and allow developers to cash in on their apps. That's the other reason today's announcement timing is brilliant. Because of when Microsoft switched over to Software Assurance a decade ago, the bulk of renewals come in July. The August availability announcement comes as many enterprises are negotiating renewals. Many now have more impetuous to get those contracts.

    There's more to this. Surface, which runs Windows RT, ships with Office 15. Microsoft hasn't released a public beta yet, and the Worldwide Partner Conference -- where the company announced Windows 8 timing -- would be right venue and fit in with promised summertime. If there is no Office 15 beta, and should Microsoft use 2013 naming instead of 2012, the software likely won't be ready until late-year earliest. That's based on Microsoft's longstanding approach to nomenclature.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft will serve enterprises a software feast, which includes Windows Server 8 and new versions of Intune, .NET and Visual Studio, among others. It's an enterprise and cloud cornucopia all queued up for late this year and early next -- and, again, more reasons for businesses to polish up their Software Assurance renewals.

    Okay, When?

    Now, the question remains; Will you buy, and when? Microsoft hasn't announced pricing yet for businesses or consumers, but expect it soon. Meanwhile we know that special upgrade pricing will be available through end of January -- $39.99 from any consumer Windows version, including XP, to 8 Pro. My colleague Martin Brinkmann's "Four things you REALLY need to know about Windows 8 upgrades" is a must-read primer for anyone considering that $40 deal.

    Last week, I asked BetaNews readers about upgrading for that low price. Among the 1,057 respondents so far, 43.42 percent of you that qualify say yes, while 27.91 percent who could upgrade won't.

    Reader Jay Donnelly installed Windows 8 Consumer Preview last week, "and although it took me 2 days to work it out, it's actually quite good to the point I love it".

    Geoff Coupe: "At $40 a throw, I'll certainly upgrade my Win 7 computers to Windows 8 Pro. By so doing, I position them to take advantage of the improvements that W8 has over Win7 in the basic platform, plus I am positioned to take advantage of new stuff arriving via the Marketplace".

    Ben Cousins has "played with both 8 Previews and Server 8 Previews. They are both a pain in the arse to use. I have recently changed to (almost soul os) Ubuntu 12.04LTS. I'm starting to hate Windows more and more". Cousins is a developer.


    Enterprises can get Windows 8 in August 2012, while consumers wait until October. Will you buy Windows 8?

    Success or Failure?

    Overall, reactions are largely mixed to Windows 8, with the most negative clearly leveled at Metro (particularly used with mouse and keyboard) and removal of the Start button/menu from the legacy desktop. I absolutely expect Metro to pose a hardship for enterprises. My colleague Wayne Williams insists that "Windows 8 will flop", while Randall Kennedy asks: "What if Windows 8 fails?" Failure or success is really about definition and measurement. I expect that Microsoft will sell tens of millions Windows 8 licenses, while enterprise adoption won't exceed Windows Vista.

    By many measures, Windows 8 will be Microsoft's next Vista: Many buyers will loathe Metro and stick with or choose Windows 7 instead. That's not a bad scenario. Microsoft is trying to pull the entire Windows install base forward by making many radical changes. Take a pick. It's Metro on the desktop and back to the command line on the server-- and much more. Changes under the hood and user interface, including Metro and Ribbon, will give many IT decision-makers the willies.

    The majority of enterprises will have just completed or soon will finish Windows 7 deployments by the time Windows 8 is available to them next month. They wouldn't upgrade soon anyway. Best time for Microsoft to make major changes is during a release cycle with lower enterprise adoption. From that perspective, Windows 8 preps the install base for what comes next -- Windows 8 or RT slates now but, for most businesses, version 9.

    "I help admin a network at a LARGE company. We do not have a Win8 in our road map for future refresh", Ocram Schwarz comments. "No one in their right mind would put into a corporate environment. Our beta test group actually cursed at us after 3 days of testing [Windows 8]".

    Is your company similar? Different? Please take the poll above and answer below: Will you buy Windows 8? If so, when?

    Editor's note: Do to an error, the poll posted without "no plans". One-hundred seventy-seven responses were collected before we added this important option to the poll. We've recorded responses and will appropriately "weight" poll results when reporting them.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/08/Nexus_Q_first_impressions_review'

    Nexus Q first-impressions review

    Publié: juillet 8, 2012, 9:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google's first consumer electronics device is a baffling beast. Its industrial design shames Apple TV, Roku and other cloud-connected set-top devices, while the user interface will confuse some people accustomed to a single remote to scan content on the big screen. Nexus Q is all about the cloud and smartphone. The TV's role is viewing, and little more. Price is another matter -- $299, same as Apple TV at launch more than five years ago. But that device sells for $99 today, and, granted, offers far fewer options to delight videophiles and audiophiles.

    Nexus Q's promise: Your content anytime and anywhere there is a cloud connection -- and your friends' and families', too. Google calls the device the "first social streaming media player", and there's truth in the claim. But many of the basic streaming and control functions can be achieved simply by connecting your smartphone to the television. If you're going to use the handset as remote anyway, you could just as easily use it as source. That said, Nexus Q is delightful and its concepts represent a leap forward for media player industrial and user-interface design.

    For some people, that leap will be too far ahead, and I wouldn't be surprised if the return rate is higher for Nexus Q than other devices in this category. Price is one reason, as it raises expectations about the user experience, which is very good once you get used to it. Many people won't get that far, methinks. Along with price, there is the smartphone-as-remote concept and choice -- other devices that offer much less pizzazz but will be good enough for most people.

    Assessing UX

    Before explaining what that means, let's step back and talk design and user experience. In 2004, I first posted my four principles of good tech product design, which I expanded to six about two years later. It's by these tenets that I measure devices like Nexus Q. A successful product:

    1. Hides complexity

    2. Emphasizes simplicity

    3. Builds on the familiar

    4. Does what it's supposed to do really well

    5. Allows people to do something they wished they could do

    6. When displacing something else, offers significantly better experience

    Nexus Q easily fulfills the first two, almost to a fault. Setup is so simple some people will be confused. They'll expect it to be much more difficult. You connect the power plug and video or audio source; download the Nexus Q app from Google Play; connect via Bluetooth; name your device and connect to the Internet (either by Ethernet or WiFi; I choose hardwire).

    Then the confusion begins. What to do next? Clicking the Nexus Q app shows my device and its name, but where's the content? Apple TV presents a single storefront on the big screen. Nexus Q is more about the one in your hand and disparate apps to access content -- Play Movies & TV, Play Music and YouTube. You interact with the smartphone, not the big screen. For people accustomed to accessing content on their phone -- and I know lots of Millennials for whom it is primary device -- the concept should resound. But for most everyone else, the phone-as-remote and small-screen interaction is more likely to befuddle and disappoint. That said, I'm convinced anyone willing to give it a try for a time can be satisfied; more on that in a few pargraphs.

    There's sense to the approach, for its simplicity and for where Google wants the center of gravity to be. The search and information giant assumes, and rightly so, that our digital lifestyles revolve around cloud-connected mobiles, increasingly more than PCs. For people who largely use smartphones to consume content, Nexus Q is a great fit. They can tap the play button to view or listen on their device or tap again to play on Nexus Q. Should they have more than one Q in the household, they can choose among them (since I have but one, I couldn't test this feature).

    Not For Everyone

    The approach, when used, emphasizes simplicity, hides complexity and builds on the familiar. For some people. For those folks whose lives don't revolve around mobiles and are accustomed to a single remote accessing content on the big screen, Nexus Q is more likely to be complex and unfamiliar.

    The point: The media streaming device isn't for everyone and may not be for most people. More perplexing: I suspect that the people for whom Nexus Q would be most familiar and appropriate are younger with lower incomes (like students or those fresh out of college); for them $299 may be too high, while they can get similar benefits elsewhere by spending much less.

    There's another sensible reason for making the phone the remote. Nexus Q is meant to be used without a TV, too, for those folks using it just to stream music. Your music isn't stored locally but in the cloud. You have to access it somehow, and Google wisely chooses the smartphone. The approach also resonates with social sharing. The Nexus Q owner can allow guest access so that other people can queue up their content and even control the playlist. Personal phones act as multiple remotes that extend Nexus Q capabilities and take it where no other competing consumer cloud device goes.

    Then again, for people who don't need or want this capability, phone-as-remote actually adds complexity, and inconvenience. Family members can easily share a universal remote, but who is going to give up his or her phone -- if it's available at all -- to play content? That's because content ties to each person's individual Play account and individual Google ID. I've got more than 12,000 songs in my Google cloud, but my wife can't access it all with her phone. She and I can play our content but not each other's. So if I'm not home, she can't play my music or watch my rented or purchased movies.

    I think. The Nexus Q app supposedly supports Android phones running Gingerbread and above, but, for now, the app really only works on Jelly Bean (that changes on product release, Google promises). My wife's Galaxy Nexus has Ice Cream Sandwich. As such, I couldn't test the social sharing functions or determine the extent of content availablity from multiple Play accounts on one Nexus Q.

    OMG

    Nexus Q is a feat of engineering that puts Google in the same class as Apple, and really in some ways above. The sphere-shaped device is beautiful, in part for its simplicity and the way its circularity contrasts with rectangular consumer electronics devices alongside where it sits. Thirty-two LEDs circle the sphere, using color to let you know, say, whether Nexus Q is connected to the Internet or not. The sphere rotates around the LEDs to control volume, while a tap mutes sound.

    Google describes the enclosure as "die-cast, precision machined zinc bottom housing...injection-molded, interactive balanced top dome with precision bearing and satin touch coating".

    Beauty also is functional: Bluetooth, near-field communication, optical audio and micro-HDMI are among the connection options. Nexus Q is primed for digital audiophiles and videophiles -- all without adding more clutter to your dorm room, studio apartment or media space.

    Full specs: OMAP4460 (dual ARM Cortex-A9 CPUs and SGX540 GPU); 1GB RAM; 16GB NAND flash memory; 25W class D amplifier (12.5 watts per channel); micro-HDMI (type D); TOSLink Optical audio port (S/PDIF); 10/100 Ethernet; banana jacks; WiFi a/n; Bluetooth; and Android 4. Diameter is 116mm and the device weighs 923 grams but feels heavier, perhaps because of the die-cast metal exterior.

    Google offers a set of Triad Bookshelf speakers and banana-plug cables tailored for Nexus Q. They sell for $399 and $49, respectively. So to outfit your Q the way Google envisions costs $747, which is pricey for the functionality provided given there are plenty of good enough alternatives costing much less.

    Still, given the industrial design and connectivity options, I can only assume Google has bigger plans for the device, such as making third-party entertainment apps available. Hey, Nexus Q does run Android, after all. I could easily see Q for people wanting to cut cable's cord. But that's a future value proposition many people might not want to invest in today.

    I like Nexus Q enough to shell out $299 but that works for me in part because my music is stored in Google's cloud, I watch YouTube videos and Google Play is fine with me. However, if you've got content elsewhere, Q isn't for you. Choose another device, such as Roku or Google TV, to get content from Amazon and other cloud providers. Nexus Q is, for now, only for Google Play and YouTube.

    What you get impresses. Usage is straightforward almost to a fault and, as aforementioned, through one of three apps -- Play Movies & TV, Play Music and YouTube. My start: Renting "21 Jump Street". The process is familiar though I must acknowledge confusion at first figuring out how to play it on Nexus Q. Sometimes simplicity is confusing. Second tap of the play button switches from phone to Q. Google's movie selection is quite good, and I find exploring and searching for films much easier and more satisfying on the phone -- thanks in part to touch and proximity -- than on the big screen. Music playback or YouTube is easy. There's not much to describe, it's all so simple. By the way, HD video streaming is great -- best of class -- and audio super satisfies.

    Again, you will need the Nexus Q app first and for now it's only available for Android. If you own iPhone or iPad, wait until Google releases the promised iOS app.

    In the week since first using Nexus Q, I find myself preferring the apps to access content and now watch more videos on my phone than before. So Q changes my behavior and immerses me more in Google content and digital lifestyle.

    Wrapping up, I like Google's sphere, but recommend caution, emphasizing again: At its introduction, Nexus Q isn't for everyone and probably not for most people. There is much innovation and industrial design to like here. But Google needs to offer more content before the media-streaming sphere is ready for the masses. At $199, Nexus Q would be an easier-to-justify purchase, even to put a couple in the home. Bottom line: What's right for me, might not be for you.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/07/Techdom_s_Apple_aura_problem'

    Techdom's Apple aura problem

    Publié: juillet 7, 2012, 6:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Last week, Google unveiled its first consumer electronics device -- Nexus Q. If Steve Jobs were still alive and had announced the same product as "one more thing", there would be headlines everywhere that Apple had done it again -- that the fruit-logo company raised the bar and demonstrated its brilliance at design and innovation.

    Nexus Q is a remarkable product. The sphere changes fundamental concepts about entertainment. Content is in the cloud. Smartphones control the device, and they're also where users interact with content (e.g., small versus big screen). Users can share, say, music on the same device -- not one but anyone is in control -- and all without wonky, local digital rights management. Nexus Q attaches to any modern TV or sound system, and because content is in the cloud it's available anywhere the device goes. The sphere is beautifully constructed, too. But Jobs didn't unveil the sphere, someone whose name you don't even recognize did. As such, Nexus Q is largely ignored because stigma is attached: Apple didn't invent it.

    You can disagree, and many of you will, that there is an Apple aura blinding bloggers and reporters and many other people writing about high-tech. Apple is regarded as the true innovator, and too often the only one. What I hope is that in the post-Jobs era, the aura will diminish, now that the charismatic marketer isn't there to spellbound people with his "reality distortion field". (Of course, I would rather he retired than passed on.)

    I've long said this about a Jobs keynote or Apple event presentation: If he was having a bad day, you left with the feeling that if you bought new product X you're life would be better for it. But if Jobs was on -- if he was having a good day -- you left feeling your life would be worse if you didn't buy the thing. That was Jobs' magical ability, to sell aspiration. That's what great marketing is all about: Selling happiness.

    Jobs has left this world, but the aura remains. For lots of reasons. His influence will last through at least another generation of Apple products. Design takes time. Apple's brand commands high accolades and expectations about innovation. Something else: Many, perhaps most, of the people writing about tech use Apple products. Many use several, such as Mac laptop, iPad or iPhone. There's built-in bias they can deny, but it's really undeniable.

    For example, last week during Google's I/O developer conference, in any of the three (or was it four) press rooms, the majority of bloggers or reporters used Macs. That's every time I looked. On the afternoon of the second day, I actually did a quick count in one press room: 21 Mac laptops, three Windows PCs (two of them ThinkPads), one Samsung Series 5 Chromebook and lone ASUS Transformer Prime (Android tablet).

    How can the people using this stuff not be caught in the aura? I remember a computing generation ago when these same folks would have used Windows laptops -- and which company commanded most of the tech news then? Microsoft, like Apple today.

    I've griped about this problem before. Tech vendors are partly to blame for inventing great stuff and poorly promoting it. Apple's magic is marketing. Few other companies can cast the spell. But I can't help remarking on the Apple aura as I use Nexus Q more and more, and I'll better explain in my forthcoming review about its appeal.

    Apple would have release a cube, since the shape so enamored Jobs. Sphere is better and stands out against the rectangular edges so common in living rooms or media centers. But it is the concept, which emphasizes simplicity and hides complexity, and design that makes Nexus Q remarkable. Google's cloud-connected, social-sharing entertainment sphere is everything Apple TV should be and isn't.

    Use enough products like Nexus Q and the aura lifts, the spell breaks, and you'll wonder why you ever thought so highly of "one more thing".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/06/Google_Jellybean_smokes_Apple_Siri'

    Google Jellybean smokes Apple Siri

    Publié: juillet 6, 2012, 11:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    A week has passed since I started up my Google I/O-issue Galaxy Nexus and updated to Android 4.1 (aka Jellybean). Since then, my daughter and I faced off Google's Voice Assistant against Siri (on her iPhone 4S). The results aren't surprising. Google's depth as a search provider proves its wherewithal against Apple, which calls Siri a personal assistant. But Jellybean's feature, used alongside Google Now, is every bit more and every bit what a digital assistant should be. Siri sucks even more, by comparison.

    I will be absolutely clear: Together, Voice Assistant and Google Now represent a watershed development, living up to what Apple promises with Siri. Google has successfully presented its depth of search in a truly meaningful manner -- one that can change how people interact with mobile devices. If execution improves over time, particularly as Google Now learns personal habits, these innovations could be as important to the search giant as the development of its algorithm.

    Apple sours Jellybean

    But there's a strange twist here. Google removed important search functionality from Android 4.1 in response to US Patent 8,086,604, which Apple successfully used to gain preliminary injunctions against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus. Disparate app search remains, but not the universal search bar for the entire device. Sean Kalinich, writing for Decrypted Tech, does an outstanding job showing that Google brought to market similar capabilities on PCs, and received patents for them, nearly seven years before Apple got its patent in late 2011.

    Jellybean loses as much as it gains, making personal assistant capabilities much less than they should be. For now. Voice or text search in relationship of anything to anything (like contacts and interactions with them) on the phone is limited to non-existent. Google doesn't -- and probably won't until Apple's broad patent is overturned -- tie together things like it does on earlier Android versions. From that perspective, iOS 5 search and Siri are better, because Jellybean can't be. Apple patent bullying is to blame.

    Something else, and this is hugely important: I find voice recognition capabilities on Jellybean to be inferior to predecessor Ice Cream Sandwich. Perhaps it's just an issue with my device. But on my Galaxy Nexus running Android 4.0.4, voice recognition is nearly 100-percent accurate. On Android 4.1, there are lots of misses, which probably seem more than they are because the other is just so damn good. I wonder if this dumbing down also responds to Apple patents.

    From Hardship comes Inspiration

    Voice Assistant and Google Now are disparate yet united features. To anyone who has used Siri, Voice Assistant will feel familiar. You ask a question, and a female voice responds and displays a response on screen. Apple Fan Clubbers will accuse Google of copying. Tell that to science fiction writers from early last century or look no further back than 1966, when "Star Trek" brought a female voice response to computers. The idea isn't new, and Apple bought Siri anyway. What Google brings that Apple can't is depth of information, and I'll explain how in the next section.

    Google Now is a different beast altogether, and you must opt-in to use it. Most people probably have an inkling that Google tracks, or at least can, their activities. Google Now shows just how much and how useful it can be. The feature follows some of your activities and uses them to provide information before you ask.

    Sometimes from hardship comes real inspiration. Apple's patent bullying takes something away, so Google goes around it. You don't have to search. Jellybean knows what you want before asking. Google Now is for now limited to things like places, travel and appointments, but it's real power is what comes next -- when Google can truly include people and your interactions with them.

    Google Now presents information in "cards" and in Android's drop-down Notifications menu. Is there an accident on your daily commute? Google Now will tell you. "Will it rain today?" is a question Apple uses to promote Siri. You don't ask Jellybean, it tells you (okay displays in Notifications the weather forecast).

    Google Now is clearly a work in process. There's more the search giant will add, and you, too. Keep in mind, Google Now is bigger than Jellybean and taps into your activities using other Google products and services, such as Chrome, to build up a database of information important to you.

    The Big Face-off

    Apple Fan Clubbers will claim that Apple brought personal assistant voice search to phones first. Hardly. Google made the capability meaningful with Nexus One's release in January 2010. I've conducted numerous tests comparing Android to Siri, and Apple's tech lost every time (even if you read the text the one time the headline claims otherwise). What's different now: Voice Assistant brings female voice response and pretty presentation to visual responses. Android's responses are still more accurate, and they are way, way more meaningful. Apple is out of its depth, because Google has so much of it.

    My daughter asks her iPhone 4S for "directions to Sea World"; I ask Galaxy Nexus. The screenshots speak for themselves.

    As is typical of Siri, results favor the marketing of something. Jellybean briefly displays the card then presents a map with driving directions (sorry, you don't need to see my apartment on a map).

    We both ask: "Where's the nearest Pizza Hut?"

    Once again, there's no comparison between the usefulness of answers -- and Google leverages its depth doing maps, a functionality Apple removes in iOS 6 in favor of its own homegrown solution.

    We next try a common problem, regarding cats.

    Siri asks about doing a web search, Voice Assistant presents a search page. But this screenshot shows what comes next. Siri lets you be with the search page, while Jellybean presents other ways of filtering information, in this case images.

    We both then ask: "How do you make yogurt". Siri offers to search again, while Jellybean presents another search page. But below the results, Google presents options to search images, videos, blogs, discussions, books and more.

    This query was my first Internet search ever in 1994, using Gopher. My wife wanted to know how, and I found a recipe in a Czech university's database. It was absolutely the coolest thing then. Now, that kind of search is archaic. Watching one of a zillion YouTube videos is so much better, and I can find it so much easier using Galaxy Nexus than iPhone 4S.

    Out of fairness, and to show the difference in presentation, I'll show one that Siri actually got right. In my testing, Voice Assistant's worst performance was same as Siri. This example is no exception. We ask the population of my hometown.

    Both assistants offer valuable information. Siri's population is more recent, while Jellybean offers weather and, most importantly, source for population data.

    I could go on, but you get the point. Right?

    Editor's Note: We don't know the source of the top image, so we can't properly credit it. If you know, please tell us.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/06/Do_you_text_and_drive__Don_t__infographic_'

    Do you text and drive? Don't [infographic]

    Publié: juillet 6, 2012, 11:44am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    True story: While driving down Qualcomm Way into Mission Valley area of San Diego, a motorcycle cut across my lane. He moved from the right through the middle lane to the left. The guy was lucky that I saw him. I looked over while passing the motorcyclist, who was stopped in the left turn lane hunched over a cell phone. He had been texting! While driving a motorcycle! I've seen bicyclists do this, too.

    The folks over at CarInsurance.org sent me an infographic with stats about texting and driving that should just chill your spine. For example: Most teens agree that texting and driving isn't good, but 30 percent do it anyway. Thirty-seven states ban the practice. Confess -- do you text and drive? I don't. But imagine if I had the day that the motorcycle crossed my lane -- both of us texting and driving and neither paying attention to the road.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/04/I_declare_independence_from_Apple'

    I declare independence from Apple

    Publié: juillet 4, 2012, 10:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Since December 1998, when on impulse I bought the original iMac from CompUSA, I've used Apple gear. No longer. Late yesterday, I replaced the last fruit-logo with another, fulfilling my pledge nearly a month ago to boycott Apple. I wanted to declare independence sooner, but with so much news to write about in June and Google I/O last week, researching and replacing the AirPort base station was too much trouble. But it's offline now -- and, along with Apple TV, going on Craigslist today.

    Circumstances since choosing to boycott make me all the more adamant. Last week, US District Judge Lucy Koh issued two preliminary injunctions against Samsung devices -- Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus. Yesterday she denied Samsung's request to stay the ban pending appeal. Anticipating Nexus' similar fate, Google swiftly responded by pulling the phone from its online store and dispatching an update to existing phones. I chose to boycott being so angry by Apple's aggressive patent bullying that thwarts competition and takes away consumer choice. Today, I celebrate America's independence anniversary by gaining freedom from Apple.

    Rotten to the Core

    Sadly, in 2012, Apple is the company I always worried it would be. A decade ago, some of us journalists occasionally debated question: What if Apple was as big and powerful as Microsoft? Wouldn't we all be better off? I usually heard that question answered "Yes" -- that Apple would never be as aggressive or anticompetitive as Microsoft was during its PC supremacy in the late 1980s throughout the 1990s. I always answered "No".

    The problem: As a corporate culture, Apple seeks to control everything in its supply chain and is secretive about everything else. I saw Apple as being a harsh dictator if ever growing to dominate any part of the tech industry. That's proved to be the case, but much, much more severely than I ever expected, now that Apple is the giant. Apple exercises tremendous sway over component supply chains and uses vague software process patents to block competing -- and better -- products from distribution.

    The image of do-gooding, trendy Apple is inconsistent with its gruff bullying alter-ego. Apple is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and more and more monster than inventor.

    I'm an American, child of capitalism and believer in free markets being free and competitive. Apple wants to limit competition to terms it applies and choose the features in other company's products. Apple demanded the California court find Samsung in violation of 11 patents, later reduced to two but only one applied to the injunction. What irony, too. Google is master of search, but application of Apple's patent limits it -- dictates core functionality. Google's Galaxy Nexus update removes universal search from Ice Cream Sandwich, which also is gone from Jellybean. Yeah, I'm living that future now, and cursing Apple because of it.

    Search is a necessary utility. No patent should be able to limit it on anything. That Apple can shows what's wrong with the US patent system and how far the company will go to check competitors -- not with innovation but litigation.

    This morning, I sold my ASUS Transformer Pad 300, since Google's Nexus 7 (also made by ASUS) is good enough for my needs. The buyer and I discussed Apple's patent litigation against Android licensees. He says Apple lawsuits forced Android changes that have "lowered the IQ by 30 points". A phone without universal search isn't a smartphone. It's a dumb phone, he says.

    No Respect

    I can't express the amount of delight experienced over the years using Apple products, and so many: original iMac (1998); PowerBook G3 (1999); Power Mac G4 Cube (2000); Titanium PowerBook (2001); iPod (2001, 2004, 2005); PowerBook G4 (2000); iMac G4 (2002); iMac G5 (2005); MacBook Pro (2006); iPhone (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011); MacBook Air (2008, 2010, 2012); among others. But I've lost respect for the company producing them.

    Apple did, and still does, create a good user experience, and community around it. But I've never really regarded Apple as being the great innovator so many of the apologists do. Everyone copies. Everybody imitates. It's innate human nature. Youngsters learn to walk and talk by imitating adults. Likewise people learn social mores and fit into larger groups through imitation. So on and so on. Apple copies, as all companies do. There's nothing wrong with this process. It's natural. It's in our DNA. Yet the fanboys cling to some fantasy that only Apple innovates and must protect its so-called innovations by any means. Funny: Apple targets competitors.

    "Star Trek" creator Gene Roddenberry should have a serious talk with Apple cofounder Steve Jobs in the afterlife about who came up with concepts like utilitarian slates or computers that respond with feminine voices, among others. Who's copying whom?

    Exactly what is innovative about search, which use on computing devices long predates Apple's patent, or slide to lock. The latter mechanism has been used to secure doors for centuries. Apple didn't invent the concept, just applied it differently. Of course, the company deserves credit for the new application but not the concept or process. That applies to other companies, not just Apple.

    Microsoft has the better way, by the way. The company prefers to cross-license patents rather than sue. Microsoft uses patents to spread and share innovation -- to empower it by removing the threat of litigation for all parties. Apple is the clubber on the ice pack, beating down product conceptions like baby seals. Neither reaches maturity.

    In nature, crops or animals that overwhelm an ecosystem destroy competition and endanger all life there. Why do we allow Apple to behave similarly. Both are unnatural.

    Chopped Fruit

    Strangely, Apple abdication sends me to Google. If asked in early 2011 if such a circumstance was possible, I'd laugh. But since starting my personal boycott I:

    • Sold my Core i7 MacBook Air and replaced it with Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook (whether this is permanent or Windows 8 slate is in the future, I cannot say).
    • Sold my wife's circa-2009 MacBook Pro (13-inch) and moved her to the same model Chromebook; she's more than satisfied, except for some adjustment shock using Gmail.
    • Sold the new iPad, which I initially replaced with Transformer Pad 300, but in the end Google's Nexus 7 more than meets my needs.
    • Sold iPhone 4S and replaced it with Galaxy Nexus HSPA+, purchased directly from Google. I once had the Verizon model but couldn't afford splitting the family between carriers.
    • Stopped using Apple TV, which I had used alongside Google TV. Now Nexus Q is companion. I'll soon review the Google CE device. Apple TV goes on Craigslist today.
    • Abandoned Apple AirPort Extreme router and replaced it with the NetGear R6300.

    Any Apple services are mostly Google ones now. I'm done with iTunes, and can't use it on Chromebook anyway. I uploaded about 12,000 tracks to Google Music last year, so I'm covered there. Streaming is surprisingly good and really rocks on Nexus Q connected to our Circa-2008 Vizio TV.

    The NetGear router is newest purchase and done so in a rush. It's the kind of product I would typically get from Amazon, but I rushed to Best Buy last night so my independence could coincide with July 4th; it's a symbolic gesture and nothing more. The router wasn't cheap -- 200 bucks -- but with WiFi 802.11ac support struck me as investment protection, and I liked there is an Android app for using the device.

    I had planned to buy a Linksys router, but Cisco shenanigans compelling users to sign up for Cloud Connect accounts put me off. I'm glad, because the NetGear router easily set up, using a browser, which is what I needed for Chromebook, rather than some required software app.

    The router is my next-to-last act. Once the AirPort Extreme and Apple TV are sold, there will be nothing left.

    Some commenters have complained that if I've boycotted Apple, why do I keep writing about it. Hey, that's my job. However, I typically write more about companies which products are actually used, so expect me to pass more Apple writing to colleagues -- particularly after OS X Mountain Lion, iOS 6 or iPhone 5 release. I'll still write some analysis and spot news, because that's my job. Meanwhile, expect more stories about Google, which surely some of you will insist is changing slave masters. Shame on you.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/04/Google_sends_wrong_update_to_Galaxy_Nexus'

    Google sends wrong update to Galaxy Nexus

    Publié: juillet 4, 2012, 5:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Let me see if I understand this. Google, the company that perfected web search and through it changed the lives of billions of people, must disable the local functonality from its flagship smartphone -- all because of Apple? Now do you see why about a month ago I boycotted Apple and last week called the preliminary injunction against Galaxy Nexus shameful?

    Watch out. This is one Android update you don't want to accept. I asked my wife this morning: "Do you use local search on your phone?" She has Galaxy Nexus. My lovely looked up with a startled WTF looked and answered: "Yeah". Of course she uses local search on her phone. Who doesn't? You. If you own Galaxy Nexus and accept the update. It's the wrong one for Google to send out. The search giant should dispatch Android 4.1, which if, I understand correctly, changes search so that Apple's bully patent doesn't apply. C`mon, Google, you can do better.

    Judge Lucy Koh issued the preliminary injunction on Friday, but Google waited until yesterday to respond -- and wisely so. Last week, Judge Koh also issued an injunction against Galaxy Tab 10.1. Samsung, which makes both devices, asked the judge to stay the ban pending appeal. Yesterday she refused, raising questions to perhaps a similar request for Galaxy Nexus is doomed to the same fate. It is. She refused to stay the Galaxy Nexus injunction, too.

    Google's response was swift. Late last night, Android's maker let the world know that a search-on-device disabling update would come to all Galaxy Nexuses, regardless of carrier. Meanwhile, Google removed the smartphone from its online store. Galaxy Nexus is now "coming soon" with Android 4.1 for 50 bucks less than with the now-removed Ice Cream Sandwich model.

    Okay, I get it, Google, but why not give Galaxy Nexus owners some Jellybean now. Last week, at the I/O developer conference, Google handed out the smartphone to attendees. I got one. It boots up to Android 4.0.4 but later prompts for 4.1 update. Google already announced that Galaxy Nexus would receive Jellybean in mid-July. Well, frak, don't wait. Don't send people an update that disables features, send one that enables them. But, sadly, even Jellybean is without universal search available on Ice Cream Sandwich.

    Of course, manufacturers and carriers stand in the way. Many are slow about dispatching Android updates. Here in the United States, Verizon supposedly ships stock Ice Cream Sandwich on Galaxy Nexus, but then drags its ass delivering updates. Exactly how long does it take to qualify a point zero one update, Verizon?

    Three days ago, on Google+, I asked in comments responding to Kevin Gault: "Could defendant lawyers argue that Galaxy Nexuses Google ships with Jellybean be removed from the injunction? What irony, if the win bit Apple's butt by reducing fragmentation -- Sprint and Verizon rushing to Android 4.1".

    The next day, Google released the newest data on Android. In the 14 days before June 2, 10.7 percent of the phones accessing Google Play had Android 4.x -- small number considering the OS launched in October. The install base doesn't move forward fast. But what if Apple's injunction changed that, with a mad rush to Jellybean?

    If I were Samsung, which hasn't yet faced final judgment on Galaxy S III, qualifying Android 4.1 for July release would be top priority. And whoa be it to Apple if the unforeseen consequence reduced Android fragmentation, which would increase competition. Let me tell you, having used iOS 5 and Android 4.1, Google's OS makes Apple's look like, well, Windows XP to OS X Lion.

    Google, do the right thing. Celebrate America's independence by sending out Jellybean now to stock Android Galaxy Nexuses. Don't let Apple tax functionality without user representation.

    Image Credit: Brian Haslip

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/03/Is__40_too_much_to_pay_for_Windows_8_'

    Is $40 too much to pay for Windows 8?

    Publié: juillet 3, 2012, 5:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I've wondered for months exactly how much Microsoft would charge consumers to upgrade to its newest operating system. Starting with Snow Leopard, Apple slashed 100 bucks off the price of OS X, and the next version -- soon-to-release Mountain Lion costs even less: $19.99. With Apple so lowering the price-to-value proposition, could Microsoft continue to charge so much?

    Yesterday, the software giant answered by offering, for a limited time, a seemingly attractive upgrade price for Windows 8 Professional: $39.99. The pricing, available only through January 31 from when Windows 8 is available, applies to all versions back to XP -- and it's a big discount: Windows 7 Home Edition upgrade lists for $119.99 and Pro for $199.99, although street prices tend to be $30 and $50 less, respectively. Still, Apple has set a major operating's value much lower and the benefit to customers much higher.

    Microsoft's $39.99 price is only available direct, and users must make their own backup image or they can purchase a CD for $15 more. Anyone looking for a DVD, at retail, can expect to pay $69.99. What seems to be missing: Multiple upgrades for one purchase. I say seems since Microsoft may announce this option later -- or not. Mac users get it today. They pay 30 bucks for OS X Lion and install it on multiple Macs. Presumably, as has been standard licensing practice in the past, Microsoft will offer one-to-one upgrades: so it's $40 for each PC.

    From one perspective, Microsoft's launch upgrade price is a magnanimous discount: $40 for Pro instead of $200 and available even to XP users. Apple still offers more for less, although users pay a premium price for hardware compared to Windows PCs. From that perspective, Microsoft provides lots of value, because the hardware costs can be so much less to begin with.

    Measuring Value

    But how much of the value is real? That's versus public relations. If you're running XP on a 5 year-old PC are you really going to upgrade to Windows 8, which is better optimized for touchscreen than your mouse and keyboard?

    BetaNews reader Sourabh Mokhasi expresses my concern: "Windows 8 will run crappy slow on PC's designed to run Windows XP. What's the use of offering an upgrade to Windows XP users?" Craig Simpson: "A 10 year-old machine can't run Windows 8. I tried installing Windows 8 on a Pentium 4 with 2GB of RAM to see if it would work and it completly refused to install".

    Additionally, users won't bring the same things with them when upgrading. Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc explains:

    You will be able to upgrade from any consumer edition of Windows 7 to Windows 8 Pro and bring everything along which includes your Windows settings, personal files, and apps. If you are upgrading from Windows Vista, you will be able to bring along your Windows settings and personal files, and if you are upgrading from Windows XP you will only be able to bring along your personal files. Of course, if you want to start fresh, you can choose to bring nothing along. Or if you prefer to format your hard drive as part of your upgrade experience, you can do so as long as you boot from media and then format your hard drive from within the setup experience for installing Windows 8, not prior to it.

    Did you catch that? Consumer edition. The offer isn't available to everyone. Unless there's clarification from Microsoft otherwise, you can't go from Pro to Pro for that pricing. I ask again: Is there real value here or some smart public relations maneuvering?

    Something else: Value to Microsoft is different for its OEM partners. Manufacturers prep swank new Ultrabooks and tablets for holiday release. They're looking to recharge PC sales. Then suddenly Microsoft plays the Grinch, by offering consumers running Home editions a cheap upgrade to Pro. They can keep their older PCs and move up. Of course, the real value proposition will be touch and some users will upgrade to get it.

    What I keep wondering: What is the Microsoft leadership thinking? Does the temporary pricing respond to Apple, which will release Mountain Lion this month? Is there growing lack of confidence PC users will upgrade to Windows 8.

    BetaNews reader John Mann proposes plausible answers:

    Wow. I see a number of possible reasons.

    1. Competition has eroded Window's monopoly to the point where it can't charge $99 for an upgrade without losing market share.

    2. Microsoft thinks it can make up for the lost revenue with new revenue from the Metro Store and SkyDrive.

    3. Microsoft wants people to get hooked on Metro so they'll be more open to Surface and Phone.

    Think of it this way. For your typical user, Windows 8 isn't all that different from Windows 7 with the one exception of Metro. Microsoft is essentially selling "Metro for Windows" for $40 under the banner of Windows 8 to make it more attractive.

    Readers React

    Perhaps the answer to those questions are less important than the one to mine: Is $39.99 too much for you? Or is it just right?

    Some of you already have commented about your intentions. Shawn Plaugher: "No Thank You!"

    "Even if it were free, I see only downside in upgrading from Win 7 to 8 -- it's an absolute UI mess", markbyrn comments. Yeah, Metro isn't winning popularity contests.


    Microsoft will offer a limited-time $39.99 upgrade to Windows 8 Pro from older consumer versions, including XP. Will you upgrade for this price?

    "I would not upgrade Windows 7 to Windows 8, even if the upgrade was free, and I really do mean that seriously", Aires_OFFICIAL writes. "In my opinion this is a real-time downgrade. I don't care what it's got under the hood' I don't care how tight the code is; I don't care how many man hours have been put into this; I don't care how modern and up to date it is. I care about how it functions and its ease of use. For a PC -- major fail. Big. Huge".

    Microsoft should worry, if more loyalists are like Simpson:

    I am a devout apple hater. If I was given an icrappy, I would throw it in the bin or flush it down the toilet. I have always been a Microsoft user. But for the life of me I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing with Windows 8. It's stupid and can't be used properly with a kb and mouse. Heck even with touch it doesn't really work properly.

    It is a jack of all trades and a master of none. yes there is some nice features in windows 8 but they are completly overshadowed by the stupid and absurdly difficult user experience.

    The majority of comments we have in hand are negative, which is one reason I want to explicitly ask about pricing and get reaction to it. So I'll ask in a couple different ways, and you can chose question(s) to answer: Is $39.99 too much for you to pay for Windows 8 Professional upgrade? Will you upgrade to Windows 8 Pro for $39.99? What price would you pay to upgrade to Windows 8 Pro? Please answer in comments below and take our poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/03/Microsoft_ad_and_search_biz_is_a__6.2B_failure'

    Microsoft ad and search biz is a $6.2B failure

    Publié: juillet 3, 2012, 12:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Worthless. That's the description that best describes Microsoft's ambitious aQuantive acquisition, announced in May 2007. Today, after the market closed, the software giant announced a "non-tax-deductible income statement charge" of $6.2 billion booked last year. Fiscal 2012 closed June 30, so the timing has a deliberateness.

    Microsoft probably should have told everyone before the quarter's close. Doing so today, during a big holiday week (Fourth of the July), mitigates the negative news. Lots of people are on vacation.

    Microsoft paid $6.3 billion for aQuantive five years ago. When announced, the all-cash purchase worked out to a premium $66.50 a share; aQuantive closed at $35.87 the day before the deal was public. The acquisition was then, and still now, highly unusual for Microsoft, because of the exceptionally high price paid (Skype, at $8.5 billion is the only one larger). The online advertising agency was supposed to lift the sagging Online Services Business, for which there is no hope. The division has consistently lost money since fiscal 2006.

    Microsoft acquired three aQuantive assets, not all of them kept: Atlas, Avenue A | Razorfish and DRIVEpm. Atlas offered a broad range of tools for agencies, brand marketers, direct response marketers and publishers -- as well as custom research, search campaign and site optimization tools. Avenue A | Razorfish was a well-known rich media advertising campaign and professional services provider that accounted for the bulk of aQuantive revenues. DRIVEpm offered tools connecting publishers to advertisers.

    I've long wondered why Microsoft bought aQuantive, although Google-chasing is top reason. Like so much else that's wrong about the Online Services Business, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sought to check Google. A month earlier, the search giant announced plans to buy DoubleClick. Strangely, Microsoft paid more than twice as much as Google ($3.1 billion) and got more than it wanted.

    Like I said, Razorfish brought in the bulk of aQuantive's cash but wasn't the assets Microsoft wanted (or could use). In June 2004, aQuantive bought SBI.Razorfish for $160 million. The renamed Avenue A/Razorfish provided valuable ancillary advertising services that were important to aQuantive but not to Microsoft, which also paid much more for the whole company because of the one part's value.

    Razorfish's luster turned dull under Microsoft ownership. Despite being one of the world's largest interactive advertising agencies, Avenue A/Razorfish didn't fit with Microsoft's objectives for online ad agency aQuantive. Less than two years after the aQuantive deal closed, Microsoft sold Avenue A/Razorfish to Publicis Groupe.

    Is it any wonder that with the brain cut from the body, Microsoft had to turn off life support. But whoa, what a hospital bill! The measure isn't the $6.2 billion write-off compared to $6.3 cash acquisition but the costs of maintaining aQuantive operations and the artery bleeding Online Services Group -- not for 5 years but seven.

    "While the aQuantive acquisition continues to provide tools for Microsoft’s online advertising efforts, the acquisition did not accelerate growth to the degree anticipated, contributing to the write down", according to a Microsoft statement. You think?

    The charge relates to an assessment of goodwill, which for OSB at the end of fiscal third quarter was $6.43 billion, and largely derives from the aQuantive acquisition.

    Online Services Business generated $2.18 billion in revenue for the first three fiscal quarters, losing $1.45 billion. It's a never-ending trend. Microsoft boasts about Bing search share market gains, but bottom line: OSB is the ugliest beast in the dog and pony show.

    So far, market reaction is tepid. Microsoft shares are down less than 1 percent of their $30.56. Perhaps shareholders don't care, since the company claims no material impact, or too many are vacationing this week.

    The questions to ask: Should Microsoft exit the search and advertising business, and is the write-down preparation for a sale? Say, remember those Facebook buying Bing rumors from a few weeks back? I don't have answers, but surely sell-off is one reason to prune the tree.

    Photo Credit:  ARENA Creative/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/02/Does_Chrome_have_a_future_on_iOS_'

    Does Chrome have a future on iOS?

    Publié: juillet 2, 2012, 6:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There's a certain, sweet justice: While Apple stomps all over Android licensees in the courts after falling out with Google, Chrome tops both iPad and iPhone App Stores. Last week, Google's browser invaded iOS -- eh, was granted admittance to the App Store -- and is ready to put Safari out to pasture.

    On the other hand, the competition isn't exactly stellar. Chrome beats out Pinger, CSR Racing and Talking Ted on iPhone. (What? No cat video app?) But there is now a choice among browsers. On the desktop, Chrome retained its No. 1 usage share position in June, according to StatCounter. The question now: How long before Chrome deeply encroaches on Safari on iOS?

    Safari's iOS success is all about incumbency, locked default settings and lack of choice. You will use Apple's browser if there's not much else to choose from on iOS. Judging from the desktop, where Safari usage share is 7 percent to Chrome's 32.76 percent, most people would choose something else. Android browser leads on mobile devices, according to StatCounter, with 21.97 percent usage share. That compares to third-ranked iPhone Safari's 20.99 percent. Don't be surprised if Google's overall browser usage share rises in July.

    Last week, I asked: "Will iOS users dump Safari for Chrome?" Sample size to our poll is smaller than I'd like, but nevertheless relevant: 48.15 percent of you will switch to Chrome, while another 15.08 percent are thinking about it. Those are huge numbers that offer perspective why Chrome is top downloaded app on iOS.

    Chrome establishes an important beachhead, particularly for connected cloud services. Actually, Chrome, Gmail, Google Drive and Google+ anchor the search and information giant's alternative to iCloud. I can't help wonder why Apple would finally let Google have such footing on iOS. Overconfidence? Customer demand? I ask since Apple is renown for keeping App Store fairly locked down, particularly products that compete with its own. The answer is simpler and shows Apple exacting the kind of favoritism to its own developers that got Microsoft in heap loads of trouble with trustbusters a computing generation ago.

    To gain admittance to iOS, Google had to use Apple's slower UIWebView rendering engine (both browsers are based on WebKit), while, like other developers, being barred from using the Nitro JavaScript engine available in Mobile Safari. That raises question: How far can Chrome really go against Mobile Safari, if Apple's browser has imposed speed and default settings advantages.

    BetaNews reader capncoad "downloaded Chrome for my recent gen iPad last night. Renders pages a bit too slow for my liking. Nitro isn't just a small difference, it's night and day for me. It's too bad because it's not Google's fault and they should be allowed to use their V8".


    On June 28, 2012, Google released Chrome for iPad and iPhone. Will you swap Safari for Chrome as your primary mobile browser?

    "This puts it on uneven footing because of potential speed issues", rmo comments. "There is the separate issue that you can't change default browser or email apps on iOS, which also puts it on uneven footing by ensuring that links and whatnot will automatically open in Safari".

    Reader capncoad is still the kind of user Google should want, at minimum: "Ultimately I cannot use [Chrome] as my main browser but will have it for syncing purposes when needed".

    By contrast, rmo achieves Apple's objectives for limiting competitors' functionality: "Since I don't have anything to sync with Google and the browsers essentially render the same, I see no reason to switch. This is further complicated by the inability to set defaults, so everything I don't open directly from Chrome would open in Safari anyway".

    Well, maybe justice isn't so sweet after all.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/07/01/Google_Nexus_7_first_impressions_review'

    Google Nexus 7 first-impressions review

    Publié: juillet 1, 2012, 10:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Last week, Google introduced its first branded tablet during the I/O developer conference. You can preorder one now, for delivery in a few weeks: $199 (8GB) or $249 (16GB). Maybe you're wondering if you should get one. I'd like to help that decision-making process, having the privilege of using Nexus 7 since June 27.

    Nexus 7 is the most important Android device released to date. The tablet represents a culmination of disparate product and cloud services development coming suddenly together -- hardware, Jellybean, Chrome, curated content, seamless sync and personal assistant Google Now, among others. The tablet is first and foremost for anyone living the Google lifestyle. If you use more than a handful of Google services, this device, or Galaxy Nexus, is for you. Well, with caveats. Those aside, if you don't want this tablet, you really should.

    Size Matters

    I'll start with the big caveat that should matter to everyone: size. As the name infers, Nexus 7 has a 7-inch IPS display, which pits it against tablets like Kindle Fire or Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0. Is the size right for you? Most other Android tablets, and iPad, have 10.1-inch screens. Those tablets are bulkier, but apps are better optimized for their display size.

    I've used the new iPad but will hone in on the experience compared to Transformer Pad 300. ASUS makes that tablet and Nexus 7, and Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor powers both. Overall, I find that many of my most-used apps, such as Feedly, lay out much better on the larger screen. Google Play now offers magazine subscriptions. I sampled Esquire, which fills the screen nicely but is way too small for me to read without enlarging. On the other hand, I have similar problem with Rolling Stone on Pad 300.

    Something else: The overall usage experience is similar to Galaxy Nexus, which is good but raises question: Are they too close, meaning do you need a 7-inch tablet when you have a 4.65-inch smartphone? Wouldn't a larger tablet be better? I feel like Goldilocks in the Three Bears' house using Nexus 7. In some ways it's too small, others too big and nothing at first feels quite right. I wonder if Samsung has better idea by offering tweener 8.7-inch Galaxy Tab.

    That said, I find Nexus 7 very comfortable to hold, and it feels super light. It's a perfect throw-in-a-purse-or-backpack size. The more I use the tablet, the more the size feels right. Like Kindle Fire, the size works well for reading books, although I do that comfortably on Galaxy Nexus already.

    Size is going to be a matter of taste, but size for the price is just right at $199. I like the dimensions and feel enough that on Friday night I posted my Transformer Pad 300 to Craigslist.

    Plenty of Power

    I'm giving up Pad 300 in part because of price performance compared to Nexus 7. The difference is so stark, I'm amazed that ASUS makes both tablets. I moved from new iPad to the Transformer and right out of the box observed many stops and stutters, which surprised comparing quad-core to dual-core processors and getting good Android. ASUS ships stock Ice Cream Sandwich -- there is no skin, like Samsung's TouchWiz UI, and OS updates dispatch fairly quickly. I expected much smoother operation than I got.

    Nexus 7 performance is superior in just about every way, and there Android 4.1 may be a big reason. Google claims to have improved overall Android performance, by in part bringing more of the background operations in sync, such as processes and graphics, in what it calls Project Butter. The video below is Google's demonstration running Ice cream Sandwich and Jellybean on two Galaxy Nexuses.

    But there's more. Like Galaxy Nexus and Samsung, Google worked closely with ASUS on Nexus 7, attempting to create an end-to-end experience -- hardware, software and services -- without actually doing the hardware. That's a major reason why using Nexus 7 is so much like using a larger Galaxy Nexus, and that experience demonstrates Google's success meeting Apple without directly doing the hardware.

    My Galaxy Nexus outperforms Pad 300 in just about every way, and Nexus 7 more so -- in part benefiting from Tegra 3 quad-core processor and superior graphics. This tablet is a screamer, which is part of the allure over 10.1-inchers -- then there is price-for-performance consideration. You get all this buttery smoothness for $199 -- $200 less than Transformer Pad and Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 or $300 less than entry-level new iPad. Anyone dissatisfied with performance at this price needs a brain scan.

    Two Burning Questions

    Should you choose Nexus 7 over Kindle Fire or new iPad? Yes and maybe, and Google absolutely competes with both companies. Apple offers a curated stack of content services, supporting the hardware. Apple makes money from selling devices, while Amazon profits more from selling digital content and everything else in the online store. Google seeks to preserve and to expand the Android ecosystem as part of larger lifestyle approach around information and supporting services. The company makes money from the stuff wrapped around search and ancillary products and services.

    Amazon, Apple and Google share curation in common. That's because each in a way sells a digital lifestyle connected to their larger businesses. Each offers curated content like ebooks, games, magazines and newspapers, movies, music and more. There, Amazon imitates Apple, but tied to its humongous online marketplace.

    Google imitates Amazon. The initial Nexus 7 experience will surprise anyone who has used stock Android devices like Galaxy Nexus or Motorola XOOM. The tablet presents content widgets on the different homescreens, leading to, for example, magazines, movies, music and newspapers. For anyone having used Kindle Fire, the experience should be startlingly familiar. Google doesn't copy Amazon's presentation but approach in concept, which is enough.

    Nexus 7 or Kindle Fire? The tablets are comparable in size, screen resolution and storage. Nexus 7 offers better port options, Bluetooth 4.0 and front-facing camera, among other differences. The point: You get a little bit more on Nexus 7 than Kindle Fire. Then there is operating system -- Amazon's customized, largely locked down Gingerbread versus Google's more open, always-up-to-date Jellybean.

    I showed Nexus 7 to my wife, and within minutes she was ready to dump Kindle Fire -- and, hell, it was a Christmas present. So we ordered Nexus 7 for her. She will get the most important content benefits, while improving overall usage experience -- with Chrome over Amazon Silk browser being among the most likely. Kindle Fire transformed my wife's computing habits. She spends more time on the tablet than computer, and she's no geek! I expect her to spend even more time on Nexus 7.

    But the switch is costlier because $199 selling price isn't the same for both tablets. Amazon doesn't charge tax and because of Prime we don't pay shipping. We paid $228.41 after tax and shipping for Nexus 7. Perhaps you won't have to pay tax. We live in California, where Google operates, and it is required.

    Nexus 7 or new iPad? The other question, new iPad, is another matter. For many people, price and size will be among the top considerations. Nexus 7 is smaller and costs much less, but seemingly offers much less, too.

    For example, Apple boasts 2048-by-1536-pixel resolution, which makes Nexus 7's 1280-by-800 seem lowly indeed. But there's more than just resolution when measuring display panels. Google's tablet benefits from the smaller size, which better suites the lower resolution. Then there is quality of the IPS display. Meaning: Everything looks damn good! Pixel density matters, too. New iPad's display is 264 pixels per inch, while Nexus 7 is 216 ppi. In practical, everyday use, most people won't notice the difference. Both screens look great, but you pay at least $300 less for Nexus 7's.

    Other considerations: new iPad's larger display, more storage (16GB, 32GB or 64GB versus 8GB or 16GB), front-and-rear facing cameras, superior selection of interactive magazines, 4G LTE radio option and large selection of cases and other accessories.

    The point: You get a little bit less with Nexus 7 than new iPad. But is less more because of the lower price? It would be for me, but you must answer for you.

    This is good place as any for specs: 7-inch back-lit IPS display (1280 x 800 resolution, 216 ppi); 1.3GHz Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 8GB or 16GB storage; 1.2-megapixel front-facing camera; Bluetooth 4; WiFi N; accelerometer; GPS; gyroscope; magnetometer; microphone; near field communications; 4325 mAh battery; and Android 4.1. Dimensions: 198.5 x 120 x 10.45mm and 340 grams.

    Lifestyle Choice

    Google isn't just selling a tablet but a lifestyle, and Android 4.1 is the glue sticking everything together -- Chrome, too. Starting about six years ago, I called synchronization the killer app for the connected-device age. Google has got it down with current-release products and services, culminating in a personal assistant experience that simply wastes Apple's Siri (I've got more to say about the two together another time).

    Google Now keeps track of search, calendars and other features you opt-in to and uses synchronization to bring it all together. The idea: To anticipate your needs. Why search, when Google Now can give you information before you ask? For example, the feature offers alternate routes if there is traffic on your daily commute or warns if your plane flight is delayed (I could have used that one last week when Southwest cancelled mine to Google I/O).

    I got a taste of what to expect on Friday, from Galaxy Nexus running Jellybean. I opened the browser for the first time and got the prompt you see here. A few hours earlier, I searched for a local restaurant on the Chromebook. I was meeting two researchers from ESET for lunch. Chrome synced the search and asked permission to save the location as part of Google Now. If this stuff works like Google promises, I predict it will be as transforming as the search algorithm and (imitated) business model behind it.

    There are many other Android 4.1 benefits, which I'll mostly save for my review. But to get them, you need Nexus 7, which is the first device shipping with Jellybean. Google was supposed to start shipping new Galaxy Nexuses with the OS, but that's now uncertain given the outrageously stupid preliminary injunction given to Apple against Samsung on June 29.

    But briefly:

    • Flexible, expandable widgets give better control over what information that matters to you and presents it in more meaningful matter.
    • Expandable notifications look better and offer much more information than the pioneering feature copied by Apple in iOS 5. There's deep integration and sync here across Google services.
    • Voice search copies what Apple copied from Star Trek: Female voice response to questions (and gets more right than Siri, while offering tab access to images, videos and other relevant content).

    There is much, much more, best saved for my Jellybean review. But tied together, Google weaves a compelling connected-cloud lifestyle, which I'll further explain in my forthcoming Android 4.1.

    For You

    Google Nexus 7 is a joy to use. I can't yet comment whether it meets the stated, 8-hour battery life. But based on preliminary usage, the claim looks pretty good.

    The tablet is the Kindle Killer and is sure to woo people who want an exciting tablet that offers curated content without spending $300 or more -- $499 to $829 for new iPad.

    Some recommendations. If you:

    • Want a rear-facing camera, choose another tablet. You won't get it from Nexus 7.
    • Plan to create content on a tablet, choose iPad. Nexus 7 is more for consumption.
    • Use more than, say, three or four different Google services, Nexus 7 is best choice.
    • Are looking to buy a 7-inch tablet, choose Google's. I wouldn't recommend any other over Nexus 7.
    • Want to always have the newest version of Android, without skins or other enhancements, choose Nexus 7.
    • Long for Apple's Siri on a tablet, choose Nexus 7 -- and right now Google's assistant is better than Apple's.

    Nexus 7 isn't for everyone, but it is for anyone looking to spend $249 or less on a tablet or one that offers sound performance and 7-inch display.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/30/Apple_s_injunction_stopping_Galaxy_Nexus_sales_is_shameful'

    Apple's injunction stopping Galaxy Nexus sales is shameful

    Publié: juin 30, 2012, 5:03am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm ashamed of Apple, and myself for giving anything to iPhone today. To celebrate iPhone's fifth anniversary, I asked BetaNews writers to offer missives based on their experience using the handset. We published Wayne Williams' story on Wednesday, another by Chris Wright early day and my own this afternoon. Two other stories are in the queue. We'll run them over the weekend, however, instead of today. There's no longer any sense of birthday celebration in these halls.

    Today, US District Judge Lucy Koh gave Apple a great gift for iPhone's fifth, that I see as anything but. Apple's preliminary injunction against the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Galaxy Nexus is an outrage and demonstrates how far fallen is Steve Jobs' company from the innovative spirit that brought iPhone to market. The original set the smartphone market ablaze and brought Apple to unimagined success as seen from 2007. There was a time when Apple innovated rather than litigated and up-ended so-called copycats by making bold, breath-taking successor products. But that Apple is gone, buried with Jobs, who sadly left this world last year.

    Before the litigious spirit invaded Apple, innovation negated any need for litigation. iPod nano is my favorite example. In January 2004, Apple announced iPod mini, in five delicious colors, and started shipping about six weeks later. The music player immediately sold out. I luckily got one for my wife for Mother's Day because Apple Store Montgomery Mall opened that weekend and stocked iPod mini for the occasion.

    By autumn 2005, competitors started shipping iPod mini knock-offs to stores for the holidays. Rather than meet them, Apple did something truly innovative, from a product marketing perspective: Left them behind. The company killed off iPod mini at the height of its popularity, a simply unthinkable act in retail, and replaced it with something better. In September 2005, in a stunning product unveiling, Jobs showed off the diminutive iPod nano, pulling it out of the coin pocket of his jeans. The gum-box sized music player was an instant hit.

    Imitative Innovation

    iPod mini is a great example of what Apple does best: imitative innovation. The company culls from what others do and improves on it. Sadly, idiot fanboys will comment about how Apple imitates no one, just innovates. These guys really need to get out more into the real world. There's nothing wrong with imitation. There's everything right about it. Humans are gregarious and observing of each other. Copying, imitating is natural. How do you think babies learn to walk and to talk? They imitate adults.

    Designers are some of the biggest imitators of all, looking to past successes and extending them to the present. In 1927, Kodak commissioned Walter Dorwin Teague to design a new line of cameras. The company wanted to increase its cameras' appeal among women. Teague presented the diminutive Vest Pocket line in five distinct colors. Nearly 80 years later, Apple chief designer Jony Ive applied the same five-color concept to iPod mini. Similarly, like Teague presented a smaller camera, Ive designed a smaller music player. Ive learned from Teague and paid homage to him, appropriately. iPod mini was the Kodak camera of its age -- life-changing consumer tech for the masses.

    Jobs recognized the value of imitation as a way of driving innovation. In a 1990's interview he said: "Picasso had a saying, he said: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. We have, you know, always, ah, been shameless about stealing great ideas". That's what good artists do. They extend the great work of others and in so doing honor them.

    So it's no surprise that Apple expected imitation and chose to check it through continuing innovation. That's the lesson iPod nano teaches and subsequent other Apple products, particularly those that defied convention and in process imitation. The original iPod should have been easily imitated, but competitors didn't get why the product succeeded. I spoke to some of them during the mid-Noughties, when working as an analyst. They bulked up features, such as FM radio listening or broadcasting, all while sacrificing battery life. Apple prioritized other attributes, such as simply sync, long battery life and easy use -- meanwhile making iPod smaller and cheaper to buy. iPod was more by being much less.

    The Pride is Gone

    iPhone is another example of imitative innovation. Apple didn't invent the smartphone, but its slate-design approach, capacitive touchscreen and use of proximity sensors transformed the user experience. The original iPhone responded to users and took on human-like qualities. Two problems overlapped: iPhone's revolution became an evolution of further designs. Meanwhile some competitors, Samsung most of all, got what made iPhone good. Samsung's imitative innovation propelled it to become, last quarter, the world's top handset manufacturer, and also for smartphones, as measured by sales, according to Gartner.

    Apple fell behind Samsung, responding surprisingly. The Apple that once out-innovated competitors chooses to litigate when out-imitated. Rather than compete with Samsung and Android 4.x, Apple sues over patents -- many for arguably vague software processes. Koh's ruling is shameful. Apple demanding the preliminary injunction is shameful. The pride of 2005, when Apple outflanked copycats through innovation, is the shame of 2012.

    Today, court briefs are the true measure and extent of Apple innovation. Apple can copy -- innovation by imitation -- but no one else. Apple engineers, you should feel ashamed at what suits -- the people wearing them and cases they file -- your company has become.

    As an American I want to feel pride in Apple's accomplishments. Instead, three weeks ago, I boycotted Apple products because of the patent bullying. Today, I feel ashamed, because it's not enough.

    Linas T/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/29/The_iPhone_moment'

    The iPhone moment

    Publié: juin 29, 2012, 7:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Third in a series. Editor's note: To commemorate iPhone's fifth-anniversary, we present several stories looking at its debut and colorful history -- so far.

    iPhone is five years old today, and what a half-decade it has been. Apple launched the handset on June 29, 2007, marking its first foray into the cellular device market and with a single carrier: AT&T, which was Cingular before the launch. There were risks all around: Apple leapt into a market of sharks -- Nokia and Research in Motion, namely; AT&T bet the brand on the one device; and iPhone sold, locked and unsubsidized for $499 and $599 -- who would pay unlocked-mobile prices for a device that wasn't? One million people through early September 2007. For these early buyers, and perhaps for bazillion more who followed, iPhone isn't a phone but a cultural phenomenon.

    Before continuing that thought, look at what iPhone has done. Nokia invented the smartphone is 1996, and Apple reinvented it 11 years later by cleverly incorporating sensors and capacitive touchscreen that made the device responsive -- more human-like. Nokia and RIM led the market category five years ago, but now they're laid waste. RIM is near collapse and last quarter Nokia fell from the top market share position held for 14 years. Surely Android is catalyst, but would there be droids if not for iPhone. Manufacturers like HTC and Samsung needed something to compete and Windows Mobile wasn't it. Since iPhone launched, the handset market is heaved over. Last decade's market leaders are the dregs.

    This dramatic change started from the iPhone moment, when a perceptive set of people looked ahead to a different future. That's what I recall most about the handset's launch outside Apple Store Montgomery Mall in Bethesda Md. One buyer told me that the launch would change everything, and we would look back on the moment in 10 years or more and see so. Well, it didn't take nearly that long.

    Other buyers expressed a sense of community, of belonging to something greater, something good. Again, the sense of being part of a historical moment came through. The photo above pictures iPhone buyers Chris, Steve and Eddie. I went around asking people: "Show us your phones! -- what they would leave behind.

    I captured the iPhone moment in a Microsoft Watch blog post the following day, and I present the entire missive here as way of looking back and capturing the moment in historical context and for seeing iPhone's success as much about technology and culture as device innovation:

    Maybe the iPhone phenomenon is about purpose or community, making people feel like they can participate in something important or unusual.

    My wife put forth that theory this morning as we discussed my experiences covering the iPhone launch at Montgomery Mall in Bethesda, Md. No question, the people I talked to in line yesterday had a sense of being caught up in a historical moment.

    "I think this is a day that you're going to see a change in how computers, how handheld computers are done", iPhone buyer Steve told me yesterday afternoon. "It's a little marketing history. I'm seeing it that way...I think we'll look back in 10 or 15 years, and like on that day the gadget came out -- same thing with iPod -- it changed the game".

    Why are you reading about iPhone on Microsoft Watch? Again. In part because Apple, a cell phone upstart, has generated so much excitement about the iPhone. Microsoft has been in the mobile market for the last decade, with Pocket PC. Windows Mobile reached Version 6 this year. Yet, no Windows Mobile-based cell phone has ever garnered near as much interest or fanaticism as iPhone. Microsoft and its partners can learn much from Apple -- and not from the technology.

    Microsoft also must ask how it can reclaim the past. Windows 95 generated excitement -- that sense of history and belonging -- the company has been unable to recapture. Microsoft needs to understand what Apple is doing right and apply the lessons.

    The people turning out to buy iPhones yesterday made up one motley group -- representing a broad swath of America. I saw in the line people of all races, ages and lifestyles. For example, near the front, waited a brawny Hispanic dude, with cut T-Shirt that exposed a praying hands tattoo on his upper right arm. He looked more like the kind of guy who works with metal, using his hands, rather than holding a pretty cell phone. Yet he was typical of the people waiting; they shattered geek stereotypes.

    The line of strangers happily chatted, with me, with Apple employees and with each other. This moment gave them a sense of belonging together; of being a community and part of something bigger. In retrospect, I feel saddened they couldn't have joined together for some better purpose than commerce.

    Apple certainly contributed to that sense of belonging, of participation. The first person in line got there at 4 a.m.; the mall let him and others inside around 7 a.m. Apple store employees brought the line waiters bottled water, snacks and coupons for discounted coffee throughout the day. Employees chatted with customers, adding to the reverie.

    An hour before the doors opened at 6 p.m., employees ripped off the paper covering the display windows and set clocks on the two, large iPhone displays to countdown the hour. When the store later opened, customers passed through a human alley of Apple employees, who cheered and clapped. The cheering and clapping resumed whenever iPhone buyers left or entered the store.

    No question, Apple made iPhone buyers feel special, even for just a few moments, which, by the way, is a good tactic for endearing customers to the product or brand.

    Earlier, before the doors opened, when I asked Apple fan Chris if he was really buying an iPhone to be "cool", he admitted, "I do have my finger on the pulse of pop culture".

    Being cool is part of belonging, too, if by standing out.

    "We live in a world of gadget envy now", said iPhone buyer Eddie. "There was a time when people judged you based on your clothes or what type of shoes you had. Now, it's like what kind of cell phone do you have. All these people who are standing in line will be cool people for the rest of the week, while everyone else is upset, secretly fuming because they didn't stand in line for one".

    For a little while anyway, those first buyers will know who the are, the community they belong to, by the iPhones they see each other use.

    Later, after finishing the interviews and taking pictures, I went to the back of the line. There I chatted with a Microsoft solution provider, who more fit my stereotype of an iPhone buyer: Older, white male, who is very much into technology and gadgets. While installing and servicing Microsoft software is his living, the solution provider personally uses Apple products. He admitted using Windows XP on a Mac virtualized with Parallels.

    We chatted for about 15 minutes, before getting to the front of the line and being ushered into the Apple Store. I got caught up in the moment, too.

    Editor: Do you have a story to tell in celebration of iPhone's fifth anniversary? Please email your personal account to joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/29/Will_iOS_users_dump_Safari_for_Chrome_'

    Will iOS users dump Safari for Chrome?

    Publié: juin 29, 2012, 1:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's really my question for iPad and iPhone users. Today Google released Chrome for iOS. Will you dump Safari for Chrome? I would. But can't. I boycotted Apple earlier this month because of its patent bullying, which later succeeded in blocking Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 imports. What madness!

    In May, I claimed that I would use iPad if Chrome was available. Well, the browser is here and I won't, mainly because of the boycott. But also because I'm mad. To receive holy admittance into the Apple App Store shrine, Google sacrificed a lamb and prostrated before the great iOS idol. Chrome and Safari may both be based on WebKit, but Google's browser actually uses a different rendering engine. Well, not on iOS.

    Chrome for iOS uses Apple's slower UIWebView, which puts Chrome on uneven footing, since Safari is default browser no matter what. That's not by choice, but Apple requirement.

    Still, Chrome marks an important beachhead on iOS, and it's not alone. Google also released Google Drive for the platform today. In tandem, combined with Gmail, Google+ and YouTube, Chrome and Drive fill out a compliment of Web services competing with Apple's. Move over iCloud.

    Seamless sync across devices is Chrome's big kick-butt feature. I've said for years that synchronization is the killer app for the connected age. Google gets it and delivers, and better than Apple. But is that enough to woo you away? Again, that's my question for you.

    BetaNews reader Dennis Remillard says it "will be nice to have more Google apps on my iPad".

    smarterthanuare: "This is what makes Android better than the iPhone...the fact that you can install whatever legitimate app you want on Android without rooting your phone".

    We all know about Apple's App Store restrictions.

    Please respond to the poll and answer in comments below.


    On June 28, 2012, Google released Chrome for iPad and iPhone. Will you swap Safari for Chrome as your primary mobile browser?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/29/What_Recon_Instruments__HUD_SDK_means_to_you__video_'

    What Recon Instruments' HUD SDK means to you [video]

    Publié: juin 29, 2012, 12:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday at Google I/O, Recon Instruments announced the HUD SDK. I couldn't get time at the booth until today, they were so busy. Recon is best known for its goggle mods, which put an Android computer inside a heads up display that provides alpine skiers and snowboarder with all kinds of useful information such as speed, navigation and location, among others. Oh, yeah, music, too.

    The development kit turns the device into a platform. Now third parties can write their own apps -- it's no longer a Recon affair. Tyson Miller explains what the SDK means for the company, its customers, developers and future products.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/28/Meet_Google_Nexus_7__Kindle_Killer'

    Meet Google Nexus 7, Kindle Killer

    Publié: juin 28, 2012, 5:04am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I told you so, in April. Contrary to pundits at the time viewing Google's tablet as an iPad competitor, I saw something else: Google isn't gunning for Apple but Amazon. After getting my hands on the tablet this evening, and comparing the experience using my wife's Kindle Fire, there is no doubt. Google will probably save Android from Amazon, but the end cost may be greater gains for iPad.

    By just about every measure -- the exception being buying tens of thousands of retail goods -- using Nexus 7 feels like Kindle Fire, only better in every way. Significantly, the experience is different from using Google Nexus smartphones or other Android tablets. That's because Google Play is so visible. I can't say if that's a function of Android 4.1 Jellybean or how Google has set up the tablet. But content pushes to the forefront, like Kindle Fire, and much of it is similar.

    Make no mistake, Nexus 7 is all about content consumption, much the same way as Amazon's tablet and also iPad. Google offers a curated stack that feels end to end. Like Kindle Fire, also iPad, users can read books and magazines, watch movies and TV shows and listen to music. Sure other Android tablets can do these same things, but it's how that matters -- all coming from a single cloud store. Also, the different sections, say for movies or newspapers, feel much like using Amazon's store. If I wasn't at Google I/O, and so home, I would take screenshots of my wife's Kindle Fire and show the similarities.

    In the default setup, the main screens fill with Google Play content, one of these on separate screens: My Books/My Magazines, My Library, My Movies and My Music. Boundaries between device and content blur, and the approach is closer to Chromebook than any Android tablet. Nexus 7 is your life in a cloud device. Sure you access local content, but like Kindle Fire there is seamless integration with cloud content and device.

    Let's compare to see how much Nexus 7 is meant to compete with Kindlfe Fire:

    • They're about the same physical size with 7-inches displays.
    • Resolution is roughly comparable 1280 x 800, but Nexus 7's IPS display looks better.
    • Kindle Fire runs Android 2.3 and Google's tablet v4.1, and there is no comparison; Nexus 7 is smoother and lusher in every way.
    • 8GB storage is same, at $199, but Google offers 16GB for $50 more.
    • Nexus 7 has 1.2-megapixel front-facing camera; Kindle Fire none.
    • Google's tablet has WiFi and Bluetooth; the latter is missing on Amazon's device.
    • The newer Android has Tegra 3 quad-core processor (let's just not talk about the other).
    • Amazon offers its own Silk browser, which uses a unique server-caching system; Google serves up Chrome.

    Then there is the similar curated cloud content services and ways they feel alike.

    In raw performance and fluidity, Nexus 7 is nothing like Kindle Fire, or any other Android tablet I've used. Actually, performance feels very much like Galaxy Nexus, which is another Google branded, co-designed device (this time with Samsung). Until today, Galaxy Nexus was by far the best Android device I've ever used. The responsiveness of the touchscreen and overall using apps is very similar, and that's with different operating systems. My Galaxy Nexus has Android 4.0.4 Ice Cream Sandwich.

    This is one smooth performer, and I'm baffled by how much better than my Transformer Pad 300, which Asus also makes. Actually, I'll sell the Transformer soon after returning home, and I bought it for the quad-core processor and stock Android. Nexus 7 is so much better.

    But there's a problem. The user experience is so good -- and in ways oh-so like Galaxy Nexus -- I look at the two and wonder why have both of them. The 7-inch tablet doesn't feel that much larger than Galaxy Nexus' 4.65 display.

    Something else: Google goes where neither Apple nor Amazon can. Google+ is a huge differentiator and topic too big for this post. But briefly -- the social network and the many Jellybean enhancements that respond to your behavior and habits. The device is primed for the two Google+ killer features, Hangouts and the new Events. As for Android 4.1, multiple features, including revamped Notifications and new voice response, make the OS more of a personal assistant -- and by demo much stronger than Apple's Siri. But that's all topic for another day.

    In April I identified six things I expected Google's tablet to bear -- and they mostly related to killing Kindle Fire: Brand equity, $199 price, superior operating system, curated lifestyle apps, deep cloud service integration, and reference design for other Android licensees to follow. I see these all here. What I didn't anticipate: How closely Google imitates and exceeds the Kindle Fire curated apps, browser, operating system and services experiences.

    Nexus 7 is available now for preorder from Google Play. There's good chance I'll replace my wife's Kindle Fire with one very soon, and she loves that device. According to my buying poll, 47 percent of you plan to buy Nexus 7 within the first month of release and another 18 percent in three months. Is that Kindle killing or what?

    But is it enough to take out iPad? Not that I see. Nexus 7 success will prevent the Android tablet market from fracturing around specialized versions, like Amazon and Barnes & Noble offer. But the device is more likely to take away sales from these Android adaptations rather than from iPad. Six months from now? Who knows? If you think you do, please pontificate in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/28/Autodesk_cloud_goes_pretty_much_anywhere__even_Chromebook__video_'

    Autodesk cloud goes pretty much anywhere, even Chromebook [video]

    Publié: juin 28, 2012, 12:03am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Perhaps my biggest surprise walking around Google I/O 2012: Autodesk, and a Chromebook! Cough, cough, gag, gag. What the hell is this? Why would Autodesk demo its big-iron 3D design products on the Samsung Series 5 550. This is not MacBook Pro with Retina Display.

    As Randy Young explains it's all about the cloud and extending Autodesk customers' capabilities in the cloud. Let's say you're a builder. You've got AutoCAD and your client doesn't. They can view the design in Chrome. Sure enough, there's an AutoCAD WS plug-in available in the Chrome Webstore. Yes, apps for Android and iOS are available, too. But the developer is here promoting Autodesk 360 cloud service. The concept: Store and share design files in the cloud. If your customer is crazy enough to buy Chromebook. No problem.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/27/These_developers_love_Android____Chrome_OS_not_as_much__video_'

    These developers love Android -- Chrome OS not as much [video]

    Publié: juin 27, 2012, 11:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This morning, before Google I/O 2012 keynote kicked off, I spoke with three developers from Ice Development Solutions, all from Phoenix, Arizona. They expressed excitement about Android and imminent Nexus 7 tablet announcement.

    They feel real good about Chrome, too, but not as much about Chromebook. Some of their work involves games, and they say the hardware Chrome OS currently runs on isn't good enough. Get this: Their games run better on Ubuntu on the same hardware. Damn, good thing I don't game on the Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/27/Liveblog_from_Google_I_O____it_s_insanity'

    Liveblog from Google I/O -- it's insanity

    Publié: juin 27, 2012, 4:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm here in San Francisco, undeterred by cancelled and delayed flights, and it's madness. At 7 am PDT, when the doors were supposed to open, the line wrapped around and down the block and around the next one. Man, you should have come. I/O closes an exciting month of developer events -- Apple's WWDC, Microsoft's TechEd, Windows Phone and surprise Surface announcement. But the last word goes to Google, which is expected today to debut the Nexus tablet, expand cloud services and delight with lots more. I'm too rushed to go through them all.

    The keynote commences at 9:30 am PDT -- that's 12:30 pm Eastern Time, and all updates here will be in chronological order reversed -- meaning newest first. You'll want to refresh often.

    11:41 am. That's a wrap.

    11:40 am. Here it comes. Participants receive an Android Developer Pack: Galaxy Nexus phone, Nexus 7, latest Jellybean version and Nexus Q. The crowd roars! And won't stop!

    11:39 am. The first live event is tonight featuring Paul Oakenfold and Train. Sweet music!

    11:37 am. Gundotra returns to wrap up his interrupted Google+ Events presentation.

    11:36 am. Well, I guess no one cares now that CEO Larry Page is missing in action.

    11:34 am. Brin announces Google Glass Explorer Edition. Available for preorder only at Google I/O. Cost is $1,500 and ships next year. He calls it rough around the edges, but the price mutes audience enthusiasm. So that's big bucks spent today for something coming next year.

    11:31 am. My battery is in the red. I've had the Chromebook running nearly consistently since 5:30 am.

    11:28 am. Another Glass objective: Accessing information quickly, which is consistent with Google's core product approach. Think search.

    11:24 am. Among Google's objectives for Glass: Communication through images and providing first-person perspective.

    11:23 am. Glass uses an asymmetrical design that puts the video device, which weighs less than typical sunglasses, and puts the capture above eye level so that it's not in the way.

    11:17 am. Here they come into the keynote hall!

    11:13 am. Now guys ride on the roof wearing Glass. Amazing.

    11:12 am. He lands on Moscone Center roof.

    11:11 am. Brin's friend jumps out of plane in a squirrel suit wearing Glass. Wait a view!

    11:06 am. Google cofounder Sergey Brin runs on stage and he is demoing glass. Surprise!

    11:04 am. After the event, guests receive an email asking them to upload their photos and videos, which are collected together, presented in chronological order and identified by person shooting them.

    11:01 am. Google+ Events includes Party Mode, which allows live updating from the event, such as photos from different devices showing up in real time. The feature "gives your party a live pulse". There's a real-time slideshow.

    10:59 am. Google+ Events is about connecting social with the real world, such as using cinema-graphic invitations. There is calendar integration and invites. "Set the right mood for your event", he says.

    10:57 am. New feature: Google+ Events.

    10:54 am. New Google+ for Android app also is available today.

    10:53 am. Google+ for tablets, available today! For Android. "Available for iPad, soon", Gundotra says.

    10:52 am. "We have more people using Google+ from mobile than desktops".

    10:51 am. Google+ users spend 12 minutes a day in the stream.

    10:51 am. Gundotra says there 250 million Google+ users and 150 million monthly active users -- half of them active every day.

    10:48 am. Gundotra is back to discuss Google+, which he announced one year ago tomorrow.

    10:45 am. Nexus Q will cost $299 and ships in July, with preorders starting today at Google Play. (Photo is giant one outside the keynote hall.)

    10:43 am. Nexus Q hugely leverages the cloud and sync. You hook up your device to any TV, and so take your movies with you. There's no configuration and no messy DRM-connect to deal with. Movies resume where they were last watched.

    10:41 am. Hell, everyone thought the tablet would be the big gadget news. And Google kept this secret. Move over, Apple.

    10:40 am. Google calls Nexus Q the first social connected streaming device. Friends can add their songs to the device from their Google Play libraries. This is great for parties, eh?

    10:36 am. Nexus Q integrates into Google Play, pulling your content from there. You use your Android phone to control it. The sphere-shaped device connects to home speaker systems and features NFC, digital audio ports, WiFi and Ethernet, among others.

    10:34 am. Nexus Q is a cloud-connected Android computer. Gee, what does this mean for Chromebox?

    10:33 am. Google has designed its first consumer electronics device -- Nexus Q

    10:31 am. Nexus 7 price, as rumored, starts as $199, which includes $25 credit for Google Play and some free games. Preorders start today at Google Play and the device ships in mid-July.

    10:29 am. Google also pitches Nexus 7 as a portable gaming platform, taking advantage of the CPU, GPU and Project Butter performance improvements.

    10:28 am. Google Currents is updated and that includes translation capabilities.

    10:27 am. Nexus 7 supports offline maps.

    10:25 am. Chrome is the standard browser!

    10:24 am. Uh-oh, there's a new Shazaam-like feature for listening to and identifying music.

    10:24 am. Following the theme of Google Now, a new recommendation widget uses your past activity to suggest content.

    10:22 am. The presentation is beautiful and reminds of Google+ for Android and iOS. Full bleed, baby.

    10:20 am. Everything about Nexus 7 is killing Kindle Fire. The basic setup and presentation of content is oh-so similar in concept.

    10:18 am. Nexus 7: 7-inch display, 1280 x 800 resolution, quad-core Tegra 3 processor, 9 hours HD video playback, weighs 340 grams.

    10:17 am. It's Nexus 7, running Jellybean and designed for Google Play.

    10:16 am. Here it comes -- the Google tablet, manufactured by ASUS.

    10:16 am. Magazine subscriptions are new, a big catchup with iPad.

    10:15 am. Available today, movie and TV purchases, which is a catch-up feature.

    10:14 am. Yerga discusses Google Cloud Messaging, which developers can tap into for free.

    10:12 am. New Jellybean feature: Device-specific encryption for apps.

    10:10 am. Google Play unpaid apps are available in 190 countries, 132 countries paid.

    10:10 am. Chris Yerga, engineering director, discusses Google Play. There are 600,000 apps and over 20 billion downloads.

    10:08 am. Jellybean SDK releases today.

    10:07 am. Jellybean will be available to Galaxy Nexus and Motorola XOOM devices in mid July, as well as to open source.

    10:04 am. Google Now looks in every way a superior personal assistant to Siri, and it shows how all that information the search giant collects can benefit you. If Google Now works as good as it demos, it will be Jellybean's killer feature.

    10:00 am. Final search change -- Google Now, which uses your history, such as web searches, calendar, etc. Example: Offering best route to work based on your usual commute. Another example: Search for a flight, Google Now updates you on your flight status.

    9:59 am. Uh-oh, voice search delivers answers ala-Siri. Ask a question, get an answer like Siri. Presentation is beautiful.

    9:58 am. Search UI is completely redesigned, in a card fashion that reminds somewhat of Apple's Siri. Behind the cards are standard search results. The feature also taps into Google graph.

    9:55 am. Wow, wow. There are many new Notifications enhancements. They expand, collapse and show more information.

    9:54 am. Two new Android Beam features: Share videos and connect to NFC devices via Bluetooth.

    9:54 am. More than 1 million NFC Androids ship every week.

    9:53 am. New swipe features improve viewing the photos as you take them on the camera.

    9:52. Jellybean supports gesture and touch, for the seeing-impaired, and connection to Braille devices via Bluetooth.

    9:50 am. Jellybean improvements mean that voice typing now works without a data connection.

    9:45 am/ Performance gains are about getting things in lockstep, such as task and graphic operations. This Jellybean feature will be US English first.

    9:43 am David Burke, engineering director, discusses Project Butter, for improving Jellybean performance. "Everything feels a lot smoother...all buttery smooth".

    9:42 am. It's official, Android 4.1, Jellybean.

    9:41 am. 1 million activations per day, up from 400,000 last year.

    9:40 am. 400 million Android devices activated, up from 100 million during last Google I/O. That's more than iOS.

    9:37 am. Crowd countdowns and Vic Gundotra takes the stage. "Welcome to Google I/O". He says 1 million YouTube viewers.

    9:31 am. MGMT plays, keynote starts in 5 minutes.

    9:27 am. There are Droids everywhere.

    9:22 am. As I come up the stairs, there's little question what this event is all about. Android.

    9:20 am. The crowd runs in.

    9:18 am. Keynote doors are still closed. More than 5.000 people wait, crushed down a wrap-round hallway that blocks access to the press room.

    9:10 am. I see one of many Android phone charging stations.

    9:00 am. As attendees pass, a lone Googler tests the classic Pac-Man machine.

    8:55 am. Attendees shuffle upstairs to make room.

    8:43 am. A Googler says there about 5,000 people waiting to get into the keynote.

    8:40 am. I just spoke with three guys from Ice Development. Some of their work involves games, and they say the hardware Chrome OS currently runs on isn't good enough. Get this: Their games run better on Ubuntu on the same hardware.

    8:23 am. The downstairs area is full of developers waiting to get into the keynote. Doors open at 9 am. I've started conducting video interviews with developers, using my Galaxy Nexus and uploading directly from the phone to YouTube.

    8:00 am. Now this is a conference. Free soda, including regular and diet Dew.

    7:44 am. Buzz is big. Over breakfast, developers chatter about the keynote and what comes next. Pretty much everyone expects the Nexus tablet. But is it enough to woo more of them to developing for Android before iOS? That's a question better answered after the keynote finishes.

    7:21 am. My God, there are Chromebooks everywhere. At registration and anywhere you could possibly look. Samsung Series 5 550s one and all. I'm using one, too. Shame. Shame.

    7:20 am. We're in, and a crowd of green-shirted Googlers greets the first people coming in the door.

    7:00 am. The crowd is enormous and anxious, because the doors aren't open. The entrance is marked like you would a Google Map.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/26/NOW_would_you_buy_a_Google_Nexus_tablet_'

    NOW would you buy a Google Nexus tablet?

    Publié: juin 26, 2012, 6:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google I/O starts tomorrow, and if rumors are right -- and I believe them -- developers get a big peak at the 7-inch Nexus tablet. About a month ago, I asked how much would you pay for one. Now with more details available, I ask if you will buy the Google device.

    The Nexus tablet, manufactured by Asus, features a 7-inch IPS LCD display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1.3 GHz quad-core Tegra 3 processor, 1GB RAM; 1.2-megapixel front-facing camera; near field communications; and Android 4.1 "Jellybean". There are two capacities, 8GB and 16GB, selling for $199 and $249, respectively. This information comes from a leaked training manual that Gizmodo Australia obtained. The big differentiator is price. As I explained in April, "Google isn't trying to save Android tablets but kill Kindle Fire".

    Google should have released this device at least a year ago, if for no other reason than providing a choice, stock Android tablet for enthusiasts. In January 2010, Google released the Nexus One, for this purpose and carried it forward with Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Android phone sales soared following Nexus One's release. Google gave developers an up-to-date, stable platform for Android development and hardware partners a baseline for devices; although some commenters will say OEMs use iPhone as reference design -- for shame! From that perspective, I expect Google's Nexus to be a boon for Android tablets.

    But BetaNews reader yeahmannn disagrees: "Initially, Nexus played the role of a reference model to spur OEMs into producing the devices Google envisions. At this point, I think Google is just trying to capitalize on the Nexus brand. It may be a smart marketing move but from the POV of the consumer it's just another Galaxy Tab. Nothing to get excited about".

    More importantly, Google can begin to regain control of tablets -- largely lost to Amazon, which offers a customized, curated OS and supporting services. Forrester Research predicts that proprietary Android will surpass the Google Android ecosystem by 2015. Stated differently, Google's open-source mobile platform risks fracturing into multiple fatally fragmented Android ecosystems. Not one but many. Amazon is at the forefront of this trend. It's no coincidence, this tablet is the same size as Kindle Fire and similarly priced.

    I'll be at I/O tomorrow and expect Google will provide Nexus tablets to participants. If not, I'll certainly buy one. What a bargain -- 200 bucks for a pure Android tablet. The price is right for many of you, too. Based on our recent poll, 45 percent of respondents say they would pay $199 for the Nexus tablet, while 27 percent would pay $249. So more than 70 percent would spend as much as either rumored price.

    ToeKneeC67: "I would bet Amazon will just drop the Kindle Fire to $150. It's the game console wars all over, and only if Google wants to lose on each sell, Amazon has the power to do so (with music, movies, apps of the day). I would also expect a Kindle Fire II, and of course the rumors of a 7-inch iPad (which personally I would like) at $249".


    Google plans to release a 7-inch quad-core tablet, for $199 (8GB) and $249 (16GB). Would you buy one?

    Neoprimal is "buying this to fill in the gap between my 3.7-inch Android phone and 10-inch Android tablet screen. Do I need it? Nope. But for $199? Why the hell not?!"

    So is it "why the hell not" for you? Would you buy a $199 Android tablet with the newest version, Jellybean, and assurance that it will stay up to date? Please take the poll and respond in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/24/_So_long_Apple__hello_Android_'

    'So long Apple, hello Android'

    Publié: juin 24, 2012, 9:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Now that Samsung's Galaxy S III is kind of available here in the United States, it's past time to discuss the inevitable iPhone migration. Hey, this is the iPhone 4S killer, right?

    Samsung generated a little buzz over the weekend about one tool, Media Mushroom's Easy Phone Sync. The app extends capabilities already offered by the developer's free and paid iTunes offerings. Easy Phone Sync grabs non-DRM music and videos, contacts, calendars and messages -- provided there's a backup on your PC or Mac. Near as I can tell, and someone using the app can correct me, this thing isn't iCloud friendly.

    The process is two-step. The iPhone abandoner will need to install an app on Mac or PC and supported Samsung smartphone. The S3 is certain, as are Galaxy Note and S2, according to people using and rating the app. It's incompatible with my Galaxy Nexus HSPA+, also a Samsung device -- lucky I'm not moving from iPhone.

    There are a scant 7 reviews at Google Play, but all are five stars. "So long Apple, hello Android", writes second-reviewer Adam. "Excellent application, copied my iPhone contacts and music over to my Galaxy S3. I can keep using iTunes and use this app to sync my music, brilliant!" Oscar, rating today, says Easy Phone Sync "deserves more than five stars".

    Too bad, the same cannot be said about the Galaxy S III's US launch, which I would call near disaster. If you want one, you're lucky to get it. Apparently Samsung underestimated global demand, so there are some serious early supply problems. Quick update -- all prices with two-year contracts:

    AT&T takes preorders in both colors and 16GB, for $199.99. Some preorders arrive next week, supposedly, and that without official launch date.

    Sprint takes preorders for both colors and both capacities -- $199.99 (16GB) and $249.99 (32GB). The carrier officially launched June 21, and some customers got phones.

    T-Mobile has the S3 online in both colors -- Pebble Blue and Marble White -- but only 16GB capacity. The 32GB models aren't available. They sell for $279.99 and $329.99, respectively. The carrier hasn't yet stocked stores. The carrier officially launched June 21, and some customers got phones.

    Verizon takes preoders, and its prices are same as Sprint's. The S3 officially launches July 11.


    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    I feel for those of you who preordered and will have to wait longer to dump iPhone. ;-) According to BetaNews poll "Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?", 19.92 percent preordered or plan to -- that's among 3,348 respondents as I post. Another 32.14 percent plan to buy within 3 months, well, assuming Samsung can meet demand. That's a helluva lot of interest among our readers. If you haven't taken the poll, please do so now.

    For those of you still thinking about the S3, please read both our HSPA+ model reviews, which have quad-core processors. The US models are dual-core and LTE. Reviewer Mihaita Bamburic calls the S3 the "fastest phone available in the world", while Ian Lewis asks and answers: "Was it worth the wait? Absolutely".

    Samsung has already started airing the first Galaxy S III TV commercials, and like predecessor S2, iPod idolaters are marketing target. In one 16-second spot, two Apple bees walking in a restaurant stop and look at a guy using the S3. One asks the other: "Is he texting and watching video at the same time?" The other guy asks the S3 user: "What are you doing?" You know the answer. The two guys agree that you can't text and watch video at the same time. "And yet I'm doing it", he answers.

    The difference now as the anti-Apple ads ramp up: Samsung Galaxy S III owners have a utility for easily migrating their stuff from iPhone 4 or 4S.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/24/What_s_wrong_with_Larry_Page_'

    What's wrong with Larry Page?

    Publié: juin 24, 2012, 4:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I don't own shares in Google -- or any other company, for that matter (conflict of interest). But were I a shareholder, I'd want to know why Google's CEO missed this week's shareholder meeting and will skip next week's I/O developer conference. Given that Page has only been on the job (his second time as CEO) since April 2011, visibility at big events should be a top priority. His absence already has raised health questions, and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt isn't helping by giving a health reason (laryngitis) as reason why Page will miss Google I/O.

    Google shouldn't pull an Apple and play the privacy card. Apple withheld critical information about then-CEO Steve Jobs' health during crucial junctures. He died, which says much about the severity of his illness and impact on his ability to run Apple. I've long contended shareholders had a right to know. Apple is a public company owned by them. Google is much less since cofounder Sergey Brin, Page and Schmidt are the majority stakeholders. They should be informed, and surely are, if no one else. Nevertheless, Google's shares are publicly traded. If something is up (or down) with Page's health, Google should say so. If he's okay, stop the ill-health rumor stories by publicly saying so.

    Lost Voice

    The latter is the more important. If Page's health is generally good, Google should issue a brief statement to quell rumors. Apparently, he sent a memo (that I haven't seen) to employees stating "there is nothing seriously wrong with me". Well, is there something not so serious but worrisome. The lost voice excuse that Schmidt gives isn't believable -- not for a CEO of a company like Google. People of Page's caliber are paid to stand up even when they feel so crappy all they want to do is lie down.

    During high school, I got laryngitis the day before the drama club performed a big play. My teacher told me to heap Vicks Vapor Rub into a sink filled with steaming water, pull a towel over my head, lean into the mist and breathe. I couldn't say two words without sounding indistinguishable from my grandfather, who had emphysema and walked around with an oxygen tank. There was no cure for my voice, I assured her. But there was. The old teach (well, she was actually young and dreamy) knew her stuff. Next day, I got my voice back, and the show went on, as they say.

    But Google I/O will go on without Page, unless he gets his voice back before Wednesday. Can I order you some eucalyptus oil from Amazon, Larry? I've got Prime and could get the order to you by Tuesday afternoon. My teacher knew her voice cures. Or perhaps losing his voice is code for stage freight. Page doesn't exactly strike me as the outgoing type. But we're not friends or anything, so how could I know for sure.

    Page publicly posted to Google+ today for the first time in nearly a month. I don't see anything surprising in the distance between posts, since there are likely so many more to limited Circles. Just because we don't see the posts doesn't mean there aren't lots of them. Maybe Page really is convalescing, and he had time to post today.

    No Private Matter

    When Jobs suddenly took medical leave in January 2009 and again two years later, I stood fast that his health isn't a private matter. Similarly, as leader of a public company, Page has no inherent right to privacy where his ability to act as CEO is concerned. The Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't explicitly require disclosure of executives' health-related issues, but it should.

    Presuming that Page might be in ill-health but qualifying there's no indication he is, Google shouldn't hold back like Apple did. Google operates by an "open principles" philosophy that includes transparency reports about different aspects of its business. By that measure, Google has a higher obligation to be transparent about its chief executive than Apple, which corporate culture is all about veils of secrecy.

    That said, I feel less strongly about Page disclosing health information than Jobs. Simple reason: Outside shareholders are Apple's major owners. Three insiders, all top executives, have controlling interest in Google. However, in the spirit of transparency Google touts and out of respect for the many shareholders, the company should come clean.

    The Echo Chamber

    The temptation to keep secrets is understandable. There's presumption that bad news about the CEO's well-being can send the share price falling. But Apple performs better following Jobs' death than before, and he was an icon -- the good taste messiah of tech. Jobs' illness and death posed much greater threat to Apple than any news about Page could pose to Google.

    Besides, Schmidt ran the company for a decade before Page resumed the helm. He's the man who is the backup plan. The executive chairman brings confidence that Google will be in good hands. I wouldn't sweat the share price, no matter what the news -- that's assuming there is anything to disclose (I assume not, actually).

    At the least, if Page is as healthy as my grandfather's prized hog, just say so. Squelch the rumors and speculation. Silence allows the echo chamber of blogs and news sites to fill the quiet with noise. The link in this post's first paragraph goes to Wall Street Journal story "What's ailing Google's chief?" (Damnit, I saw this one after picking the similar headline to this story. I'm too attached to change it.) The Journal will be copied everywhere by Monday. Without Google's response, the echo chamber will resound with crazy stories and by the time I/O starts on Wednesday you'll think Page might soon join Jobs.

    Perhaps Page is just too busy to attend both events, or he's working on some all-consuming skunk works project Google wants to keep secret. Maybe there is some family crisis, like someone seriously sick. There are lots of reasons why Page is MIA, and none have to do with his health. Perhaps if not for Jobs, the blog and news site echo chamber wouldn't be so sensitive to the slightest hint of another stricken CEO. It's all the more reason for Google to break the silence.

    Photo Source: Larry Page's Google+ profile

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/23/Apple_s_patent_case_against_Motorola_is_over'

    Apple's patent case against Motorola is over

    Publié: juin 23, 2012, 4:08am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    One thing I have to say about US District Judge Richard Posner, he doesn't mince words. He's direct and cutting. If only there were more jurists like him on the bench. Cut he did today, in an order slicing Apple and Motorola to bits -- but the fruit-logo company he turned to mush. In a 38-page opinion and order, the judge effectively ended Apple's patent lawsuit against Motorola. Apple can appeal, but it's finished presenting before Posner.

    "It would be ridiculous to dismiss a suit for failure to prove damages and allow the plaintiff to refile the suit so that he could have a second chance to prove damages", he writes. "This case is therefore dismissed with prejudice; a separate order to that effect is being entered today". Ouch.

    Posner chopped Apple, its case, demands for damages and the legal arguments supporting the lawsuit, following trains of thought he expressed in recent court hearings. That Posner dismissed the case isn't surprising. The fierce rhetoric and how deeply it cuts surprises.

    What I found most interesting: Apple's attempt to do with the court what it does elsewhere -- use clever marketing to convince and cajole. Posner wants nothing but substantive legal arguments in his courtroom. He writes:

    In its latest written and oral submissions Apple attempts what I told its legal team at a pretrial conference I would not let it do in the liability trials then envisaged: turn the case into an Apple versus Motorola popularity contest. Apple wanted me to allow into evidence media reports attesting to what a terrific product the iPhone is. I said I would not permit this because the quality of the iPhone (and of related Apple products, primarily the iPad) and consumers' regard for it have, so far as the record shows, nothing to do with the handful of patent claims that I had ruled presented triable issues of infringement. Apple’s 'feel good' theory does not indicate that infringement of these claims (if they were infringed) reduced Apple’s sales or market share, or impaired consumer goodwill toward Apple products.

    The case is important to Apple, or was. Google now owns Motorola, setting up a direct patent fight between the companies and an outcome that could affect all Android, not just a licensee. But Posner wouldn't let the case go that far.

    Not that he showed much love for Motorola either and its attempts to get damages from Apple for using what are commonly called FRAND -- "free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" -- or RAND patents. To participate in technology standards, patent holders agree to license on reasonable terms. These cover what are typically called "standard essential patents" that are broadly adopted and necessary, meaning certain products require them.

    Posner stated many reasons why Motorola's demands aren't reasonable. Among them: "The Federal Trade Commission recently issued a policy statement which implies that injunctive relief is indeed unavailable for infringement of a patent governed by FRAND".

    While both sides are losers, Apple had the most to gain, and so the most to lose. Motorola's FRAND claims already were tenuous at best. From Posner's perspective, neither side made a compelling case for damages or calculation of them. Nor compelling reason for them.

    Photo Credit: JustASC/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/21/How_does_Windows_Phone_8_affect_you_'

    How does Windows Phone 8 affect you?

    Publié: juin 21, 2012, 4:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Something at Microsoft has changed, and it's rather startling. The company so long risk-adverse takes some really big ones -- with Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and Surface tablets high among them. Windows 8 radically changes the user interface, which already irks some long-time customers, particularly in businesses. Windows Phone 8 is incompatible with every WP handset ever sold, even two-and-a-half-month old HTC Titan II or Nokia Lumia 900. Surface competes with OEM partners, and some already complain Microsoft blind-sided them. This isn't your father's Microsoft, or elder sibling's.

    For years, Microsoft sought to preserve the status quo, and still does. But no longer is CEO Steve Ballmer and his top guns willing to stand still while the market moves forward. IBM chose status quo during the computing-era transition from mainframe to PC -- cater to existing customers and preserve existing revenue streams. For years, Microsoft followed similar course during the early transition from the PC to the cloud-connected device era. No longer. Microsoft takes big risks to preserve its computing relevance, and they'll either sink the company or preserve its place in the new world order. The question: How does it all affect you?

    Hard Upgrade

    Today, I put that question to anyone who recently bought Windows Phone or is planning to do so. The first handsets running the operating system shipped two years ago come autumn. That means except for some international customers with 18-month contracts or those buying unlocked handsets (or prepaids), every Windows Phone ever sold is bound by some contractual commitment. Their buyers won't be able to upgrade the software to Windows Phone 8 or be eligible to buy subsidized handsets (unless Microsoft and carriers work together to allow it). From the perspective of future upgrades, every Windows Phone now available is obsolete -- or will soon be. My question: Does that matter to you?

    I can understand some reasons why Microsoft would leap Windows Phone 8 ahead, while leaving customers behind. For starters, there are fewer of them than the potential number in the future. At the end of first quarter, for example, Windows Phone global market share, as measured in actual sales, was 1.9 percent, according to Gartner.

    Windows Phone really has no place to go but up, and the company wants to improve the platform's architecture while bringing it more in line with Windows 8. As example, the move to native code software development, which should improve the quality and number of applications -- something Microsoft already provides on Windows 8. These changes should make the mobile OS more competitive with Android and iOS.

    Risky Business

    The risk isn't so much number of customers, but who they are. Presumably, many Windows Phone buyers are Microsoft enthusiasts -- the kind of customers who influence other buyers. Some also may be Nokia enthusiasts, which is another concern. Microsoft imposes risks on its hardware partners, too, with Nokia being most affected. The manufacturer has adopted Windows Phone as its primary mobile OS, and the majority of handsets supporting it are merely months on sale. Nokia is in dire straights. During last week's layoff announcement -- some 10,000 employees -- CEO Stephen Elop said that Windows Phones aren't selling as well as Nokia expects.

    The question: Could Microsoft's backward-incompatibility approach and Windows Phone 8 announcement now stall Nokia Lumia sales? Surely Nokia knew this was coming, which offers additional context to last week's cut-back announcement, Elop warning of rockier-than-expected Lumia sales and his emphasizing renewed commitment to feature phones -- even as IDC warns plummeting dumb phone sales.

    What Irony

    There's a strange irony here. For years, Apple had a well-deserved reputation for making changes, mainly hardware, that left customers behind. For example, I recall in 2001 owning three Mac monitors which connectors were all incompatible; they had to be matched to the right computer or be useless. Meanwhile, Microsoft has long made backward compatibility a development priority. Suddenly roles are reversed. Apple's forthcoming iOS 6 will run on iPhone 3GS, which launched three years ago. Windows Phone 8 is incompatible with handsets released this quarter. To reiterate, this isn't your daddy's Microsoft.

    So that's another thing changed. Microsoft has long had well-deserved reputation for being one of the best partners. But Surface and Windows Phone 8 show a different Microsoft emerging, one willing to leave them behind to push Windows ahead. There's good reason. The future relevance of Microsoft's core platforms are in jeopardy.

    What's good for Microsoft might not be good for you. But only you can answer that, which is why today I ask: How does Windows Phone 8 affect you? If you recently bought a WP handset, do you care there is no Windows Phone 8 upgrade? Responding, please state which phone you have and when purchased. If planning to imminently buy a new Windows Phone, will you still do so, wait or even buy something else? State what would buy or whould have bought. I'll compile your responses into a future post.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/19/Surface_is_Project_Origami_s_revenge'

    Surface is Project Origami's revenge

    Publié: juin 19, 2012, 5:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Surface isn't just about the future. The tablet is also about the past, and Microsoft bringing to market a vision quashed by its hardware partners. In 2012, Surface is all about Apple and Microsoft securing a fast foothold in the emerging cloud-connected device category. But the tablet also encompasses something sought six years ago: Project Origami.

    It's no coincidence that Project Origami's launch was, until yesterday, the last time Microsoft held a super-secretive media event that generated big buzz. Surface and the other share much in common, and not just buzz. Before there was iPad, Microsoft developed Ultra-Mobile PC -- or what Project Origami came to be branded. The idea: To bring to market a sub-$500 touchscreen computer. The software giant sought this product category four years before iPad stormed the media tablet market. Surface is Project Origami's revenge, against Apple and Microsoft's hardware partners.

    Microsoft's Baby

    When working as a JupiterResearch analyst, I met with Microsoft product managers during Ultra-Mobile PC's development. They were keen to get my opinions, which I never really got to give. Someone else in attendance, not from Microsoft, interrupted with over-enthusiastic praise, using up all our time. I was more cautious, believing Project Origami could only succeed if products met Microsoft's sub-$500 price objective. But I remained doubtful OEM partners would deliver.

    You have to understand something about Ultra-Mobile PC. This was Microsoft's baby, although it was presented as a partnership with hardware manufacturers at launch. Microsoft developed the concept, which simplicity was brilliant: Build a low-cost touchscreen computer using off-the-shelf parts -- stuff readily available rather than having to be engineered. The advanced engineering, the product refinement, could come later.

    But greedy OEMs looked at Ultra-Mobile PC differently, as a new category for which they could charge more. The first devices cost twice as much, or more, than Microsoft planned. Selling for the same price as cheap laptops, UMPCs couldn't compete. They offered too little for the price. The products failed, and everyone blamed Microsoft. But the people behind Project Origami had the right idea. Microsoft created the reference design and prototypes for OEM partners but depended on others to bring the vision to market. They failed.

    Taking Charge

    Six years later, Microsoft makes another attempt at bringing the concept, now vastly evolved, to market. Only this time, the company won't rely on OEM partners. Microsoft isn't so much competing with OEMs, but pushing around them. They've been in the way -- obstacles of innovation for years. That the company would bypass them at all shows just how much has changed inside the software giant. It also shows how much Microsoft is willing to risk -- relationships with any, and perhaps all, OEMs -- to advance its software and services platforms.

    Microsoft isn't a follower but a leader. For anyone in the Apple Fan Club suggesting Microsoft is imitating iPad's maker, get a real life. Put down the Kool-Aid. Microsoft pioneered the tablet market a decade ago and sought to break into the low-cost, touchscreen computer market six years past. But the company was beholden to hardware partners. No longer. Microsoft is doing with Surface what it should have done years ago -- design, brand and sell its own PC hardware, software and services platform. The software giant has bled too much for OEMs far too long.

    Had Project Origami succeed six years ago, there likely would be no iPad today, perhaps even no iPhone. In some alternate universe somewhere, perhaps that is reality. Microsoft can't afford any more setbacks, as its future is at stake. The PC era is over. Cloud-connected devices are the future, and Android and iOS devices are leaders in a category where Windows share is too small for analysts to measure. Microsoft is right to take charge.

    What Price?

    The only question is price. Will Microsoft maintain that sub-$500 price vision? I expect the answer will be yes for Surface running Windows RT. Value is a long-standing Microsoft corporate cultural trait. I see it at my local Microsoft Store, where products are value-priced and deals often are better than anywhere else I can shop. Microsoft tends to plan five years or more out. Surface will get bigger as the company opens more branded stores.

    What we're witnessing is completion of Microsoft's three-screen strategy, while tacitly acknowledging the strategy is a failure relying on third parties. There are Xbox and Surface, which Microsoft designs and brands. There remains one more screen, around Windows Phone, where with Nokia Microsoft is close to delivering an end-to-end product.

    I wonder if now, with Nokia reduced to junk status and shedding jobs, if Microsoft shouldn't buy the manufacturer. I wouldn't be surprised to find out later that current downsizing turns out to be as much about prepping for Microsoft buyout as trying to aright listing Nokia. In such circumstance, Microsoft's three-screen strategy would be complete, without the need for third parties.

    If Microsoft could ship today, Surface would send ripples across the tablet marketplace. It's too bad the first devices won't arrive for months. But come autumn, for all Apple's early sales success, Microsoft will pull from a much larger and deeper ecosystem -- and across the Surface, iPad is but a stone's throw away.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/19/Microsoft_Surface_is_all_about_Apple'

    Microsoft Surface is all about Apple

    Publié: juin 19, 2012, 1:40am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I dunno if it's branding or magic, but Microsoft's "big-ass" Surface table suddenly is smaller. In a jam-packed media event this evening, the software giant unveiled a 10.6-inch display tablet. Case is magnesium with beveled edges that give a sleek appearance. The tablet weighs as little as 676 grams. That's a helluva lot lighter than the Surface table introduced 5 years ago. That baby measured 30 inches and newer Samsung model is 40 inches. The tablet is pretty compact compared to the table.

    So the rumors were true about a Microsoft tablet. But Surface? Not Xbox? It's smart branding that pits Microsoft's tablet against Apple's -- industrial design, announcement timing, Surface branding and more.

    The Hardware

    Quick specs for two models, running either Windows 8 or Windows RT:

    Windows RT model: 10.6-inch ClearType HD display; 32GB or 64GB storage; microSD, USB 2.0 and Micro HD Video ports; 2x2 MIMO antennae; and Office 15. Weighs 676 grams and is 9.3 mm thick.

    Windows 8 Professional model: 10.6-inch ClearType HD display; 64GB or 128GB storage; microSDXC, USB 3.0, Mini DisplayPort Video ports; and 2x2 MIMO antennae. Weighs 903 grams and is 13.5 mm thick.

    The Windows 8 model isn't just bulkier, it requires a heftier battery. Welcome to the differences between Intel and ARM processors. As I've expressed before Windows RT is the future.

    Scratching the Surface

    Observing these tablets, I struggle to see exactly what really makes them different from others, except industrial design and Surface branding. Let's be clear, unless there's some real software magic Microsoft will disclose later, Surface really is more about branding than anything. It's a cunning move.

    But there is something else: Microsoft finally gets to design things the way it wants. Too many OEMs make choices that favor their margins rather than the user experience. Microsoft can't compete with Apple on those terms, and there is need as the fruit-logo company makes early mind share and market share gains in the cloud-connected device era.

    Finally Microsoft seizes control of the Windows user experience in ways it should have long ago. "What about channel competition?" you ask. Where will partners go? They can't license iOS, and Android doesn't have the enterprise chops -- or at least it's not what big businesses are accustomed to. Microsoft will compete with its OEMs, but they don't have a lot of options.

    Channel Competition

    Besides, Surface branding is a differentiator that softens channel competition. These aren't Windows 8- or Windows RT-branded tablets. Hell, Microsoft really isn't calling them tablets at all. They're Surface!

    More significantly, Microsoft has released the de facto reference design -- the baseline for Windows 8/RT tablets. What I want to know, and surely you also, is pricing. But Microsoft isn't saying: "Suggested retail pricing will be announced closer to availability and is expected to be competitive with a comparable ARM tablet or Intel Ultrabook-class PC. OEMs will have cost and feature parity on Windows 8 and Windows RT".

    Yeah, right. Pricing is where channel conflict is most likely. Microsoft has built-in cost advantage because of Windows licensing fees. Something else: Microsoft doesn't have to make a penny on any Surface tablet; selling at a loss is viable option. The company is building out the Windows ecosystem anew -- with Metro UI and energized focus on cloud-connected devices. Gaining market share, particularly against iPad, is more important now than making money selling hardware.

    Target: Apple

    The question I've been asking for days, why June 18? Why announce now something that won't ship until autumn? The answer: iPad. Back-to-school promises to be big for new iPad and, with OS X Mountain Lion coming next month, MacBook Air. But Microsoft just gave anyone considering Apple reason to wait. The old adage remains true: No one gets fired for buying Microsoft, and Surface is good reason to budget for just that. Frak iPad.

    Make no mistake, Surface is all about putting Apple in its place. Microsoft announced today's event short notice; rumors buzzed for days; media turn-out was huge; and the presentation, which emphasized design and manufacturing, and the marketing are very Apple-like. Just look at the Surface product page. The aspirational presentation is oh-so Apple-like. Then there's the industrial design stuff. The molded VaporMg enclosure, built-in kickstand and 3 mm Touch Cover.

    Hell, Yeah

    Earlier today, I asked: "Should Microsoft release a branded tablet?" Many of you responded affirmatively.

    Reader chinch987 smartly answers:

    Yes for these reasons:

    1. Microsoft Retail Stores coming all over USA.
    2. Set reference design with standardized 'options' and 'accessories' which was a huge strength from the original iPod never matched.
    3. Set price point and quality baseline vs Fire tablet and/or iPad
    4. Wireless carriers shift to shared data plans (see Verizon with $10/mo tablet addon)
    5. B&N deal
    6. Bolster new media deals (zune replacement and subsequent new subscription plans not yet announced)
    7. MS Bundles for holidays with Xbox/Phone

    Robert Schiele: "They'd better, and they'd better sacrifice a virgin or whatever it takes to make that branded tablet compete successfully with the iPad and Android tablets. If they can't or don't, the Windows 8 release is likely to be the most epic failure in Microsoft's history".

    1DaveN shares my sentiments about the channel: "To gain traction in the established tablet market, Microsoft might have to price an entry lower than an OEM would or could. Think of the XBox, which they subsidized for a long time to gain market share. OEMs will not, and should not, lose money on hardware to gain market share, but that might be appropriate and necessary for Microsoft".

    Indeed, yes. Now these readers expressed their opinions before Microsoft announced anything, when there were rumors of a Barnes & Noble-manufactured tablet or Xbox branding. So...what do you think of Surface?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/17/Windows_8_is_like_a_bad_blind_date'

    Windows 8 is like a bad blind date

    Publié: juin 17, 2012, 7:26pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    She's stunning, sexy and sultry. But you can't live with her.

    Every day for the last three weeks, I sat down to write this analysis but couldn't bring myself to. I resisted for not having used Windows 8 as much as its predecessors -- typically from public beta to release candidate before offering hard opinion. In October, I requested one of the Samsung tablets handed out to BUILD attendees but Microsoft wouldn't provide one. After several more requests, I got one in April and May for about a month's use and was shocked -- and not "wow, it's good". Windows 8 demos much better than my actual user experience. I blamed myself. Surely the problem is mine -- that Microsoft wouldn't unleash UX worse than Windows Vista. But as I see other users/reviewers sharing similar experience, time has come to break my silence. I wouldn't recommend Windows 8, in its current form, to anyone.

    Design Disaster

    Adrian Kingsley-Hughes finally set my writing in motion. Yesterday his June 7 ZDNET post "Final thoughts on Windows 8: A design disaster" popped up in my RSS feeds. The headline doubly impacted: "final thoughts" -- for software not released -- and "design disaster". While reading, I kept thinking "yeah" over and over, because my experience so closely mirrors his.

    Kingsley-Hughes writes: "On the face of it, the Metro UI looks good...And then you start to use it". Almost nothing more needs to be expressed. That sums up the biggest problems. Metro is exhausting and demands users to scroll too much. The flat, user interface feels old -- not modern -- after the initial excitement. It's pretty to start with, but the beauty is skin deep. That's my experience using Metro on a tablet, which is what the UI is designed for. The complaints among testers using mouse and keyboard are cacophony.

    Metro is a usability nightmare, and mixing it with the desktop motif makes matters worse. Kingsley-Hughes astutely writes:

    Not only did someone at Microsoft think that it was a good idea to make Metro the primary user interface in Windows 8, but they also decided to destroy the 'classic' user interface experience too by also 'ribbonizing' most of the applications. These ribbon toolbars are packed with small user elements and are fiddly to use with a mouse, and even more fiddly -- at times bordering on impossible to use -- when driven with a finger.

    Going from those big tiles on Metro to the tiny, finger-hating ribbon buttons is jarring and frustrating. User frustration is one of the primary things that killed Windows Vista. Developers should want users to feel good about their software. Vista made many people feel bad, and I predict many more will feel worse about using Windows 8. Metro is bad enough. Metro + Desktop = UX fail.

    Bad Vibrations

    How people feel about a product is paramount to success. For me, it's not about resistance to change. I'm all for breaking habits, and I frequently switch products in part to shake up my routine. So change isn't my problem with Windows 8. But something else: The changes make Windows harder to use, which is no recipe for market acceptance or adoption.

    From a performance perspective, however, there is much to like about Windows 8. Startup is fast, and the UI zips. But there's a split personality here, with the OS trying to be two things and doing neither really well. Hopefully, Microsoft addresses this problem with Windows RT, which is more about the future than supporting the legacy past.

    When Microsoft issued Windows 8 Release Preview, I asked BetaNews readers for their reviews. Craig Simpson writes from Australia: "This operating system should be first and foremost renamed Windows 8 Mobile. It is completely useless without a traditional Start Menu and desktop for a desktop PC".

    That's another problem with Windows 8. Besides grappling with the ribbon motif adopted from Office, users find something missing: The traditional Start Button/Menu. I don't miss it all that much, but based on BetaNews comments and postings elsewhere, I'm a minority there. Simpson continues:

    I have tried to use it in a virtual machine and I’m sorry but it is completely useless. I’m not the only one as I have shown many friends and customers and they have no idea at all how to use it. When they try to do something that would come naturally in windows xp, vista or 7. They just give up and ask how does this work and are completely gobsmacked by the solutions. None of them have suggested that they will upgrade to windows 8. Microsoft have created a dog of an OS for desktops and yet they do not realize it.

    Devil in the Red Dress

    Recognizing that I spent much less time with Windows 8 Consumer Preview and none with Release Preview, yesterday I asked for reaction on Google+. "Windows 8 has a learning curve", Martin Brinkmann writes -- "a steep one". He continues: "After having tried all three public releases I have to say that Microsoft has improved the operating system considerably, and while I personally would not update my copy of Windows 7 to 8, I definitely would consider updating XP or Vista to it, and would not mind buying a new PC with it installed". He offers more in blog post: "Windows 8 is not that bad actually".

    Oh, but it is that bad. Windows 8 is the blind date who is pretty in the red dress but a real bitch outside the bedroom. She's too demanding. She's fussy. She wants you to change to conform to her rather than finding common ground.

    "The problem I see, is the closing off of any form of choice", Jake Weisz responds on Google+. "They've now decided what their customer wants doesn't matter. They didn't just make the Start Menu go away, they put in the effort to prevent you from bringing it back. They didn't just create Metro, they force you to start in it".

    Pushkar Chivate agrees "about Metro's usability experience on laptop or desktop. The use of Windows 8 Consumer Preview and now the release candidate reminds me of the training issues I had with users when they had to switch from classic menu to the ribbon interface. The usability of Metro could become a deciding factor whether organizations upgrade to Windows 8 or not and how soon. Personally, I am not finding much use of Metro on desktop or laptop and prefer Aero".

    A Picture Too Dark?

    In Microsoft's defense, Windows needs a modern makeover, and this is the right release for it. The majority of enterprises, which compromise Microsoft's core customer base, will have recently deployed Windows 7 or will be in process when its successor ships. They won't be ready for Windows 8 anyway. Even if adoption is modest, as low as Vista, Microsoft risks little, while preparing the market for what comes next. The Windows ecosystem will be much different in three years, particularly with rash of Metro apps available through the Windows Store.

    Siamak Masnavi responds that "Metro UI is good enough already, and by next year I believe there will be Metro versions of all the popular mobile apps. He emphasizes:

    The classic Windows interface will receive less and less attention from software developers as time goes on, but as the success of the iPad at both the home and enterprise has shown, the path to greater profits for Microsoft lies in following a mixture of the Apple and Google models and Microsoft's recent efforts indicate that they are not averse to learning lessons from both of these companies.

    Meanwhile, Brinkmann sees many Windows 8 pluses:

    I did work with Windows 8 on a second desktop PC for the last month or so, and have to say that many paint a picture that is too dark. Take things like the search. Instead of pressing the Windows key to open the start menu, typing in the search term and picking the results from there, I press the Windows key which automatically switches to Metro, where I'm presented with a superior search interface that allows me to filter and all. I have to admit though that I would have preferred that interface to become available on the desktop right away. Still, it is not as bad as it is painted once you get used to it.

    I've seen those and other benefits, too, but must agree with Kingsley-Hughes, who calls Windows 8 "clumsy and impractical". Frankly, he's being polite. The split-personality UI motif doesn't work; Microsoft has moved so many things around, many users will feel lost and frustrated; and Metro's prettiness wears thin damn fast.

    You must understand: I want to like Windows 8, and it's another reason my real assessment is so long coming. I'd like to see Microsoft give Apple some real competition on tablets -- generating competition that results in better products in a category that may define the cloud-connected device era. Instead, Windows 8 may create more opportunities for iOS, as businesses, particularly, either cling to Windows 7 or embrace iPad -- or both! Perhaps the future is Windows RT, but who really has seen it in action outside of Microsoft and its core partner ecosystem?

    My disappointing expectation: Particularly for businesses, Windows 8 will be instead of a leap forward a step backwards -- to Windows 7.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/15/Will_Microsoft_s_mystery_product_be__clap_on__clap_off__for_mobile_'

    Will Microsoft's mystery product be 'clap on, clap off' for mobile?

    Publié: juin 15, 2012, 8:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Cue up the rumormill for anyone's guess what Microsoft will announce at 6:30 pm EDT on Monday. I'll throw out one, inspired by software developer Robert Johnson, who occasionally writes for BetaNews (and we wish it was more often).

    "If Mashable is correct and Microsoft really is gonna announce a self-manufactured tablet then it could possibly be a further refinement of the laptop that was rumored a few months ago", he speculated. "Remember how there were reports of people who had seen a device made by Asus that contained Kinect cameras?" Yes I do, and replied: "Kinect mobile has limited applications, but they're big for key enterprise markets, such as healthcare. Otherwise what have you got? 'Clap on, clap off' for PCs".

    My wife laughed at the idea and got the meaning right away (as you should, too). Standing close to a small screen and waving, what else could you do? She joked: "No, it's an app you download" -- and she clapped. Then she honed in on Kinect PC for car keys. "You start clapping or waving, and they start beeping". I must say, there are lots of weird applications developers could create for Kinect built into a tablet or convertible. But be careful waving to friends during that video chat, you might open the garage door or delete the PowerPoint you spent two days creating.

    "As far as Kinect for mobile, I think if you just think of Kinect as gestures, then yes, it's limited", Robert opines. "But Kinect is also speech -- and when you combine the two, I think you have a more broad base of applications. Because the technology is natural, a person would use a combination of gestures and speech to use a device".

    Speech's value is obvious. But you don't need cameras or special sensors for that. Except that the best mobile devices are all about sensors -- how they respond to you and add personality and humanness. That's what Apple got right with the original iPhone. The handset uses motion and proximity to respond to you. It's also what Microsoft did so well with Kinect for Xbox, but with limitations. Sure, games respond to motion and voice, but the user stands far from the console. There's no intimacy.

    Tablets, and also smartphones, are much more intimate, because of proximity and touch and for what the devices are used for. Microsoft already has released a Kinect SDK for PCs, but built-in cameras/sensors would change the user experience, making it much more natural, intimate and even human.

    Robert gets it. "I may log in to my PC/phone by the PC recognizing my face. Or I may answer the phone by speaking to it. I personally find the Kinect interface on Xbox very helpful -- voice and gestures -- especially when I can't find my remote or don't feel like walking in the living room to use the remote. I am ready for the tech to make its way over to my other devices".

    So perhaps there is broader utility than, say, healthcare or research and development -- or clap on, clap off.

    Robert emphasizes that there will be a "ton of people out there who are thinking 'I don't have a need for that', but in reality, once they use it, they find themselves using it again and again". Truly innovative technologies don't extend the status quo but transcend it, by providing people something they didn't know they needed but realize after getting it they always wanted it.

    Clap on, clap off, baby.

    Photo Credit: Arkady/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/15/Apple_cofounder_calls_Siri__poo_poo_'

    Apple cofounder calls Siri 'poo-poo'

    Publié: juin 15, 2012, 5:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's another dress-down Friday here at BetaNews, and how could I resist dressing down Apple's Siri when cofounder Steve Wozniak makes doing so easy? Besides, I've already asserted "Siri sucks", then there is that lawsuit about the voice assistant. Speaking of Apple legal wranglings, who needs enemies when you've got friends like Woz. Surely the lawyers behind that lawsuit are drooling all over the Times Union, where the comments appeared.

    Apple's misfortune: Wozniak used Siri before the iPhone maker bought the company, and he really liked the technology. He called it "pretty incredible". But no longer. "A lot of people say Siri. I say poo-poo". He gives an example. Before Apple bought Siri: "I would ask 'What are the prime numbers greater than 87?' and they would come up all in a row". Afterwards: "I'd say 'What are the prime numbers greater than 87?' And I'd get prime rib".

    Another example -- before Apple's acquisition: "'Siri, what are the five largest lakes in California?' and it would come up, one, two, three, four, five". Afterwards: "'What are the largest lakes in California?' I'd get all these lakefront properties".

    While Woz has hopes for voice recognition's future, he says about Siri's post-Apple acquisition: "I'm really disappointed".

    He's not alone. The lawsuit focuses on misleading advertising. BetaNews reader Duke Fawcett: "The crime is the commercials that make it seem like it actually works. A quick disclaimer at the bottom of a 30-second commercial says sequences shortened. No shit. If you tried to do what was shown, it would take you 4 times as long. Jobs is still laughing at you" (I cut out the part about aliens).

    "The worst part about Siri is they advertise it as such a great thing, when it clearly does not work as well as stated", gerryf comments. "That is my gripe with Apple. Oddly, not mentioned here, but Windows Phone voice commands works better than both iOS and Android in my experience (got one of each phone)".

    But reader Chandana Kulatunga makes a good point. "Suck or not suck, once again Apple put technology in the hands of millions. And again, everyone is following. [It's] not a gimmick if most like it and if competitors are trying to match it". (I cut out the part about me).

    Reader malin chimes in: "Most non-smartphone owners (the pool for smartphone growth) don't even know that Android can do anything with voice. Siri may not be perfect, but everyone including grandmas knows it exists -- that is a huge success for Apple. Being first (to advertise), especially when what it takes to make something good is a large tester base using it, is very smart".

    But it's more than being first to advertise. Apple was first to brand. Microsoft bought TellMe five years ago, with one goal making voice a primary user interface for mobile devices. Microsoft had market lead but Apple seized the branding. Similarly, Google added terrific voice capabilities with release of Nexus One in January 2010. But, again, there was no brand identity to the feature.

    For all the talk about other companies imitating Apple, I'm still stunned so few copy the approach of branding discreet features. If this story was about Android voice being crap, how many of you would remember in a week or a month? But most everyone will remember Siri. In marketing there is no bad publicity. People tend to remember the brand, not what was said about it. From that perspective, Siri wins. People will remember the commercials about how it's supposed to work whenever it does and feel good -- not that for awhile Siri was "poo-poo".

    Photo Credit: Julien Tromeur/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/15/IDC_will_finally_count_Windows_tablets_with_iPads_and_Androids'

    IDC will finally count Windows tablets with iPads and Androids

    Publié: juin 15, 2012, 3:07am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Hopefully, Gartner and other analyst firms will show as much sense.

    Windows tablets have gotten the shaft from IDC and other analyst firms for far too long. They count the devices as PCs, not tablets. Last year, after Gartner's tablet forecast failed to include Windows, several prominent bloggers fanned the flames of misinformation, wrongly concluding Microsoft's OS would have no share by 2015. Today, IDC issued a new forecast that still ignores Windows tablets, but changes are promised.

    "We’re looking forward to rolling the Windows-based tablets into our tablet forecast in order to give customers a complete view of tablet slates all in one place", Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, says. The research firm will adjust its taxonomy to include Windows 8 and RT tablets, starting next quarter. The first devices running the operating systems are expected to ship by mid-autumn.

    However, inclusion doesn't mean much, and I wonder if IDC analysts put too little stock in Microsoft's leverage from its duopoly position -- Office and Windows. "Our current thinking, based upon early pricing expectations for these products, is that Windows-based tablets will be largely additive to our existing media tablet market forecast", Mainelli says. "We don't expect Windows-based tablets to necessarily take share from Apple and Android, but will grow the overall tablet market".

    That's a polite way of saying they'll cost too much. Price is a hot topic this week, after reports from Computex estimate OEMs will pay Microsoft around $85 per copy of Windows RT, which tablets many had viewed as being more competitive with iPad and Androids, because of ARM chip support and approach to platform architecture. That price surely will put Windows RT tablet prices much higher than iPad and Androids. Apple realizes the cost of iOS as part of its research and development, while Android is free -- well, except to those OEMs paying Microsoft's patent tax. Effectively, Windows RT adds $85 to the cost of every tablet, unless Microsoft gravely discounts for smaller form factors.

    Something else -- and, again, Windows gets the analyst shaft: Based on last week's Computex announcements, many of the most compelling Windows 8 models are hybrids that have touchscreens and keyboards. Are these tweeners PCs or tablets? The answer is important to perceptions. If, for example, Windows 8 tweener forecasts are for high-volume shipments but they're counted as PCs, then Microsoft's OS would look weaker on tablets than Apple's or Google's going forward. Based on Mainelli's statements, separate categorization should be expected. One solution is to follow the approach Canalys and NPD DisplaySearch take and lump PCs and tablets together.

    IDC is overall bullish about tablet shipments during second half, and Mainelli acknowledges Microsoft's contribution: "Demand for media tablets remains robust, and we see an increasing interest in the category from the commercial side. We expect pending new products from major players, increasingly affordable mainstream devices, and a huge marketing blitz from Microsoft around Windows 8 to drive increased consumer interest in the category through the end of the year".

    As such, the analyst firm raised its forecast:

    • 2012: 107.4 million, up from 106.1 million
    • 2013: 142.8 million, up from 137.4 million
    • 2016: 222.1 million

    The analyst firm also adjusted market share, raising iPad to 62.5 percent from 58.2 percent and lowering Android tablets to 36.5 percent from 38.7 percent. IDC reckons shipments based on tablet operating system.

    "After a very strong launch of new products in March, Apple's iPad shows few signs of slowing down", Mainelli says. "The addition of the Retina Display and 4G capabilities to the third-generation products clearly enticed many current owners to upgrade. And Apple's decision to keep two iPad 2s in the market at lower prices -- moving the entry-level price down to $399 -- seems to be paying off as well".

    The non-iOS, non-Windows market is pushing down to 7-inch models, which sell for considerably less, such as the $199 Kindle Fire and $249 Samsung Galaxy Tab 2.7.0. Google is rumored to debut a $199 Nexus tablet during its developer conference, starting June 27.

    "If Apple launches a sub-$300, 7-inch product into the market later this year as rumored, we expect the company’s grip on this market to become even stronger", Mainelli predicts.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/14/Get_ready_for_Microsoft_mystery_Monday'

    Get ready for Microsoft mystery Monday

    Publié: juin 14, 2012, 8:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Say, it must be vacation time. The folks from Redmond, Wash. will trek to Los Angeles for a mysterious June 18 event. It's the right month to soak up Southern California sun. Timing surely isn't coincidental -- a week following Apple's swaggering MacBook Pro with Retina Display, iOS 6 and OS X Mountain Lion announcements and 9 days before Google's developer conference commences. Apple and Google chose San Francisco venues, while Microsoft will get its people out of the clouds into some blue skies (well, once the Marine layer blows off). I'm all for LA, since it's driving distance from San Diego. Not that I received an invitation.

    But others who got one have shared the details, of which there are none. Microsoft is being uncharacteristically cagey, a corporate cultural quality that is in too short supply up North. Nothing builds buzz like mystery. With Apple's announcements behind, and Google I/O too far away, Microsoft has given bloggers, commenters, reporters and other pundits something to speculate about. Oh, what could it be?

    I can tell you what Microsoft should but likely won't announce: Windows 8 release to manufacturing. RTM coming just weeks after the Release Preview would be totally unexpected and ensure launch sooner than most anyone expects. The big gold code drop would flummox competitors, while deflating Google I/O news and Mountain Lion's July launch. RTM would be the mother of all marketing coups. I can dream.

    Something big must be going on? Why else would Microsoft rip so many of its employee dads from loved ones on their one special day of the year. Surely CEO Steve Ballmer or Windows & Windows Live President Steven Sinofsky aren't that cold-hearted. Eh, right? (Now's the time for you Microsoft employees to take advantage of anonymous commenting and answer.) Anything less than big will be a wallowing let-down.

    Surely, Microsoft isn't ruining Father's Day just to show off a bunch of Windows tablets, as some have speculated, that we all know something about? LA is right venue for Xbox Music -- you know, now that Zune really is dead. But is that really big enough? I wouldn't truck up to Los Angeles for that.

    That's the problem with mystery, buzz and rumors. If this thing isn't as big as the rumors, Microsoft will get all the blame -- even if rumormongers set the lofty expectations. That's the risk, particularly if Apple or Google fanboys spread rumors that get their Microsoft counterparts really worked up. Stuff like: The next version of Office will be free, Windows RT tablets will sell for $199, Bing will become the default search engine for iOS or the city of Los Angeles will adopt Office. The latter one is devious because it's believable given Google's fallout with LAPD over Apps but disappointing reason to schlep to Los Angeles.

    Truly sinister rumor to spread: Steve Ballmer will step down as CEO in a year. Los Angeles is so unexpected a venue compared to New York or Redmond, that it's believable enough as diversionary locale.

    Circling back to the plausible, consider this: Event time is 3:30 pm PT, which is strange. That's 6:30 am Tuesday in Beijing, China, 7:30 am in Tokyo, Japan and 8:30 am in Canberra, Australia. Is there a connection? Also: Microsoft's fiscal year closes June 30. Something financial -- that Microsoft wants to get on the books for FY 2012 -- makes lots of sense. But it would still need to be big enough to warrant a mid-June cloak-and-dagger shindig. What could it be? Please speculate in comments.

    Photo Credit: matis/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/13/Apple_is_the_new_Compaq'

    Apple is the new Compaq

    Publié: juin 13, 2012, 11:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Surely we can blame Tim Cook for that. Wait. You're too young to remember Compaq? Well, Apple's CEO worked there in the 1990s, and his leadership brings some decidedly bad Compaq habits from Texas to California. So for those of you thinking Apple is different under Cook than Steve Jobs, most definitely.

    See, my eyes buggered when reading in iFixit's terrific MacBook Pro with Retina Display tear-down: "Unlike previous generations of MacBook Pros, the MacBook Pro with Retina display is guarded by Apple's proprietary pentalobe screws". Proprietary screws? That sounds familiar. Oh yeah. Compaq!

    Screw you screws

    Apple actually started using the five-point screws in 2009, but we can still blame Cook for them. As then-COO, he was responsible for Apple manufacturing and logistics and most certainly these screws would come under his area of responsibility. Perhaps the ever-micromanaging Jobs had a say, too, but he sadly has left this world and Cook remains to take the blame.

    Apple first started using pentalobes -- let's call them the "screw you screws" -- to secure stuff it didn't want people accessing, like previous generation MacBook Pro batteries, iPhone 4/4S and MacBook Air. They're screw you screws because they require special tools. I can understand iPhone, but MacBook Pro? Surely the kind of person plunking down $2,199 or more for this computer might want to use it for a very long time and upgrade later on.

    Cook and Company don't want you doing that. In December 2010, I asserted: "MacBook Air will redefine personal computing". It has, at least for Apple, which MacBook Pro with Retina Display clearly demonstrates. MBA bears more resemblance to a consumer electronics device than personal computer. Buyers make final configuration decisions when ordering -- there are no upgrades later on. I wrote two years ago: "MacBook Air's design is compact and tidy, packing some proprietary components in a package not meant to be touched after manufacturing".

    Apple brings the same kind of design philosophy to where it hasn't really been: High-end laptops. Along with the screws, the flash memory, which Samsung makes, is proprietary, too. Sure, we've seen this on MacBook Air but it's new to the Pro line. Perhaps for safety reasons: "Someone really did not want the battery in the MacBook Pro to come out of the upper case", according to iFixit. "We tried valiantly with our iFixit 6 Inch Metal Ruler to free the battery from its aluminum confines, but to no avail. Rather than risk puncturing a lithium-polymer battery cell, we left the power source in place".

    Score One for Repairability

    The bottom line should send shivers down the spine of any CIO or IT manager considering buying MacBook Pro with Retina Display. The iFixit folks give the new laptop a repairability rating of one out of 10. If this was a Rotten Tomatoes-rated movie, you would spend your money elsewhere. Reasons include the screw you screws, soldered-down graphics chip, proprietary memory, glued-in battery and fused display assembly. This box is never meant to be opened, and your AppleCare warranty better be up to date if something breaks MBP. Replacement may be the only option.

    Apple really is the new Compaq, which was renown for proprietary parts that made mockery of the whole Windows PC ecosystem of interchangeable everything. Compaq did invent the PC clone, after reverse-engineering the IBM BIOS. I guess those Texans didn't want done to them what they had done to others. Proprietary parts kept Compaq cloners at bay, locked in customers and assured beaucoup bucks for the company's resellers. Enterprises complained long and hard about everything from proprietary memory to power supplies.

    Long-time Mac fans will argue there's nothing new here and that Apple has long been proprietary. (Gasp, and that's a good thing?) I won't debate this, because it's not relevant to this discussion. In the past, Apple wanted Macs to be serviced, now it doesn't. Compaq worked with select resellers who had the tools to tinker inside its boxes and order proprietary parts. Apple has done likewise for years, but going further. Every part must be accounted for under warranty and returned to Apple. Now, no one other than perhaps your smarter-than-Albert-Einstein Apple Genius is meant to crack open the MacBook Pro enclosure. Say, do these experts don white coveralls and work in clean rooms hidden inside Apple Store?

    This locked-down approach continues the shift started with MacBook Air -- making computers more like end-to-end consumer electronics products, which are often thrown away when busted rather than repaired.

    But Apple's approach exceeds Compaq's in a way fitting corporate culture. Apple treats its product designs like works of art. Now the company wants you to do likewise. Look, but don't touch.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/13/Will_you_buy_Apple_s_15.4_inch_MacBook_Pro_with_Retina_Display_'

    Will you buy Apple's 15.4-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display?

    Publié: juin 13, 2012, 12:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I ask because one of my colleagues already has ordered one (shipping time is a couple weeks), and I got into an interesting Google+ debate about display technologies earlier today.

    Apple announced the new laptop yesterday during its Worldwide Developer conference. The new MBP is thinner and lighter, which are nice-to-have features but nothing remarkable. The 2880 x 1800-resolution, IPS screen is really what sets the portable apart from other notebooks, whether Macs or Windows PCs. Apple has raised the standard of art, but the technology isn't gamechanging, as some bloggers or reporters claim. Apple is a laggard with respect to high-res displays, which on Windows PCs have outclassed Macs for years.

    Mac Fan Club

    You may have noticed that Macs are quite popular among tech writers. There are lots of reasons for this. Among them: More and more journalism schools require Macs; Apple has long appealed to creative types; and iLife is the jack-of-all tools for anyone producing media content. Many Mac-loving writers who don't use Windows also don't know what they're missing out on. That combined with Apple passions can lead them to mistake something old for something new.

    For example, writing for Wired, Nathan Olivarez-Giles asserts: "MacBook Pro With Retina Display gives Apple 1-Year lead on Ultrabooks". That might be true, but where was the story years ago about, say, Lenovo ThinkPad or Sony VAIO, having a year (and it turned out to be several) lead over MacBook Pro?

    Perhaps MacBook Pro is a game-changer for my Mac-obsessed peers who suffered with lower-screen res for years -- well, compared to their Windows counterparts who have long enjoyed much better. Apple isn't leading the pack but catching up from behind. What's new for the people using Macs and writing about them isn't for the broader PC market.

    Laggard plays Catchup

    I've criticized Apple's lagging behind competitors' displays for more than four years. I noticed the difference because high resolution has long been a priority when buying Macs or Windows PCs and where the Wintel camp has long excelled. In a long 2009 missive, for example, I explained why I chose Windows 7 on a Sony VAIO Z720 over Snow Leopard on 13.3-inch MacBook Pro. High among my reasons: "While the computers are fairly close in terms of base hardware, I find the VAIO's higher screen resolution to be a highly appealing feature, and the major reason for my replacing the MacBook rather than installing Windows 7 via Boot Camp. The VAIO had stunning 1600 x 900 compared to the Mac's 1280 x 800".

    Apple started upping the resolution on portables in 2010. For example, 11.1-inch and 13.3-inch MacBook Airs ushered in 1366 x 888 and 1440 x 900 resolutions, respectively, long after Wintel competitors got there. New models announced yesterday keep the same resolution.

    The current VAIO Z Series model, by comparison, offers 1920 x 1080 resolution on a 13.1-inch display; that exceeds the MacBook Air, which is same size class. The VAIO costs $100 more than the high-end 13.3-inch Air, with twice the RAM (8GB) but half the storage (128GB). The point: In the market sweet-spot, Windows laptops still outclass Macs. Where Apple raises the bar above Wintel machines is high-end 15-inch models.

    Apple offers four standard 15.4-inch MacBook Pros -- two of which with 1440 x 900 panels; like the predecessors, they can be upgraded at extra cost to 1680 x 1050. Hell, the 15.4-inch ThinkPad T60p I used more than 5 years ago had a panel with that resolution. To get 1440 x 900, you pay Apple $1,799. Retina Display starts at $2,199.

    Sound Advice

    Some of my peers do put MacBook Pro with Retina Display in proper perspective, and they're worth calling out. At AnandTech, Anand Shimpi offers a superb analysis of the new MacBook Pro, focusing on the improved display technology. This is a must-read analysis for anyone considering buying the new MacBook Pro mainly for its display.

    Peter Pachal writes for Mashable:

    With this machine, Apple is sending a loud message to the world: We aren’t content to just sell computers -- we want to define what people want in them. While Apple would probably say that attitude has always been in its DNA, it’s really only been delivering on it since it unveiled the first MacBook Air. Before that, Apple machines -- the hardware -- were certainly capable machines, but their standout features typically had more to do with design (think the original iMac) than usability and performance.

    Peter's right. Mac laptops have trailed Windows PC hardware for years.

    At Chip Chick, Chance Kinney asks and answers: "The New MacBook Pro with Retina Display -- Hot or Not?" Regarding the display, "as far as clarity and pixel density goes, no other laptop on the market is matching that, or even coming close". Kinney continues:

    Next up is the graphics processor, and this is where we need to put the brakes on the Apple hype train for just a second. This is a quote from the presentation: 'You are going to see a gaming experience unlike any you’ve seen before'.

    I don’t know exactly where the line between hyperbole and outright lying is, but I know this quote is toeing it. The next generation MacBook Pro will have an Nvidia GeForce GT 650M graphics processor. For laptops, that is the highest of Nvidia’s mid-range line of notebook graphics processors. That means that while you’ll be able to play most computer games on the market (at least, the ones you can actually play on a Mac), you won’t be running them on the highest settings. Again, the Retina display is very nice, but the GT 650M isn’t going to maximize the potential of that display for gaming. It will be a gaming experience that you have assuredly seen before.

    Kinney warns: "Before you make your decision, you should consider this -- you can get an awful lot of other high-end notebooks that are almost as impressive for much, much less money".


    On June 11, 2012, Apple debuted the 15.4-inch MacBook Pro with 2880 x 1880 resolution Retina Display. Prices start at $2,199. Will you buy one?

    Price Comparisons

    Unquestionably, MacBook Pro with Retina Display has jaw-dropping specs and price to match. That's one of the main reasons Olivarez-Giles' year-advantage over ultrabooks claim is so outrageous. These computers aren't in the same class. Ultrabooks are thin-and-lights with displays generally smaller than 14 inches and selling for $1,000 or less. MacBook Pro with Retina Display sells for $2,200 or more. But let's spec it out, and do more meaningful comparisons.

    MacBook Pro with Retina Display: 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (with 6MB L3 cache); 15.4-inch display (with 2880 x 1880 resolution); 8GB of RAM ; 256GB flash memory; Intel HD Graphics 4000 and 1GB Nvidia GeForce GT 650M; 720p webcam; Thunderbolt and USB 3 ports; SDXC card slot; HDMI port; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; and OS X Lion.

    As aforementioned, that one sells for $2,199. Apple also offers standard config with faster processor and 512MB flash storage for $2,799. I wondered, what kind of value is this? So I configured a comparable Lenovo ThinkPad T530 -- and, whoa, it costs more.

    ThinkPad T530 BTO: 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor (with 6MB L3 cache); 15.6-inch display (with 1920 x 1080 resolution); 8GB of RAM ; 180GB SSD; 1GB DDR3 Nvidia GeForce NVS 5400M graphics; DVD burner; 720p webcam; USB 3 ports; express card slot; mini-display port; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; and Windows 7 Professional 64-bit. Price as configured: $2,324. Price about balances out when adding Ethernet adapter and DVD drive to the MacBook Pro. Still, IBM's sold-state storage tops out at 180GB and the LED display resolution falls below the Mac's IPS display. Apple's laptop is thinner and lighter, too.

    I also priced the Sony VAIO S with 15.5-inch display.

    VAIO S: 2.1GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor; 15.5-inch display (with 1920 x 1080 resolution); 8GB of RAM ; 256GB SSD; 2GB Nvidia GeForce 640M LE graphics; DVD burner; webcam; USB 2 and 3 ports; SD card and Memory Stick slots; HDMI port; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; and Windows 7 Home 64-bit. Price as configured: $1,729. The VAIO sells for $470 less than the Mac, but offers twice the graphics memory and lower high-resolution screen -- granted, Apple's display offers more.

    Specs are but one consideration. There are many of factors that make up a good computer, with operating system and motherboard design being among them. But the question remains: Will you buy Apple's 15.4-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display? Please take the poll above and answer in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/11/Apple_sells_365_million_iOS_devices__primps_iOS_6'

    Apple sells 365 million iOS devices, primps iOS 6

    Publié: juin 11, 2012, 8:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's a big number and one still well ahead of Android. Just in early 2012, Apple has shipped at least 50 million iOS devices, with iPad adding force to iPhone. Apple calls them "post-PC devices". For all 2011, Apple sold 172 million iOS devices. But wait, haven't we heard this 365 million number before? Indeed, it's same as revealed in late April for the period through end of March. I'm quite surprised Apple didn't update the number, considering the big iOS 6 reveal during today's Worldwide Developer Conference keynote.

    New iOS 6 features include FaceTime video over cellular, Facebook integration, Passbook for buying movie tickets and other passes, shared photo streams and new maps app, among others. The new capabilities aren't just for iPhone users but developers, as Apple provides them more built-in utilities to tap into. They received iOS 6 beta today. The software ships in autumn, presumably with iPhone 5.

    Android and iOS are engaged in a brutal platform war that likely will define the next major computing era. However, much still depends on what Microsoft accomplishes with its next-generation Windows PC and mobile operating systems. Two weeks ago, Microsoft issued Windows 8 Release Preview, and OEM partners showed off compelling touch-and-keyboard models during last week's Computex tradeshow. These include Windows RT tablets that will compete directly with iPad, and also Androids. New Windows devices are expected for the holidays, setting the stage for a dramatic upset for Android.

    Google's operating system does well, but almost exclusively on smartphones. Late yesterday, Android chief Andy Rubin revealed there are 900,000 activations per day -- that's 27 million per month or 81 every 90 days. Gartner, which tracks sales to end users rather than the analyst firm standard of shipments into the channel, reports 81.067 million Androids sold during first quarter. Based on the reconciled numbers, and those from analysts tracking tablet shipments, Android does squat in the device category.

    Beyond devices and operating systems are applications. Today, Apple revealed that App Store now offers 650,000 applications -- 225,000 just for iPad -- and that downloads now top 50 billion.

    Google's response comes in just 16 days, when its developer conference opens. Top of list: Android 4.1 "Jellybean", where Google can answer Apple. Problem: Even as Google pushes ahead with Jellybean, the user base is largely stuck on Gingerbread (Android 2.x) -- 65 percent -- based on devices accessing Google Play for the 14 days leading up to June 1. Ice Cream Sandwich: 7.1 percent.

    The importance of iOS to Apple and keeping ahead of Google, Microsoft and their partners can't be overstated. According to financial filings, for calendar 2011, Apple sold 92.95 million iPhones and 40.45 million iPads -- generating $61 billion and $24.95 billion revenue, respectively. For all calendar 2011, Apple generated $127.84 billion revenue. The two products accounted for 67 percent of the company's sales for the year (again referring to calendar and not Apple's fiscal year, which is offset by one quarter). During first calendar quarter, Apple shipped 11.8 million iPads and 35.1 million iPhones, generating $6.6 billion and $22.7 billion in revenue, respectively. Combined the two products accounted for 75 percent of Apple revenues during first calendar quarter.

    The point: Apple's future is iOS, not OS X. Executives really mean it when talking about the post-PC era, which really means post-Mac, too. Still, OS X is a big investment for Apple, as seen by today's launch of new MacBook Airs and Pros and Mountain Lion's launch date being set for July.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/11/OS_X_Mountain_Lion_launches_in_July'

    OS X Mountain Lion launches in July

    Publié: juin 11, 2012, 8:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, at Worldwide Developer Conference, Apple laid a big challenge before Microsoft. While Windows 8 continues in testing, and won't come to new PCs until autumn, the next OS X version is ready for the masses sooner, as in next month. In the battle of oneupmanship, Apple is the clear winner. Today, Apple launches an OS war against Microsoft. The company also announced new MacBook Airs and Pros, which ship immediately, with free upgrades to Mountain Lion.

    During the WWDC keynote, Apple revealed there are 66 million Mac user worldwide, which is three times the number five years ago. Apple has shipped 26 million copies of Lion to date, accounting for 40 percent of the install base. That's seems low considering it costs just $29.99.

    Perhaps even 30 bucks isn't low enough. Like predecessor Lion, OS X 10.8 will be available via the Mac App Store but sell for $19.99, for multiple machines. In a stunning contrast, Microsoft charges purchasers of new Windows PCs $15 for an upgrade. They don't get the full product and can use it on only one computer. That foreshadows Microsoft charging considerably more for Windows 8, like its forebears, than Apple does for OS X.

    Apple gains first-to-market and mindshare/marketing advantage during the crucial back-to-school buying period, while Microsoft and its partners wait on the sidelines. Don't be surprised if new OS X laptops combined with the new iPad give Apple a big educational sales boost during third calendar quarter.

    OS X is primed for the cloud, with synchronization the key benefit shared among most of the new capabilities. More broadly, Apple increasingly blurs the differences between core iOS and OS X features. Among the new capabilities:

    iCloud. Apple touts sync capabilities coming in OS X 10.8, that iOS users already use as well as those on OS X 10.7. There are 125 million iCloud users. Today, Apple re-emphasized Documents in the Cloud syncing capabilities.

    iCloud Tabs. Among Safari's new features is a capability borrowed from Chrome. Tabs now sync across devices, much as they do in Google's browser.

    Messages. The app replaces iChat, bringing the messaging client in line with iOS. The feature relies heavily on sync to keep the message thread going. Start a message on the Mac and resume it on iPad or iPhone. Capabilities include message delivery and read notifications.

    Gatekeeper. Can you say copycat? One of Windows 8's hallmark new features is the new security architecture, bolstered by app distribution through Windows Store. Apple makes claims, too, giving users more control of app installations, leveraging Mac App Store to curate applications and boasting capability to remotely remove apps (should malware sneak through); Google uses similar remote removal capabilities in Android Market.

    Dictation. Users can talk to their Macs. This includes apps, like Microsoft Word, or even Facebook. How Star Trek is that?

    China. "Huh?" you ask. "China is a feature?" Apparently it is, so to speak, or important enough for Apple to call out. China is Apple's second-most important market (next to North America).

    According to Apple marketing material:

    OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster and more accurate.

    Notification Center. Well, the feature borrowed from Android for iOS 5 makes its way to the Mac. It's an essential capability for tying Macs to iOS devices as communications/social hubs.

    Reminders. It's an enhanced, synced to-do list.

    Power Nap. OS X will automatically backup and sync. Say, isn't this also a capability coming in new Windows Ultrabooks?

    Notes. Apple looks to make mincement out of Microsoft OneNote for iPad connected to SkyDrive. According to Apple's marketing material: "Notes in OS X Mountain Lion is designed for whatever’s on your mind. Think it up. Jot it down. Make it even more noteworthy with photos, images, and attachments...Notes works with iCloud, so when you create or edit a note on your Mac, it automatically updates on your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch". That sounds a lot like OneNote to me, minus the one.

    Twitter. Like iOS, Mountain Lion users will be able to tweet across the OS and from apps tapping into the API.

    Share Sheets. We love to share stuff. Human beings are naturally social. Apple will add share buttons throughout OS X 10.8, much like iOS 5 today.

    AirPlay Mirroring. This feature extends Mac-to-Apple TV capabilities already available.

    GameCenter. Is any explanation needed? This popular iOS feature comes to the Mac.

    Something else: The operating system is primed for the new 15.4-inch MacBook Pro's stunning 2880 x 1880 pixel display.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/11/Apple_App_Store_reaches_650_000_available__30_billion_downloads'

    Apple App Store reaches 650,000 available, 30 billion downloads

    Publié: juin 11, 2012, 7:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Where else would Apple tout App Store's success but its premier developer conference. Today the company disclosed 650,000 apps are now available -- that's up from 550,000 in March, when cumulative downloads reached 25 billion. That number is now 30 billion.

    Additionally, CEO Tim Cook revealed that Apple now has 400 million App Store users -- that means with credit cards attached. Also, the number of available iPad apps is 225,000, which is up from 200,000 in March.

    As I explained in February, "Apple is winning the mobile platform wars". Many developers create apps for iPhone first, iPad second and finally Android. But with iPad sales soaring and causing some businesses or consumers to put off PC upgrades, there's increasingly question when developers look to iPad first and iPhone second. Such change in behavior would hugely advance Apple's post-PC ambitions, while delivering market blow to Android, which success is almost exclusively tied to cellular handsets.

    Google will have its say during the I/O developer conference later this month. But, today, Apple shines bright light of success on iOS and the applications supporting it. Surely Microsoft watches carefully as it prepares Windows 8 and Windows RT for autumn launches and seeks to woo away developers that abandoned its platforms for Apple's.

    Typically, successful platforms share six common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • The platform is broadly available
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    By and far, money is the most important. If third parties make lots of it, they'll hinge their futures to the platform. Apple has paid $5 billion to developers, Cook said today.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/11/Today_Apple_and_Microsoft_write_Android_s_epitaph'

    Today Apple and Microsoft write Android's epitaph

    Publié: juin 11, 2012, 4:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    As I compose this post, Microsoft's TechEd keynote is underway, while Apple will kick off Worldwide Developer Conference in just a few hours. Both events will put forth very different views of the cloud-connected device future, which Gartner says will start as soon as 2014, when the cloud replaces the PC as everyone's personal digital hub.

    For Apple, iOS 6 will be center stage, whetting consumers' appetites and giving them another weapon in their bring-your-own-device assault on workplace IT. Meanwhile, Microsoft pitches new wares for the enterprise -- Office, Windows 8, RT and Server, for starters. Where the two companies meet is the tablet, and there's no room between them for Android.

    Matters would be better for Google's OS if Android tablets weren't such market failures or had the search and information giant taken decisive leadership when there was still time. In January 2011, while iPad 2 rumors circled, I explained: "The most important tablet is missing from CES, and it's not iPad 2", but a Google Nexus device. Google needed to do for tablets what Nexus One and its successors did for smartphones: Establish a reference design and provide developers a device with always up-to-date Android.

    In December, when Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt said a branded tablet would come within about a half-year, I warned: "Google Nexus tablet in six months is a year too late". Apple's lead is too great, and the sleeping giant, meaning Microsoft, would soon wake up. Oh, whoa, has it.

    Last week, Microsoft partners showed off compelling Windows RT tablets at Computex. Google and Microsoft share many of the same OEMs, which will find more leverage moving buyers from Windows to Android. Asus' Windows RT Transformer tablet, thumps its flagship for Android -- and could be a knockout if the price comes in well under $500.

    Android tablets haven't gained market share fast enough to secure solid footing. Windows RT can easily push them aside, as well as Windows 8 combos with touchscreens and keyboards. If Android loses the tablet wars it could easily lose the broader mobile platform wars -- even smartphones. Look at the United States, where, according to comScore, one in four smartphone users already own tablets. With Windows' established install base as leverage, RT tablets will offer much more from the same OEMs as Android and court the majority of the same developers.

    Platform 101 economics is this: The must successful platforms make money for third parties. In tablets, that's more likely to be iOS or Windows RT/8 than Android. The Android Army should worry about advancing Microsoft more than Apple territory before it.

    Yesterday, Android chief Andy Rubin revealed there are 900,000 activations per day. He last disclosed activations per day -- 850,000 -- on February 27. The new number means 27 million a month or 81 million every 90 days. That number is consistent with actual smartphone sales. Gartner, which tracks sales to end users rather than the analyst firm standard of shipments into the channel, reports 81.067 million Androids sold during first quarter. Based on the reconciled numbers, and those from analysts tracking tablet shipments, Android does squat in the device category.

    Clearly someone at Google recognizes the risk -- hence the late-coming Nexus tablet (if you believe the rumors and I do) and purchase of QuickOffice. Windows RT tablets ship with Office 2012. Google needs something like QuickOffice that competes. Google Apps isn't enough when Office -- the product enterprises use and love so well -- comes with the device.

    If Android loses on tablets, particularly considering high usage alongside smartphones and replacement behavior with respect to PCs, it could lose the connected-device platform wars to iOS and Windows RT/8. Apple and Microsoft may be writing the epitaph, but Android isn't in the ground yet. The body is still full of life. But if Google continues its brain-dead behavior, someone someday soon will pull the plug on life support. Are you listening, Google?

    Photo Credit: metalstock/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/11/Google_activates_900_000_Androids_per_day'

    Google activates 900,000 Androids per day

    Publié: juin 11, 2012, 5:06am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Andy Rubin revealed the number late day, on the eve of Apple's developer conference. Google's Android chief disclosed the activations while dispelling rumors circulated by Robert Scoble about leaving for startup CloudCar. Rubin isn't going anywhere.

    He last disclosed activations per day -- 850,000 -- on February 27. The new number means 27 million a month or 81 million every 90 days. That number is consistent with actual smartphone sales. Gartner, which tracks sales to end users rather than the analyst firm standard of shipments into the channel, reports 81.067 million Androids sold during first quarter -- again, that's smartphones and doesn't include tablets. By comparison, Apple sold 33.1 million iPhones, but the number doesn't include iPad or iPod touch.

    Rubin's "just for meme completeness" tweet gives bloggers and journalists something other than Worldwide Developer Conference speculation to write about -- well, perhaps not the Apple Fanclub. Its members gloated last week over reports from Consumer Intelligence Research Partners and IDC claiming Android sales slowdowns. Android isn't in trouble, certainly not with activations continuing to rise and sales so much higher than iOS devices.

    Earlier, uberblogger Scoble posted to Google+: Today I heard that the head of Android, +Andy Rubin, will soon leave Google and head to a new startup called [cloudcar.com].

    I responded: "Google could buy CloudCar and solve the Andy Rubin-is-leaving-problem. If the rumor is true, of course"; and later in response Scoble's reply: "The first question I always ask about rumors: Who benefits?"

    Scoble made no pretense as to knowing whether the rumor was true, but plainly stated: "If it's not true, it's easy for someone like +Larry Page or +Vic Gundotra to signal such in the comments here, not to mention Andy himself".

    Rubin responded, posting to Google+: "How a rumor gets factualized: Cloudcar are a group of friends who I give free office space to in my incubator in Los Altos. Revel Touch (Mar Hershenson's company: www.reveltouch.com) is another cool company that shares this space. I'm not joining either one and I don't have any plans to leave Google. See you on the 27th!" -- referring to the start of developer conference Google I/O.

    Rubin isn't leaving, a shakeup that would have set the stage for tomorrow's WWDC keynote. The 900,000 activations per day does lay the gauntlet before Apple, which likely will reveal number of cumulative iOS device sales. Hey, Andy, now there's another meme. How many Androids?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/08/Write_for_BetaNews'

    Write for BetaNews

    Publié: juin 8, 2012, 6:25am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    We're hiring and taking on new freelancers and other writers. You could be among them. Paid and unpaid writing positions are available. Staff positions are paid BetaNews employees. Freelancers don't directly work for us but receive payment for their work. Unpaid writers typically receive compensation other ways, such as increasing their profile for personal or business gain.

    BetaNews seeks a summer social media intern, staff writer and associate editor. These are paid, employee positions. We're also looking for new freelancers and other contributors. Writing is creative, rewarding and fulfilling work. Many of the best writers started out as news reporters. Few market sectors are as satisfying as technology. The pace of change makes for interesting topics, quelling the kind of boredom common to the other beats.

    Social Media Intern. We’re looking for someone to help us build our presence on social media, including Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Reddit and Google+. This means getting more of our web content posted and engaging with users. Intern will also prepare market research reports, providing analysis on what is working for other publishers.

    Please click the link for full list of responsibilities. Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume, including links to social media accounts they maintain personally: intern at betanews dot com.

    Staff Writer. We are looking for one or more intern journalists who think that technology and the business of tech are exciting and important. We need someone who wants to
    dive into what is new and what is coming in web services, SAAS, the cloud, enterprise IT, mobile computing, and whatever is next. Writers with expertise in cloud or enterprise computing receive priority consideration.

    Please click the link for full list of responsibilities. Applicants should send a brief introduction, short resume and examples (links are fine) of your writing: write at betanews dot com.

    Associate Editor. We're looking for a manager and writer who can lead/build a team that will produce unique and influential technology content. This person will need to find writers and content sources that have a strong voice and draw in a diverse audience of people who care about technology. They will need to ensure that we expand our audience and traffic by producing excellent content and getting it read.

    Please click the link for full list of responsibilities. Applicants should submit a cover letter and resume, including links to editing or writing samples: jobs at betanews dot com.

    Freelancers/Contributors. The BetaNews audience is much bigger than any staff can reach. Some of the most valuable content comes from freelancers who specialize in narrow tech areas and our readers or vendors, who often live on the bleeding edge of what comes next. There is no way to overstate the immense value you bring to our pages.

    Throughout the summer we would like to greatly expand the number of paid and unpaid non-staff writers contributing to BetaNews. Some of the most insightful stories posted this year came from people who would never have considered themselves writers yet contributed compelling, even controversial, stories.

    If you would like to freelance or contribute, please contact me directly -- joe at betanews dot com; or Circle me on Google+.

    Something else: We would like to expand our international staff, whether employee, freelancer or contributor. Living or working outside the United States is an opportunity. BetaNews readership is global, and we want more of our stories to reach our broader audience. Too much tech reporting everywhere is US-centric. Help us broaden the scope and better expose the world of innovation -- even imitation.

    Photo Credit: Andrii Muzyka/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/08/Get_back__Siri__Bing_Britannica_answers_questions'

    Get back, Siri, Bing Britannica answers questions

    Publié: juin 8, 2012, 1:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For as long as Microsoft has offered a search engine, CEO Steve Ballmer or one of his minions has talked about the goal of providing answers to real questions rather than forcing people to use keywords. The success of social search service Quora or Yahoo Answers shows how much people simply want to ask. Bing and Google handle questions much better today than ever, but often the answers come unqualified and without the depth or authority of, say, a peer-reviewed encyclopedia. Apple tries with Siri on iPhone, with Wolfram Alpha behind it. But we all know that, for now, Siri sucks.

    Today, Microsoft seized the answer search initiative, by incorporating Encyclopedia Britannica into Bing results. Sure Google places Wikipedia front and center, but Britannica is an undisputed, reliable authority -- well for anyone old enough to have owned a set of the books. Ask a question. "The answer provides a quick overview of the subject, a thumbnail image, and useful facts and figures making it easier than ever to get trusted content in search", Franco Salvetti, Bing principal development lead, explains. "We also pull in direct links to other trusted sources".

    Well, hell, I just have to try it out. Question: "When did the French Revolution start?" Uh-oh, Wikipedia, LoveToKNow and WikiAnswers are top results. No Britannica.

    Since it's still such a controversial topic and an election year, I ask: "Where was Barack Obama born?" Top result: BarackObama.com, followed by Wikipedia and breitbart.com. Salvetti uses "Giordano Bruno" as example of Bing Britannica in action. So I ask who he was. Again, there's no Britannica I can see, but Wikipedia, Catholic Encylopedia and infidels.org as top results.

    What about Google? To question "Who was Giordano Bruno?", Britannica is third result, but nowhere as pop-out pretty as Salvetti promises from Bing. To "Where was Barack Obama born?" Google puts "Honolulu" at top of page with link to five sources -- none of them Britannica.

    So maybe this Britannica thing is a work progress. I'd ask Siri the same questions, but my iPhone 4S-using daughter is away on a school trip.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/06/LinkedIn_hack_is_much_worse_than_you_think'

    LinkedIn hack is much worse than you think

    Publié: juin 6, 2012, 8:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today's LinkedIn hack, exposing more than 6 million encrypted passwords, is more serious than it might appear and reveals one of the biggest security shortcomings social networks pose: Linked or shared data. Literally linked-in accounts expose information from others -- then there is the sheer amount of personal data hackers can siphon.

    LinkedIn hasn't confirmed the hack, but is investigating. Meanwhile the stolen data already is available on the Internet. Cyber-security expert Robert David Graham says he has confirmed "this hack is real". The stolen data was published as password hashes. He created a SHA-1 hash of his password and found it in the dumped data. "The password I use for LinkedIn is in that list", he explains. "I use that password nowhere else. Furthermore, it's long/complex enough that I'm confident nobody else uses the same password.

    Like Facebook, LinkedIn is a social network, but one geared specifically to business users. There they share quite a bit of information as part of their professional networking efforts. That sets the password theft apart from many others.

    "The difference with this hack, as opposed to many others, is that people put their real information about themselves professionally on the site, not just what party they plan on attending, ala Facebook and others", Cameron Camp, ESET security researcher says. "And every time one of your LinkedIn contacts updates their profile, you get updates from LinkedIn showing what’s happening. This has the aggregate effect of garnering a form of peer review on what you post about yourself, knowing that it is exposed potentially to those business or career contacts that have a direct impact on your life".

    He emphasizes: In other words, mess with somebody’s professional profile, and you’re messing with their life, and their contacts know about it".

    Trust is the cornerstone to successful cloud services, but nowhere more importantly than those catering to professionals. They are more likely to share information to foster their careers, and LinkedIn provides tools that push out changes rapidly. That's okay, as long as the network is secure.

    "The bigger question is what is the aggregate value of this level of business intelligence about an individual, let alone a whole business sector", Camp says. "This is the kind of information that advertisers and bad actors alike drool over. If, for example, you knew your competitors were losing staff at a rapid pace, it might affect a merger/acquisition negotiation, potentially swinging the value of the deal significantly. Also, since LinkedIn can be used as a sort of timeline of a users real history, there are deep stacks of historic business intelligence that can be garnered".

    The point: There will be extreme interest in someone exploiting accounts and the connections revealed.

    In researching this post, I was taken aback at the grilling LinkedIn is receiving today, and some of it is quite funny. Apparently, I'm not alone having, but not really using, the social network.

    "The guy who went to LinkedIn and stole 6.5 million passwords should be easy to find since he's the guy who went to LinkedIn", Tom Siedell tweets.

    Shawn King: "When changing your LinkedIn password, remember not to use 'LinkedIn_are_a_bunch_of_skeevy_a-holes', it's already been taken".

    "Imagine if the LinkedIn password thing was just a ploy by LinkedIn to get everyone to log into the site for the first time in two years?", Gary He tweets.

    Matt Goldich: "A Russian hacker knows my LinkedIn password. That makes one of us".

    Mikko Hypponen: "LinkedIn seems to be one of those services where I never go to -- except to change my password".

    Photo Credit: OleGunnarUA/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/06/If_Windows_Phone_is_No._2_by_2016__I_ll_clean_Steve_Ballmer_s_toilet'

    If Windows Phone is No. 2 by 2016, I'll clean Steve Ballmer's toilet

    Publié: juin 6, 2012, 7:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In March of last year, I boasted: "If Windows phone is No. 2 by 2015, I'll kiss Steve Ballmer's feet". Looks like Microsoft's CEO and I get a year's reprieve. Once again, IDC makes ridiculous, bold claims about how Windows Phone will ascend to second place in market share, now in 2016. Oh, pleeease forgive my skepticism considering how Windows Phone share has done nothing but fall like a rock -- 1.9 percent sales share in Q1, according to Gartner.

    It's a year later in the forecast, so I'm making a new pledge. Since my prediction and ego would be in the toilet, I'll clean Ballmer's if Windows Phone rises like IDC predicts. It's a pledge I never expect to fulfill, so it's easy to make. Besides, in this newer forecast, IDC places an escape clause, suggesting waning confidence Nokia can lift Windows Phone so high.

    Before getting to Windows Phone, let's dispatch with Android, and the headline you'll repeatedly read today as the Apple Fan Club of bloggers and journalists wallow in another IDC prediction: That Android growth will peak this year and fall by 2016. Defeat is in their grasp! Long live iPhone! Eh, yeah. What about iOS/iPhone peaking and falling below Windows Phone within four years? IDC expects Android smartphone OS share, based on shipments, to reach 61 percent this year but fall to 52.9 percent by 2016. Oh, the grief Google product managers must be experiencing today. What a terrible crisis to have only 53 percent market share -- or more than the next two competitors combined. Let's pause a moment and wipe a tear for Android.

    But we needn't weep for iOS/iPhone, since I believe IDC is wrong about Windows Phone and the forecast puts Apple and Microsoft mobile OSes neck and neck -- 19 percent and 19.2 percent, respectively. For Apple that's a decline, by the way, from 20.5 percent, which granted is nowhere near Android's predicted fall. IDC sees Windows Phone rising from the wallows of 5.2 percent this year. Whoopsie, IDC's forecast for both is Windows 7 and Mobile combined.

    For a little added perspective, let's compare the new forecast with the old, which admittedly differ by a year. In 2015, IDC had predicted market share for Android at 45.4 percent, Windows Phone at 20.9 percent and iOS at 15.3 percent -- coming from in 2011 39.5 percent, 5.5 percent and 15.7 percent, respectively.

    IDC's revised BlackBerry OS data shows just how wrong these forecasts can be in a fast-changing and hard-developing category. In the last forecast, the analyst firm had BlackBerry share dipping from 14.9 percent in 2011 to 13.7 percent in 2015. The new: 6 percent in 2012 to 5.9 percent in 2016. My oh my.

    The point: IDC doesn't have a crystal ball or time machine. Its forecasts are often wrong and have repeatedly proven to be so regarding mobile devices -- there it's not alone.

    The newest forecast is flawed in many of the same ways as its predecessors. IDC assumes that Nokia's reach, particularly in emerging markets, will lift Windows Phone shipments. At last, IDC concedes this by placing a big "exit in the case of emergency" clause in the new forecast by qualifying: "Assuming Nokia's foothold in emerging markets is maintained".

    Five factors negate IDC's Windows Phone predictions:

    1. Samsung ended Nokia's 14-year handset lead during first quarter, as measured by shipments and actual sales. Nokia market share slumped from 25.1 percent year over year to 19.8 percent in the broader handset market, or a 22.7 percent decline. Nokia is caught between a rock and a hard place -- declining feature phone sales and Windows Phone transition.

    2. IDC's first-quarter data on shipments and Gartner's on sales show Nokia losing momentum in emerging markets, even as smartphone conversion accelerates. Samsung smartphone shipments soared 267 percent in the quarter, according to IDC, while Nokia fell 50.8 percent. Looked at differently: Smartphones accounted for 43.9 percent of actual Samsung sales in Q1, but only 16 percent for Nokia.

    3. IDC forecasts a 10-percent decline in feature phone shipments, the majority going to the same emerging markets where Nokia is strongest -- places like China and India. Handset owners aren't upgrading to newer "text and talk" mobiles or to smartphones, mainly because of economic uncertainty or actual hard times. If people don't buy in Nokia's core markets, Windows Phone doesn't gain share from its major distributor, creating more opportunities for Android and iPhone to sweep away customers later on.

    4. Samsung accounts for 40 percent of Android sales, and this is a new and rapidly accelerating trend. More significantly, Gartner's Q1 data on actual sales shows Samsung gaining in Nokia's traditionally core emerging markets. Samsung's success comes at Nokia's expense, raising Android while keeping Windows Phone down. There's a war afoot, and it's not between Android and Windows Phone but Samsung and Nokia. The Finnish phone maker is losing.

    5. The smartphone market is consolidating around two major manufacturers -- Apple and Samsung. Based on actual sales data from Gartner, Apple and Samsung will as soon as second quarter account for more than 50 percent of all smartphone sales.

    IDC hinges Windows Phone's ascension to Nokia distribution. But as these five points show, Nokia's future success is uncertain.

    Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, says that smartphone growth "will increasingly be driven by a triumvirate of smartphone operating systems, namely Android, iOS and Windows Phone 7". That's not how I see the numbers. Unless something dramatic happens over the next 12 months, Apple and Samsung will dominate the smartphone market, leaving Nokia a far distant third at best.

    Sorry, Steve Ballmer, you'll have to clean your own toilet.

    Photo Credit: Ammit Jack/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/06/Microsoft_gives_back_to_Android__but_users_say__no_thanks_'

    Microsoft gives back to Android, but users say 'no thanks'

    Publié: juin 6, 2012, 6:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Thanks to some smart lawyering or perhaps fears CEO Steve Ballmer will show up unannounced, Microsoft has negotiated envious patent fee payments from nearly all major Android licensees. So there's something fitting about the software giant giving a little something back to Android, by way of an exclusive app -- well for now -- on{X}. Or perhaps it's a Trojan Horse to undo Android phones, chopping up performance or draining battery life. Or maybe Microsoft sees Android users as easy beta testers, considering the more rigorous standards for getting into Apple's App Store than Google Play.

    One thing is certain: Early on{X} users despise the app, which has some of the worst reviews you'll see at Google Play. As I post, the app has average rating of 1.8 stars out of five. Among the 244 reviewers, 178 give the app a single star. Ouch! I had planned to grab this one, which is available in beta, but skipped after seeing the scathing response.

    Microsoft quietly announced on{X} on June 3, but apparently not loudly enough to be noticed. The app and companion website got a second debut late yesterday, on the Bing blog. So Eran Yariv, principal development manager, had the pleasure of blogging twice about on{X}, which does look cool in concept. Perhaps the app will grow rapidly better.

    Yariv describes on{X} as a "developer-oriented service that enables us, the developers and technological enthusiasts, to easily program our mobile device to dynamically react to the continuously changing environment". Now there's another good reason for Microsoft making the app an Android affair for now. The enthusiast community of jailbreakers and custom ROMs is active, and many of its members are developers.

    For the end user, on{X} is an automation system, for programming the phone to respond to activities or actions, some of which can be trigged by time, tasks or the phone's motion. For developers, Microsoft is building out an automation platform.

    Yariv explains: "For each such triggering event, we can easily create reactions. Instead of limiting the reaction to a simple list of actions, we are offering the full power of JavaScript. That’s right, you can push any arbitrary JavaScript code, remotely, down to your mobile device and hook it up to a continuous signals sensing framework that you only need to download and install once. The possibilities are wide open -- you no longer need to worry about the target platform".

    Think of on{X} like applying email rules to the Android phone. The app runs JavaScript rules that respond to triggers that lead to some action. The triggers range from the phone's sensors to information it collects -- anything from motion to changes in the weather. Example: Phone is programmed to detect when you're done working -- perhaps by time, motion or both -- and texts someone you're heading home.

    "One of the most useful APIs that we offer is "modeOfTransport", says Saar Yahalom, Microsoft senior developer. This allows apps to "detect whether the user is walking, running or driving a car". Developers can incorporate the API, and others, into their apps.

    Microsoft provides a selection of what it calls "Recipes" that on{X} users can apply to their Androids right now. Too bad early users are dissatisfied.

    Among the biggest complaints: Microsoft requires Facebook login to use on{X}. The first seven reviews (as I write) all give one star, complaining about the Facebook requirement. The FB complaints go on and on and on. Eoin, who uses HTC, is typical: "Facebook? App sounds great, but forced Facebook ruins it". Brandon: "First ever app comment. Everybody's life doesn't revolve around Facebook! So since I can't log in using a normal email address I can't use the app. FAIL". Scoot: "Who uses fb these days? Why do i have to in order to use this app? Lame".

    Some of the few people who actually have used the app, find it beneficial. Carlos Niebla, who gives on{X} four stars, calls it "a very good idea and a nice implementation. Is working perfectly on my SGS2, excep for it doesn't respect the 'back' button to exit the app (got to hit "home"). If you already use Facebook I see no problem to 'login with Facebook', as it is not a Google app ;-) Going to experiment with the Javascript interface :-)".

    Glenn calls Facebook-only a "deal breaker", adding:

    Why? Every Android phone has a Google Account, and with the auth API's built into Andoroid it's simply stupid that this is not an option. Google Auth done properly is a very seemless and pleasent experiance on an Android phone, and trivial to add to any web site. For ease of use Google Auth should be included, and the default, on any such Android App. Also, having MS Live auth would be a good idea as well, allowing integration later with OneNote and Hotmail. While having a Facebook option is also a good idea, it is incredibly stupid to have it as the only option.

    Nicole, who has the Motorola Photon 4G and gives the app one star, wonders: "Only make new rules from a computer?" That's a good point.

    Microsoft could have saved itself from most of these negative reviews, which give an awfully bad impression of the app, simply by offering a different or another authentication system.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/03/Techies__June_will_be_the_most_amazing_month_EVER'

    Techies, June will be the most amazing month EVER

    Publié: juin 3, 2012, 6:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Save your greenbacks now. During these thirty days you'll hear about lots of innovative and imitative products coming for the holidays. There's no coal in Santa's stocking this year, just too much tech to fit your gift list.

    Not since the late 1990s, when seemingly every day some vendor announced a new PC that was ever-so-better than the one you bought the week before, is there so much new tech coming so close together. The cloud connected-device era ushers in a storm of tech. Save up now so you don't break the bank account or exceed credit card limits later.

    Computex. Microsoft kicked off this amazing June early, by issuing days ahead of schedule Windows 8 Release Preview. The new operating system foreshadows lots of new an exciting PC and slate designs. You'll hear about some of them during Comutex in Taiwan, which runs from June 5-9. Sure, Windows 8 won't ship for yet another three or four months, but development is far enough along for OEMs to announce hot, new models for the holidays. Some of the most innovative products will run Windows RT.

    E3. There's no need to wait until Tuesday. Later today, 6pm EDT, Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announces details about the Wii U ahead of the formal E3 video game expo June 5 keynote. There's more: Microsoft is expected to make big noise June 4 at Noon EDT, while Sony preps PlayStation 4 news at 9 pm EDT. These are among the big, pre-show announcements; E3 officially runs from June 5-7 in Los Angeles.

    Google Maps. On June 6, Google will announce the next-generation of Maps, in what promises to be an out-Appling Apple. The iPhone maker often steals competitors' thunder by way of big announcement or unofficial leak around the same time as their news. Google gives Apple a little goose, ahead of rumors that Maps is out and home-grown replacement in upcoming in iOS 6.

    WWDC. Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference runs from June 11-15, with the big keynote planned for Day One. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company already unveiled next OS X version Mountain Lion, which is expected to get a big, splashy coming-out party. In February, Apple said that Mountain Lion would ship this summer, which by the calendar could be anywhere from June 20 to September 22. My guess: Mountain Lion will come concurrently with rumored, higher-resolution MacBook Pros.

    Meanwhile, iOS 6 is sure to debut, ahead of the next iPhone's release, when WWDC 2012 commences in San Francisco. I don't expect Apple to launch iPhone 5, although doing so would steal thunder from hot, new Androids, like HTC One X or Samsung Galaxy S III. Much of the S3 innovation is about software. Apple has opportunity with iOS 6 to snatch back mindshare.

    Galaxy S III. Speaking of Samsung's hot, new smartphone, expect June 20 launch on these shores. A S3 variant with 2GB of RAM is confirmed for Canada, while US counterparts have started sneaking through the FCC approval process (AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon). Sure, Samsung launched Galaxy S III in 28 countries last month, racking up 9 million preorders, but North America is the leading market for smartphones (it's not China yet). There is definite demand.

    Google I/O. The month caps off June 27-29 with the Google I/O developer conference. There the search and information giant is rumored to announce an Asus-manufactured, 7-inch quad-core Nexus tablet and next Android version Jellybean. Given Google's renewed emphasis on cross-integrating products and services, anniversary launch of Google+ (also this month) and increasing emphasis on social search, the event promises much. That's without considering Chrome, which StatCounter claims beat out Internet Explorer as top-used browser in May, or Chrome OS, supported by new Chromebook models and Chromebox launched this past week.

    There is much to look forward to this month, and I've only hit on the obvious stuff. Expect loads more, as vendors prepare some truly exciting tech for summer and autumn release, stacking up the goodies for holiday 2012.

    Photo Credit: doglikehorse/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/01/Confused_yet__NetApps_ranks_Internet_Explorer_No._1__Microsoft_agrees___but_StatCounter_puts_Chrome_tops__Google_agrees_'

    Confused yet? NetApps ranks Internet Explorer No. 1 (Microsoft agrees), but StatCounter puts Chrome tops (Google agrees)

    Publié: juin 1, 2012, 5:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The battle of the browsers reached new territory in May, as IE and Chrome directly engaged for the first time. Firefox is collateral damage -- destined to fall to No. 3, whether by Net Applications' or StatCounter's reckoning. Mozilla's open-source champion that took back the web from Microsoft, falls before Chrome's advances. The browser wars are back with a vengeance and the heretofore top two are in retreat. Well, depending on whose counting you believe.

    While the top browser, as measured by usage share, may be disputed, Firefox's decline is not. StatCounter put Chrome ahead of Firefox last summer. NetApps has the Mozilla browser and Chrome in a May photo finish -- 19.71 percent and 19.58 percent share, respectively. Given the downward and upward trajectories of both, Google's browser is all but certain to claim second place during June. Firefox's decline is all but inevitable -- that despite Mozilla adopting similar fast-track development that sets both browsers' apart from slow-updating Internet Explorer and Safari.

    If NetApps is to be believed, Microsoft needs only worry about which competitor is No. 2. IE usage share was 54.05 percent in May, down slightly from 54.09 percent in April. IE share has fallen from 75.47 percent in January 2008, first eroded by Firefox and later Chrome, which officially shipped in December of that year. StatCounter ranks the browsers remarkably differently -- Chrome leads with 32.43 percent usage share, followed by IE and Firefox, with 32.12 percent and 25.55 percent, respectively.

    "The browser wars are back with a vengeance", StatCounter CEO Aodhan Cullen says. "This time there are three major players competing for the top spot but, ultimately, the real winner will be the end user who can look forward to more choice and innovation as a result of this increased competition".

    StatCounter's full-month data corroborates that for the week May 14-20, when Chrome nudged ahead of IE. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft regards NetApps' data as more credible. In March, Roger Capriotti, director of Internet Explorer product marketing, peeled back StatCounter's methodology layer by layer, repeatedly impugning its credibility while praising NetApps. Among his points:

    Net Applications actually reports usage share based on unique visitors. It is this type of analysis that allows them to achieve more accurate representations of browsing habits and actual usage by removing Chrome prerendering traffic (4.3 percent last month) in an effort to separate real page views from invisible page views. It is also seen as a more accurate way to determine actual browser usage because it is less susceptible to fraud.

    Google now prerenders pages for the purpose of offering search suggestions as users type and to deliver the results more quickly. However, NetApps started adjusting for prerending in May, which had little to no perceptible impact on Chrome's share rise, which diminishes one of Microsoft's core StatCounter criticisms.

    It's no shocker that Google supports StatCounter's results. Yesterday, during the D10 conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Google senior veep Sundar Pichai told veteran tech journalist Walt Mossberg: "Our internal data corresponds pretty well with what StatCounter quoted. We are No. 1 or a bare No. 2 in almost all the countries in the world". Chrome is most popular in emerging markets, where in some "our share is over 50 percent there today".

    While NetApps and StatCounter are leaders compiling browser usage data, they aren't alone. W3Counter is another tracker, but I don't see a May report available this morning. In April, W3Counter ranked IE tops with 28.9 percent share, followed by Chrome and Firefox, with 25.9 percent and 24.1 percent share, respectively. While Chrome trails IE, the trend more closely aligns with StatCounter than NetApps.

    Clicky also offers browser share data. IE and Chrome played kissing cousins on May 27 with 31.38 percent and 31.47 percent share, respectively. Again, the trend is more in line with StatCounter than NetApps.

    In April 2011 I asked: "Is web browser development moving to fast?". After all, Microsoft bet on stability -- that businesses need something they can put in place and leave there for a long time. Google's approach means new versions in stable or beta channels about every six weeks. But perhaps fast-track development has merits.

    Certainly, many BetaNews readers don't mind or even embrace the six-week cycles. Among the 1,437 that so far responded to our browser poll, Chrome is "preferred primary" among 46.69 percent of you, followed by Firefox and IE with 25.47 percent and 19.35 percent, respectively.

    No matter where Chrome ranks in relation to Internet Explorer, Firefox is the loser, but by no means finished. "While attention has recently been focused on the battle between Chrome and IE, not-for-profit Mozilla's Firefox with its loyal membership base should not be underestimated", Cullen says. Is he right?

    Photo Credit: Marc Majcher

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/06/01/Most_of_you_use_Google_Chrome'

    Most of you use Google Chrome

    Publié: juin 1, 2012, 4:20am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    On June 1, Net Applications and StatCounter will release browser usage share for May. But why wait? Ten days ago I asked which is your preferred primary browser. You answered, and Chrome takes the crown, followed by Firefox and Internet Explorer. The days of IE dominance are over. No wonder the European Union is crawling down Google's throat over search.

    The poll results are fairly consistent with those from one conducted last year, even though the sample size is smaller, 1,160 as I write. I asked: "Which is your preferred primary web browser, meaning when you can choose it? (For personal computer, not phone or other device.)" The idea is to gauge browser usage based on what people would choose, pushing aside what they might be compelled to use at work. A stunning 46.72 percent of respondents choose Chrome, 25 percent Firefox and 20.4 percent Internet Explorer.

    I asked about browser usage because of a May 14-20 StatCounter report that put Chrome global usage share ahead of Internet Explorer -- 32.76 percent to 31.94 percent, respectively. Today during the D10 conference in Rancho Palos Verdes, Google senior veep Sundar Pichai told veteran tech journalist Walt Mossberg: "Our internal data corresponds pretty well with what StatCounter quoted. We are No. 1 or a bare No. 2 in almost all the countries in the world". Chrome is most popular in emerging markets, where in some "our share is over 50 percent there today".

    Mossberg asked Pichai about different operating systems. He said that Chrome is "more popular on Windows" because Google launched the browser on the platform first and the Mac later. "But we are seeing the same trends there".

    Remember that Internet Explorer is only available for Windows, so Chrome success cuts Microsoft's browser to the quick. The real question: What can Internet Explorer 10 do to recover users and perhaps regain share?

    Earlier today, Microsoft issued Windows 8 Release Preview. The new version ships with IE10, which will be the only primary browser on ARM version Windows RT. It's all leverage for regaining lost usage share, assuming there is rapid adoption of either or both operating systems.

    Chrome 1.0 shipped in December 2008, making its rise in popularity a simply stunning achievement. The browser benefits from a number of factors, including:

    • Speed -- the browser is fast and reliable.
    • Privacy, such as multiple user accounts for one browser.
    • Security, both perceived (against IE) and real (for Chrome).
    • Leverage from search (Google share is tops in most geographies).
    • Ties to other Google services, such as Google Plus, Gmail or Maps.
    • Web applications that run in the browser, from the cloud rather than desktop.
    • Marketing -- Google is aggressively advertising Chrome, now in TV commercials.
    • Rapid-fire development cycle delivering new features (Chrome 17-19 released this year).
    • Little legacy -- Google doesn't need worry about supporting business users or years of plugins.

    "I use Chrome as my main browser, although simultaneously Firefox (Pale Moon version) for web work and IE when I have to check compatablity", charliemaggot comments. "Chrome's add-ons, speed, and flexibility are the main reasons. I still like Firefox and again the add-ons are a huge plus".

    It's my experience, particularly Windows, that Chrome demands too much, and charliemaggot aggrees: "Chrome, however, can be a definite hog. Too many tabs with too much session history will eat up resources, and I find myself killing of tabs and restarting the browser to get it back under control. But that is still not big enough to move me off it".


    Which is your preferred primary web browser, meaning when you can choose it? (For personal computer, not phone or other device.)

    Reader malin makes an important point about Internet Explorer: "The United States is not the only country in the world! In Europe, IE is stripped out of Windows and not the default browser. Also, the French and other Europeans are very suspicious of Microsoft and IE and it is very poorly thought of there". Because of an adverse antitrust ruling on the continent, Microsoft makes available one version of Windows without Internet Explorer.

    "Yes, in the US IE will probably always be dominant on desktops and laptops", malin continues. "But in other countries no way. In many European countries IE has been a minority browser for many years, and the only real trend we see in those places is people switching from Firefox to Chrome due to IMO the reliability of Chrome and the inability of Firefox to fix itself when it gets mangled".

    "I have tried many of the popular browsers and go back to Chrome because I perceive it to be the fastest, both on my MacBook Pro and my Windows PC", Alan Freeman comments. "It is not bloated like Firefox".

    And you? If you haven't taken the poll, please do.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/31/Send_us_your_Windows_8_Release_Preview_review'

    Send us your Windows 8 Release Preview review

    Publié: mai 31, 2012, 11:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    We told you the software was coming, and it's here and available to download right now. In fact, Microsoft dropped Windows 8 Release Preview earlier than promised. That makes the final public test build a sudden surprise to close out May and foreshadows that gold code will drop this summer in time for a splashy autumn launch. Welcome Windows 8.

    Release Preview is Microsoft's fancy consumer-friendly name for release candidate, and it wasn't the only one dropped today: .NET 4.5, Visual Studio 2012 and Windows Server 2012 are also available. But for sure the immediate excitement is Windows 8, which is one reason we'd like your review. Sure we could review the Release Preview and likely will. But your contribution has special meaning, and will more reflect the kind of computer enthusiasts, IT admins or software developers that will evaluate Windows 8 Release Preview.

    You can participate one of two ways. You can comment to this post, or, better, send your review to joe at betanews dot com. Please also include your photo, bio and any screenshots you collected while testing Windows 8 Release Preview. I'll contact you regarding any particulars. Most of our best reviews this year came from BetaNews readers.

    "Our next milestone is traditionally called RTM, Release to Manufacturing, and from today until RTM, we will still be changing Windows 8, as we have done in past releases of Windows", Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, says. "The path to RTM is well defined and critical to the careful and high quality landing of Windows 8 for our PC manufacturing partners. The changes we make to the product from RP to RTM are all carefully considered and deliberate, including some specific feature changes we plan on making to the user experience".

    I'm quite surprised by Sinofsky's statement and what it foreshadows about Windows 8 possibly still being a work in progress this late in the development cycle. Typically Microsoft changes as little as possible from RC to RTM, which might also explain "Preview" and not "Candidate" in the name.

    "RTM itself is a product development phase, rather than a moment in time", Sinofsky asserts, which is fine if you're not a developer or OEM qualifying images based on what you think is final code. "If the feedback and telemetry on Windows 8 and Windows RT match our expectations, then we will enter the final phases of the RTM process in about 2 months. If we are successful in that, then we are tracking to our shared goal of having PCs with Windows 8 and Windows RT available for the holidays".

    At this phase, with changes still coming, your feedback will help determine what Microsoft eventually ships. The company monitors many different sources to gather reaction. Your review here could be one of those valuable resources helping to shape Microsoft's development process and encouraging others to download Windows 8 Release Preview -- generating additional feedback.

    Again, please comment below. But to see your comprehensive review published and prominently promoted, please email joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/31/Samsung_Series_5_550_Chromebook_is_good_enough_for_you'

    Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook is good enough for you

    Publié: mai 31, 2012, 9:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I enjoyed occasional point-counterpoints with Scott Fulton when we worked together at BetaNews. Unexpectedly, I find myself in position to rebut him working somewhere else. It's something I rarely do, but in this case must. Scott's "Why the new Chromebook still doesn't cut it" asks but fails to answer many questions -- it's a FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) piece. Clearly from those questions, and most everything else about the post, Scott hasn't used the new Chromebook Google and Samsung launched two days ago. Had he, no reporter of his vintage and experience could so dismiss the laptop in such manner.

    The first question Scott should have asked: Why do so many tech writers who last year dissed Chromebook praise its successor? CNET's Scott Stein doesn't love the Chrome OS followup, but most other tech writers heap praise -- and for a reason. Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook is good enough for everyday computing. Most "actual consumers and businesses", as Scott describes them, will find the computing experience satisfying, though I wouldn't say that Chromebook is for everyone. But it could be for most anyone, with caveat really being Microsoft Office. Do you require it? The answer will be yes for businesses dependent on back-end Microsoft server software leveraging Office on the desktop.

    Where's the Override?

    Mr. Fulton writes: "There's no optical disc drive, yet the software would have me store all my files on this cloud-based service called Google Drive. So how do I get my existing files from here to there? Presumably I would plug a storage device into one of the USB ports. Will the operating system recognize my storage device? This is an important but unanswered question".

    It's no "unanswered question" at all. I assume Scott's post is meant to refute his ReadWriteWeb colleague Jon Mitchell's Chromebook review. The answer is there -- not even in the text but a sidebar, called out plain as day.

    But first, Scott continues: "Perhaps this thing recognizes most flash-based USB thumb drives in the world (again, an assumption) but will it read data from a Western Digital My Passport or Seagate Expansion drive? Windows 7 needed to download new drivers to recognize the latest My Passport drives (I've watched it happen). When a new class of hardware comes out, is Chrome OS equipped to download the latest drivers?"

    According to the RWW sidebar: "Chrome OS treats cameras and SD cards as any other mass storage device, like a USB drive, so it's easy to copy files off of them, even if there's no software for them". Yes, Chromebook can access the drives, and no to drivers being required. They're not necessary on Windows 7, either, by the way. I can speak from experience plugging in USB flash and external hard drives to the Chrome OS computer. Files are all easily opened or copied.

    He goes on to ask similar questions about photos and printers, which the same sidebar in the same site he writes for answers: "Google says that more than 70 percent of printers on the market are Google Cloud Print enabled, which means you can print from anywhere, not just your home network".

    "But how do we know whether any particular printer will work with a Chromebook?" Scott asks. Google offers a handy list of supported printers, which would have answered the question asked. I have an Epson printer, and Google links to easy-setup instructions.

    Fire Photon Torpedoes

    None of the questions Scott asks are difficult to answer, and a more useful story would have done so. Instead he asks them unanswered, while peppering the post with snark like:

    • "There is nothing about the virtue of being a Web app that elevates it to the level of good". Oh yeah? Tell that to the hundreds of millions of people using Gmail or Hotmail as their primary inbox.
    • "When everyday consumers and businesses look at supposedly knowledgeable computer-types as though we're from Mars -- it's usually because we're from Mars". You're from Mars perhaps. Those of us who have used the new Chromebook are from planet Earth.
    • "Lenovo is a better-known brand than Samsung", referring to a Windows laptop with same processor. This one impinges itself.
    • "The Chromebook will never become a real PC until it has a real OS. Until then, it's a cheap keyboard". Chrome OS is a real operating system -- Google-refined Linux. Or is Linux not a real OS?

    I'm no stranger to snark, and commend Scott for writing it well. But he looks at Chromebook like everyone will give up something using it -- or that relying "on users to store their personal treasures on someone else's cloud" is a fearful thing. Anyone who uses email, Facebook, Flickr or YouTube stores their treasures in the cloud today. Considering peoples' poor backup habits, that content is probably safer in the cloud than on the external drive Scott is oh-so desperate to use.

    Chromebook benefits are many, and Scott ignores them all. Among them:

    • Easy setup
    • Instant-on capability
    • Hands-free IT management
    • Frequent updates, delivered easily
    • Seamless sync with devices running Chrome

    Perhaps most importantly is increased simplicity and decreased complexity. Mitchell writes:

    Chrome OS is dead simple. It's simpler than a Mac. It's arguably as simple as iOS if not simpler, but it has the true multitasking of a desktop. As intuitive as iOS is, a new user still has a lot to learn. Ask my grandma. But someone who uses Chrome or even just Gmail on the desktop hardly has to learn to use a new Chromebook at all.

    The price cuts right across the iPad market. For people who were hesitant to buy an iPad because they thought they might need desktop capabilities, this new Chromebook is right there waiting. It won't replace a Mac, unless you really feel that your Mac is too much computer, but it might convert some first-time buyers. It seems like a lifesaver for students.

    I whole-heatedly agree. In the companion post to my review I questioned Chromebook's value -- $549 for 3G combo and $449 for WiFi only. Mitchell comparing to iPad makes lots of sense of the pricing, particularly education, which is one of the primary target markets.

    You Can't Get Away

    Scott uses old-school metrics, what I call "has-been computing", to compare the Series 5 550 Chromebook to Windows laptops. He sees the Samsung machine for what it is not, while ignoring what it is. The question to ask: Is Chromebook good enough for what it does? Absolutely. Om Malik calls the computer "screamingly fast".

    He's right. Despite seemingly low-cal specs, the Series 5 550 Chromebook is a real performer. In fact, my wife and I are discussing replacing the Core i7 MacBook Air she now uses with Chromebook. I've got two here, temporarily. The first that Google sent for review had a glitchy space bar. My wife will try that Chromebook before I return it to Google. If the computer suits her, we'll buy one for her and sell the MacBook Air. That's how much value I see in Chromebook for someone that spends most of her computing time online. It also points back to the easier-than-Mac quality Mitchell observes.

    Speaking of the keyboard, Mr. Fulton ridicules Engadget reviewer Dana Wollman's high praise. I posted the quote to Google+ the day before yesterday after realizing that my review overlooked the exceptional keyboard:

    One of the best we've tested lately. Seriously, folks, you're looking at a $449 netbook-like machine whose island-style keys put thousand-dollar Ultrabooks to shame. Compared to Samsung's own Series 9 laptops and other ultraportables, the chiclet keyboard on offer here actually has some bounce to it. The slightly deeper keys and even the quiet sound make it easy to settle in for hours of web surfing, email and story writing (well, if you're an Engadget editor, anyway).

    The Series 5 550 keyboard and trackpad are joys to use.

    I wonder if Scott couldn't resist taking such a "has-been computing" look at Chromebook because of another RWW colleague missive -- "More Bad News For HP: The New Google Chromebook Compared to a Typical HP Laptop". Richard MacManus sized up the computers by focusing on what Mr. Fulton misses: user experience.

    MacManus writes: "At first glance the software on the two machines is fundamentally different, since the HP laptop relies on desktop apps for the main tasks (such as Microsoft Word), while on the Chromebook you can only run Web apps (such as Google Docs in the browser). But actually, the difference in user experience of the software is minimal".

    He emphasizes that Mitchell found the second-gen Chromebook to be "more than sufficient for most of his daily work and casual computing...Mostly casual = everyday. So the Chromebook is hitting directly at HP and Microsoft's mainstream market for laptops, even though it isn't an apples-to-apples feature comparison".

    That's exactly how I would describe using Samsung's second-generation Chromebook. After 9 days, there is nothing I've wanted or needed to do that couldn't be done. No Windows PC or Mac required.

    That's another benefit: Freedom from the Apple and Microsoft duopolies. If Scott Fulton wants to keep them, fine. The view from the cloud looks pretty good. I'll enjoy the sun while he works in a rain of software updates, device drivers, viruses and such that are all too common in the world of has-been computing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/30/Siri_sucks'

    Siri sucks

    Publié: mai 30, 2012, 10:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday, during the annual D conference, Apple CEO Tim Cook said that the company is "doubling down" on Siri. Improvements are coming -- promised without admission of problems, although complaints about them are many. Then there's the lawsuit claiming Siri fails to meet advertised capabilities. You could interpret Cook's promise as concession Siri sucks or that Apple is preparing to take on Google in search. I see it both ways.

    Five years ago, Apple supercharged the smartphone category with a more natural user interface. Suddenly, there was a new way to interact with a mobile phone that was seemingly magical. Humanness made the original iPhone stand apart from all competitors, and Apple used a variety of sensors to imbue the quality. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to your proximity gave it the human quality. But Apple has done little since, other than Siri, which does add a little more humanness to iPhone 4S. She adds personality and extends the mobile user interface to another more important than touch: Voice. Problem: There's something inhuman about Siri's often frustrating responses to questions.

    "I've never had luck with her for anything", my 17 year-old daughter told me this morning about Siri. She's an avid, and I would say addicted, iPhone user. "When I ask for directions the distance is always wrong. She will say it's 2.8 miles when it's really 4.3 miles. It's farther away".

    Google "Siri sucks" and you'll read more of the same. The forum discussions are the most revealing about how much trouble so many people have with Siri.

    Jordan Crook's November 2011 post "Siri, why are you so overwhelming?" caught my attention for its plaintive, self-accusing quality. What's that concept they teach in Psychology 101 about the tendency to blame oneself when abused by someone else? "Siri isn’t perfect, and perfect is what I expected", Crook writes in a missive about dissatisfaction. But there is excuse through self blame, which had better be facetious: "Siri misunderstands me all the time. Maybe I mumble, or maybe it’s because I’m talking to her like I would talk to any human personal assistant...That’s the thing about the disappointment Siri brings with her -- in the end it’s my fault".

    Jordan, it's not your fault. I used Siri, too, and found her to be about as reliable as starting an old car in a Maine winter. Some days the engine turns over, many more it doesn't.

    Fresh Tests

    Twice before today I conducted comparative tests -- my daughter's iPhone 4S against a Google phone: "Galaxy Nexus shames iPhone 4S Siri" and "Siri humbled my Android", which it didn't, but I wrote the headline before conducting the tests and decided to keep it.

    Before my daughter darted off to school this morning, I requested to borrow her iPhone 4S for 5 minutes. She grudgingly gave it up (My God, what if she missed a text!). I asked Siri three questions also put to Galaxy Nexus HSPA+:

    • "I have a flat tire, what should I do?"
    • "My cat has fleas, what should I do?"
    • "How far is Alpha Centauri from Earth?"

    Siri's answers:

    • "How about a web search for 'I have a flat tire what should I do'?"
    • "How about a web search for 'My cat has fleas, what should I do'?"
    • "Sorry Princess, I can only get directions starting from your current location".

    How about Earth, as current location, bitch?

    Galaxy Nexus responds with no soothing (dare I say mocking) Siri voice or pretty white text against dark grey. But the Android delivers answers I can use, from Google search pages:

    • The first response leads to Wikipedia entry "flat tire", followed by "How to change a flat tire?" from Edmunds.com.
    • To the second, Yahoo Answers to the exact question asked.
    • Finally, WikiAnswers: "4.4 light years away. We're talking 44 trillion km".

    Way to go Galaxy Nexus.

    Later, since my daughter had gone to school, I asked colleague Ed Oswald to ask another question. "Siri, do you suck?" Her answer: "I'm just trying to help you".

    Voice is Your Bond

    Apple is right to focus on voice, which is a much more natural user interface for a mobile device than touch. More importantly, if Siri could actually get the answers right, Apple would have a powerful competitive weapon to blast away Google mobile search share. There, Cook's "doubling down" is as much, if not more, about transforming the mobile search experience, and that means butting heads with Google. Better: Someday replacing Google with Siri search on iOS devices. But that's not viable as long as Siri sucks.

    Hype is part of the problem -- Siri getting too much of it and Google's unnamed voice features not getting enough of it. Apple bought Siri in early 2010 and tacked it onto iPhone 4S in late 2011. Google has done work on voice capabilities longer, and it shows. My colleague Tim Conneally took a first look at Google's voice-recognition engine in June 2009. By January 2010, when Nexus One launched, Google hyped the phone's surprisingly strong voice capabilities.

    I explained then: "Jack Consumer can speak 'Pizza Hut' and the phone will use GPS to find the nearest restaurant and then offer turn-by-turn vocal navigation on how to get there". Say, doesn't that ring familiar, like something you might have seen or heard about Siri? More: "Better still, Google has enabled voice capabilities for all text fields in Android 2.1. Who needs a keyboard when he or she can speak to text or twitter? Apple made iPhone something magical by the way it responds to touch. Google is taking the input and interaction hands free, which is even better".

    All that came long before Siri arrived in beta -- where it still is today, as Apple often observes when excusing performance. To that I say: If it's still beta and not really ready for the masses, why are you so aggressively marketing Siri, Apple? There are three -- or is it four -- new TV commercials this month. Answer: Apple is pulling a 1990's Microsoft; release a product before it's really ready so as to gain market share against a competitor. Apple knows that voice is the future of mobile user interfaces.

    But such strategy risks ticking off customers, unless like Crook they blame themselves. Meanwhile Apple glows in the bask of presumed innovation for technology paid for and following behind Google advances.

    What's that saying? No risk, no rewards. If Apple can conquer voice by iterating improvements and truly match or even exceed Google in mobile search, the game changes. Apple changes the rules like it did in so many other product categories -- digital content creation software, app stores, MP3/video players, media playback software, smartphones and tablets, among others. Cook and Company should be "doubling down". Whomever wins mobile search takes the prize.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/30/What_would_you_pay_for_a_7_inch__quad_core_Asus_made__Googe_branded_Android_4.1_Nexus_tablet_'

    What would you pay for a 7-inch, quad-core Asus-made, Googe-branded Android 4.1 Nexus tablet?

    Publié: mai 30, 2012, 5:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Rumor stories are uncommon here at BetaNews, and rare when we don't get the information ourselves. But Android Police has got one so tasty and so in line with others, I can't resist. In less than one month, Google could debut the highly-anticipated Nexus tablet, produced in conjunction with Asus and packing quad-core Tegra 3 processor and Android 4.1. The only question, if rumors prove to be true, is price. What would you pay for a 7-inch Asus-made, Googe-branded Nexus tablet?

    David Ruddock reports evidence from Rightware's Power Board benchmark and Android Police server logs showing instances of Androd 4.1 and Nexus devices. But the benchmark tool is more revealing: 1.3GHz nVidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor, 1280 x 768 resolution display, Google brand and product name Google Asus Nexus 7. That's hardly a smoking gun. Asus and Google could be testing a prototype device, or even several. But given that Google I/O starts June 27, developers received tablets there last year and the search giant promised a Nexus tablet in about six months half a year ago, the discovery is too credible to ignore.

    Something else: Android 4.1 is listed as Jelly Bean. If true, then Ice Cream Sandwich's successor will come sooner than most Google watchers expect, and it won't be version 5. That's a risky but courageous move to make, just as the Android tablet market limps along to ICS. For the 14 days leading up to May 1, Ice Cream Sandwich accounted for 4.9 percent of devices accessing Google Play. I expect Google to update the stats either June 1st or 2nd.

    Timing -- and perception -- is everything in business. Microsoft is planning to release a final preview build of Windows 8 in just a few days. Apple's developer conference, where next iOS and OS X versions are expected to take center stage, starts June 11. Twelve days after Worldwide Developer Conference ends, Google gets the last say in June. Nexus tablet, and Jelly Bean, delivered at the right price could shake the earth. Rumors are $199, but I'm not so sure.

    Earlier this month I purchased the Asus Transformer Pad 300 for $390 and some change from Amazon. The tablet retails for $399 and packs 10.1-inch display and quad-core Tegra 3 processor. Could Google really sell an Asus-made tablet with top-of-line processor and graphics for 200 bucks less? Samsung's Galaxy Tab 2 7.0 is an attractive 7-inch dual core tablet selling for $249. How could Google really offer so much more for so much less?

    The answer: There's no other choice. As I explained about a month ago, Google has lost control of Android. Two hugely successful OEMs, Amazon and Samsung, are fracturing the platform. They are seizing control with their customized-Android versions. Meanwhile, other device makers lollygag around updating their tablet customers to the newest Android version.

    Asus is the exception, by the way, and that's another factor making Android Police's findings and conclusion about them credible. Asus ships stock Android on its tablets, with few modifications, and updates fairly quickly. My Transformer Pad shipped with Android 4.0.3, for example. (But, hey, where's 4.0.4, Asus?)

    A $199 Nexus tablet could:

    • Expand Android tablet market share against iPad
    • Provide tablet buyers with a pure Android experience
    • Move more of the install base to the newest Android version
    • Wrestle control of the Android ecosystem from Amazon and Kindle Fire


    What would you pay for a 7-inch, quad-core Asus-made, Googe-branded Android 4.1 Nexus tablet?

    I can't express enough the importance of the latter one. As I explained in early April, "Google isn't trying to save Android but kill Kindle Fire". Low price, and a compelling stack of curated services similar to Apple's, define Kindle Fire. But a similarly-priced, widely-distributed Nexus tablet selling for the same price could devastate Amazon's Android lead.

    Hell, I'd even spend $299. But for $199, I'd buy one for my mom, wife, daughter and father-in-law. What would you pay?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/29/Is_Samsung_Chromebook_Series_5_550_worth_spending__549_'

    Is Samsung Chromebook Series 5 550 worth spending $549?

    Publié: mai 29, 2012, 9:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google and Samsung couldn't have done more to hide the second-generation Chromebook and new Chromebox during Consumer Electronics Show 2012 in January. They're cloaked no longer, as I explain in my "Samsung Chromebook Series 5 550 first-impressions review". The products launched today, and they're worth a look. But is the new Chromebook worth buying?

    Everyone should ask first about performance, because by the specs Samsung's new Chromebook is an under-performer -- Celeron processor in an Core i-processor world. But there are different measures of performance, and only one really matters: Is it good enough for what it's meant to do? I partly answer the question in my review, but the topic is so important for this computer I've dedicated another post just to it. Quick answer: Performance is good enough. However, price-performance is another matter.

    An Air Comparison

    For two months last summer, I used the original Samsung Series 5 Chromebook as my primary PC, in the first weeks and as my only one later on. The cloud experience was refreshing, no liberating, but Chromebook grated the longer I used it, because of performance. There was too much lag, and video playback was too choppy. At the least, Chromebook needed 4GB of memory, rather than two, faster processor and better graphics chip. The new model has the memory chops and perhaps good-enough processor and graphics chips, by the aforementioned measure. I use "perhaps" because the real test is time -- performance a month from now or longer.

    Google got what could have been a disastrous luck of the draw, sending me a Chromebook to use ahead of today's launch. I moved form a smoking MacBook Air, which places high measure for comparable user experience performance.

    MacBook Air specs: 1.8GHz Intel Core i7 processor; 11.6-inch glossy display (1366 x 768 resolution); 256GB flash memory; Intel HD graphics; 4GB SDRAM; webcam; two USB ports; Thuderbolt port; WiFi N; Bluetooth 4.0; iLife '11; and OS X Lion.

    Chromebook 5 550 specs: 1.3GHz Intel Celeron 867 processor (dual-core); 12.1-inch matte display (1280 x 800 resolution; 300 nit); 16GB solid-state drive; Intel HD graphics; 4GB SDRAM; webcam; two USB ports, DisplayPort; WiFi N; 3G (one some models); Gigabit Ethernet; 4-in-1 media card slot; and Chrome OS. The operating system stack supports Bluetooth, which therefore can be added by dongle.

    Smooth Operator

    Based on the specs, I absolutely prepared for huge letdown, but didn't get it. Instead, I'm surprisingly satisfied with my first week using the new Chromebook. Always. My first open tab went to Hulu, so I could see if video streaming had improved. Considering that through Google's subscription program, education is a target market, video streaming needs to be excellent. Students will demand it for leisure and study. Video also is excellent measure of overall performance, without benchmarking, which I never do since it's often poor measure of real-world usage and primary value is comparing devices. Verdict: Video delivers.

    Overall operation is smooth, even with a dozen or more tabs open. In fact, BetaNews website opens much faster on this machine than the Air. We've got a couple banner ads running recently that just slog down main site opening, or so I experience on the Apple computer but not the Samsung.

    Bottom line: For the last week, the new Chromebook wasn't just my primary machine, it was my only one. I'll spend all of June using this computer, unexpectedly beginning a repeat of last summer's two-months with its predecessor. The switch is easier because so much of what I do is in the cloud, compared to last year, and the overall experience is so improved -- and that's because of software as much as hardware.

    The 550's specs generate strong gut "this can't be good enough" reaction, but my experience is satisfaction. Remember, I came from using MacBook Air and expected a dim user experience by comparison.

    The Xbox Analogy

    Techdom is too obsessed with specs, something vendors perpetuate in their product marketing. I could use many examples to refute the more-is-better myth, but for this audience Xbox 360 works. Microsoft started selling the game console in November 2005 and there have been no major platform updates since. Today's Xbox 360 is much the same as the original; yes, Microsoft tweaked hardware along the way. Gamers pine for more, but who complains the console underperforms?

    Rather, the games keep getting better as does the overall user experience. Microsoft improves Xbox 360 by way of software updates and cloud services. Then there are platform extensions, with Kinect top of list. The motion sensor radically improves the overall user experience without changing the core platform. This is how you should see Chromebook, as a category.

    Google has set a hardware baseline, with the big benefits coming from improvements to software and services, similar to the Xbox and Xbox Live ecosystems. New Chrome OS versions closely track browser development, which revs a new version about every six weeks. Chromebook Series 5 550 ships with v19, but v20, which is in the beta channel, offers Google Drive integration. Last month, my colleague Tim Conneally aptly observed that the newly launched Google Drive is "perfect for a Nexus tablet". The feature is as good, if not better, for Chromebook.

    Price to Performance

    But there's another consideration -- price to performance and how it compares to other choices. That's where Chromebook crumbles for many potential buyers. The newer Samsung sells for more than its predecessor when released -- $449 vs $429 for the WiFi model and $549 vs $499 for 3G. Compared to MacBook Air, which starts at $999 and the model I have $1,649, price to performance is quite favorable. But, by the specs, there are plenty of lower-cost options. Hell, in my local Best Buy on Saturday, I saw an ASUS laptop (not netbook) discounted to $249.

    Then there are the tablets. San Diego school district is readying 25,000 iPads for classrooms in the autumn. Education is one of Google's primary target markets. iPad 2 sells for $399 and newer Apple tablet starts at $499. New iPad's high-res display, 2048 x 1536, decimates Chromebook 5 550 for readability and overall user experience. Even compared to many other currently selling laptops, screen resolution lacks and will, by comparison, look less appealing when new Windows 8 laptops ship in a few months.

    That's perhaps the important distinction when making the Xbox comparison. The 360 was state of art in November 2005. The 550, as flagship second-generation Chromebook launch model, falls behind even as it starts. Much depends on how far Google can extend the user experience with ever-more and quickly-improving software and services. I'm confident Chromebook 5 550 will satisfy most of my computing needs through the end of June. But the computer is not for everyone -- whatever is, eh?

    What Price is Right?

    On Sunday, my father-in-law bought a used car for my daughter. The financial guy processing our paperwork turns out to be a Cr-48 Chromebook user. The topic came up after he commented about my Androids skateboarding Tee. Knowing that I would be writing about the Series 5 550 and looking for reaction to Chrome OS 19, I asked for Chromebook user experiences on Google+. Pricing must have leaked, because teacher Brian Fay commented:

    Did you see the price? $549 is way, way, way beyond my price range for such a thing. If that will be the final price, I'll likely buy a cheap notebook and throw Linux on it instead. Not as good as a Chromebook (fast boot, no maintenance) but good enough. I always thought that these things would end up being $200 or so. Oh well.

    So did I.

    Fay is a good measure being an educator and education being one of Chromebook's primary target markets. As a long-term performance investment, $549 is potentially quite rich. As previously stated, much depends on Google making more of what buyers have got.

    However, for businesses or schools, pricing is different. Google launched the original Chromebook with a multi-year monthly subscription plan, but that goes away today. Under the new scheme, businesses buy the device at the manufacturer's suggested retail price plus $150. For schools it's MSRP plus $30 per device. The extra fee covers maintenance and other service fees.

    Performance is there today and hardware upgrades promise continued performance for price in the future. Chromebook subscription looked like a good value, now it's gone.

    Demand will drive down selling prices, as Samsung and other Chromebook OEMs increase production and economies of scale kick in. Looks to me like even second-gen Chromebook buyers will pay a price premium for being early adopters. What else can explain price increases for a category many people expected declines?

    My mom uses the Cr-48 Chromebook, and I planned on buying her a new one. But even $449 is rich. Mom's worth spending that much, of course. My concern is rapidly diminishing value over time. How I feel after a month using the Series 5 550 Chromebook will weigh in my decision for her and final recommendation to you. For now, I'll say that performance satisfies. I am less encouraged about price-to-performance value now and in the future. However, I see huge price-to-performance value in $329 Series 3 Chromebox, which also launched today.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/29/Samsung_Series_5_550_Chromebook_first_impressions_review'

    Samsung Series 5 550 Chromebook first-impressions review

    Publié: mai 29, 2012, 9:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Google and Samsung officially launch the second-generation Chromebook, starting with the Series 5 550, which like its predecessor comes in WiFi-only and 3G combo models. I had the pleasure of using the new Chromebook for the past week as my only PC. The overall user experience is surprisingly satisfying and refreshing.  In a computer market dominated by Mac and Windows, Chromebook is freedom from duopolies that define the experience within walled gardens and around desktop applications. But changes introduced with Chrome OS 19 make the user experience much more desktop-like, as Google cedes some of the browser motif for familiarity and usability, with multitasking being high among the reasons.

    If you read no further, the answer to your question is this: Yes, you can use Chromebook Series 5 550 as your primary, and only, PC. Google has succeeded offering online and offline capabilities balanced to most computing needs, while keeping cloud benefits primary but seamlessly integrated. For two months last summer, I used the original Samsung Series 5 Chromebook as my primary PC, in the first weeks and as my only one later on. I'll repeat the experiment at least through the end of June, and I might not go back -- strange, considering new OS X and Windows versions debut within months. That commitment says much about my positive first impressions.

    By the specs, Samsung's second-generation Chromebook is hugely underpowered: 1.3GHz Intel Celeron 867 processor (dual-core); 12.1-inch matte display (1280 x 800 resolution; 300 nit); 16GB solid-state drive; Intel HD graphics; 4GB SDRAM; webcam; two USB ports; DisplayPort; WiFi N; 3G (one some models); Gigabit Ethernet; 4-in-1 media card slot; and Chrome OS. The operating system stack supports Bluetooth, which therefore can be added by dongle.

    The WiFi model sells for $449, a $20 increase over the original Series 5 and the 3G 550 is $549 -- or 50 bucks more. Price increase surprises, particularly considering what's inside. Performance and price are so important, I pulled them out of this review into a separate, 1,500-word exploration. Quickly stated: Performance is there, but $549 is a bit rich. If you want more than that, please read the companion post.

    What's It Like?

    Before continuing, trackpad is priority mention. Users of the Cr-48 test model and commercially available Acer and Samsung Chromebooks complained about the trackpad, with good reason. Expect  better now. Google rewrote the driver, and the 550 trackpad works! That said, no computer should ship with trackpad performance as bad as Google and its partners delivered last year.

    Out of the box. In January, based on specs and photos my colleague Tim Conneally collected during Consumer Electronics Show 2012, I called the new Samsung Chromebook a "cheap, plastic MacBook". Well, it's not all plastic. The rest bar is metal, and it's quite comfortable. Overall, the 550 feels sturdier than the original Series 5, and it's surprisingly handsome -- not cheap, or imitation after all. This has much to do with contours and curves.

    Setting up the Series 5 550 is similar to its predecessor. Open the lid, wait a few seconds for boot up and walk through language, keyboard layout and connection prompts to Google account login, and that's it. Setup complete. During my May 25 briefing with Googlers Linus Upson, vice president of engineering, and Caesar Sengupta, director of Chrome OS, I praised the trackpad performance but complained about the space bar, which consistently required multiple taps. Uh-oh, that can't be right, they said. Google sent a second 550, presuming the first was defective out of the box. So I had the pleasure of second setup. Changing computers was never easier -- just log in, baby. The point: Setup is one of Chromebook's primary benefits.

    The second Chromebook is better in other ways. The overall typing experience is smoother, and the spacebar works just fine. My typing speed is quite good, in fact. Keyboard comfort is hugely important in any laptop, and I worried about lag while typing. There is none.

    Closing the lid puts the laptop to sleep, while opening is instant-on. Seriously instantly. I used a Core i7 MacBook Air before the Series 5 550, and the Apple computer is nearly instant-on from sleep when connected to electricity, while taking 4-to-7 seconds to start when on battery. Samsung's Chromebook immediately starts whether connected to power or using battery. Truly instant-on is another Chromebook primary benefit.

    The screen doesn't exactly wow me. At 300 nit, it's bright enough, but text is typical, meaning just okay, for a 1280 x 800 display. Google can't magically improve viewable dots per inch without a hardware upgrade, but an optimized, customized font could go far to improve the visual experience. I compare to my Galaxy Nexus, where text is crisp, by comparison. Microsoft did wonders with ClearType. Google should do something similar.

    Still, the display offers one big benefit: matte versus glossy finish. Contrast isn't as sharp, but there's no glare, making the new Samsung Chromebook a much better outdoor companion than most other laptops sold today.

    Chrome OS. While hardware modestly improves over original Series 5, the software dramatically changes. Google introduced new window manager Aura with Chrome OS 19. While the browser motif dominates the desktop, it's not the only landscape. There is a bottom toolbar that is something of a cross between those available on OS X and Windows 7, plus there's a desktop now. OS X and Windows fans looking for a reason to diss Chrome OS should enjoy changes easily characterized as a big fail for the browser OS concept.

    The changes aren't so much concession as extension. The full-screen browser remains, but simply as option. Users can have it both ways, while gaining something else: Better multitasking, a capability the tabbed motif limited. Separate windows allow users to work more freely. In theory. I find the desktop motif to be superfluous. Tabs work just fine for me.

    Something else: there's an app launcher, which presents applications in grid-like fashion, reminiscent of Android. The launcher is unexpected, since these are web apps after all. But the motif works and makes the experience more familiar to everyone that has used popular mobile or PC operating systems. In the lower right-hand corner is a clock behind which there are some pop-up settings presented, and they take visual cues from Android 4.x. Actually, many of the UI changes subtly remind of Ice Cream Sandwich. Perhaps there is yet a future where Google combines Android and Chrome OS, something I would recommend.

    BTW, translucency is a design element, another similarity to Android. But Google adds translucency as Apple and Microsoft largely or completely abandon it in their operating systems. I'm a big fan of the motif.

    Chrome 19 is the stable build, as I write, but v20 offers additional benefits, with Google Drive integration being biggest. Chrome OS development closely follows the browser, which revs a new version about every six weeks. So Google will improve the Chromebook experience fairly frequently, within every few months compared to several years for OS X or Windows. The point: Chromebook improves with age, which is another benefit.

    Down to work. Chromebook critics often point to the cloud as foible -- that the computer is a brick without Internet connection. That hasn't been true for sometime. Chrome OS supports offline apps, even games, and Google consistently extends such capabilities. The search and information giant has done well making the online-offline experience/capabilities transparent. There are more offline, desktop PC capabilities -- albeit many still limited.

    The file manager is one, while photo viewer, with barebones editing capabilities, is another. There's an audio player, too, basic as it may be. I keep my permanent music library (about 13,000 songs) on an external, FAT32-formatted 1TB drive. Plugged into the 550's USB port, the drive is fully accessible, and I can play music using the audio player, which produces rich tones. Streaming is my preferred option, using Google Music.

    However, while audio fidelity satisfies, volume doesn't. When using Bose Companion 5 speakers or Grado Reference Series RS1i headphones, I need to crank up the volume near full on the Series 5 550, whereas I rarely pass one-quarter volume on the MacBook Air. Perhaps a better software driver will fix that. Something else: On both new Chromebooks, connected speakers blast feedback/loud buzz when the computer sleeps. The noise scares the crap out of the cat, if he's napping. The audio problems are simply unacceptable for a computer selling for more than $500.

    Google Docs and Gmail are available online or offline. There's little new to discuss here, other than I had no real problems working either way. However, most of my writing is done in HTML in a browser, so my testing Google offline apps is limited.

    As a cloud computer, Series 5 550 Chromebook is meant to be mostly connected. WiFi performance is excellent, with better range than the MacBook Air. The 3G model has excellent coverage, from Verizon, which offers 100MB per month free data for two years. Google and Samsung could have really set Chromebook apart from OS X or Windows laptops by offering LTE, which would better justify the $549 price. Verizon activation is supposed to be pretty fast, and was on the original Series 5, but I couldn't get it to work at all yesterday; five fails.

    Streaming video delivers handsomely, which hugely improves over the original Series 5 out of the box. However, the volume problem is pronounced on some sites, with Hulu being a big, glaring example. Google really must fix this.

    I've only done modest battery testing, but got more than 6 hours with heavy usage -- as in more than a dozen tabs open and music streaming. I expect consistent battery life to be close to 7 hours, which is a good hour less than what the original Series 5 Chromebook delivered. Granted, there's more overhead with GUI changes and dual-core processor. That said, battery life is a big Chromebook benefit. On a good day, I only get four hours from MacBook Air.

    Will I Use It?

    In early October, I ended a long run -- from July 31 -- using the original Series 5 Chromebook as my primary PC. In June I return, and quite unexpectedly. On May 20, I posted to Google+ about plans to go Android tablet:

    I considered Chromebook, given the more desktop-UI enhancements coming, but there's no new hardware out there. What about Android? My Galaxy Nexus is so fast and responsive, surely there's a case for trying out an Ice Cream Sandwich tablet as primary PC for a month. Apps are plentiful, which appeals over Chrome OS.

    Obviously, new iPad would be contender, too, and I seriously considered experimenting that way. But that kind of thing has been done and written about often enough. Besides, Android tablet promises more challenges and so something more interesting to write about.

    I purchased the ASUS Tranformer Pad 300 and keyboard for the purpose. Someone at Google must read my posts, because later that Sunday came the offer for Chromebook and Chromebox loaners and briefing, three days later as Google+ Hangout using the 550's webcam. The Samsung Series 3 Chromebox also launched today.

    I was enthused about getting the Chromebook but apprehensive. Android seems more viable a long-term investment, given its popularity, huge app ecosystem and better hardware. Those are major reasons why I prepared to go Android tablet for a month, or at least attempt to. I also snubbed nose the specs, particularly based on last year's Chromebook experience. So I was remarkably surprised how satisfying is overall performance and usability as primary PC replacement.

    That's not to say Chromebook is for everyone or even most anyone. Businesses or individuals dependent on Office or other desktop apps should look elsewhere, for example. But the second-generation is ready for public consumption, which is coming soon. Right now, laptops running Chrome OS are available only for online purchase. Next month, Chromebook arrives in Best Buy, so that people will be able to try and buy. Between time, I'll offer ongoing updates about my next and unexpected Chromebook adventure.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/29/Meet_Samsung_Series_3_Chromebox'

    Meet Samsung Series 3 Chromebox

    Publié: mai 29, 2012, 9:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Chrome OS is taking up new residence. Today Google and Samsung launch Chromebox, a Mac mini-like computer to which buyers attach keyboard, mouse and monitor. The idea isn't novel: Users keep their existing peripherals while upgrading hardware and migrating to a spanking new operating system. For anyone looking to get off the OS X or Windows train, Chromebox proves to be an affordable alternative running Google's browser-boasting, cloud-connected Linux-based OS.

    Samsung Series 3 Chromebox joins Samsung's second-generation Chromebook, the Series 5 500, also launched today, and it's a bargain by comparison -- $329 versus $449 for WiFi-only laptop and $549 for 3G combo. The chromebox also sports a faster processor, 1.9GHz vs 1.3GHz for Chromebook. The cloud-computing device, now with loads of local functionality and storage, is well-suited for educational institutions and small businesses.

    However, new pricing plan could make Chromebox costlier for some businesses or institutions. Google launched the original Chromebook with a multi-year monthly subscription plan, but that goes away today. Under the new scheme, businesses buy the device at the manufacturer's suggested retail price plus $150. For schools it's MSRP plus $30 per device. The extra fee covers maintenance and other services. That said, one institution or small business could deploy a single Chromebox for many users, making $479 or $359 a smart, managed investment.

    That's in part because of the cloud box concept. Chrome OS development closely follows the browser, which revs a new version about every six weeks. So Google will improve the Chromebox experience fairly frequently, within every few months compared to several years for OS X or Windows. Google dispatches these updates automatically, as it does with other cloud products or services, providing low- to non-touch IT management.

    Meanwhile, starting with Chrome OS 19, Google changed the user experience, so it's more desktop-like. There is a window manager now, taskbar, app launcher and other new features. Additionally, Chromebox is meant to be used in always-connected environments, removing concerns about cloud access. If the network is done, every user is, whether they use PC, Mac or Chromebox. All are equal on the network.

    Google already touts customer wins: Dillard's, which the search and information giant claims will deploy "hundreds of Chromeboxes in more than half of their US stores", while Kaplan, working with Genesys, is moving its New York City call center to WebRTC and Chromeboxes.

    Samsung Series 3 Chromebox specs: 1.9GHz Intel Celeron processor (dual-core); 16GB solid-state drive; Intel HD graphics; 4GB SDRAM; webcam; six USB ports; two DisplayPorts; DVI port; WiFi N; Bluetooth 3.0; Gigabit Ethernet; and Chrome OS. Device measures 7.6 x 7.6 x 1.3 inches and weighs 2.45 pounds. Buyers use their existing peripherals, although Samsung sells wireless mouse and keyboard, too.

    As part of the ongoing development process, Google is focusing more on simplifying setup and management, including auto-update and auto-enrollment controls. Additionally, Chrome Remote Desktop, currently in beta, allows educational institutions or businesses -- and consumers, too -- to tunnel into their Mac or Windows desktops to run older apps. Yes, Virginia, you can have Chrome OS and use your legacy stuff, too.

    I have strong reservations about Chromebook's long-term performance-to-price value, because of the slower processor and much higher price. Chromebox, by comparison, offers lots more for lots less.

    I have a Chromebox and will soon publish a review. But I've got to ask here and now: Will you buy one?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/29/Why_aren_t_you_reading_this_story_on_Samsung_Galaxy_S_III_'

    Why aren't you reading this story on Samsung Galaxy S III?

    Publié: mai 29, 2012, 4:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you live in parts of Europe, the Middle East or Asia, arguably the hottest smartphone on the planet is selling out fast, and, whoa, it's not iPhone 4S. May 29 dawned on the continent to a new day for Samsung smartphones and sunset for Apple's flagship, which is oh-so similar to the one released in early 2010. Buyers looking for freedom from the walled garden or simply stunning software innovation can choose to "think different", borrowing the long-discarded Apple marketing phrase.

    Twenty-six days ago, I asked: "Is iPhone 4 obsolete?" Nearly 2,000 of you answered "Yes" -- that's 65 percent -- by saying you will buy Galaxy S III. Now remains the question: How many of you planning to buy, really will do so?

    Samsung unveiled its flagship smartphone on May 3, with plans to sell it through 297 carriers in 147 countries. The phone launched today in 28 countries.

    Americans can either order the Galaxy S III now, unlocked, or wait until it officially launches on these shores. Current rumors put the date in late June. Unlocked prices range form around $694 to $820, here.

    Samsung offers the phone in two colors, white and pebble blue. However, concurrent with today's launch, the South Korean electronics giant issued statement:

    Samsung's Galaxy S III Pebble Blue version comes with a newly invented blue color and special hyperglaze material. In order to meet the highest internal quality standards and to provide the best quality Galaxy S III to customers, a short supply of Pebble Blue version is expected in some regions in the next 2-3 weeks. Samsung is working hard to ensure that customers will get the Pebble Blue colored devices as soon as possible.

    I sure hope you like white. Apparently some Pebble Blue models splotch.

    Is the S Before or After the Number Better?

    It's hard to discern a way that Galaxy S3 isn't superior to iPhone 4S. The specs:

    Galaxy S III: 4.8-inch Super AMOLED display (306 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution; 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (64GB in future), expandable with microSD card; HSPA+ 21Mbps (850/900/1900/2100), 4G LTE, GSM/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC, Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi N; 2100 mAh battery; carrier locked; Android 4.0 and TouchWiz "nature" UI. Measurements: 136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm, 133 grams.

    iPhone 4S: 3.5-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 960 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); 1GHz dual-core processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); 8MP rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; 1432 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 5. Measurements: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm, 140 grams.

    In many ways, Samsung out-Apples Apple. The original iPhone stood apart from all other phones, not just smart ones, for its humanness. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to your proximity gave it a human quality. Suddenly the phone wasn't an inanimate object but more living thing. Apple extended humanness with each new model. Samsung seeks to bring this quality to Galaxy S III, and it's centerpiece to the product marketing.

    Other than Siri, Apple did little to add humanness to iPhone 4S. Still, Siri provides personality and responsiveness for those people who use it. Samsung promises much more, by extending different sensors' functionality around stunning software enhancements. Galaxy S III responds to your movements, seemingly anticipating your needs.

    The big benefits are software and services. Among them:

    • Front camera detects whether the user is looking at the phone and keeps the screen lit. How many times has your display gone dark while reading a website or ebook?
    • The phone can automatically turn on, if recognizing your face.
    • You're in the middle of texting someone and decide to call instead. Lifting the phone to your face places a call to the recipient.
    • Facial recognition identifies friends, tagging their social networking accounts. Right, Facebook and Twitter.
    • Voice commands are available in 8 languages.

    S Voice is the feature causing lots of excitement among Android users, so I ask: If you've used Siri and S Voice can you offer up some comparison in comments? Better: Email joe at betanews dot com, and I'll publish your comparative review with your name, photo and bio. Even better: I would love to publish your Galaxy S III review. We love reader-submitted reviews, and it would be an honor to publish yours.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/25/Is_Apple_right_to_ban_Airfoil_Speakers_Touch_'

    Is Apple right to ban Airfoil Speakers Touch?

    Publié: mai 25, 2012, 2:54am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you want a gander at one of iOS 6's new features, just ask developer Rogue Amoeba. Apple unceremoniously pulled Airfoil Speakers Touch, which has been in the iOS App Store since 2009. In the past, the company has refused apps or pulled others that compete with Apple repeat functionality iOS offers. The ban hints at streaming capabilities coming in the next version, while raising questions about appropriateness or fairness. Hence the question to you: Is Apple right to ban Airfoil Speakers Touch?

    "Today, we’ve been informed that Apple has removed Airfoil Speakers Touch from the iOS App Store", CEO Paul Kafasis says. "We first heard from Apple about this decision two days ago, and we’ve been discussing the pending removal with them since then. However, we still do not yet have a clear answer on why Apple has chosen to remove Airfoil Speakers Touch. Needless to say, we’re quite disappointed with their decision, and we’re working hard to once again make the application available for you, our users." Apple had already approved the removed version.

    Rogue Amoeba has been here before, struggling to get the app approved. In November 2009, Kafasis bluntly stated: "The App Store is broken". The developer had to remove functionality for App Store approval, but restored it later on. "Following our post detailing the ordeal we had getting Airfoil Speakers Touch 1.0.1 through the store, we were contacted by Apple", Kafasis explained three years ago. "They indicated that, due in part to our post, they were changing their internal policies and would allow the desired behavior and artwork to be displayed". What was the problem? "Showing the computer artwork and application icons from your sending computer".

    The new ban robs Rogue Amoeba of revenue, for which it has few options to recover on iOS. "As far as we can tell, Airfoil Speakers Touch is in full compliance with Apple’s posted rules and developer agreements", Kafasis says. "We’ve already filed an appeal with Apple’s App Review Board, and we’re awaiting further information. Unfortunately, Apple has full control of application distribution on iOS, leaving us with no other recourse here".

    An anonymous commenter, responding to Kafasis states surely what many people suspect:

    I’m going to take a wild guess and say that Apple is going to include a similar streaming feature in iOS 6 and iTunes 11, so they pulled your app for being too similar to the future feature. Disappointing though for many reasons, but purely from a customer standpoint because not everyone will be able to upgrade to iOS 6 or iTunes 11, or want to.

    The app already offers functionality close to Apple's Airplay, but supports streaming from more devices and third-party services. Version 3, which released about a month ago, added support for iPad. The other big change, which just might foreshadow iOS 6 and iTunes 11: Enhanced Audio Receiving, which according to Rogue Amoeba turns an iOS device into a "full-fledged mobile AirPlay receiver. That means you can stream audio from one iOS device to another, or even send from iTunes directly to iOS. Why spend hundreds on a costly third-party AirPlay device, when you can use the iOS device you already have?"

    Or in the case of Apple, why let a developer offer this functionality when iOS 6 and iTunes 11 can do so?

    Airfoil Speakers Touch user MVeeH reacts: "If Apple is going to pull apps which have been around for years when they make their own version, everyone is in trouble. I love this app and I’m glad I got my copy already. Apple, this is weak sauce!!"

    Do you agree? Is Apple simply curating the platform to keep the user experience pure? Is the company sacrificing a developer to avoid competition? Perhaps you see something else. Please respond in comments.

    Photo Credit: Pavel K/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/24/Who_says_Google_promotes_piracy_'

    Who says Google promotes piracy?

    Publié: mai 24, 2012, 11:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Perhaps the question should be: Who doesn't? Google search is a powerful tool for finding content of any kind, including copyrighted material posted without permission. Today Google sets the record straight, by releasing the URLs copyright holders request removed from search: 1,246,713 over the last month. These came from more than 1,000 copyright holders directed at about 24,000 domains.

    Apparently more details about other copyright areas will come later. For now, search is priority, with Google planning to update requests daily. The report available on Wednesday offers data through yesterday.

    "We’re starting with search because we remove more results in response to copyright removal notices than for any other reason", Fred von Lohmann, Google senior copyright counsel, says. "So we’re providing information about who sends us copyright removal notices, how often, on behalf of which copyright owners and for which websites".

    The number of requests are increasing, with as many as 250,000 requests per week, or more than the total for all 2009. Does that mean there is more pirated content, or just more effort to take it down?

    Top organization: Microsoft, with 543,378 URL requests. Top reporting organization: Marketly LLC, with 461,851 URL requests. Oh? You haven't heard of the company, either? I expected the MPAA or RIAA near the top. NBC Universal is third. But Marketly? The only company of that name I easily Googled is located in Seattle and lists Microsoft as a customer.

    Google's von Lohman claims:

    Fighting online piracy is very important, and we don’t want our search results to direct people to materials that violate copyright laws. So we’ve always responded to copyright removal requests that meet the standards set out in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). At the same time, we want to be transparent about the process so that users and researchers alike understand what kinds of materials have been removed from our search results and why. To promote that transparency, we have long shared copies of copyright removal requests with Chilling Effects, a nonprofit organization that collects these notices from Internet users and companies. We also include a notice in our search results when items have been removed in response to copyright removal requests.

    Publishers have complained for years that Google holds copyright in low regard, since the company profits from searches of all kinds and its "open philosophy" in some ways contradicts long-standing intellectual property ownership tenets.

    Given the number of requests, surely some, perhaps many, aren't legitimate:

    We try to catch erroneous or abusive removal requests. For example, we recently rejected two requests from an organization representing a major entertainment company, asking us to remove a search result that linked to a major newspaper’s review of a TV show. The requests mistakenly claimed copyright violations of the show, even though there was no infringing content. We’ve also seen baseless copyright removal requests being used for anticompetitive purposes, or to remove content unfavorable to a particular person or company from our search results.

    The revamped disclosure policy is rather brilliant, if you ask me (and no one is). Google can show that it honors copyright holders' requests, while also exposing what and whom they are. Now people fighting real and would-be copyright cartels have a weapon, too. Transparency is a two-way street.

    Photo Credit: Yuganov Konstantin/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/24/Google__for_Android_catches_up_with_iPhone'

    Google+ for Android catches up with iPhone

    Publié: mai 24, 2012, 8:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, perhaps I should qualify that with "almost", depending on what matters more to you as a user. On Wednesday, 15 days after releasing a major Google+ update for iPhone, the Android version arrived. Timing is interesting. According to NPD, considerably more Android users access Google+ from the browser than the app -- 16 percent to 10 percent overall reach, in March, respectively. My question for you quick downloaders, will that be true for you, or is the app now preferred? It's no idle question, because the web experience is now so vastly different from the app.

    Like its counterpart, Google+ for Android offers bleeding-edge photos. Pretty much everything about Google+ bleeds the edge of the screen. The effect is immersive. You just want to scroll and scroll -- and you will since so much less content fills the screen now. But the Android version has better visual flow than its iOS counterpart. Stated differently: It's snappier, more alive. "We're building for a mobile future", Google senior veep Vic Gundotra says. That's apparent from just how different the app is from the web experience -- and how immersive.

    Immersion is Everything

    Immersion is critical in an app of this kind:

    1. Engagement. Social networking is all about relationships, meaningfully making connections with others. Google+ distinguishes from Facebook in several key areas, with common interest being one of the most important. The Circle concept allows people to engage with others they might not know based on something important they share, while Facebook is more about extending relationships with people whom they know -- even if just casually. The app's immersive quality pulls you into Google+ and there engaging others. New capabilities, such as inline editing and integrated Hangouts, improve and extend engagement.

    2. Discovery. Because Google+ is so much about interests shared in common, discovering them is crucial. Also, there's a Twitter-like quality to the Google+ newsfeed that makes finding things all the more important, and difficult. The immersive, bleed-to-edge UI and tabs like "What's Hot" improve discovery of people, interests, happenings and news -- as well as the "Nearby" tab and easy "check-in" option.

    3. Time spent online. Immersive web services/apps hold peoples' attention. This time is crucial for a cloud provider like Google that deals with lots of transitory traffic, mainly from search. Catching and keeping people is:

    • Good for the brand
    • Connecting users to ancillary products or services
    • Providing the eyeballs for selling and capitalizing ads or other promotional gimmicks

    For time spent on mobile, there is dramatic change underway. In March, according to comScore, the average American Facebook user spent more time on the site from smartphone than personal computer -- 441.3 minutes to 339 minutes, respectively. What neither Facebook or Google has done well: Wrap meaningful ads around the content, and that's an area the search giant has much to prove because 1) It's core to revenue; and 2) The bleed-to-edge design doesn't make room for ads the way one with lots more white space would.

    What's Google+ 2.6 Like?

    I downloaded Google+ for Android v2.6 late morning EDT on Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ and Asus Transformer Pad 300, running Android 4.04 and 4.03, respectively. I can't attest for how the user experience might differ on devices running older operating systems.

    My reaction is mixed compared to the iOS version, which in some ways I find superior. Responding to Gundotra, Eric Leslie writes: "I was excited when I saw the iPhone version, but this looks like a rough port. There isn't much polish. If you're looking at a post and start scrolling down, there is a weird gradient that moves over the top that looks odd until you reach the white where the comments are. I don't see any sexy animations like the iPhone has. Come on guys!"

    Beyond the visuals and improved discovery, two features stand out: Inline editing and integrated Hangouts. The latter, for video chatting, was one of Ice Cream Sandwich's stand-out features when launched last year. But as the cloud computing giant improved the feature as part of Google+, Hangouts grew clumsy, since users had to initiate them outside the social network. No longer.

    "To get started, tap 'Hangout' in the (new) navigation ribbon, add some friends and tap 'Start'", Gundotra explains. "We'll ring their phones (if you want), and if someone misses the hangout, they can ring you back with a single tap".

    Inline editing is a "Doh?" feature that Google should have included from day one. Who wants to post while mobile if making a typing mistake he or she can't fix later on?

    Search is improved, and I find it to be better than in the browser. Google+ for Android presents options for "Posts" and "People". However, my initial reaction, which might change with further use, is that Google+ for iPhone discovery is better.

    In the bullet points in the section above, I noted the value of connecting additional services. Some Google+ users aren't satisfied with how far the service has come. In response to Gundotra, Phil Lott calls the new app a "huge improvement", but then requests: "Please unify Google Talk, Google+ Hangouts and Google Messenger. These services don't interoperate the way the should, although they have very much in common. I' don't understand why I can't text someone on Google Talk via Google+ Messenger etc."

    The tablet experience is superior in some ways, lacking in others compared to new iPad. Clearly neither Google+ app is optimized for tablets. On new iPad, the user taps 2X, which expands the size to fill the screen with iPhone border around the app. On the Android tablet, Google+ fills the screen, offering the more visually-appealing edge-to-edge experience. However, text and photos are much sharper on new iPad, which is in part because of the higher resolution display.

    Have you used either or both apps? I'm particularly interested in how you think they compare. Important: Please state what device and OS version you use.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/23/Geeks_rejoice_at_Google_s_legal_triumph_over_Oracle'

    Geeks rejoice at Google's legal triumph over Oracle

    Publié: mai 23, 2012, 10:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google couldn't have asked for better in its intellectual property dispute with Oracle. The judge turned out to be a programmer, and his ongoing guidance to the jury tempered deliberations. Then there were a couple of lucky breaks, the biggest perhaps from former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz, who volunteered on the witness stand the company saw no grounds to sue Google. Wherever the luck, and perhaps a tenable defense, Google won big today with the jury finding that Android doesn't violate Oracle patents acquired from Sun.

    The reaction, as measured by Google+ posts, is magnanimous for the search giant -- and, well, as for Oracle it's best not to whack the beaten too much more. I chose to take reaction from Google+ because it's such a techie hangout.

    Had Oracle triumphed today's patent warfare could easily have become a nuclear nightmare. There's legitimate argument that a win for Google is a win for all those developers without the patent portfolios of the likes of Apple and Microsoft. Still, that scenario is possible. The judge could rule APIs are copyrightable, so Oracle may yet walk away with an industry-swaying ruling.

    Perhaps those gleeful about the verdict are more vocal, since I found more of this kind of reaction. "Oracle probably shat themselves when it was revealed that their presiding judge is a programmer", Chris Droste opines.

    Linux creator Linus Torvalds:

    Prediction: instead of Oracle coming out and admitting they were morons about their idiotic suit against Android, they'll come out posturing and talk about how they'll be vindicated, and pay lawyers to take it to the next level of idiocy. Sometimes I really wish I wasn't always right. It's a curse, I tell you.

    Tech blogger Ishaan Garg: "A just verdict :)"

    "I'm quite surprised by the verdict being totally dismissive of Oracle claims, as Google somewhat took lightly some pieces of Oracle / Sun IP (albeit definitely not on the scale that Oracle claimed), but I guess that we developers and not only ! can all rejoice about this!" writes software developer Yannis Bres.

    Software engineer, and ex-Googler, Cedric Beust calls the verdict: "Fantastic news!"

    "Oracle you should have known it would come to this", student Candyce Moore writes. I mean, how much money did you want from Google again? 75 Trillion something like that? Which is, you know, more money than actually exists in the world".

    Applications program manager Brett Freeman: "Shocker. Anyone feeling sorry for [Oracle CEO] Larry Ellison? Didn't think so. At least attorneys made $$$".

    "Patent suits aren't events any more, they're a new fact of life, possibly even a new standard operating corporate strategy", help desk tech Frank Lazar writes. "Isn't that why Google's buying Motorola?"

    PC World writer Katherine Noyes: "Wahoo!" Mohamed Rafiq believes that "Oracle got what they deserved and meanwhile in the process lost some friends".

    "Google should give some pocket change -- $100 m-- to Oracle so that they can save face and 'settle'", systems biologist Tau-Mu Yi suggests. "These trials make me nervous. Google should have reached some type of licensing agreement with Sun back in the day".

    Computer tech Brian Booher: "VICTORY!!! Now sit down and shut up Oracle!" "Congrats on the win today in court", writes student Jose Rodriguez.

    "I'm actually kind of shocked by this one", Brian McClure expresses. "Not because I think Google infringed but rather that the jury had enough understanding and common sense to see through Oracle's lame arguments".

    Red Hat evangelist Jan Wildeboer: "Getting myself a bottle of Augustiner Helles. And relax, knowing another babystep towards a better world just occured in the Oracle v Google case".

    Photo Credit: William Perugini/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/23/Who_will_buy_Samsung_Galaxy_S_III_'

    Who will buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    Publié: mai 23, 2012, 7:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Samsung starts selling its third-generation S Series smartphone next week -- May 29, although some locales are expected to get it a day earlier (if not sooner). Our BetaNews poll, "Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III", has enough responses -- 2,361, as I write -- to report results. Cut to the point: 36.59 percent of you won't buy the S3. At least among our tech community, there is huge interest in the smartphone, which is now available for preorders here, including Amazon.

    Some of you have preordered, or will do so: 15.37 percent. Another 32.57 percent plan to order within 3 months and 9.45 percent within 6 months. Those willing to wait are likely to pay less, as national cellular carriers offer Galaxy S 3, albeit locked. The pricier, unlocked models are carrier and contract free. The poll results corroborate last week's report of 9 million preorders. In the United Kingdom, Carphone Warehouse reports strong preorder demand for the S3.

    On these shores, preorder prices vary. Last week I reported $649.99 from Expansys-USA. Price today is $694.99. Either I'm dyslexic or the price jumped 50 bucks. Over at Amazon, via reseller Blutekusa, the phone is $799.99, which is more in line with the S2's debut.

    A reader going by Lawrence of Arabia comments: "Yes, but I'll wait for the price to drop, just like the Galaxy Nexus". Judging by the S2, those buyers willing to extend cellular carrier contracts can expect to pay around $200. Americans ordering now should note: You won't get LTE on the unlocked phone, which doesn't support T-Mobile's HSPA+ network. You can talk but not get fast data. Those who wait, can expect fast data from whatever carrier offers the S3.

    "My plan is to get the S3 upon the condition that the current specs make it into the carrier phone (or at least very similar specs)", writes Neoprimal, who should be satisfied if S2 is example. "If they don't then I'll wait and see what the next Google phone has to offer. I do prefer Google phones because of getting the updates are guaranteed, but things are changing and carrier phones seem to be getting updates on a more consistent basis at the very least".

    TomasF won't buy the S3, "because it seems that Samsung and other android makers -- not to mention Google -- have no interest in implementing compliance with some of the Exchange security policies, notably the ones we use at work. Since HTC seem to be more than average interested in this and implement additional support through Sense, I went for the One X".

    Reader jfplopes is considering for "right now the S3 -- and even considering the upcoming iPhone 5, I would probably still go S3 or similar Android device. And it's not because I think Android is the best thing in the world. I have both Android and iOS devices".


    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    Jim Hi is simply satisfied with another Samsung Android: "I bought the Galaxy Nexus when it was released. It's still a very impressive phone, and I plan on keeping it for a bit longer. Many of the S3 specs are similar to the Nexus. I can't afford to buy an S3 just because it's new. Maybe I'll catch the S4! :)" Commenter tigerheartbambi's situation is similar: "I'm loving this samsung galaxy S III but too bad I already bought Samsung Galaxy Note a month ago".

    "I would love this cool phone or whatever you call it.:-)", Anne Carpenter comments. "The big screen really appeals to me -- this sounds very cool!"

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/22/Are_Facebook_bankers_backers_or_backstabbers_'

    Are Facebook bankers backers or backstabbers?

    Publié: mai 22, 2012, 6:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What's the measure of Facebook's IPO? MBAOnline sent us a couple of infographics explaining just that (see them below the fold). But I must qualify that they don't take into account downward trends and some nasty behind-the-scenes backstabbing. Late yesterday, writing for Reuters, Alistair Barr reports that ahead of Facebook's Friday IPO, lead underwriter Morgan Stanley reduced revenue forecasts during the roadshow promoting the public offering. JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs did similarly.

    Fallen dot-com stock analyst and risen tech news publisher Henry Blodget adds perspective. "This by itself is highly unusual (I've never seen it during 20 years in and around the tech IPO business)", he observes. "But, just as important, news of the estimate cut was passed on only to a handful of big investor clients, not everyone else who was considering an investment in Facebook". Uh-oh, selective disclosure violates SEC rules.

    "Any investor considering an investment in Facebook would consider an estimate cut from the underwriters' analysts 'material information'", Blodget explains. "In other words, during the marketing of the Facebook IPO, investors who did not hear about these underwriter estimate cuts were placed at a meaningful and unfair information disadvantage. They did not know what a lot of other investors knew, and they suffered for it...The SEC should investigate this immediately".

    The back-door revenue cuts followed an amendment to Facebook's IPO prospectus and may also have contributed to the market's somewhat cool reception. Facebook shares fell 10 percent yesterday, the first full-day of trading. On Friday, newly-minted Facebook shares closed pennies above the $38 offering price. The stock closed at $34.03 yesterday and is down 4.44 percent to $32.52 in mid-day trading today.

    But before the stock's two-day fall, Robert X. Cringely put the IPO in meaningful perspective. "If you are an investment banker, you want IPO shares to go up on their first day, rising in price by at least 10 percent though no more than 20 percent. This shows the IPO is hot, the company is booming", he says. "If you are an IPO company founder and, even more explicitly, you are Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, you want your share price on the first day to go exactly nowhere, which is what Facebook’s did. That means no money was left on the table and the company got the best possible deal".

    But if that's true, what were Facebook's lead investment bankers thinking? Surely we'll know soon enough. Update, May 23: Since I posted yesterday,this story exploded. See Business Insider and Wall Street Journal for riveting followups. On Wednesday, investors filed a lawsuit over the IPO.

    If you've read this far, your reward -- the two aforementioned infographics -- follows the top-image photo credit.

    Photo Credit: Guillaume Paumier

     

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/22/Larry_Page___Motorola_is_a_great_American_tech_company_'

    Larry Page: 'Motorola is a great American tech company'

    Publié: mai 22, 2012, 5:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Googorola is now a reality. Today, Google formally completed its Motorola acquisition, after completing the final hurdle, approval from China, over the weekend. The approval came with conditions -- that Google keep Android open for at least 5 years -- but the company had been on that track anyway.

    Motorola is a big purchase, $12.5 billion, initiated in August 2011. With Motorola, Google gets an enormous cache of patents -- pending and approved around 24,000; enormous wealth in cellular research and development, manufacturing operations; and a heap load of headaches. Over the weekend, for example, International Trade Commission blocked entry to a majority of Motorola mobile products for violating a single Microsoft patent.

    Questions now are many. Where will be the layoffs and how many? What kind of restructuring will there be? How will Google make Android devices without competing with other OEM partners? How will Google handle ongoing Motorola patent concerns -- either as plaintiff or defendant? On that former, Moto aggressively, perhaps too much, pursues other companies.

    The first restructuring steps are underway. In a move not unexpected, Motorola CEO Sanjay Jha will step down and be replaced by Dennis Woodside.

    Full text of Google CEO Larry Page's announcement:

    The phones in our pockets have become supercomputers that are changing the way we live. It’s now possible to do things we used to think were magic, or only possible on Star Trek--like get directions right from where we are standing; watch a video on YouTube; or take a picture and share the moment instantly with friends.

    It’s why I’m excited to announce today that our Motorola Mobility deal has closed. Motorola is a great American tech company that has driven the mobile revolution, with a track record of over 80 years of innovation, including the creation of the first cell phone. We all remember Motorola’s StarTAC, which at the time seemed tiny and showed the real potential of these devices. And as a company who made a big, early bet on Android, Motorola has become an incredibly valuable partner to Google.

    Sanjay Jha, who was responsible for building the company and placing that big bet on Android, has stepped down as CEO. I would like to thank him for his efforts and am tremendously pleased that he will be working to ensure a smooth transition as long-time Googler Dennis Woodside takes over as CEO of Motorola Mobility.

    I’ve known Dennis for nearly a decade, and he’s been phenomenal at building teams and delivering on some of Google’s biggest bets. One of his first jobs at Google was to put on his backpack and build our businesses across the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe and Russia. More recently he helped increase our revenue in the U.S. from $10.8 billion to $17.5 billion in under three years as President of the Americas region. Dennis has always been a committed partner to our customers and I know he will be an outstanding leader of Motorola. As an Ironman triathlete, he’s got plenty of energy for the journey ahead -- and he’s already off to great start with some very strong new hires for the Motorola team.

    It’s a well known fact that people tend to overestimate the impact technology will have in the short term, but underestimate its significance in the longer term. Many users coming online today may never use a desktop machine, and the impact of that transition will be profound -- as will the ability to just tap and pay with your phone. That’s why it’s a great time to be in the mobile business, and why I’m confident Dennis and the team at Motorola will be creating the next generation of mobile devices that will improve lives for years to come.

    Do you think Motorola will be a good fit for Google?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/20/Is_Google__gaining_against_Facebook_on_Android_'

    Is Google+ gaining against Facebook on Android?

    Publié: mai 20, 2012, 6:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Ahead of Facebook's Friday IPO, NPD released usage data for Android smartphones. Unsurprisingly, user reach is quite high. In looking over the data, I honed in on Google+, which makes a surprising showing for a social network not even a year old. But behind early adoption is a lesson for Google and Android developers about the app vs browser.

    First, the data NPD highlights: Nearly 75 percent of Android users accessed Facebook, via app or browser, in March. But, separately for both, reach declined from February to March. However, the overall trend for the app is up. By comparison, Twitter: 23 percent web, 16 percent app. Google+ reach is 16 percent web, with the app swinging between 10 percent and 15 percent. For all three social networks, web reach exceeds the app.

    "While the app may offer a more optimized/richer experience, what we do find in our research is that some mobile users just prefer relying on the mobile website for some activities", Linda Barrabee, NPD research director, says, responding to my question about app versus web usage.

    Yes, but there is such preference for social networks, where apps tend to offer more features and ways to interact than mobile sites? Among the considerations I see:

    • User experience of Android apps versus iOS ones
    • Android web browser, or Chrome, experience versus apps
    • Habits -- on the desktop, people generally consume Google services in the browser

    Barrabee doesn't answer the first. "We currently do not meter smartphone behaviors on iOS, but will be adding those capabilities in the near-term". I asked because comScore data shows Americans largely favoring apps over the browser. The second says much about developers' mobile sites as Android browsers or apps. The third needs little explanation.

    Behind reach there is something more important: Time spent online -- 470 minutes average in March using the Facebook app. NPD didn't release Google+ time online data.

    Surprising Reach

    But is reach high, considering Google+ opened in limited beta end of June and to the public in late September? I asked Barrabee: "The Google+ number, while lower than the others, strikes me as quite high for a social network not even a year old. Would you agree or characterize it differently?"

    She replies: "In looking at the relative figures overall for Google+ compared to Facebook, Google+ app reach, which was around 10 percent in March, although trending down, is higher than what may be anticipated. Website use (reach) for Google+ has been more resilient -- 16 percent reach in March, similar level as seen a few months ago -- December".

    As previously mentioned, Android smartphone Facebook app and website reach declined during the same time period Google+ web reach rose. Could it be -- and I don't have data from NPD -- that more Android users are choosing Google+ favoring or replacing it over Facebook?

    Social networks have a timeless quantity in that something old becomes new when shared, as is case with February blog post "I 'get' Google+ Now and Apparently so do Others (Facebook May Have a Problem)" Plusing around this week. From the text:

    How many people do I know in my friends list on FB. All of them. How many of them post content that I actually find interesting? Hardly any of them. Why? Because the list is built almost solely on physical contact from some point and time in life. None of it is based on interest in the content that they are posting or that I am posting. My stream is therefore a bunch of random noise about peoples lives. Sometimes there’s something interesting in there but most of it I could do without. I don’t exactly want to remove these people because it gives me a general idea of where they are in life and an easy way to contact them. But on a day to day basis I don’t care to see what they are saying...

    Now contrast that to Google+. How many people do I know in reality on G+? Very few. How many of them post content that I actually find interesting? Almost all of them. This is because I have added people and have had people add me based on what they/I have to share rather than knowing me personally. I find chains of like minded and interesting people, NEW people, through conversations in comments. I add them and they add me without feeling awkward because there is no imposing idea of “friends” or any other association outside of sheer interest in content.

    His experience mirrors my own. Does it yours? Certainly, there are Plusers who agree. Manny Otero posts: "Perfectly explains why I left Facebook and why I love Google+".

    Still, any Google+ gains little diminish Facebook's huge presence: The larger social network accounted for 10 percent of all pageviews on Android smartphones in March, according to NPD. That's a stunning number.

    The broader lesson is more than Google+ gains or even Facebook losses. For all three social networks, web reach exceeds apps -- for highly-engaged services. Cloud service developers targeting Android users should make mobile websites at least as compelling as apps.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/18/iPhone_meets_its_match'

    iPhone meets its match

    Publié: mai 18, 2012, 8:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Finally, initial sales of another smartphone smoke iPhone -- that is if leaked numbers prove true. Samsung Galaxy S III goes on sale in 11 days, but preorders reportedly already top 9 million. By comparison, the much-lauded iPhone 4S sold 4 million units, including preorders, during its first three days of availability. At this pace, Galaxy S III is poised to be the biggest smartphone launch to date.

    Samsung announced the smartphone on May 3, when I asked: "Is iPhone 4S obsolete?" Surely someone thinks so, and their answer should chill the hearts of Apple apologists and investors. Samsung, not Apple, is the rising star in the cloud-connected device firmament. Perhaps iPhone 5 will change matters. But for now, Samsung, propelled by the Galaxy S brand, broad channel distribution and smart software innovation, is brightest star.

    Samsung Sales eclipse Apple's

    Many of you are among those early buyers. Four days ago I asked: "Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?" Among the 1,195 responses so far, 18.16 percent have preordered or plan to. Another 41.59 percent plan to buy within 3 months. Less than one-quarter, 24.02 percent, won't buy the S3. Granted, the responses represent more of a gadget audience and are unqualified -- meaning I don't know who you are.

    But the numbers jive with other trends. Based on sales to end users, rather than shipments into the channel, Samsung snatched overall phone leadership from Nokia and smartphone top-ranking from Apple during first quarter. Samsung sold 38 million smartphones -- 86.6 million for all handsets -- to Apple's 35.1 million, according to Gartner. Something else: Samsung accounted for 40 percent of Android sales. That's right, four out of every 10 recent Android smartphone buyers got a Samsung.

    Several factors work in Samsung's favor -- and that of Galaxy S III. While the handset will initially launch in Europe, Samsung plans to rapidly reach 296 carriers in 145 countries. Apple offers iPhone 4S through 230 carriers in 100 countries. Samsung marketing, particularly its make-fun-of iPhone users campaign, is effective. For example, the first two "Next Big Thing Commercials", which first aired November 22 and December 2, affected "iPhone’s consumer perception, sending it into decline around the time the first ad appeared and continuing now," Ted Marzilli, YouGov BrandIndex managing director, said then. "At the same time, Samsung’s perception has crept up gradually and just surpassed iPhone last week".

    But it's Samsung's innovation in the absence of Apple's that makes the difference. Remember, iPhone 4S wasn't the big upgrade everyone expected. In some respects, neither is Galaxy S III. Sure there's a quad-core processor, LTE and larger display (4.8 inches to Galaxy S II's 4.3 inch or 4.5 inch). But Samsung chose to pack in the big benefits elsewhere.

    Apple's Luck runs Out

    For that, Apple execs should consider themselves lucky that Samsung doesn't have a marketing personality like Steve Jobs and worry there's no "reality distortion field" peddler for iPhone 5. Galaxy S III promises some truly innovative software features supporting the hardware, most of which would have received "My God, Apple has done it again" blog, news and social media response if introduced by Jobs. Much of Samsung's innovation extends from the foundation that Google laid with Android 4 "Ice Cream Sandwich". Meaning: Other Android licensees can do it, too.


    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    Rather than blow out the hardware specs, Samsung focused on benefits that make the phone more responsive to the user. The original iPhone stood apart from all other handsets, not just smart ones, for its humanness. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to your proximity gave it a human quality. Suddenly the phone wasn't an inanimate object but more living thing.

    Samsung seeks to bring this quality to Galaxy S III, and it's centerpiece to the product marketing. For example, the front camera detects whether the user is looking at the phone and keeps the screen lit. How many times has your display gone dark while reading a website or ebook? The phone also can automatically turn on, if recognizing your face. The feature, called "Smart Stay", is real innovation, not Samsung copying Apple. It's also stark example of Samsung out-Appling Apple by focusing on features that offer real benefits. This and other new features match responsive capabilities to hardware sensors.

    Still, hardware-wise, Galaxy S III is no slouch: 4.8-inch Super AMOLED display (306 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution; 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (64GB in future), expandable with microSD card; HSPA＋ 21Mbps (850/900/1900/2100), 4G LTE, GSM/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC, Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi N; 2100 mAh battery; carrier locked; Android 4.0 and TouchWiz "nature" UI. Measurements: 136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm, 133 grams.

    The entire package definitely entices many of you. "The iPhone is a great phone to look at but looking at a phone quickly becomes boring", Roger Seabrook comments. "I have an S3 on preorder". Dallas Twiford: "I'll be buying this phone, it's a freaking beast".

    I ask again: Will you buy Galaxy S III? Please answer in comments below and take the poll above, if you haven't already.

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/18/Will_you_make_Mark_Zuckerberg_rich_'

    Will you make Mark Zuckerberg rich?

    Publié: mai 18, 2012, 3:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Stated differently: Will you invest in Facebook? The third-largest IPO in history begins today. Facebook set a price of $38 share, which values the social network at about $104 billion. Twenty-eight year-old cofounder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg will be super wealthy, if Facebook gets its price (and likely much more) as I post ahead of the market's open.

    Facebook makes available 421.2 million shares. Zuckerberg maintains voting majority, 503.6 million, which at $38 is $19.1 billion, making him the 29th richest person -- wealthier than Google's cofounders.

    I wouldn't buy Facebook, even if I could. I can't for conflict-of-interest reasons. Investing in companies we cover is taboo. I go further, owning no stocks whatsoever. Too bad, as Apple looked like a real bargain to me in 2003. Will you buy Facebook? The stock symbol is "FB", by the way, as trading opens.

    Facebook is one of the most profound success stories of the Internet era, along with Google. College students founded companies that transformed societies all without the typical barriers that often stifle innovation. Facebook shows the Web can be the great equalizer.

    Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig makes the point in his review of movie "The Social Network". He uses Nantucket Nectars, founded by Tom First and Tom Scott, as vehicle for comparing the old and new worlds of starting a business in Massachusetts:

    After graduating from Brown in 1989, they started a delivery service to boats on Nantucket Sound. During their first winter, they invented a juice drink. People liked their juice. Slowly, it dawned on First and Scott that maybe there was a business here. Nantucket Nectars was born. The two Toms started the long slog of getting distribution. Ocean Spray bought the company. It later sold the business to Cadbury Schweppes.

    At each step after the first, along the way to giving their customers what they wanted, the two Toms had to ask permission from someone. They needed permission from a manufacturer to get into his plant. Permission from a distributor to get into her network. And permission from stores to get before the customer…

    Zuckerberg faced no such barrier. For less than $1,000, he could get his idea onto the Internet. He needed no permission from the network provider. He needed no clearance from Harvard to offer it to Harvard students. Neither with Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. Nor with every other community he invited in. Because the platform of the Internet is open and free, or in the language of the day, because it is a ‘neutral network,’ a billion Mark Zuckerbergs have the opportunity to invent for the platform.

    Zuckerberg still isn't asking permission, as he seeks to rewrite societal attitudes about privacy. This not asking defines the social network and its disruptive nature.

    Facebook is just eight years old, not even six open to anyone. I joined on Sept. 30, 2006 -- not that I have used it that much over the years. How about you? When did you join? But the most recent redesigns, including the Timeline, have me more interested in the social network, even as I spend much more time on Google+. Facebook is growing, maturing, and from that perspective is ripe for today's IPO.

    But as Facebook is a disruptive force, it faces another. The IPO will change Facebook. Zuckerberg will no longer be able to do what he wants -- to act without asking permission. Even with controlling share, Facebook is a public company with all the pressures (and regulations) that brings. The social network is beholden to investors now and the quarterly pressures that come with it.

    That's the price Zuckerberg pays for going public -- the risk he takes for the rewards.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/18/Windows_Phone_reaches_for_the_bottom'

    Windows Phone reaches for the bottom

    Publié: mai 18, 2012, 12:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Sometimes, BetaNews readers really amaze me. Three days ago I posted "The measure of Windows Phone failure is..." based on comScore US smartphone OS market share data. To me, it was a trivial story, because I was days late writing about the numbers and posted it more as filler, being short writers (because of holidays and emergencies). More than 220 comments later, Windows Phone is hot-topic of debate among you.

    Yesterday, Gartner released first-quarter global phone sales data that puts to end any real debate about Windows Phone's present: Combined smartphone OS share with Windows Mobile was 1.9 percent, down from 2.6 a year earlier but flat sequentially. The quarter-on-quarter data suggests, in context of Nokia Lumia launches, that Microsoft's mobile operating systems have finally hit bottom -- that perhaps the things won't get much worse and could finally improve.

    Glimmer of Hope

    Day after I posted the, ah, "failure" story, Kantar Worldpanel ComTech released data downright hopeful for Windows Phone. During the first three months of the year, market share rose to between 3 percent and 4 percent in Britain, France, Italy and the United States and to 6 percent in Germany. That's up from about 2 percent in nine countries, sequentially. Problem: Kantar Wordpanel doesn't exactly measure sales, but uses consistent panels of users to calculate market share. The approach is still much more accurate than shipments, which is the measure most analyst firms use.

    Today, I asked Gartner for clarification on Microsoft share: Is it Windows Phone only or combined with Windows Mobile? "Windows Phone makes up around 85 percent of the overall Microsoft numbers you see", Carolina Milanesi, research vice president, says. She adds: "With Nokia accounting for around 60 percent".

    What about Windows Phone's future? She wouldn't be specific, but says: "We will see a lift from Nokia, coming from the products being available in China from April and then later in the year with the new version of the OS and new products at different price points".

    America and China

    China is linchpin, because of the market's size, smartphone sales delayed from Chinese New Year and Nokia's already large presence in the country. All work to Windows Phone's benefit. But the second reason is unexpected opportunity. Sales for all manufacturers fell year over year and sequentially, and China is one reason.

    "Global sales of mobile devices declined more than expected due to a slowdown in demand from the Asia/Pacific region", Anshul Gupta, Gartner principal research analyst, says. "The first quarter, traditionally the strongest quarter for Asia, which is driven by Chinese New Year, saw a lack of new product launches from leading manufacturers, and users delayed upgrades in the hope of better smartphone deals arriving later in the year".

    Those delays could be good for Windows Phone, as Nokia ships Lumias in volume to China and a well-regarded brand seeks revival. Meanwhile, Lumia 900 is now available in the United States, backed by big marketing campaigns.

    Gartner's sales data won't reflect the smartphone in the United States, since AT&T didn't start selling Lumia 900 until April. However, shipments should show up in first quarter data from other analyst firms -- reflecting stock shipped for store shelves. Side note: Numerous commenters faulted my referring to Lumia March sales in an earlier post; that was deliberate since reported data was for shipments (and preorders started in first quarter). However, I should have made that point clearer, which is reason for clarifying now. For Windows Phone's future, second quarter will reveal more, particularly in the countries where, according to Kantar Worldpanel, share rose in Q1.

    Is There Room for Three?

    The larger question about Windows Phone: Can it be No. 3? Analyst Mike Feibus thinks so, writing for BetaNews: "Windows Phone will gain serious market share this year". He believes that Verizon supporting Windows Phone will hugely impact sales. I'm skeptical.

    Gartner's phone sales data suggests otherwise. Apple and Samsung accounted for 49.3 percent of smartphone sales during Q1, sign that the market is consolidating around them. While Samsung sells home-grown Bada and Windows Phone devices the majority are Android. In fact, Samsung accounts for 40 percent of all Android sales. Conceptually, that should allow room for a third major operating system, but the market is heading elsewhere, as more Asian manufacturers adopt Android. More likely scenario at this juncture: Samsung accounting for most Android sales and the rest splitting among smaller manufacturers, particularly from Asia, leading to fragmentation for most of the remaining market not consumed by Apple and Samsung.

    Nokia still stands in the way of that scenario, and much depends on its continued smartphone and Windows Phone transition. However, Nokia market share slumped from 25.1 percent year over year to 19.8 percent in the broader handset market, or a 22.7 percent decline. Meanwhile, smartphones languish.

    "Smartphone sales are becoming of paramount importance at a worldwide level", Gupta says "Smartphone volumes contributed to approximately 43.9 percent of overall sales for Samsung as opposed to 16 percent for Nokia".

    Remember, Nokia accounted 60 percent of Windows Phone sales during first quarter.

    It's hard to imagine that Windows Phone can go anywhere but up. How far is the question.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/17/4G_LTE__1_billion_served_by_2017'

    4G LTE: 1 billion served by 2017

    Publié: mai 17, 2012, 8:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Unsurprisingly, 4G LTE is the fastest growing cellular network technology, in part for what it delivers and deployment's timing. Strategy Analytics forecasts that 4G LTE will reach 1 billion connections, or 15 percent of all, by 2017. That compares to 12 years for GSM and about 11 years for WCDMA to reach as many.

    But LTE isn't gain without pain. In the United States, Verizon by far and large has the most expansive 4G network, reaching 250 metro areas and 200 million Americans compared to 38 metros and 75 million people for AT&T. Adoption still is fairly low, perhaps because phone subscribers don't understand the value. Meanwhile, Verizon will axe grandfathered unlimited plans when subscribers upgrade to LTE. There's pain for the gain.

    Attitudes are changing, particularly among carriers. "It has taken some time to warm up, but operator sentiment toward LTE has improved significantly over the last year," Phil Kendall, Strategy Analytics director, says. "The LTE smartphone market is providing this sudden lift, with LTE’s medium-term potential boosted by the much greater scale in today’s mobile market: WCDMA launched into a world of fewer than one billion mobile connections, whereas we have over six billion connections today".

    Here in the States, more carriers offer LTE smartphones -- the majority Androids, a few Windows Phones and none iPhones. AT&T started with the HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket in November. Since, the carrier added nearly a half-dozen more. Verizon offers about 12 LTE smartphones, while, Sprint, which is in early-stage network deployment offers two, while US Customs bars a third, the HTC EVO 4G LTE, because of a patent dispute with Apple.

    "The race is on for mobile operators to reduce cost per Gigabyte (GB) to match the rate at which revenue per GB is falling, Sue Rudd, Strategy Analytics director, says. "LTE is one of the key tools to deliver this improvement, with the early volume in LTE devices an encouraging sign for operators looking to maximize return on their LTE investments".

    While carriers invest in LTE, one of the most popular smartphones doesn't support the technology. Apple fakes out iPhone users, after updating iOS to version 5.1 and changing the 3G to 4G, which satisfies AT&T marketing but not what is 4G. Fake 4G marketing -- from Apple, AT&T, T-Mobile and others leads consumers to believe they have something they do not, which dulls LTE benefits.

    That's good for existing HSPA+ handsets, iPhone among them, but fosters confusion, as this Saturday Night Live parody so aptly illustrates.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/17/Samsung_accounts_for_40%_of_Android_smartphone_sales'

    Samsung accounts for 40% of Android smartphone sales

    Publié: mai 17, 2012, 12:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The figure is so important, I'm breaking it out from the long analysis posted mid-afternoon about the smartphone market consolidating around Apple and Samsung. The South Korean electronics giant is doing to Android on smartphones what Amazon does on tablets: Hugely fragment the market around a forked operating system. I warned about this three weeks ago in post "Google has lost control of Android". Now there is sales data to back it up.

    Earlier today, Gartner released first quarter sales data for global handsets. Not shipments into the channel, but actual sales to end users. Market leader Samsung accounted for 40 percent of all Android smartphone sales, with no other manufacturer topping 10 percent. Sure Samsung's success lifts overall Android smartphone share -- 56.1 percent up from 36.4 percent a year earlier. But what's good for Samsung isn't necessarily in the best interests of the broader Android ecosystem.

    Samsung Rises

    Smartphones accounted for 43.9 percent of Samsung handset sales in Q1, according to Gartner -- that's out of 86.6 million handsets. Samsung smartphone sales rose 25.9 percent year over year to 38 million units. One OEM is largely responsible for overall Android sales gains. Based on recent gains, it's no longer a question of if but when one licensee accounts for half of all Android smartphone sales.

    That would be great if Samsung shipped pure Android. Instead, the consumer electronics company skins the OS with TouchWiz UI, which customization will be greater on Galaxy S III than any of its companions. Samsung, and not Google, controls the Android user experience and when handset owners move up to the newest version; the majority still have Gingerbread and not Ice Cream Sandwich.

    Additionally, Android's continued success largely ties to a single manufacturer whose priorities are broader and in some ways out of sync with Google's and the operating system's other licensees. For example, Samsung also sells smartphones with home-grown Bada and Windows Phone, all while paying Microsoft a patent bounty on every Android. Allegiance to Android isn't assured.

    Fractured Android

    This fragmenting -- no fracturing -- of Android isn't just confined to smartphones. Amazon started selling Kindle Fire in mid November. By end of December, the tablet already had captured 29.4 percent US share, based on number of unique devices, putting it ahead of the Samsung Galaxy Tab family (23.8 percent). Over the following two months, Kindle Fire took sales from every other Android tablet, ending February with stunning 54.4 percent Android tablet market share. Tab family ranked second followed by Motorola XOOM, with 15.4 percent and 7 percent share, respectively. So for each, Android smart phones and tablets, one manufacturer largely accounts for the majority market share.

    That would be better for the larger Android ecosystem, if not for the forking of Android. Amazon more heavily customizes Android on Kindle Fire than anything Samsung does on smartphones. The online retailer attempts to create a curated experience, offering capabilities and extended services similar to Apple's. Samsung is moving that way, too, by bundling digital content stores with its devices, for example. However, should the Note platform succeed on smartphones and tablets, a truly forked Samsung Android would emerge as platform for developers creating apps exploiting pen and touch.

    Forrester Research predicts that proprietary Android will surpass the Google Android ecosystem within three years. Frank Gillette writes in report "Tablets Will Rule The Future Personal Computing Landscape": "The popularity of these content-driven devices will cause proprietary Android share to surpass the installed base of Google’s Android ecosystem in 2015. This further fragmentation will challenge Android developers, customers, and especially enterprises, and hamper the creation of a shared ecosystem".

    Looked at differently, according to comScore, Apple and Amazon accounted for 71.5 percent of the tablet market at the end of February. In smartphones, according to Gartner, Apple and Samsung had combined 49.3 percent smartphone share at the end of March. In both markets, leadership splits between two companies, Apple is one of them and a single Android-licensee is the other. Something else: All three seek to provide a curated hardware, software services.

    Google's Nexus Response

    Yesterday, Wall Street Journal reported rumors that Google would work with Android manufacturers to offer several different Nexus smartphones and tablets concurrent with release of Android 5 "Jelly Bean". Samsung produced the last two Nexus smartphones and HTC the first. That's absolutely the right thing to do. Google needs to regain control of Android from both Amazon and Samsung, while taking more leadership over the broader ecosystem and end-user experience.

    Updating is where Google's Android control is weakest, and where the company lacks leverage to offer uniform experience across devices or to assure they have the latest OS version.  Last month, Google engineer Jean-Baptiste Queru put doubts to rest about who's to blame: "The part that blows my mind is that some variants of the Google-engineered flagship devices still haven't received Ice Cream Sandwich (or are stuck with older versions of Ice Cream Sandwich) because of delays introduced by operator approvals".

    The WSJ report claims Google would sell the Nexus devices direct, as it recently started doing with Galaxy Nexus smartphone. These Androids would stay up to date and be pure -- free of skins or other enhancements. Google wouldn't seek to replace cellular carriers but augment buying options -- and in process provide needed competition that might compel carriers to update Android versions faster.

    The point: Google is doing the right thing, but took too long about it.

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/16/Smartphone_market_consolidates_around_Apple_and_Samsung'

    Smartphone market consolidates around Apple and Samsung

    Publié: mai 16, 2012, 9:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Gartner put to end weeks of cellular handset debate. Apple apologists disputed Samsung's smartphone success over iPhone -- the presumption that the South Korean electronics giant benefits from greater shipments vs actual sales. Make no mistake: Samsung is the global leader overall and in the smartphone category, based on actual sales. Apologist arguments be damned.

    That said, Apple's position is solid. Together, Apple and Samsung combined smartphone sales market share approaches 50 percent. Contrary to speculation that Windows Phone might appear as a third dominant mobile OS, the market is set to largely split between two vendors. As I explained three weeks ago in post, "Google has lost control of Android", Sasmung's rise isn't necessarily good for the broader ecosystem.

    Sales vs Shipments

    During first quarter, Samsung sold 38 million smartphones, compared to 33.1 million iPhones, decisively snatching back the top spot, according to Gartner. Meanwhile Samsung represented more than 40 percent of all Android smartphone sales, with no competitor topping 10 percent. Meanwhile, Samsung stole Nokia's crown, by becoming overall global handset sales leader.

    Gartner's data is the most revealing, because it represents sales to end users rather than shipments into the channel. Since Samsung first boasted about 3 million Galaxy S II sales during the first 55 days, Apple apologists have disputed the figure, and others that followed. Gartner leaves little room for error. Apple claimed 35.1 million sold, but that's really shipped, given Gartner put actual sales 2 million units lower. Samsung no longer discloses sales data, but IDC reports 42.2 million smartphone shipments during Q1. Assuming Gartner and IDC numbers reconcile, that's 4.2 million more Samsung smartphone shipped into the channel than sold, which is a reasonable number for keeping store shelves stocked.

    "Shipments are not sales, and therefore they present only a partial account of the success or failure of a product or an item", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says. He makes the distinction regarding Kindle Fire, which unit shipments plunged from 4.7 million to 700,000 between fourth and first quarters, according to IDC.

    Baker observes that Amazon filled the retail channel during Kindle Fire's launch quarter. Actual sales: 3.8 million then and 1.8 million during Q1. "If you add up those two sales figures you get a number almost exactly the same as IDC’s shipment number", Baker observes. "Looking at the numbers from that actual sales perspective the concept that Kindle Fire sales collapsed in Q1 becomes absurd". The point: Only actual sales figures are truly reliable.

    Market Turbulence

    Sales show Samsung rising above all other Android handset manufacturers as well as iPhone. All this before the hotly anticipated Galaxy S III ships in 13 days internationally. Strangely, in Apple, Samsung has a benefactor. US Customs has stopped importation of HTC One X and EVO 4G LTE -- two fearsome Androids -- clearing away two of the S3's biggest competitors available on these shores. Officials halted HTC shipments as they evaluate whether the handsets violate Apple patents.

    Samsung's rise to dominance comes during an uncertain period for smartphones, which stands to solidify its position against Android rivals and even iPhone. Overall handset sales declined 2 percent year over year to 419.1 million units -- that's down sequentially from 476.5 million handsets.

    "The lower results in the first quarter of 2012 have led us to be cautious about sales for the remainder of the year", Annette Zimmermann, Gartner principal research analyst, says. "As we are starting to update our market forecast we feel a downward adjustment to our 2012 figures, in the range of 20 million units, is unavoidable".

    However, smartphone sales continued their strong upward trajectory, rising 44.7 percent year over year to 144.4 million. Though, sales fell from 149 million units sequentially.

    The China Syndrome

    "Global sales of mobile devices declined more than expected due to a slowdown in demand from the Asia/Pacific region", Anshul Gupta, Gartner principal research analyst, says. "The first quarter, traditionally the strongest quarter for Asia, which is driven by Chinese New Year, saw a lack of new product launches from leading manufacturers, and users delayed upgrades in the hope of better smartphone deals arriving later in the year".

    To its credit, Apple capitalized on the Chinese New Year. iPhone 4S went on sale in China 10 days before the January 23rd holiday, leading to a sales surge in the region.

    "It was an incredible quarter in China", Apple CEO Tim Cook said during calendar first quarter earnings conference call last month. "Part of this was the pent-up demand for iPhone 4S".

    He emphasized: "Revenue was a record, at $7.9 billion in greater China, which is up over three times year over year and brings the first half revenue for greater China to $12.4 billion. That compares to a full year of last year of $13.3 billion". Stated differently, China accounted for 78 percent of Asia-Pacific region revenues during the quarter.

    Samsung also makes huge inroads to China, but didn't have something spanking new to sell for the new year celebration. That will come with Galaxy S III, which is expected to reach the Mainland long before Apple ships iPhone 5 (or whatever it's named).

    But Apple and Samsung aren't alone. "The continued roll-out of third generation 3G-based smartphones by local and regional manufacturers such as Huawei, ZTE, Lenovo, Yulong and TCL Communication should help spur demand in China", Zimmermann says.

    Two Market Leaders

    Looking ahead, Samsung and Apple look to sop up Nokia's remains -- and for Android to solidify an already strong position over every rival mobile operating system, including Apple's. Nokia market share slumped from 25.1 percent year over year to 19.8 percent in the broader handset market, or a 22.7 percent decline. Nokia is caught between a rock and a hard place -- declining feature phone sales and Windows Phone transition -- that puts it in worse position: The Apple and Samsung trash compactor.

    "Smartphone sales are becoming of paramount importance at a worldwide level", Gupta says. "For example, smartphone volumes contributed to approximately 43.9 percent of overall sales for Samsung as opposed to 16 percent for Nokia". They're 100 percent for Apple.

    Samsung global handset market share rose to 20.7 percent from 16.1 percent a year earlier, or 25.9 percent increase. However, Apple sales rose considerably more, up 96.2 percent, bringing market share to 7.9 percent from 3.9 percent a year earlier. While Samsung and Apple rank first and second, respectively, in smartphones, iPhone's maker moved into third place for all handsets. Should Nokia's decline continue, while Apple rises, something quite dramatic could occur within the year: Apple and Sumsung dividing up not just smartphone sales but the entire global handset market.

    Samsung's rise pulls Android along. The operating system had 56.1 percent smartphone sales share during Q1 -- that's up from 36.4 percent a year earlier. As aforementioned, Samsung accounts for 40 percent of all Android sales. By comparison, iOS share rose to 22.9 percent from 16.9 percent. However, iOS lost share sequentially -- on overall market shipments, which accentuates the decline more than it appears. iOS share fell nearly 1 point, while Android gained more than 5 points.

    However, Android share gains deceive, as commoditization increases. "Most players are finding it hard to break the mould", Gupta says. "At the high end, hardware features coupled with applications and services are helping differentiation, but this is restricted to major players with intellectual property assets".

    The point is crucial as patent lawsuits, the most prominent lead by Apple, stifle innovation. Here on BetaNews, I've called Apple a patent bully and troll, accused it of litigating rather than innovating and called the lawsuits hypocritical.

    As patent-warfare stifles innovation and Android licensees struggle to stand apart from one another, "price is increasingly becoming the sole differentiator", Gupta says. "This will only worsen with the entry of new players and the dominance of Chinese manufacturers, leading to increased competition, low profitability and scattered market share". That's good for Apple margins and market consolidation around the two leaders.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/15/Frak__yeah__I_d_use_iPad_if_there_was_Google_Chrome'

    Frak, yeah, I'd use iPad if there was Google Chrome

    Publié: mai 15, 2012, 6:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What timing. I posted my iPad for sale on Craigslist over the weekend -- and two people are jockeying to get ahead of the other to buy it today. But I'm suddenly unsure about selling, after seeing a Macquarie Capital report claiming that Chrome will come to iOS as early as this quarter. Hot damn!

    I rarely make decisions based on rumors, nor should you. Besides, the "timing is unclear, but it could be as soon as Q2 and is very likely to be a 2012 event", according to Macquarie Capital. "Could" be this quarter and "likely" this year stink of pure speculation -- or big back door should there be no Chrome for iOS this year. In the end, I'll likely sell the iPad, but must convey this: Chrome would be a very good reason to buy an iOS device but be akin to Google cutting off one limb to save another.

    Shine That Tablet's Chrome

    Yesterday, Ian Betteridge and I bantered back and forth about Chrome and iOS on Google Plus. He called Google services on Apple devices a "pretty good experience", to which I responded: "I would agree about the Google ecosystem with iPhone (and iPad) if Chrome was option. That's the deal breaker for me, sadly. I'm seriously thinking about selling my iPad, for that reason -- and another: Galaxy Nexus is tablet enough for me, so far".

    As expressed last week, "You can have iPhone 4S, I'll take Galaxy Nexus". But there's more. I find the Google and Samsung branded smartphone good enough replacement for my iPad, too. Chrome for Android is one reason, Galaxy Nexus' super sharp, 4.65-inch, 1280 x 800 resolution screen is the other. Repeating a sentiment from my Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ review: I'd by the phone just for Chrome, which currently is only available for Android 4 "Ice Cream Sandwich", in beta.

    Presumably, Chrome would be available for the newest iOS version, which means broader distribution than Android, since Apple doesn't have the same fragmentation problem. Based on number of devices accessing Google Play during the previous 14 days, Ice Cream Sandwich accounted for just 4.9 percent of the Android install base on May 1. Chrome has limited reach at best on Android, while distribution could be enormous on iOS, assuming people using the browser on the desktop go mobile, too. There, Chrome is third-most used browser and closes on Firefox, according to Net Applications.

    Chrome is a huge improvement over the stock Android browser. It's fast and flows, but sync capabilities, which include active tabs on the desktop, really stand out. Last week's huge Google+ for iPhone update shows that the search and information giant can deliver exceptional user experiences on iOS. Why shouldn't Chrome be same?

    A TACtical Decision

    The problem: Chrome for iOS, particularly iPad, removes an important reason to choose Android tablets over Apple's. Google gains in one area, while giving up somewhere else. If Google offered Chrome for iOS right now, I'd keep my iPad. How many other people considering Apple's tablet would choose it over an Android because of Chrome? You can help answer that question by taking our poll.

    In April, with considerably smaller install base, iPad took decisive mobile browser usage share lead from iPhone, according to NetApps. More broadly, in the mobile device category, Safari has 63.84 percent usage share, compared to 18.87 percent for Chrome. Google's browser could make usage share leaps competing alongside Safari on iOS devices. The cloud-connected device era is all about mobile. Google should want Chrome on market-leading devices like iPad.


    If Google made Chrome available for iPad and iPhone, how likely would you be to use it over Safari?

    Then there are traffic acquisitions costs, which eat into Google search margins. Macquarie Capital: "If GOOG gains market share, it could reduce our estimate for Google.com TAC meaningfully". Google pays Apple to compete with Android -- and Chrome, for that matter -- via Safari's search bar. Google's TAC goes down when people use Chrome.

    Something else: Google services have a cloudy future on Apple devices. There already are rumors Apple will ditch Google Maps for a home-grown option in iOS 6. I expect to see a Siri search service someday replace Google. Chrome for iOS would be an important anchor for Google services as Apple offers more of its own from the cloud.

    Even then, Chrome faces hurdles placed by Apple. Based on the browsers currently available for iOS, Safari is default for mail and other services. So Chrome would be at disadvantage, as long as Apple only allows Safari to be default. However, surely Chrome could be default for Google services -- gulp, right?

    From that viewpoint, Chrome will always be better on Android. That said, Chrome on iOS ought to be pretty good, and if Google is going to feed the hand that bites it, better to extend existing services rather than pay TAC to Apple.

    My question for you: Would you use Chrome over Safari on iPad or iPhone? Please answer the question below and take our poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/14/iCloud__iOS_6_and_other_Apple_leaks_are_all_about_Facebook_s_IPO'

    iCloud, iOS 6 and other Apple leaks are all about Facebook's IPO

    Publié: mai 14, 2012, 11:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple execs all follow the same party line: They don't talk about forthcoming products. But somebody often does, perhaps coordinated with public relations folks or even careful disclosure from someone on Apple's board. Whom isn't so much important as someone does. As I've observed for years, leaks' timings are fairly consistent -- either to lift the share price or steal some other company's thunderous announcement. I can't help but see both in several seemingly strategic leaks, starting with today's disclosure about iOS 6 features.

    The Wall Street Journal reports that iCloud will get new photo- and video-sharing capabilities, which include comments and availability outside Photo Stream -- meaning people don't have to own a fruit-logo product to view them. Apple reportedly is extending photo capabilities, while adding video-sharing as feature set. Today's leak follows another -- this one from 9to5 Mac, claiming Apple will dump Google Maps for its own service in iOS 6. Both leaks communicate that Apple is serious about social cloud services and search, and I don't believe they're coincidentally timed, given Facebook's imminent IPO.

    Apple's Social Network

    Apple is successful for many reasons, but hype is among the most important. The company thrives on rumors and speculation about what's coming next, which helps keep the share price high. Now that Apple is an all-star market performer -- a dramatic change from just three years ago -- shares lift themselves fairly easily. That said, it's still a perception stock, regardless of performance merits. An atomic bomb will drop on the stock market later this week, when Facebook goes public. After seeming years of incessant chatter about Apple's next thing or whether or not shares will hit $1,000 or $2,000 (please, someone live in the moment and get a life), all techdom and business blogs and news sites will turn attention to Facebook.

    There is no Apple social network. But iCloud could be the makings of one, should Apple take cues from Google and successful upstarts like Instagram. During last month's earnings call, company execs boasted about 125 million iCloud users. That's far below Facebook's 900 million but lots closer to Google+. Today, Apple's service is more about sync and storage, but the leaks suggest social sharing features will debut during next month's Worldwide Developer Conference.

    Coincidentally, or perhaps not, the iCloud features leak comes the same day Facebook announced major mobile sharing photo enhancement -- 3X larger images. If you survey blog and news coverage given to the leak, rumored iCloud photo-sharing plans trump Facebook's real ones.

    Facebook's Mobile Problem

    As the IPO approaches, chatter about Facebook's mobile strategy increases. According to comScore, in March, US smartphone users spent 441.3 minutes on Facebook, which is more than the greater American Internet population spent from PCs (391 minutes). That's from 78 million unique mobile or about half the total number of unique visitors (159 million).

    In an amendent to its IPO, filed last week, Facebook conceded:

    We do not currently directly generate any meaningful revenue from the use of Facebook mobile products, and our ability to do so successfully is unproven. We believe this increased usage of Facebook on mobile devices has contributed to the recent trend of our daily active users (DAUs) increasing more rapidly than the increase in the number of ads delivered. If users increasingly access Facebook mobile products as a substitute for access through personal computers, and if we are unable to successfully implement monetization strategies for our mobile users, or if we incur excessive expenses in this effort, our financial performance and ability to grow revenue would be negatively affected.

    The problem should be obvious to any Facebook user: Where would mobile ads go? In the desktop browser they're visible but to the side. On mobile there's little place else other than the newsfeed, although I see promise in contextual ads based on searches or location-based services. But they're not really there today. Mobile isn't an opportunity for Facebook but a liability. For now.

    Search, Social, Storage, Sync

    That's not the case for Apple, which profits from selling devices. Advertising isn't a necessity. An Apple social network, leveraged from iOS devices potentially is a serious threat to Facebook. Surely the investment community remembers what MySpace looked like in the mid-Noughties, before Facebook opened in 2006 to the public. MySpace is now a phantom of its former social self. Then there's the hype factor behind anything Apple does and presumption it will be better.

    But there's something really rotten in Apple social. During the same earnings call, Apple execs said that cumulative iOS device sales reached 365 million at the end of first quarter. Based on both numbers, either a whole lot of those devices are no longer in use or iCloud adoption is fairly modest (just 34 percent) -- likely a combination of both.

    Clearly sync and storage isn't good enough, hence the social push that's sure to directly compete with Facebook. Granted, the social network is bigger, but Apple matches Facebook feature-for-feature on key platform aspects, leveraged from iOS and iCloud -- photos and video sharing (soon with comments), messaging/chat, video calling, apps, games and more. Social would make Apple a perceptual competitor with Facebook.

    Today's leak shares similarities to Friday's about Apple dumping Google Maps in iOS 6, as the company takes on its two biggest post-PC competitors. There must come a point where Apple places Siri as replacement for Google search. Perhaps iOS 6, or its successor. It's Apple's four Ses of the apocalypse: Search, social, storage and sync.

    Apple Manipulates

    For the here and now, the leaks communicate Apple plans to take on Facebook and Google -- and artfully done as the social network's IPO approaches. Make no mistake, timing is deliberate. Apple's typically tight-lipped product development approach generally keeps software and services leaks to a minimum. Hardware is harder, because so many third parties are involved in the supply chain. For this reason, rumors about forthcoming software or services -- the latter where no outsiders are involved -- are more suspect at being deliberately leaked.

    Apple effectively manipulates bloggers and journalists, particularly at a time when readership -- as measured in pageviews -- means so much more than subscribers did during the news print era. They're willing participants.

    Leaks are nothing new. In Washington, D.C., during the late 1960s and 1970s, the Nixon administration crafted leaks into a state of art. It's a wonder that Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward uncovered the Watergate scandal with so many journalists chasing Nixon White House leaks for the next big scoop.

    In the 2000s, more tech companies use leaks and special events to grab free marketing and to boost perceptions about their products and even their share price. Apple has effectively used this kind of guerrilla marketing for years. But there was a qualitative change in 2008 and more so in 2009, particularly in managing news about CEO Steve Jobs' medical leave, liver transplant surgery and departure as CEO before his untimely death.

    Apple's effective media manipulation -- and bloggers and journalists seem all too willing to be manipulated -- makes anything not officially announced suspect. The more coincidental the timing to something a competitor announces, the more suspicious.

    Photo Credit: 1000 Words / Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/14/The_measure_of_Windows_Phone_s_failure_is...'

    The measure of Windows Phone's failure is...

    Publié: mai 14, 2012, 7:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There are many measures, but one piqued my attention last week. According to Nielsen, Windows Mobile US smartphone market share, based on install base not unit shipments, is considerably higher than its successor -- 4.1 percent versus 1.7 percent for newer Windows Phone. Interpret however you like: Windows Mobile is so good, many Americans stick with it; Windows Phone isn't doing well after two version releases and 18 months of sales.

    Nielsen's numbers are for first quarter, when Android share reached 48.5 percent, effectively from zero three years ago (the OS debuted on one smartphone from one carrier in Q4 2008). The next two places go to iOS and BlacBerry, with 32 percent and 16 percent share, respectively. In second quarter 2011: Android, 39 percent; iOS, 28 percent; BlackBerry, 20 percent; Windows Mobile/Phone, 9 percent. So Microsoft's overall share measured by both operating systems is down by one-third in just three quarters.

    Twelve days ago I asked: "Is there hope for Windows Phone?" based on modestly encouraging data from comScore that showed a brief arrest in declining market share. The analyst firm puts Microsoft's smartphone share at 3.9 percent, based on subscribers, which is flat quarter on quarter. That's actually an improvement.

    BetaNews reader Christopher Micallef is puzzled by the negative reporting about Windows Phone: "Why do people always assume that falling sales with Windows Mobile means that Windows Phone is failing? Of course they are going to have falling sales, they cancelled a whole platform".

    Analyst Mike Feibus opined for BetaNews last month: "Windows Phone will gain serious market share this year". He believes that Verizon supporting Windows Phone will hugely impact sales. I'm skeptical.

    BetaNews reader Brandon Mills follows Feibus' reasoning:

    To me, the real story is that the decision of who is going to be the third power in the cellphone wars seems to have been made by the carriers -- it's Windows Phone. Blackberry is pretty much up a creek without a paddle at the moment. They don't have a giant OS monopoly to push their platform forward with...

    The writing is on the wall. RIM is gone. With less doubt about who the third power is going to be, along with leveraging Windows 8 itself and taking advantage over Android fragmentation frustration, I think Windows Phone is positioned to at least gain a moderate share in the next two years. I don't think it's going to knock Android or iOS out, but I think it'll gain enough share that it will become the established third power.

    Commenter aretzios blames Windows Phone for Microsoft's misfortunes: "Microsoft signed its death warrant in the mobile space since the day it decided to abandon WinMo 6.5 to move to a totally incompatible system...From 25 percent of the market, Microsoft's share declined to 1.5 percent as WinMo users moved en mass to Android. Sometimes, when one breaks backward compatibility, there are consequences".

    During the Bill Gates era, and even during Steve Ballmer's early tenure as CEO, Microsoft made backward compatibility a top-design priority. But the company started backing away from that tenet with Office 2007. Where there are dramatic UI changes, like Windows Phone, Windows 8 and Windows RT, backward compatibility isn't assured at all.

    Reader Dan Goldberg is a Windows Phone fan: "I have used iPhones, Androids and now Windows Phones. I gotta say my windows phone rocks! It is quick (without having a hundred cores), better battery life, and more stable. Facebook and Twitter is integrated into the phone and is very fast to read and post messages. Don't forget my screen is much larger (4.7 inches ) and easier to read vs the iPhone".

    But aretzios disagrees:

    There is no or little hope for WinPhone 7/7.5/8. The reason is simple. Humdrum specs, humdrum hardware going against amazing devices such as the HTC One X/S and the Samsung Galaxy SII/SIII. Those who think that WP Phone is better than Android 4 are simply kidding themselves. Android 4 is extremely good and can provide anything that WP7.5 does and much more on top of that. In addition, most of the devices out there offer much more than any Windows Phone. And just wait, the iPhone 5 is not even out!!

    Commenter keymaker remains optimistic about Windows Phone: "I think it's too early but one thing is for sure though, almost all customers reviews are all positive and these things being dirt cheap also helps a lot".

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/14/Will_you_buy_Samsung_Galaxy_S_III_'

    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    Publié: mai 14, 2012, 5:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Eleven days have passed since Samsung unveiled Galaxy S III, which goes on sale internationally on May 29. Galaxy S III and HTC One X are arguably the hottest Android smartphones currently available, thanks in part to quad-core HSPA+ models. But HTC One X is dual-core for LTE variants hitting these shores, subsidized from carriers; no final word yet on S3. I often ask buying questions like this one right away but waited to see what pricing would pop for Galaxy S III. Expansys-USA is taking preorders in pebble blue or white for $649.99. Pricing isn't available for 32GB or 64GB models.

    I call out Expansys USA, because pricing is the best I've seen so far, and it's lower than expected. The $799.99 seen most elsewhere is more in line with unlocked Galaxy S II and Galaxy Nexus when they launched internationally. Through Amazon, Techno Trading House (a new reseller to me) lists the pebble blue model for $824, available June 2, although it's only $744 purchased direct. My simple question: Will you buy? Either unlocked for no-contract price or lower locked price from a carrier with contractual commitment -- the latter an option available in Europe before Stateside?

    For anyone thinking of the yet unannounced iPhone 5, Galaxy S III is the alternative to strongly consider. On May 3, I ask: "Is iPhone 4S obsolete?" Hell yeah, if S III lives up to the social software refinements.

    BetaNews commenter ctkatz goes further, by comparing iPhone 4S to Galaxy S II: "I thought the iP4S was obsolete when compared to the SGS 2. Apple really hasn't introduced any new game-changing features since the first iPhone was released. It just took time for everyone else to catch up, and when everyone else caught up they have blown apple away in terms of features and enhancements".

    Samsung isn't the world's No. 1 handset maker overall and in smartphones by lark. Apple is known for focusing on delivering benefits that matter, sometimes at the expense of hardware capabilities, and truly aspirational marketing. Galaxy S III evokes these qualities, with something more: real benefits without sacrificing hardware capabilities while using software to enrich the human experience.

    Battery is one important area of no-compromise. GSMArena has conducted tests, and they do impress:

    • 10 hours 20 minutes talk time (iPhone 4S is 7 hours 41 minutes)
    • 10 hours 1 minute video playback (iPhone 4S is 9 hours 24 minutes)
    • 5 hours 17 minutes web browsing (iPhone 4S is 6 hours 56 minutes)

    Standby time also is excellent, according to GSMArena: "You’d need to charge the monstrous smartphone once every 43 hours if you do an hour of 3G talking, video playback and web browsing per day". Of course you'll do more than that.

    Galaxy S III specs: 4.8-inch Super AMOLED display (306 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution; 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (64GB in future), expandable with microSD card; HSPA＋ 21Mbps (850/900/1900/2100), 4G LTE, GSM/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC, Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi N; 2100 mAh battery; carrier locked; Android 4.0 and TouchWiz "nature" UI. Measurements: 136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm, 133 grams.


    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S III?

    But the big benefits are software and services. Among them:

    • Front camera detects whether the user is looking at the phone and keeps the screen lit. How many times has your display gone dark while reading a website or ebook?
    • The phone can automatically turn on, if recognizing your face.
    • You're in the middle of texting someone and decide to call instead. Lifting the phone to your face places a call to the recipient.
    • Facial recognition identifies friends, tagging their social networking accounts. Right, Facebook and Twitter.
    • Voice commands are available in 8 languages.

    Redwan Huq: "All these new features sound incredible. It's the first true innovation we've seen in smartphones in ages. But their fidelity remains to be tested once the phone is released".

    Reviewing comments to our S3 stories, few of you expressed your buying intentions, which is reason enough to ask.

    Reader ctkatz is "not getting the SGS 3...because I still like my SGS 2, and it still does what I want. This phone looks sexy as hell, too bad I'm not in the market for a new device yet".

    The whopping 4.8-inch screen is too much for some people. David Jonas: "I wouldn't buy this if you paid me to, so sick of these big phones".

    So the question remains: Will you buy Galaxy S III? Please answer in comments below and take the poll above.

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/14/Yahoo_ousts_CEO_Scott_Thompson__and_I_ask___What_the_frak__'

    Yahoo ousts CEO Scott Thompson, and I ask: 'What the frak?'

    Publié: mai 14, 2012, 12:45am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    So let me see if I understand rightly. It's okay for CEOs to lie, steal, cheat, take ungodly salaries and -- worse -- huge bonuses while companies flounder, commit insider trading and abuse shareholder trust in just about every way possible, but lie on the résumé and it's adios, baby? Somebody wake me from this nightmare -- or perhaps Scott Thompson, who is out as Yahoo chief executive.

    Yahoo tacitly confirmed Thompson's exit today, in an announcement about Ross Levinsohn assuming position of interim CEO: "Levinsohn replaces Scott Thompson, former chief executive officer, who has left the company". That is one big middle finger. There is no explanation -- not even a fine he left for personal reasons -- or praise for his short time running Yahoo. Thompson leaves with a big stake in his heart implanted from behind.

    A Little Accounting

    Before defending Thompson, appropriate disclosure: I've never lied on a résumé, generally because being honest is a personal philosophy and falsehood gives an employer easy grounds for dismal later on -- well for lowly minons like me, and perhaps you, who don't pull in 7-figure incomes (or more) for high-finagle executive positions. I expected Thompson to weather this insignifiant scandal just fine. His ouster for something so petty, when many CEOs do so much worse, is simply outrageous.

    So what if Thompson's bachelor degree is in accounting not computer science? Surely, given Yahoo's financials, he should be faulted not for what he claimed, but what he didn't. Yahoo could use a little more accounting right now, and a numbers guy doing it. C`mon, Thompson didn't claim that his degree is from Harvard rather than Stonehill College. It's a little thing.

    Some companies would reward such behavior. In the video clip above, Kevin Bacon interviews for an advertising job in John Hughes movie "She's Having a Baby". Bacon lies on his résumé and gets caught doing so: "Aside from your social security number, there isn't one piece of information in there that is true. You have set new standards for lying in the job market". But Bacon's résumé creative writing skills and desperation to work gets him the job anyway. He's hungry, and the employer likes that.

    What's wrong with Yahoo shareholders and board of directors? Is Thompson not hungry enough for you? You can't trust him because of a little white lie on his résumé? Get a life! Losing Thompson less than six months on the job, when Yahoo is struggling so much, is disastrous. Someone else thinks so, too. Shares are down nearly 2 percent in after-hours trading. Will it be bloodbath when markets open, or will shares rise in support? Or perhaps no real change whatsoever? No matter what shareholders feel, Thompson's departure -- eh ouster -- is bad by most any measure.

    We Can Lie, Just Not You

    Now if only there was an example here -- public companies putting CEOs on notice for bad behavior. There's little chance of that. These execs practically get away with murder (surely some do). Sadly perhaps the lesson is something else: Don't get caught, and Thompson did.

    So that's really the crime here, not that Thompson lied on his résumé but that Yahoo is embarrassed and made vulnerable by the public disclosure -- that some shareholders wanted Thompson gone. Ties are severed to protect corporate image and deflect liability from shareholder retaliation (you know, lawsuits). Thompson hangs in the wind, so Yahoo can go on.

    But it's Yahoo hanging in the wind, beret of leadership. Worse, Yahoo caved to a shareholder group, by granting seats on the board of directors. If there is an example here, it's a bad one: Bully enough and Yahoo caves. Hedge Fund Third Point uncovered Thompson's résumé white lie and used it in a proxy battle for the Internet giant. As part of today's stunning Thompson departure, Roy Bostock is out as chairman of the board (replaced by Fred Amoroso), while four other members depart, too. Joining the board, as part of a settlement to the proxy fight, Third Point CEO Daniel Loeb, joined by Harry Wilson and Michael Wolf.

    I'm awestruck. Eleven days ago, Yahoo said in a statement that Loeb was unqualified:

    The board continues to believe that Mr. Loeb himself does not bring the relevant skill set and experience to the board, particularly in comparison to the candidates selected by the board. In addition, we believe that, based on the specific qualifications of Third Point's nominees relative to Yahoo!'s business and opportunities, the candidates nominated by the board's Nominating and Governance Committee are significantly superior to those proposed by Third Point.

    So, what? It's okay for Yahoo to lie about Loeb's qualifications to serve on the board but Thompson is grossly negligent for fibbing on his résumé?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/13/Mom_is_a_Google_girl'

    Mom is a Google girl

    Publié: mai 13, 2012, 7:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I never expected my 70 year-old mother to ride the cutting edge of technology, but she's there, living in the cloud, which she embraces enthusiastically. What's that saying about not teaching old dogs new tricks? Perhaps you can.

    Mom's daily tech is way out there, and you can blame or credit me for lifting her there. But she's a willing participant, happily adopting new habits, which in the end wasn't so difficult once she recognized the benefits. Perhaps your mother will, too, if you give her the chance. Mom uses Android phone (Samsung Nexus S), Chromebook (Google Cr-48) and Google TV (Logitech Revue). She lives in the cloud via these Google-powered devices and associated services.

    Lifestyle Choice

    Technology is all about lifestyle, but more highly pronounced in the cloud-connected device era, driven in part by vendors' product philosophies and marketing strategies. Choose any product company at the height of its dominance, and for some even after, there is lifestyle behind them -- Ford, Harley Davidson, IBM, Kodak and Sony, among many, many others. People choosing Linux or Macintosh during the 1990s and early 2000s made lifestyle choices different from the DOS/Windows majority. BlackBerry and Palm Pilot presented connected lifestyles during the past decade. Examples abound.

    For mom, the Google cloud lifestyle works well, although it's nowhere near where she started. I bought mom her first computer, a refurbished Gateway laptop, in 1999. She used Windows PCs through 2008, when I shipped her the last iMac G5 produced by Apple (released October 2005). I did this because the Windows lifestyle wasn't working for either of us. She had a terrible experience where in November 2006 Microsoft's "Genuine" tool wrongly flagged her HP PC -- that I had set up and shipped -- as having pirated Windows XP (it most certainly did not). Occasional malware and other problems led me to offer the iMac.

    The Apple lifestyle worked well for mom, and she often expressed how much she loved her Mac. It worked for me, too. I received much fewer tech-support calls from her. But in other ways, the Apple lifestyle fit poorly. She didn't own iPhone, iPod or digital camera. The Mac wasn't her hub for digital lifestyle -- as Apple cofounder positioned the platform at the start of the Millennium. Mom played a few games on her Mac, but largely the web browser defined her digital lifestyle.

    Shining Chromebook

    Last year, the iMac's graphics card started to fail. Mom badly needed a new computer, being in a wheelchair and relying on the Mac for information and connection to others. She gets out most every day during summer months, but she is more apartment-bound during long New England winters. A new Mac didn't fit either of our budgets. Apple demands too much to join the Mac club -- $1,200 starting price for a desktop PC.

    I considered the Cr-48 Chromebook, and we discussed it as an option for about two weeks; she was lukewarm. Then my niece visited her grandmother, and to my absolute surprise she had used a Chromebook at work. That sold mom, who proactively asked me to send the Cr-48. Chromebook isn't a perfect fit, in part because mom moved from a 17-inch to 12-inch display.

    Mom also had to learn new habits, even though she already spent most of her life in the browser. She also switched from Yahoo to Gmail, which better suited using an Android phone. All in all, she has expressed satisfaction with the change, with one caveat: Netflix streaming is sometimes choppy. That's more a hardware problem than issue with Chrome OS.

    I'm considering a new Chromebook for her, which should solve that problem. Acer Chromebooks start at $299. Timing is right, particularly with desktop-like UI motif coming to Chrome OS. Google didn't initially release "Aura" for Cr-48, but it's available now. She must not have the motif, or I would have heard about it. I'll ask today.

    Chromebook fits mom's lifestyle -- and mine, too. Google frequently updates Chrome OS, which development closely tracks with the web browser. I've had one tech call from her in 10 months, and neither of us worry about viruses. All her stuff stores in Google's cloud, so there's less concern about losing valuables in the event of hardware failure. Setting up a new Chromebook will be as easy as logging in with Google ID.

    Going Google TV

    In December, mom got some unexpected Social Security money and used two-thirds of it to buy a 46-inch television. What an opportunity for Christmas: I upgraded her PC with Google TV. Mom's vision isn't so good, and it seemed to me that doing email and the Web on a big-screen would be better. Plus she could stream Netflix to the television -- more sensible locale than the computer. I sent her the discontinued Logitech Revue, because of the PC-like keyboard.

    Google TV was easier for mom to grasp than Chromebook for two reasons that I would never have guessed: Apps and Android. Her Android phone experience made Google TV more intuitive than Chrome OS, which surprised me; I reasoned that the browser would be the more familiar interface. Perhaps, but if you're looking for more out of any computing device, apps and customization matter more -- and these attributes made Google TV easier to use and more familiar to her.

    Revue instantly appealed, and now mom moves among Google-OS devices -- Android, Chromebook and Google TV -- depending on context. The stuff that matters to her is available on any of them.

    Mom lives in the cloud now. She doesn't have a digital camera; Nexus S is it. Unlike iOS, Android presents sharing options with each photo. So she can snap and share to Facebook, which is her primary social network, because that's where her kids and grandkids hang out. Or wherever else. She doesn't use Chrome for Android beta, but I need to change that. Browser sync across devices is another benefit she could use.

    Mom embraced something new, and benefits greatly from changing her habits. She was always pretty flexible and adaptable, generous and good natured. She deserves better than I can give her. I remember her for lots of things this Mother's Day, but they're not tech enough for BetaNews. Her Google lifestyle is, though, which is why I write about it.

    Now if I could only interest mom in Google+. :)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/10/Unfair_maybe__but_Microsoft_has_the_right_to_bar_browsers_from_Windows_RT'

    Unfair maybe, but Microsoft has the right to bar browsers from Windows RT

    Publié: mai 10, 2012, 11:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Suddenly, the new Microsoft doesn't look all that different from the old one. During court proceedings for the 1998-2001 antitrust trial, government lawyers accused Microsoft of playing favorites by providing its developers access to information not available to third parties -- thus giving Internet Explorer unfair competitive advantage over Netscape. The company's browser policy regarding Windows RT isn't just much the same, it's much more. IE gets hugely exclusive access. The question: Is it anticompetitive?

    The answer isn't as simple as some people might think. For example, look at Apple. Is it anticompetitive that the company effectively bars competing browsers from iOS? It's a Safari-only platform, lest browser developers work by proxy, like Opera does. Windows has an acquired monopoly on Intel-based PCs. Apple imposes one in part, by controlling everything on its platform, which is exclusive to its own hardware. Something else to ponder: Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM as it does on x86. There's no position of market dominance to exert anticompetitive behavior, as could be defined under US antitrust law. Microsoft is within its rights to shut out Chrome, Firefox and other browsers while favoring Internet Explorer. But that doesn't make it right.

    'Dark Ages'

    "For Windows on X86, Microsoft is giving other browsers basically the same privileges it gives IE", Asa Dotzler, Firefox marketing community coordinator, says. "But on ARM chips, Microsoft gives IE access [to] special APIs absolutely necessary for building a modern browser that it won't give to other browsers so there's no way another browser can possibly compete with IE in terms of features or performance".

    Microsoft's Windows RT browser censure isn't something new, but Mozilla general counsel Harvey Anderson brought the plan to the forefront with yesterday's "Windows on ARM Users Need Browser Choice Too" blog post. For good reason. Microsoft's US antitrust oversight ended last year and the company complies with a European order requiring a Windows version without Internet Explorer. Then there is the aforementioned ARM, which is outside the monopoly market defined by the courts. The court of public opinion is Mozilla's only recourse now. Anderson uses it effectively; the topic is easily meme of the day.

    Windows RT's main user interface is the tile-like Metro, but there is classic desktop mode, too. Anderson explains:

    Windows on ARM prohibits any browser except for Internet Explorer from running in the privileged 'Windows Classic' environment. In practice, this means that only Internet Explorer will be able to perform many of the advanced computing functions vital to modern browsers in terms of speed, stability and security to which users have grown accustomed. Given that IE can run in Windows on ARM, there is no technical reason to conclude other browsers can’t do the same...Quite simply because Windows on ARM, as currently designed, restricts user choice, reduces competition and chills innovation.

    Essentially, Microsoft restricts desktop access to its own software. Anderson calls the restriction an "unwelcome return to the digital dark ages where users and developers didn’t have browser choices".

    Broken Promises

    But is it really? One could argue Apple is there today, by refusing Google, Mozilla and other browser developers admittance to the App Store. Windows RT will emulate much of Apple's iOS strategy: focus on touch and tablets; built-in app store; operating system available on devices only; priority given to the OS developer's apps; and platform curation, among other things. Windows RT is the least partner-friendly Microsoft operating system ever based on what little published information is available (I exclude embedded and smartphone OSes).

    Dotzler accuses Microsoft of breaking its promise to developers made with the "Windows Principles" unveiled in July 2006. He has a point, although I didn't think much of them at the time. I wrote for the now defunct Microsoft Monitor blog: "Most of these principles derive from concessions Microsoft made as part of its US antitrust trial". That was then, when Microsoft was subject to government oversight. There is none now and no onus, other than bad publicity that will pass in a few days, to follow them.

    Strangely, the link to the 12 principles (organized into three main categories) is dead, although the press conference luncheon transcript still exists. Dotzler provides an off-Microsoft site archive link to the principles. By my reading, Windows RT breaks the first four under the first heading and first under the second heading -- important to developers like Mozilla because it pertains to APIs.

    Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith said during the July 2006 luncheon:

    We're committing today that we will document and disclose all the APIs in Windows that are called by any Microsoft application, whether it's middleware or a standalone application like Microsoft Office or one of our Web services like Windows Live. In effect, this ensures that the rest of our industry is able to use the same technology building blocks in Windows that Microsoft's own developers are able to use.

    Microsoft's browser prohibition breaks that promise, but only as applied to Windows. In a citation CNET's Stephen Shankland has, and that I can't corroborate, Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Heiner tells Anderson that Windows RT "isn't Windows anymore". The name surely implies so. But playing Microsoft semantic games, assuming Heiner is properly quoted third hand, those Windows Principles wouldn't apply. Microsoft has an out and not the only one -- the other being no monopoly position on ARM processors.

    By the way, I asked Microsoft's legal team for comment, since this all started with "Mozilla's general counsel, who raises customer choice and anticompetitive concerns. I haven't received response yet.

    Like a Fox

    Moral: Once a fox always a fox (no disrespect to Firefox). Microsoft changed its behavior while caged by the US government. Set free, it's true nature returns. But I see that nature differently than do the Mozilla folks. Microsoft isn't looking to gain advantage over Chrome or Firefox in a new browser war but compete better against iOS devices.

    This is all about Apple, and Microsoft preserving its platform's relevancy in the connected-device -- post-PC, if you prefer -- era. There are reasons why so much of Microsoft's approach to Windows RT so resembles iOS. Microsoft is locking down the platform in ways so similar to Apple, with the browsing engine a key component of the strategy.

    Earlier I asked if Apple's Safari exclusivity is anticompetitive. Under US law the answer is almost certainly no. I must apply the same conclusion to Microsoft's IE-favoritism. But what a platform vendor has a right to do and what's right to do are very different. Microsoft is wrong to alienate development partners, as is Apple. But Apple shows Microsoft how easily wrong means nothing. App Store and iOS are hugely successful without browser choice and restrictions placed on app approval. Microsoft is more concerned with preserving its platform for all developers rather than negative reactions from a few along the way.

    The negative publicity will pass, Mozilla will get no redress and Microsoft will have its way. Should Windows RT be a non-starter -- a total, market flop -- none of this matters, however. Microsoft doesn't restrict Windows 8 the same way, so developers have a huge, and arguably more open, development platform.

    RT doesn't matter if Windows 7 entrenches like waning XP.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/10/Don_t_be_phished_by_tweet___Hey_some_person_is_saying_horrible_things_about_you_'

    Don't be phished by tweet: 'Hey some person is saying horrible things about you'

    Publié: mai 10, 2012, 6:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Does reputation matter to you? Are you concerned what people say about you when you're not around? Perhaps you want to know what crap anonymous commenters post about you across the InterWebs? If the answer is "Yes" to any of these, you might be vulnerable to this tweet: "Hey some person is saying horrible things about you". Resist the temptation.

    I got this one Monday and again yesterday. I started to ignore the tweet, but it came as direct message. So I clicked the shortened link, which brought me to the Twitter home page with message log-in failed. Immediately, I panicked, intuiting this likely was a phishing scam. Sure enough, Chrome revealed the fake URL and I backed off. But some other people haven't been so lucky, as Gartner analyst Mark McDonald confesses today. In reading his post, I realized it would be public service to share a bit about his experience and to warn others.

    Most successful phishing attacks are socially engineered. Like an old-time grifter, the phisher tricks you to willingly act on his or her behalf. You give your trust on the belief there will be a benefit or some other gain. Here, the lure is compelling. Who really wouldn't want to know that "some person is saying horrible things about you"? Phishing exploits like this one abuse your trust in someone else. The two direct messages I received came from a George Washington University student; we're mutual followers, so the tweet seemed believable enough.

    Something else: URL shortening masks the link's true destination. Matters could have been worse, such as drive-by Trojan planted simply by going to the fake and poisoned website. URL shortening is convenient for keeping to Twitter's 140-character limit, but it's a security liability long overdue for massive exploit. This new attack isn't the first, but surely someone someday will unleash a far-reaching Twitter phishing exploit using URL shortening to mask the destination.

    What happened to McDonald could to you, if it hasn't already. Once reaching the fake site and being logged out, he braved ahead:

    That should have sent off warning lights as I was already logged into Twitter and the log-in screen I was taken to was a different color than traditional Twitter blue. In the desire to find out what others were saying, I barreled ahead and proved that I was really a bit of a twit, in the UK term of less than normally intelligent person. The hook was set, the virus spread and I was there dangling at the end of the line.

    McDonald essentially gave up his Twitter log-in credentials, which were exploited with some cunning and quite differently than email viruses that spread by spamming everyone in the address book:

    The virus sent a few messages to a few people out of my Twitter account. The virus sent a similar direct Twitter message to about a dozen people from my follower list. The people selected were randomly distributed and it appeared to be just a few people. This spread the virus through a network of loose and more casual connections rather than processing a list of people...The viral messages did not start right away...Delay not only allowed incubation, but it inoculated itself against instant recognition.

    Two hours passed before he realized what happened: "It was only when I saw a tweet saying that I lost 20 lbs by using acai berries that I knew something was up. I hate acai berries".

    I received the second tweet from the same person about 12 hours ago, which means that as late as last night he didn't know about the account hack. I'll direct message a link to this story soon as it posts.

    How can you easily tell if your account is compromised? Check your direct messages.

    Photo Credit:  Ivelin Radkov/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/10/Google__puts_iOS_ahead_of_Android'

    Google+ puts iOS ahead of Android

    Publié: mai 10, 2012, 12:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    May 9 is, in a way, a watershed day for Android -- and that's not necessarily a good thing. Many developers I communicate with repeatedly say they confront the same quandary: Android or iOS first? Maybe they choose to develop for iOS, only to ask: Android or iPad next? Google is a software developer, too, and this day put its priorities in order with a stunning iOS-first update. The new iPhone app for social network Google+ is stunning, breathtaking, immersive and makes the already great experience on Ice Cream Sandwich seem outdated -- although some of the best visuals migrate to iOS.

    In a way, Google sets the wrong example for its development partners by putting iOS ahead of Android. But why not? The iOS install base is larger than Android (365 million to 300 million at last reveal); countless analyst surveys show that iOS device users are more connected and engaged; and fragmentation isn't a problem since the majority of the iOS install base is on the newest version (versus about 5 percent of Androids). Google wants Plus to succeed in a big way, so improving the experience everywhere should be a priority. But iOS first, for the next big thing, is the priority.

    From another perspective, the move is rather genius, even if pricks like me complain as I do above. Google likely will get more free marketing as bloggers and journalists -- and that's not just the Apple Fan Club of apologists -- drum on about the visually stunning iOS app. Buzz would be considerably lower for an Android app. Vic Gundotra, Google senior vice president of engineering, says that "the Android update is coming in a few weeks (with a few extra surprises)". So there's another chance to beat the InterWebs and in doing so generate some more free Google+ buzz. As marketing, the iOS-then-Android approach is brilliant.

    Bleeding Edge

    The visuals are so strong they're almost overwhelming, and I can't but wonder if Google borrowed a little something from Windows Phone and the Bing mobile app. Google+ for iPhone (version 2.0.0.5888) uses full-bleed photos and then some. Pretty much everything about Google+ bleeds the edge of the screen. The effect is immersive. You just want to scroll and scroll -- and you will since so much less content fills the screen now. It's a trade-off that works best when there is a smaller number of people in the selected circle.

    "We’re embracing the sensor-rich smartphone (with its touchable screen and high-density display), and transforming Google+ into something more intimate, and more expressive", Gundotra says.

    He emphasizes: "Full-bleed photos and videos are cool. But you know what’s really cool? Content so immersive it remakes your mobile device into a rich carousel of beloved memories and breaking news. That’s the Google+ experience we aspire to, and today’s release helps us get closer".

    Companies so overdo the marketing hype, it's startling for an executive to express something seemingly so that actual is not. Gundotra remarks:

    Today’s update pays special attention to fun and performance:

    • Conversations fall into view as you move forward and backward in time
    • Optical cues (like parallax) help the mind linger on individual posts
    • Important actions like +1 now float atop the stream, making it easy to endorse all your favorites

    The end result -- we hope -- is an app that brings you closer to the people you care about, and the stuff you’re into; an app with sense and soul.

    I can't disagree. "Sense and soul" is about right.

    A Fool and His Android

    The timing has me laughing at myself (although many of you already do; hey, I read comments). In February, I grudgingly gave up Verizon Galaxy Nexus, used since late December. My Verizon bill for the one account turned out to be half that of four other lines on AT&T. I just couldn't justify the expense. So I sold the phone, paid off my Verizon early-termination fee and chocked up the loss on the device to my Christmas money.

    I then returned to AT&T by buying a black, 32GB iPhone 4S. Contrary to some BetaNews comments, I'm fairly platform independent. Rather than go Android again, I spent time using Siri and getting up to date with newer iOS apps. Then something unexpected occurred. Two weeks ago today, Google started selling Galaxy Nexus HSPA+ direct. Two months of iPhone 4S was enough for me. I bought another Galaxy Nexus, which I covered by selling the Apple smartphone (yesterday for $500 locally).

    I'll be clear: Google+ is my preferred social hangout, and the tight integration, along with other things Google, with Android 4 hugely appeals. I received the phone Friday only to get to Wednesday and this -- Google+ getting a huge, enticing makeover for iOS. But not Android. I'm a klutz for timing.

    By the way, I briefly tested the new Google+ app on an iPad late this afternoon. To be clear: It's not native iPad but works as you would expect from any iPhone app. Tiny or 2X.

    If you haven't used Google+, the iPhone app is good reason to try. If you Plused and gave up, there's reason to go back. Facebook is suddenly so last century compared to this user experience.

    Something else, well two things: Immersive is a word often used to describe using iPad. Google brings it to iPhone, and hopefully soon Android, and in a big way. What app is more appropriately immersive than one where you engage others.

    That other thing: Google is betting big on mobile, which it should as a leading cloud-to-device provider. You may have thought you knew this, as did I, but Google+, in context of other recent product and service redesigns, foreshadows much more: Sensors, screen and soul.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/09/Is_Adobe_Creative_Cloud_a_good_value_'

    Is Adobe Creative Cloud a good value?

    Publié: mai 9, 2012, 8:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's the question I've asked myself since Adobe unveiled the subscription service in late April; it launches May 11. For me, $49.99 a month is steep. But $29.99 strongly tempts. I'm eligible for that lower pricing, and you might be, too. But to get either price, Adobe requires 12-month commitment -- and gets 50 percent still, if you cancel early. Month-to-month option is $79.99 per 30 days, or $959.88 yearly versus $599.88 for standard annual subscription pricing.

    You get a lot regardless of pricing plan -- more than 20 products now and others planned (I'm waiting for Photoshop Lightroom 4.x, Adobe), offering huge savings that surely will appeal to someone. For starters: student, sole-proprietorship or small business. Among the included products and list price, if purchased (rather than subscribed): Acrobat Pro ($499), After Effects ($799), Flash Pro ($599), Illustrator ($599), Photoshop Extended ($699) and Premiere Pro ($799).

    Five Questions

    There are seven stand-out questions to ask when evaluating Creative Suite's value:

    1. Do you qualify for lower, $29.99/month pricing? If a student or licensee of Creative Suite 3, 4 or 5, or one of the individual apps, yes -- as long as the software is registered with Adobe. That works out to $359.88 for the first year, which is an introductory offer.

    2. What can you afford now? If you need, or want, lots of Adobe apps, annual subscription -- standard or discounted -- will cost less and monthly payments are easily budgeted. Meanwhile, the additional outlay is much less than buying any single app.

    3. Which of your existing applications are eligible for discounted upgrades? For example, Adobe charges $399 for the Photoshop CS6 Extended upgrade from versions 3, 4 or 5 (the older two only through end of this year). If you qualify for the discounted subscription, annual payment would be less than just Photoshop.

    4. What more do you need than what you have now, if any, Adobe creative apps? Most major single applications at full price will cost more than paying $49.99 per month, should you want to add something else. Meanwhile, you also get access to the newest versions of the products already purchased.

    5. How often would you otherwise upgrade? Buying software gets you a perpetual license. Subscription means the software deactivates after you stop paying. Do the math: Adobe released Creative Suite 5 two years ago, and CS6 went on sale this week. Assuming, new versions every two years, would you upgrade that soon?

    Subscription through May 2014 costs $1,199.76 at the standard subscription rate, with annual commitment, assuming Adobe doesn't raise prices. So at the start of the next upgrade cycle your cost commitment would be $1,799.64, spread out in monthly payments over three years but actual investment in CS6 about $600 less. Standard Design is lowest-cost edition, at $1,299. Your two-year cost would be about $100 less than the six-app bundle and you get access to more 20 products total.

    Subscription vs. Perpetual License

    Creative Cloud is a surprising offering from Adobe. Subscription software is by no means new -- anti-malware providers like Symantec have done this for years. But Adobe offering subscriptions to products of this caliber and pricing, primed for the cloud, is atypical outside of volume-licensing plans. The difference: Your right to use the applications ends when you stop paying, as aforementioned.

    From one perspective, Adobe is taking a huge risk, given just how much Creative Suite or individual apps sell for. CS is among the costliest productivity apps that mere mortals -- meaning anyone outside the lords of corporate IT -- can afford. Microsoft Office, which arguably is used differently, sells for considerably less outside of volume-licensing. The point: People choosing subscription over perpetual license will pay less, which could cut into Adobe revenue and even margins.

    On the other hand, laws of volume could work greatly to Adobe's advantage if monthly payments open up a huge number of students, sole-proprietorships and small businesses to buy into Creative Suite who otherwise couldn't justify the expense. Or worse: Who would pirate the software. The scheme also stands to woo satisfied customers running older CS versions, who either can't afford or don't see value paying for, to upgrade by taking a subscription. Perhaps most valuable to Adobe: The prospect of perpetual customers among buying segments less likely to pay for a big suite.

    It's for these reasons I ask the question the headline poses.

    I'm seriously considering signing up for 12 months, perhaps after Adobe adds Lightroom 4.x to Creative Cloud. But if the $29.99/month intro plan disappears in 2013, I likely wouldn't renew. On my budget, $360 is a huge value. Now. In a year, $600 likely won't be, as I look at the impressive, rich touch apps available for smartphones and tablets. Expect sudden maturation of cloud-connected device hardware and apps over the next 12 months -- good enough to displace most of what most people need PCs for today.

    Photo Credit: Galushko Sergey/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/08/The_personal_cloud_is_all_about_context'

    The personal cloud is all about context

    Publié: mai 8, 2012, 11:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Gartner is back thumping about how the cloud will replace the PC as personal hub by 2014, and, whoa, that's not exactly so far away. I wrote the "ding dong, the PC's dead" last month. After identifying five trends then, the analyst firm today highlights three things cloud vendors had better watch out for.

    Simply stated: "Mobility and location"; "platform independence"; and "seamless synchronization". That aptly describes what the cloud-connected -- oh, post-PC, if you insist -- era is all about: Personal computing anytime, anywhere on anything. However, many cloud offerings fall short of that definition and the three must-have characteristics Gartner defines.

    "The personal cloud isn't a single offering, but a reflection of consumers' expectation that their content will flow seamlessly as the result of a combination of services that overlap the consumer, business and government domains", Michael Gartenberg, Gartner research director says. "It encompasses content storage, synchronization, sharing and streaming, as well as context-based access".

    Context? That's a fourth attribute, and hugely important. Cloud computing is all about context, if you ask me. Not that you did, but hey. That's topic for after the discussion of the other three attributes.

    Mobility and location is by far the easiest for cloud vendors, providing people access to their information -- and stuff that matters most to them -- from anywhere they can connect to the Internet. Gartner views this attribute as foundational, and claims it "will affect how other connected screens fare in a given ecosystem".

    Related, many service providers focus on the wrong things, such as providing backups in the sky but not much else. "Consumers are confused about the nature of the personal cloud", Gartenberg says. "This will not be helped by many vendors continuing to equate personal cloud services simply with online storage and neglecting their additional features and potential".

    Platform independence is related, and this is where I see lots of vendors coming up short. Again by my longstanding definition of cloud-connected devices, they should provide access to what matters most to you anytime, anywhere and on anything. That's difficult to impossible when vendors build cloud silos around platforms, such as Apple devices and iOS.

    Openness is crucial as cloud services come to augment the personal PC and replace it as major personal hub. Again, Gartner predicts by 2014. The PC doesn't go away, but simply becomes one of many devices connected to the cloud rather than being the hub for everything.

    Gartner's statement: "The core purchase driver for consumers will shift from the operating system to the nature and function of the personal cloud services available to a platform. Platforms will not be judged solely by number of apps, but also by the availability of core personal cloud services for business and personal needs, for both content creation and content consumption".

    This prediction represents a fundamental shift in connected-device perception and presentation today, particularly from Apple and "there's an app for that" marketing of its hardware, software and services. The future Gartner sees is more in line with Google's "open" philosophy, but by no means completely.

    While writing this post I got to thinking about a 1965 Rolling Stones song, which chorus fits the approach taken by cloud silo vendors like Apple:

    I said, Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
    Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
    Hey! You! Get off of my cloud
    Don't hang around 'cause two's a crowd

    Amazon takes similar approach around Kindle Fire, although its cloud services are broadly available among devices. Samsung closes on the Apple model with newer Androids, TouchWiz UI and supporting media services. Facebook is another silo, although of a different kind. Facebook service meets the anytime, anywhere on-anything standard, but it's a private club personal cloud once you're there. As I opined in September 2007: "Facebook is an operating system in the cloud".

    Synchronization is what I've repeatedly called the killer app for the connected world, starting in 2006. But I typically refer back to March 2008 post "Do IT simply with sync": "Synchronization is today's killer application. It's either kill or be killed. If Microsoft doesn't strike the deadly blow first, Google will".

    Gartner's statement: "Seamless synchronization will be essential for success". Apple has got seamless down but not platform independence. Too bad, because Apple has long been the sync leader, in terms of a meaningfully-implemented technology -- and that goes back to iTunes after iPod shipped in late 2001. Problem: iTunes proved to be the wrong place for sync, particularly businesses and for consumers as cloud adoption escalated late in the last decade. Last year, Apple rightly shifted its sync hub from iTunes to iCloud. Problem: It's a silo syncing content mostly among iOS and OS X devices.

    Again, Google stands apart from the cloud, which isn't surprising. Apple and Microsoft, for example, share desktop legacy, which relevance they seek to protect. While Microsoft's cloud approach is less a silo than Apple's, it's nowhere near as platform independent as Google's. That said, Google has started to offer more cloud benefits in Chrome than other web browsers, shifting its cloud more to the silo from open skies.

    Context, and not content, is king. How we use devices, access information, consume content or otherwise use technology to entertain or conduct business is all about context. Cloud-connected devices create all kinds of contextual scenarios.

    For example, mobile devices make people more available to family, friends, coworkers and (gulp) bosses. You might shift context at the park with the kids to account manager because of one text, email or phone call. Location doesn't change, but context does. You go from parent uploading photos of the kids playing to executive collaborating on a shared document. All in the cloud, from the same device. Use of the cloud and connected device changes with context.

    A very different contextual example: You're traveling and decide to rent a movie to watch on your smartphone or tablet. In that context, the smaller screen is acceptable, even though at home you have 55-inch TV. You don't finish the film and want to resume it at home on the television. Context and device change, but content stays the same. Seamless sync allows you to resume where you left off.

    "Consumers will define their own sets of personal cloud services with regard to communication, collaboration and media consumption, despite vendors trying to control the digital ecosystem", Gartenberg says. Context defines usage.

    The contextual cloud works best when there is access anytime, anywhere and on anything -- or as Gartner puts it: "Mobility and location"; "platform independence"; and "seamless synchronization".

    Photo Credit: Digital Storm/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/08/Android_rises_over_fallen_iPhone'

    Android rises over fallen iPhone

    Publié: mai 8, 2012, 7:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I must really be asleep at the wheel. How could I have possibly missed this nearly week-old sales data: iPhone's fourth-quarter sales surge against Android was a blip on the screen. Chock it up to iPhone 4S launch combined with the saddest of sales motivators: Rock star's death halo, where album sales soar following an artist's death, or in this case iPhone following Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' tragic passing. Perhaps you have another reason. Regardless, sales don't lie.

    Android smartphone OS market share, as measured in actual sales to people (and not shipments to stores), reached 61 percent during Q1 compared to a measly 29 percent for iOS/iPhone. That's a dramatic turnabout from fourth quarter when Android led by a narrower margin -- 48 percent to 43 percent. Still, like fourth quarter, the top-three selling smartphones were iPhone, iPhone and iPhone, as in 4S, 4 and 3GS in that order.

    "After some release of pent-up demand from customers adopting the iPhone 4S, coupled with the company's strength in the holiday season, Apple's share fell in the first quarter, as we've often see it do in the quarter following its introduction of a new handset", Ross Rubin, NPD executive director, says.

    Ah, yeah, but declines were never this steep nor iPhone coming so close to finally catching Android. In fact, historical data contradicts earlier projections that both iPhone 4 launches would bring huge share gains. For example, according to comScore, from August to November 2010, iPhone US subscriber share rose less than one point -- to 25 percent. This was during the post-iPhone 4 launch period. Over the next year, iPhone nudged up to about 27 percent average share, while Android soared, whether measured by install base or new purchasers.

    Different now: Distribution, particularly availability of lower-cost older models, to a new market of buyers, combined with broadened carrier availability. "Now that the iPhone is available on Sprint, though, the increased carrier coverage has created a higher baseline for Apple's share than we have seen in the past". Baseline is higher, but so is size of the US smartphone market and strength of Android's resurgence. iPhone sales drop was greater compared to Androids' but didn't fall as far.

    Nielsen presents smartphone data differently -- market share based on ownership. By that measure, Android is 48.5 percent to iOS/iPhone's 32 percent. That data point validates Rubin's contention about baseline.

    Historical perspective: Android share was 39 percent in June 2011 compared to 28 percent for iPhone, says Nielsen. Android share reached 40 percent in July, compared to 28 percent for iPhone. At end of third quarter, 43 percent for Android and 28 percent for iPhone. At the end of December: Android 44.5 percent to iPhone's 25.1 percent share.

    Android sales may have crushed iOS smartphones during first quarter, but as measure of install base iPhone is stronger than it has ever been. Meanwhile, Android no longer gains share like Pac-Man. But neither is iPhone nearly as strong as the Apple Fan Club boasts.

    For more perspective there is Samsung's continued gains against Apple. During first quarter Apple was top-selling smartphone maker, according to NPD, with 29 percent sales share. But Samsung closes in, at 25 percent share.

    "Samsung is the only market leader from the feature phone era to transition to market leadership in the smartphone era in the US", Rubins observes. "Its broad carrier support and advertising, particularly in the ascendant pre-paid segment, have helped it achieve the highest market share among Android handset providers".

    Samsung has a three-operating system strategy, which includes home-grown Bada and Windows Phone, but Android is flagship. Samsung's rise counterweights iPhone's increased baseline. Samsung also benefits from far greater distribution and choice of handsets. Then there is Galaxy S III, which launches internationally on May 29 with features eclipsing iPhone 4S.

    No matter who rises above whom, competition is good for consumer choice.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/04/Is_iPhone_4S_obsolete_'

    Is iPhone 4S obsolete?

    Publié: mai 4, 2012, 2:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I repeatedly ask you questions in headlines, because I ask myself. This one is top of my mind following today's Samsung Galaxy S III announcement. My eyes bugger at the differences in size, features and most importantly benefits -- the majority of those coming from Samsung skinning Android 4 into seeming oblivion. It's hard to discern a way that Galaxy S3 isn't superior to iPhone 4S. If iOS 5 looked antiquated before, and it surely did, Samsung's TouchWiz-modified Ice Cream Sandwich makes it suddenly ancient.

    But the question is bigger than hardware or software. Samsung isn't the world's No. 1 handset maker overall and in smartphones by lark. Apple is known for focusing on delivering benefits that matter, sometimes at the expense of hardware capabilities, and truly aspirational marketing. Galaxy S III evokes these qualities, with something more: real benefits without sacrificing hardware capabilities while using software to enrich the human experience. Then there's the aspirational marketing, as seen in the embedded video. Samsung does something Apple-like, only better.

    Note: When I first started writing this post, I embedded the commercial from Samsung's YouTube; since, the video was made private. Fortunately, other people grabbed the video and uploaded to their YouTubes.

    The Hardware

    Colleague Tim Conneally serves up Galaxy S III basics in today's news report. I want to drill down a wee further looking at them in context of iPhone 4S -- and Galaxy Nexus, too. I include the other Android phone, as it's the only pure Ice Cream Sandwich model available, Google now sells it direct and in context of GN I asked last year: "Are iOS 5 and iPhone 4S already outdated?" Today's question goes further.

    Let's start with the hardware, which also sets the bar for iPhone 5.

    Galaxy S III: 4.8-inch Super AMOLED display (306 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution; 1.4GHz quad-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage (64GB in future), expandable with microSD card; HSPA＋ 21Mbps (850/900/1900/2100), 4G LTE, GSM/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.9MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC, Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi N; 2100 mAh battery; carrier locked; Android 4.0 and TouchWiz "nature" UI. Measurements: 136.6 x 70.6 x 8.6 mm, 133 grams.

    iPhone 4S: 3.5-inch multitouch display (326 ppi) with 960 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); 1GHz dual-core processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz), GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); 8MP rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; 1432 mAh battery; carrier locked; iOS 5. Measurements: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm, 140 grams.

    Galaxy Nexus: 4.65-inch Super AMOLED display (315 ppi) with 1280 x 720 resolution (100,000:1 contrast ratio); 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; HSPA+ 21Mbps/HSUPA (4G LTE from Sprint or Verizon), 5.76Mbps (850/900/1900/1700/2100), EDGE/GPRS (850/900/1800/1900); 5MP rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; NFC; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi N; 1750 mAh (HSPA+), 1850 mAh (LTE); carrier unlocked; Android 4.0. Measurements: 135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams.

    From a straight hardware perspective, Galaxy S3 outclasses iPhone 4S in most ways. Faster processor, LTE, front camera HD recording, memory expansion and more. Difference are much less compared to Galaxy Nexus or newer Androids, however.

    Galaxy Nexus and iPhone 4S are available now. Galaxy S III launches on May 29 in Europe and over the summer in other geographies. Americans waited a long time for Galaxy S II. Samsung best not repeat later launch here and in China. Apple offers iPhone 4S through 230 carriers in 100 countries. Samsung promises 296 carriers in 145 countries. Distribution is everything -- well that, perception and marketing. Much depends on how quickly S3 launched globally compared to Apple releasing iPhone 5 -- or whatever it's called. New iPhone wouldn't surprise now, given third-generation iPad naming.

    Almost Human

    Apple and Samsung are engaged in a bitter patent dispute, with the iPhone maker alleging, among other things, copying. Not that Apple is a stranger to this. From a mid-1990s cofounder Steve Jobs interview: "Picasso had a saying, he said: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. We have, you know, always, ah, been shameless about stealing great ideas". I preface this next section such, because of what Samsung has done remarkable here to out-Apple, well, Apple.

    The original iPhone stood apart from all other phones, not just smart ones, for its humanness. Touch, and its intimacy, and the way the handset responded to your proximity gave it a human quality. Suddenly the phone wasn't an inanimate object but more living thing. Apple extended humanness with each new model. Siri is best representation in iPhone 4S. Samsung seeks to bring this quality to Galaxy S III, and it's centerpiece to the product marketing. These human characteristic also derive from Ice Cream Sandwich and Galaxy Nexus.

    (Well, hell, when I got to this point writing, Siamak Masnavi submitted: "5 things you should know about Samsung Galaxy S III". He draws out much of what I planned to here, but in different way. His story, as background for you, actually helps me to focus more on what these things mean in context of increased humanness.)

    Other than Siri, Apple did little to add humanness to iPhone 4S. Still, Siri provides personality and responsiveness for those people who use it. Samsung promises much more, by extending different sensors' functionality around stunning software enhancements. Galaxy S III responds to your movements, seemingly anticipating your needs.

    Responding to You

    During today's launch event, Samsung Mobile tweeted what succinctly describes the product design and marketing approach. Galaxy S III "is effortlessly smart and intuitively simple, and is a phone that sees you, listens to you and understands what you want". I'll highlight just a few examples, many from the commercial embedded up top.

    Smartphone proximity sensors turn off the keyboard when the device approaches the face, a capability that set apart iPhone in June 2007. It's standard feature everywhere now. Galaxy S III adds new responsiveness. For example, the front camera detects whether the user is looking at the phone and keeps the screen lit. How many times has your display gone dark while reading a website or ebook. The phone also can automatically turn on, if recognizing your face.

    These is two related capabilities would make tech headlines everywhere, if introduced by Steve Jobs. They also add the kind of human responsiveness that once set iPhone apart from every other handset.

    Something else: The feature, called "Smart Stay", is real innovation, not Samsung copying Apple. It's also stark example of Samsung out-Appling Apple by focusing on features that offer real benefits -- that are magical and truly useful rather than making a checklist of hardware components priority. Software development is an Apple hallmark, a differentiator coupled to hardware design. Samsung can do, too.

    Another example: You're in the middle of texting someone and decide to call instead. Lifting the phone to your face places a call to the recipient. Or perhaps you take a photo of someone, Galaxy S III enhances your social life using facial recognition capabilities to identify friends and link to their social networking account. Right, Facebook and Twitter.

    There's much more, but I'll end with S Voice, which is as close to a Siri competitor as you'll find right now -- and it understands 8 languages! You can wake the phone by voice command ("Hello, Galaxy" is changeable default). Sure Apple could, ahem, copy Samsung add something similar to iOS. But it's little touches to detail like this one that once defined Apple design.

    Demos are one thing, real world usage is another. But from the perspective presented today, Samsung makes the S3 more human, more responsive to you, all while adding practical benefits useful to you and the people important to you. What's iPhone done for anyone since App Store opened in July 2008?

    Photo Credits: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/03/New_iPad_extinguishes_Kindle_Fire'

    New iPad extinguishes Kindle Fire

    Publié: mai 3, 2012, 7:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday, colleague Ed Oswald gave four very good reasons why Target is dumping Amazon ereaders and tablets. For Kindle Fire, perhaps there is another: It's not selling. Today, IDC reports that Amazon tablet shipments collapsed during first quarter, all while iPad lapped them up.

    "Apple reasserted its dominance in the market this quarter, driving huge shipment totals at a time when all but a few Android vendors saw their numbers drop precipitously after posting big gains during the holiday buying season" said Tom Mainelli, IDC research director. Apple's media tablet share rose to 68 percent from 54.7 percent during fourth quarter. Kindle Fire's shipments collapsed -- from 4.7 million to around 700,000 quarter on quarter. Amazon's share dropped from 16.8 percent to 4 percent, placing it third to Samsung.

    The dramatic change undercuts one of the major tenants of my weekend post: "Google has lost control of Android". Amazon's success, with customized, curated Android and supporting app store, hurts the entire ecosystem, because Kindle Fire accounts for more than half of market share. But Amazon is only a threat if Kindle Fire succeeds, and first quarter set it back, which is good for all Android licensees and Google.

    According to IDC, Kindle Fire and iPad accounted for 71.5 percent of all tablet shipments during fourth quarter. Strangely, the number was higher during Q1, 72 percent, but dramatically different. iPad share gains almost entirely came from Kindle Fire -- the one adding 13.3 points and the other falling 12.8 points.

    "Apple's move to position the iPad as an all-purpose tablet, instead of just a content consumption device, is resonating with consumers as well as educational and commercial buyers", Mainelli says. "And its decision to keep a lower-priced iPad 2 in the market after it launched the new iPad in March seems to be paying off as well".

    Apple also benefitted from new iPad's high-resolution display, a distinguishing characteristic from all available competing tablets. Kindle Fire's appealing price, $199, couldn't compete with Apple's one-two punch -- the other being $399 iPad 2.

    Lenovo moved into fourth place during the quarter, as Samsung solidified a recaptured second. Barnes & Noble rounded out the top-five. Lower pricing distinguishes iPad's Android competitors.

    "It seems some of the mainstream Android vendors are finally beginning to grasp a fact that Amazon, B&N, and Pandigital figured out early on: Namely, to compete in the media tablet market with Apple, they must offer their products at notably lower price points", Mainelli says.

    "We expect a new, larger-screened device from Amazon at a typically aggressive price point, and Google will enter the market with an inexpensive, co-branded ASUS tablet designed to compete directly on price with Amazon's Kindle Fire", he emphasizes. "The search giant's new tablet will run a pure version of Android, whereas the Fire runs Amazon's own forked version of the OS that cuts Google out of the picture".

    As I've repeatedly expressed, a Nexus tablet is more about Amazon than Apple, and realigning the Android ecosystem.

    Still, the overall tablet market is volatile, as Kindle Fire demonstrates and something else: Overal shipments declined 38.4 percent quarter on quarter -- to 17.4 million units from 28 million. That's 1.2 million devices below IDC's forecast.

    Looking ahead, Windows 8 tablets are expected to debut during fourth quarter, and it's anyone's guess their impact.

    "The worldwide tablet market is entering a new phase in the second half of 2012 that will undoubtedly reshape the competitive landscape" Bob O'Donnell, IDC program vice president, says. "While Apple will continue to sit comfortably on the top for now, the battle for the next several positions is going to be fierce".

    Big picture: "Throw in Ultrabooks, the launch of Windows 8 and a few surprise product launches, and you have all the makings of an incredible 2012 holiday shopping season".

    Break out your Christmas list.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/03/Who_will_buy_Galaxy_Nexus_from_Google_'

    Who will buy Galaxy Nexus from Google?

    Publié: mai 3, 2012, 5:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    While we wait for Samsung to unveil its new smartphone in a few hours, for your waiting pleasure I've got answers to the question posed last week: "Would you pay Google $399 for unlocked, HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus?" The search and information giant ended April with a May flower: Direct sales of its flagship, Android 4.0 smartphone, presumably because AT&T and T-Mobile aren't doing so.

    Google's got a good thing going here for Android enthusiasts, but I've got a problem with the direct sales thing. What Apple offers that its rival can't: Service. People buying iPhone can get defective replacement at local Apple stores. They also can purchase, granted for an extra 99 bucks, AppleCare+, which extends the basic warranty and provides discounted replacements. If you drop and break iPhone 4S, Apple will replace it for $49, up to two times. What's Google going to do for you, if Galaxy Nexus goes bust or you bust it up?

    Still, $399 for an unlocked, contract-free smartphone running Ice Cream Sandwich is tempting. The process is simple enough, if you have a Google Wallet (formerly Checkout) account. Galaxy Nexus is available from Google Play (what all used to call Android Market). The process is quick, and Google claims two business days to process and another two for shipping. But I'm hearing it's much faster -- hours from ordering to shipping. Final cost is more than $440 depending on tax (if applicable) and shipping.

    "Yes, and I just did", Nizar Senussi replies yesterday. Has Google shipped already, Nizar? Daniel Garcia: "Heck yeah! This phone is freakin' amazing. Google's #1 handset that'll get the very first updates to Ice Cream Sandwich (and beyond). Definitely the best phone I've ever owned -- the first Android that makes iPhone look boring.

    "I would, and did", Keith Heard responds five days ago. "I am planning on switching from $80/month on AT&T to $30/month on T-Mobile's Monthly 4G plan (100 minutes, 5GB HSPA+), and so will make back the extra money spent vs. getting a subsidized phone in only 4 months".

    Some quick math: Verizon sells Galaxy Nexus for $199.99, with two-year contract. The 2GB per month data commitment is $720, bringing price to around $920. However, if you're planning to get data anyway, and don't mind the contract, the subsidized phone costs $200 less over the time period. Galaxy Nexus price through AmazonWireless, for Verizon, is even better: $49.99 for new line, or $149.99 for existing one.

    Some people pay much more. Kent Karlsson: "Should I buy a $200 phone on a $4,000+ 2-year contract or an unlocked $400 phone on a $40/mo plan. Let me think about that -- bought it yesterday".

    spicymeatball:

    Please buy the galaxy nexus and support this business model. Most smartphones are overpriced because that's how the manufacturers and carriers have it rigged. They want to force you to be in a 2-year contract. If we weren't being forced into contracts then the smartphone price off-contract would drop down to $399 or less. That's how inflated the phone prices are. On T-Mobile I can save $50 a month and not have to be a slave to the carrier. I have 5 phones and 3 data plans and pay $150/month. It's this cheap because of the off-contract non-phone subsidizing plan I'm on. Buy a Galaxy Nexus and switch to T-Mobile and start saving and getting on a great data network.

    Jon Langevin "ordered the Galaxy Nexus from Google last Wednesday, got it Friday. Loving it. Glad to not have carrier lock or subsidized contract (still working off contract on my prior phone, HTC G2...). This phone is better than I can get through T-Mobile, and cheaper than T-Mobile currently offers me due to my already subsidized plan. I'm already thinking about ordering a second Galaxy Nexus, for my wife".

    "I want to buy it", Tony Tasmaly comments. "But I hate to be limited to just 16GB, and no SD card [is] bad move on Google Side!" The subsidized, contract commitment Galaxy Nexus models from Sprint and Verizon have 32GB storage. Owners can't expand it, but surely 32GB appeals more than 16GB.

    Storage capacity doesn't bother Ali Muzaffar, who ordered Galaxy Nexus: "16GB is more than enough because I'm not much of a mobile gamer and don't listen to music much. I basically use it for email, Google Maps and Kindle Reader. It's light, cheap and does everything you would want from a phone! It has a 720p screen, which no other phone for this price has! No reason not to buy it!"

    "I would jump on it when it opens for purchase in Canada", Dong Liang. "It is a bargain for that price at here. Most carriers lock us in for 3 years for huge monthly fee". Google initially only offers Galaxy Nexus direct in the United States, but indicates expansion to other countries.

    Ming C adds about the great up North: "Here in Canada, the same phone costs CND$600+ at no-contract price. Furthermore, the GN sold in Canada are yakjuux, which means Android updates are being controlled by Samsung, not Google. Therefore, at $399 for a takju model, even after taxes and shipping, is a bargain".

    "It's a great phone", Conrado Gomes brags. "This is a developer phone through and through, it's an awesome phone, and great coverage in my area. I had the Samsung galaxy S II, but decided to get this one, and I love it so far".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/02/Is_there_hope_for_Windows_Phone_'

    Is there hope for Windows Phone?

    Publié: mai 2, 2012, 8:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's the question I'm asking after looking over comScore US mobile subscriber data for the three months ending in March. After years of steady, steep declines, Windows Phone subscriber share held steady from February to March, which perhaps not coincidentally is when Nokia Lumia 900 went on sale. Could it be...

    comScore measures subscribers 13 years and older. Microsoft mobile share among smartphone subscribers held steady at 3.9 percent month-on-month, the first real stop in drop in years. How mighty is Microsoft's fall? Market share was 19 percent in September 2009, for example. So 3.9 percent is nothing to skinny, but staying there rather than going down is small, but notable improvement.

    Marketing and Timing

    Microsoft, Nokia and partners are pumping mucho bucks into marketing Lumia 900, which joins HTC Titan 2 as the first LTE Windows Phones available here. Never underestimate the effects of marketing or timing.

    "I was surprised in talking with my Dad that he was aware of the Lumia 900", BetaNews reader mshulman comments last month. "He's clueless when it comes to this stuff, yet he was aware of it and interested in it". That's marketing.

    As for timing, there undeniably is a segment of smartphone users (you'll find some of them in BetaNews comments) who tire of iPhone and find iOS 5 dated compared to fresh, fluid Windows Phone.

    Last month, Jeff Flahaven told readers why "I traded iPhone 4 for Lumia 900". iKing_5 responds: "I actually applaud Microsoft for producing a unique-looking OS instead of the me-too, iPhony OS that is Android". Flahaven compares his experience using both smartphones, as do many commenters, whose responses are worth reading, too.

    Two weeks ago, analyst Mike Feibus opined for BetaNews: "Windows Phone will gain serious market share this year". That's helluva prediction.

    Reader AS147 responds: "WP7 with half decent support has only been out a few months (before that they had no or very little telco, sales, developer or hardware vendor support). Now that there are sales incentives, 80,000+ apps, growing telco support and finally one hardware vendor on board things may turn around".

    Android and iPhone

    Still, Apple kicks Microsoft's ass across the smartphone arena. Apple smartphone subscriber share was 30.7 percent at the end of March, that's up from 30.2 percent in February and 24.1 percent in September 2009. But Google's Android is the real ass-kicker, with 51 percent smartphone subscriber share, up from 50.1 percent and 2.5 percent during the same time period.

    That's right, Android shot up from less than Windows Phone's market share today to over half of US smartphone subscribers in little more than two years.

    Android and iPhone aren't taking share from one another but everyone else, with BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Phone the big losers. Where then will Windows Phone share gains come from? Then there is the measure of one market, the United States.

    "One of the biggest drivers of Windows Phone sales will be the release of Windows 8; with its possibility of providing Windows on phones, tablets and desktop", Richard Beck comments.

    BetaNews reader Dougau doesn't see much changing: "Windows 8 may give Microsoft a small 'window of opportunity' (pardon the pun) to drive Windows phone sales but Microsoft seems to screw up everything they touch these days so Google and Apple really have nothing to fear".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/02/Chrome_marketing_is_exceptional'

    Chrome marketing is exceptional

    Publié: mai 2, 2012, 4:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Love makes the world go round, and, c`mon, who doesn't love a good relationship story? But love stories aren't easily told -- one reason there are so few classics. But Google has done just that in 90 seconds. Take a moment to watch the embedded video over your morning coffee and bagel, donut or scone and tell me if you agree.

    I don't even recall where I saw the commercial -- it was during some program I had recorded then watched on Monday evening. But as I fast-forwarded through the adverts, something about this one caused me to stop. Perhaps it's subliminally related to the long length, seeing as most TV spots are no longer than 60 seconds. I actually rewound and watched a second time. Now that's marketing.

    Effective advertising is familiar, aspirational and, when about products, shows the benefits. Who can't relate to unrequited love or desire to make a relationship work. Familiar and aspirational.

    Google effectively does something else: Shows the benefits of multiple Google services, not just Chrome. There's Gmail, in the message Mark sends Jen, and Google Docs in the plaintive request he makes to her. The commercial also shows YouTube, Picasa Web, Google Translate, Google Maps, Google Spreadsheets and Google Plus, which all tidily fit longstanding Chrome marketing tagline: "The web is what you make of it".

    The same can be said about relationships. Love is what you make of it.

    This story has no ending. We don't know if Jen and Mark meet for coffee, or get back together. That's how it should be. In this case, closure would take a way from the story.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/02/Samsung_smartphone_shipments_soar_stunning_267%__trouncing_iPhone'

    Samsung smartphone shipments soar stunning 267%, trouncing iPhone

    Publié: mai 2, 2012, 2:49am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple apologists' brief respite is over. Late last week, IHS iSuppli and Strategy Analytics released first quarter data putting Samsung handset shipments ahead of Nokia, ending the Finnish company's 14-year reign. But the analyst firms couldn't agree on smartphones, with Strategy Analytics positioning Samsung ahead of Apple, but IHS giving the nod to iPhone. The Apple Fanclub clung to the "We're No. 1!" data, unsurprisingly. But the last word comes today from IDC, which corroborates Strategy Analytics, crowning Samsung king in both categories.

    "The halcyon days of rapid growth in the smartphone market have been good to Samsung", Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, says. "Samsung has used its established relationships with carriers in a mix of economically diverse markets to gain share organically and at the expense of former high fliers such as Nokia".

    Strategy Analytics puts Samsung's Q1 smartphone shipment at 44.5 million, compared to Apple's 35.1 million, IHS says 32 million for the South Korean electronics giant. IDC's number is way closer to Strategy Analytics, but not as high: 42.2 million. Samsung ended the quarter with 29.1 percent share to Apple's 24.2 percent, according to IDC. Market share rose a stunning 267 percent, lifting Samsung from fourth to first place year over year. However, in the broader handset market, change was 35.4 percent. Apple rose 88.4 percent broadly and 88.7 percent in smartphones.

    Together, Apple and Samsung accounted for all the growth in smartphones among the top five during the quarter, dramatically taking it from all the major vendors, including HTC, Nokia and Research in Motion. However, the "other" category grew by 59.6 percent, lifted by some Chinese name and white box manufacturers.

    "The race between Apple and Samsung remained tight during the quarter, even as both companies posted growth in key areas", Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, says. "Apple launched its popular iPhone 4S in additional key markets, most notably in China, and Samsung experienced continued success from its Galaxy Note smartphone/tablet and other Galaxy smartphones".

    He emphasizes: "With other companies in the midst of major strategic transitions, the contest between Apple and Samsung will bear close observation as hotly-anticipated new models are launched". Samsung will beat Apple to new model launch, during an event scheduled for Thursday in London.

    Disaster wouldn't strongly enough describe Nokia's quarter. Handset sales plunged 23.8 percent year over year and more severely for smartphones -- 50.8 percent. This tremendous share loss comes during the first full quarter of Lumia Windows Phone sales. Last month, I wrote "Nokia does the Windows Phone death dance". Nokia's Q1 performance makes my analysis look faint.

    Emerging markets, China among them, where Nokia once was overwhelmingly dominant, greatly contributed to share declines. Apple and Samsung saw strong sales growth, particularly in China.

    Research in Motion and HTC loses were severe, even if less than Nokia's -- 29.7 percent and 23.3 percent, respectively. An early leader among Android licensees, HTC can't keep pace with Samsung. The manufacturer had a particularly hard quarter in the United States, which Asia-Pacific performance somewhat overset.

    Broadly, global handset shipments declined 1.5 percent during first quarter -- 398.4 million units from 404.3 million a year earlier. By comparison, smartphone shipments rose 42.5 percent year over year but nowhere as strong as the holiday quarter's 57.4 percent. Growth beat IDCs forecast by 1 percent. Manufacturers shipped 144.9 million smartphones compared to 101.7 million a year earlier.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/01/Android_4_share_soars'

    Android 4 share soars

    Publié: mai 1, 2012, 11:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I don't know how cellular carriers or device makers could move any slower serving Ice Cream Sandwich to their customers. Still, someone is making progress, seven months after Google formally unveiled the OS and six after the first device with it shipped. Android 4.0 share jumped dramatically from mid March to mid April, granted from a small base. It's about time.

    This morning I wrote a mobile browser usage story and checked official statistics on Android usage, which is based on the number of devices connecting to Google Play during the pervious 14 days. That number: 2.9 percent. Hours later, when doing a second browser story -- on desktops -- I double checked, more as formality. To my surprise, Google updated the data as of today: 4.9 percent.

    From the perspective of availability to today, Android 4.x's showing is abysmal. Most iOS and Windows Phone users get immediate access to major updates. The Android Army sits on its behind waiting and waiting and waiting. This situation is one of many why over the weekend I asserted that "Google has lost control of Android". Google cranks out hot new tech that the partner bottleneck squeezes away from end users and the broader ecosystem.

    But looked at differently, that's a 69 percent increase month on month. Even from a small base, it's a number not worth raising your nose at. That's up from 1.6 percent on March 5. Any progress is meaningful right now.

    Still, at the end of first quarter, cumulative iOS sales reached 365 million, according to Apple. The most recent number from Google about Android is 300 million. The majority of Apple devices are eligible to receive iOS 5.x, and presumably most users have updated since Apple makes it so easy. By contrast, the majority of Androids are ineligible to receive Android 4.x right now, and cellular carriers or hardware manufacturers make the process hard, if for no other reason than making users wait.

    Even Galaxy Nexus users get stiffed. The so-called "pure Google" device is supposed to get updates as soon as they're available. That's true for the international HSPA+ model, but not Verizon's LTE Galaxy Nexus. Yes, the carrier is problem.

    Right now, the majority of Android devices run Gingerbread -- 64.4 percent. While that 69 percent month-on-month increase is encouraging but less than March to April's 81 percent, Ice Cream Sandwich has a long ways to go before displacing Gingerbread. Gosh, could Android 5.0 come first?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/01/Internet_Explorer_rises_from_the_dead__and__whoa__that_s_not_good_for_Firefox'

    Internet Explorer rises from the dead, and, whoa, that's not good for Firefox

    Publié: mai 1, 2012, 10:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What seemingly started as a fluke, suddenly is a trend. In April, Internet Explorer gained usage share for the fourth consecutive month, reversing a long, steady decline. That's the view presented by April browser usage data Net Applications released today. IE share rose to 54.09 percent -- that's up from 53.83 percent in March and 51.87 percent in December. The question: Are these gains sustainable? Can IE rise up, after loosing more than 40 points of share over 7 years?

    I'm wondering if Internet Explorer's share rise is coincidence or convergence. Recent gains coincided with Chrome's stunning setback. In January, following a minor paid-link scandal involving a third party promoting Chrome, Google responded by treating itself like other advertisers, by reducing Chrome's search PageRank for 60 days. The effects were immediate. In January, the browser's usage share fell, ending 14 months of consecutive gains. Meanwhile, IE usage share rose.

    By that scenario, Chrome growth should recover following PageRank restoration, which it did in April but not March. Usage share was 18.85 percent and 18.57 percent, respectively. That's well below December's high of 19.11 percent. Chrome has taken share away from Firefox, which now is assaulted from above and below. In April, Mozilla's browser reached its sixth consecutive month of usage share declines. Continued gains by both Chrome and Internet Explorer foreshadow further erosion and Google's browser eventually taking second place.

    In a way, Chrome already has. For some months now, Google's newest Chrome -- and the browser refreshes about every six weeks -- consistenly ranks above Firefox. In April, IE8 and IE9 led, with 26.22 percent and 15.91 percent share, respectively. Chrome 18 and Firefox 11 followed, with 13.97 percent and 11.35 precent respective usage share.

    There is also the convergence theory -- that IE benefits from multiple factors all happening around the same time, such as Windows 7 adoption, lingering and perhaps permanently debilitating effects of Chrome PageRank reduction and weakening Firefox enthusiasm, among others. I outlined some of these factors a month ago today.

    Microsoft has access, as a paying NetApps subscriber, to data I don't. In a blog post today, Roger Capriotti, Microsoft's director of Internet Explorer product marketing lays out browser usage share for Windows 7:

    • Internet Explorer: 35.5 percent
    • Chrome: 21 percent
    • Firefox: 15.4 percent

    There's another example of Chrome already ahead of Firefox -- and considerably so.

    Microsoft took a risk by releasing Internet Explorer 9 for Windows Vista and 7, but not XP, nearly three years ago. Even now, the Windows XP install base is greater than Win7's. Firefox and Google stuck with XP, which helped their respective browsers. But, finally, Windows 7 is gaining real momentum, with more than 500 million licenses sold and 40 percent deployment among enterprises.

    document.getElementById("na634714836187772611").src="http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpcustomb=0"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpf=16"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpwidth=600"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpdisplay=1111"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpmr=10"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"site="+window.location.hostname

    Interestingly, Google follows Microsoft's example, by releasing Chrome for Android, which now is beta, only for Ice Cream Sandwich. At least for now, the browser isn't available for older Android versions. As of today, ICS is on 4.9 percent of Android devices that accessed Google Play within the last 14 days.

    Microsoft's IE9 strategy may finally be paying off with increased Internet Explorer -- timing that converges with Chrome's search penalty, Mozilla's struggle to keep Firefox appealing and an aggressive and compelling "Beauty of the Web" marketing campaign. Then there's Microsoft's adoption and advocation of emerging web standards.

    For the convergence theory, there's this: IE8 and IE9 both gained share month-on-month March to April, which indicates something bigger than Windows 7 pull going on here. Could it be perceptions about Internet Explorer are changing? You tell me.

    Photo Credit: Fer Gregory/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/01/iPad_leaps_ahead_of_iPhone_browser_usage__Opera_Mini_collapses'

    iPad leaps ahead of iPhone browser usage, Opera Mini collapses

    Publié: mai 1, 2012, 5:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    New iPad tipped the mobile web browsing balance, according to April data Net Applications released today. Apple's tablet now exceeds iPhone for browser usage share among mobile devices. That's 33.7 percent to 27.4 percent, after being neck and neck for the previous three months. iPad had nudged in front during February and March, but in April leapt ahead of iPhone.

    Considering how much larger is iPhone's install base, or Android's for that matter, iPad's ascension is quite remarkable. Cumulative iOS device shipments reached 365 million during first calendar quarter -- nearly 67 million of them iPads. In all, iOS devices give mobile Safari tremendous usage share in the category: 63.84 percent, that's up from 52.36 percent in June 2011.

    Mobile Safari gains have largely come at Opera Mini's expense. The browser's usage share fell from 15.39 percent to 12.05 percent between March and April. Android browser ranks higher, and second to Safari: 18.87 percent share. Android browser and Mobile Safari gained usage share for five consecutive months, while Opera declined during the same time period.

    Chrome for Android is interesting, with just 0.3 percent usage share, which is far more significant than the number reveals. Google debuted a beta version in early February. Chrome for Android is only available for Ice Cream Sandwich. As of April 2nd, only 2.9 percent of Android devices ran the mobile operating system.

    Google follows Microsoft's example on the desktop, where Internet Explorer 9 supports Windows 7, but not XP, which remains more widely used -- in April, 46.08 percent to 38.67 percent, according to NetApps.

    Circling back to mobiles, and looking at operating systems, iOS and Android shares closely align with their browsers -- 63.19 percent and 19.27 percent, respectively. This says something about NetApp's methodology and its limitations, since the number of cumulative Android devices, the majority phones, exceeds 300 million (according to Google). The data doesn't reflect this, however. Assuming, for easy math's sake, total cumulative smartphone and tablet sales of 1 billion, combined share for the two operating systems should be just a little more than NetApps reports for iOS.

    I make this distinction because of consistent misreporting (don't believe everything you read on the web) about how high iOS share is or references to usage share as market share, which it is not.

    NetApps makes the latter more problematic by referring to "total market share" in its charts. There is no total market share in a category where people might use two things instead of just one. This is more likely on the desktop, but still in mobile users could install Opera Mini on their iPad or iPhone and use it in addition to Safari. Typically market share refers to the finite -- X widgets shipped over Y months. NetApps measures usage share.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/01/How_big_is_Apple___infographic_'

    How big is Apple? [infographic]

    Publié: mai 1, 2012, 4:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    A week ago, Apple reported record fiscal 2012 second quarter earnings. Profits soared by 94 percent to $5.99 billion, or $6.40 per share, from $39.2 billion revenue. In long missives that followed, I took to both sides of the company's performance: "Apple is better off without Steve Jobs" and "There is no Apple without Steve Jobs". Yeah, I argued with myself.

    But what do the numbers mean? The accompanying infographic distills them in tidy fashion, and I won't repeat them here but simply add that during the first half of fiscal 2012, Apple generated more revenue ($85.83 billion) than all fiscal 2010 ($65.23 billion). The company's net income for first fiscal half exceeds that of fiscal 2009 and 2010 combined and is surprisingly close to all of fiscal 2011. By measure of financial performance Apple isn't the same company it was three years ago.

    How does Apple profit compare to Google revenue? How much does China contribute to Apple revenue, in just two years? How much cash does the average Apple Store generate per square foot? Have a look at the infographic below, which is courtesy of businessdegree.net.

    By the way, by my math, I don't agree with all the numbers, but they're acceptable for perspective.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/05/01/What_the_frak_is_CISPA_'

    What the frak is CISPA?

    Publié: mai 1, 2012, 12:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There's something really troubling about CISPA. While the Internet rallied against SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) and Protect IP, including boycotts, there is near silence about the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act. This lack of interest hits BetaNews, too. For more than three weeks, I've asked writers here to do a CISPA story. No one wants it. Am I the only one scared witless about this thing?

    I got to thinking about CISPA, again, this afternoon after the info graphic accompanying this story dropped in my mail box. It's a tidy explanation of what is CISPA that sheds some light on why the Internet isn't in uproar about it. Where's Anonymous? Who muted the Reddit outrage?

    In its purest form, CISPA seeks to better protect Internet companies, the United States and its interests from cybercriminals and terrorists. But the bill as proposed and even as passed also gives government unprecedented power to collect your personal information in the process.

    A House Not Divided Enough

    I've loosely followed CISPA's progress, and several events had me thinking BetaNews writers should show more interest (and everyone else, too):

    Legislators debated about 7 hours before the bill passed the muster. CISPA is not actually as bad as before, while in other respects it's worse. What concerns me, and really should you, is how much: authority CISPA gives government to collect personal information; freedom for companies to share your information; protection companies receive against civil lawsuits when they violate your privacy rights (well, that's assuming you have any after CISPA).

    Some of my peers raise broader concerns: Ted Samson says CISPA "could kill the cloud". Matt Ingram compares CISPA to SOPA: "So is CISPA as bad as SOPA? Probably not".

    With the House vote behind, divisions increase, with an interesting cast of characters in either camp. Declan McCullagh's CISPA FAQ is must-read to understand the current issues as the bill heads to the Senate and to better understand what separates advocates from opponents.

    The Silence is Deafening

    But if there's a loud outcry against CISPA, I haven't heard it. Have you?

    There are several reasons why CISPA moves along without much response. Sadly:

    • SOPA opponents declared victory. Game over. They won. (But, of course, they didn't).
    • What's hot topic today is forgotten tomorrow. Stated differently, the Internet has a short memory.
    • As such, social media buzz isn't high volume. It's the "Hey, we've been there, done that" problem.
    • CISPA rewards Internet companies rather than punishes them (as Protect IP and SOPA would have) -- and even promises to protect them from lawsuits -- mollifying opposition.
    • Internet companies would be better empowered to fight cybercriminals and terrorists, by more freely sharing information.
    • People worry more about freedom to share content (pirated or not) than their privacy. Taking away someone's ability to link to (or download) Justin Bieber or Will Smith content bothers more people than giving up nefarious personal information.
    • There is no Enemy No. 1. Who doesn't despise Hollywood and record label moguls? They were Protect IP's and SOPA's biggest backers. There are no obvious ogres behind CISPA to rally the masses against.
    • Before Friday's House vote, there wasn't much to rally against, since it wasn't yet clear how bad CISPA would or would not be. Now with one version of the bill complete and another coming, we know.

    Slowly, the Internet is beginning to wake, like a sleeping giant. The tone of some opposition is different. While last time, people cried, "Save the Internet from SOPA", others blame us. AVAAZ calls its "stop CISPA" petition: "Save the Internet from the US". As I write, nearly 782,000 people have signed it.

    I ask this simple question about CISPA: Does it put the majority of people's privacy at risk to protect everyone from a small number of criminals? That's for you to answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/30/Microsoft__Barnes___Noble_teach_Apple_and_Amazon_a_lesson_about_educational_ebooks'

    Microsoft, Barnes & Noble teach Apple and Amazon a lesson about educational ebooks

    Publié: avril 30, 2012, 4:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Nobody partners, or negotiates deals, like Microsoft. That's evident from today's stunning agreement with Barnes & Noble, which is sure to turn the ebook market on its head. The two will jointly invest in Newco, temporary name for ebook venture that incorporates B&N's digital and College business divisions. B&N gets partner in Microsoft, which invests $300 million, for 17.6 percent stake; both parties end ongoing patent disputes, largely related to Android; and Microsoft launches Windows 8 with native Nook Reader application. All around it's win-win, after losing a decade ago.

    That's right, Barnes & Noble and Microsoft have been here before, in pioneering ebook ventures that failed. Both companies jumped on ebooks back when Amazon, which makes the popular Kindle, was still just a struggling Web 2.0 startup. Microsoft Reader led the first big ebook push at the turn of the century, and Barnes & Noble launched its original e-bookstore using the software. I bought my first ebooks there about 12 years ago. But by late 2003, it was over; Barnes & Noble gave up on ebooks -- a market later re-entered only after Amazon's Kindle success. Microsoft kept producing Reader software, but that's done, too, when the software retires on August 30.

    Starting Behind

    The newer initiative is hugely strategic for the companies. Amazon and Apple have taken early leadership in standard and educational ebooks. For example, Amazon rents e-textbooks, while Apple offers software and service for making and selling them -- and both companies tout aggressively low prices compared to printed textbooks. B&N offers Nook Study, which lets students rent or buy e-textbooks.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft has fallen way behind in tablets, a market it shepherded a decade ago only to see Apple and Amazon snatch it away in just two years. According to IDC, the two companies commanded 71.5 percent of the global tablet market in fourth quarter. At the end of February, in the United States, Amazon led Android tablets, with 54.4 percent share, according to comScore.

    Windows 8, and its touch-oriented Metro user interface, is Microsoft's platform for regaining tablet momentum. The partnership assures availability of a native ereader app and hungry partner. Both companies are hungry, and ready to compete hard against Apple and Amazon.

    "The formation of Newco and our relationship with Microsoft are important parts of our strategy to capitalize on the rapid growth of the Nook business, and to solidify our position as a leader in the exploding market for digital content in the consumer and education segments", B&N CEO William Lynch says. "Microsoft’s investment in Newco, and our exciting collaboration to bring world-class digital reading technologies and content to the Windows platform and its hundreds of millions of users, will allow us to significantly expand the business".

    Read Me

    But Microsoft is in the midsts of a major architectural shift that competitively is ill-timed. "Because the Metro user experience also includes new software architecture and the new Microsoft Store for apps, it will take time for the developer ecosystem to build", Forrester Research analyst Frank Gillette writes in report "Tablets Will Rule The Future Personal Computing Landscape", published last week. "As a result, it will take most of 2013 for the Microsoft ecosystem to create a fully capable Windows Metro experience for customers, pushing sales acceleration to 2014. Once rolling, however, we expect Microsoft will be a significant player, but one chasing a leader with a multiyear head start". That leader is Apple.

    Gillette forecasts that tablet shipment compound annual growth rate will be 46 percent through 2016, when global number will reach 375 million, up from 56 million last year. He estimates that the tablet install base will be 760 million tablets, compared to 2 billion PCs. He predicts that by the time Windows tablets begin to make significant share gains in two years, Apple and Amazon will both have aggressively expanded the platforms to enterprise software developers. Other than education, Amazon's focus is all consumer today.

    "Our complementary assets will accelerate e-reading innovation across a broad range of Windows devices, enabling people to not just read stories, but to be part of them", says Microsoft mobile chief Andy Lees. "We’re at the cusp of a revolution in reading". That's the key point for the software giant. Tablets and ereaders are products sure to converge, as Kindle Fire, iPad and even Nook demonstrate.

    But there's something else: Android. Today, Nook runs a customized Android version, not Windows anything. The deal effectively ends Microsoft patent litigation against Barnes & Noble and leaves Google's Motorola Mobility subsidiary as last major Android licensee not to cut a deal with Microsoft.

    What's that saying? Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer? Microsoft cuts deals with competitors as easily as partners -- and they're often one in the same -- for monetary or strategic gain, which is both here.

    Photo Credit: Tischenko Irina/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/27/Tweet__tweet__Twitter_for_Android_and_iOS_get_big_updates'

    Tweet, tweet, Twitter for Android and iOS get big updates

    Publié: avril 27, 2012, 1:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Suddenly mobile Twitter makes lots of sense to me, and I wonder what good the desktop or web clients are at all. Versions 3.2 and 4.2, available today for Android and iOS, respectively, improve discovery, search and, more importantly, interaction with others and topics that matter most to you.

    Not that Twitter mobile was bad before, it's just whole lots better now -- and where you need it most. On the go. Most of the goodness is behind the Discover tab, which after being much of a wasteland before is now lively and filled with streaming content relevant to you.

    For example, Twitter better presents the activity of people you follow, including in my stream today the folks they start following. This discovery method feels more like a social network and connects you to new people. That's what friends -- eh, followers -- are for, meeting new people. No surprise, you'll see who's retweeting what -- and also who's adding whom to lists.

    There's more. "Now you can tap any story once to see Tweets about a particular trend or news article", Sung Hu Kim, Twitter product manager, says. "You can then read the entire story or join the conversation by replying, retweeting or favoriting related Tweets".

    Search gets a decidedly modern makeover, with useful autocomplete and suggestions. I've gotten addicted to Google+ member autocomplete, a capability now available for Twitter in the Connect tab.

    But it's better on iOS than Android. "We’ve also made a few improvements specifically for iPhone: when you tap the search box in Discover, you’ll see your most recent queries", Kim explains. "You can also go directly to someone’s profile when searching for a username in Connect".

    Finally, and you'll love or hate it, push notifications now include Interactions. Yeah, don't you want to know when Jack Smugface disses you, so you can respond now rather than hours later? But some users may want to tone down this one's settings, particularly if people frequently retweet or favorite your 140-character musings. Hey, battery life is precious and too many notifications suck it up.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/26/Sony_serves_some_Ice_Cream_Sandwich_to_Tablet_S'

    Sony serves some Ice Cream Sandwich to Tablet S

    Publié: avril 26, 2012, 11:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you own Sony's Android tablet, the wait is over. Android 4.0 is available, starting today. The company says that users will be prompted to update the next time they connect to WiFi.

    Sony's tablet packs one of the most customized versions of Android, from look and feel down to a plethora of apps, the majority focused on entertainment. Users can expect plenty of spit-and-polish tweaks and enhancements throughout its ICS iteration.

    "There are a lot of cool new things you can do now with the firmware upgrade -- hellooo, single-motion panorama photo mode and direct access to your SD card", [Maya Wasserman explains] on the Sony blog. Other enhancements include the ability to unlock direct to camera, "small apps for multitasking", and easy switching browser from mobile to desktop mode.

    Sony launched Tablet S in August, initially $499 for the 16GB model or $599 for its 32GB companion. The electronics giant temporarily discounted during the holidays, then made them permanent in January with $100 cuts. As Mother's Day approaches, another discount comes: $50 instant rebate plus free docking cradle.

    Sony S comes with 9.4-inch display with 1200 x 800 resolution, Nvidia Tegra 2 processor, 5-megapixel rear-facing camera, 1GB RAM and as, previously mentioned, 16GB or 32GB storage, which is expandable with SD card.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/26/There_is_no_Apple_without_Steve_Jobs'

    There is no Apple without Steve Jobs

    Publié: avril 26, 2012, 7:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's essentially George Colony's contention. "Apple will decline in the post-Steve Jobs era", the Forrester Research analyst opines. The sentiment is stunning in context of Apple's first two quarterly results following Tim Cook's ascension to chief executive. The company generated more revenue ($85.83 billion) than all fiscal 2010 ($65.23 billion). Net income ($24.12 billion) exceeds that of fiscal 2009 and 2010 combined ($22.25 billion). That's hella good performance.

    Yesterday, I argued that "Apple is better off without Steve Jobs", in part based on recent performance that derives from Cook's running logistics for the better part of three years. But I also believe that no one knows the future, and that good reporting is about looking from different viewpoints. So today I offer counterpoint to yesterday's prognostication. Yeah, I'll rebut myself, something I frequently do. You just don't see the process, and Colony's argument is good foundation.

    Disruptive Risks

    The question to start with: What is Apple? For many long-time Mac fans, Jobs is Apple. The two can't be separated. But for the hundreds of millions of people buying iPads, iPhones and iPods over the last decade, Apple is something else. According to a new report released today by NPD, one in three Americans owns an Apple product. The majority of newbies own iPhone or iPad, but increasingly the tablet.

    Referring to iPad, NPD analyst Ben Arnold says that "one-in-five Apple owner households has one -- nearly equivalent to the number that own an Apple computer". These aren't Steve Jobs' people -- the so-called Mac faithful that worshipped him and his sense of style. Most of them probably didn't know who Jobs was until his tragic, well-publicized death.

    But Jobs' influence over these Apple product owners is undeniable. His leadership led these products to market and define a style that Cook so far fails to exhibit: Disruptive risk-taking. Last year I wrote about decade-past Apple launches that are foundational. Three were huge risks, and Apple took them at a difficult time -- during a recession: OS X, Apple Store and iPod, in order of 2001 release. But the big pay-off risks came later: iPhone and iPad, particularly, and culminated others.

    Apple launched iPhone on one carrier in 2007, moving into a market where it had no expertise, no experience. Then came iPad, which moved into a market where many other computer and consumer electronics giants had failed. Yet these risks paid big rewards. During fiscal 2012 second quarter, for example, iOS devices generated 76 percent of Apple revenue. iPad and iPhone generated $29.3 billion revenue, or 74.8 percent of revenue. These disruptive risks define Jobs' return as Apple CEO.

    But who will take such risks now? Who will lead disruptive changes like these? Ponder those questions while reading the next section.

    David Thinking

    In December 2009, I posted here at BetaNews something taken from my personal blog months earlier: "Why Apple succeeds, and always will". I wrote:

    Apple doesn't play by the rules. It reinvents them. Apple applies what I call 'David Thinking' to its broader business, product development and marketing. Apple is David to Microsoft Goliath -- and other ones, too. Goliath plays by one set of rules. David choses to change the rules, which favor his strengths rather than those of Goliath.

    David thinking derives from research political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft conducted. In 2005 book, How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Tactics, he explains how seemingly weaker opponents can prevail against stronger ones by changing the rules of engagement. He produces excellent historical data showing that, in wars, when smaller rivals use such tactic they are more likely to win, even against mightier opponents. The Biblical example of David vs. Goliath is good analogy. Rather than fight like Goliath -- and almost certainly lose by dawning armor and sword -- David relied on his own strengths. A slingshot and stone kept him out of Goliath's reach but still on the offensive. I call this approach David Thinking.

    But Apple has gone through dramatic transformation since I wrote that analysis. Apple is no longer David but Goliath. Apple's size and success makes it the status quo and encourages management decisions that seek to preserve what is rather than take forward-reaching risks. The higher Apple's stock price rises or the more customers it acquires, the less attractive risk-taking looks to management. Today's Apple, under Cook's leadership, is in jeopardy of losing the risk-taking, David Thinking that defined Steve Jobs' leadership. It's answer to the question I started with: What is Apple? A disruptive, risk-taking, rule-changing innovator.

    Charisma vs. Competence

    Apple is not a cult of Mac enthusiasts; they're a minority now. As stated earlier, most people buying the products today have never been influenced by the so-called "reality distortion field" -- the spell of Steve Jobs. Apple's cofounder spent little time on the keynote stage starting in 2008, because of his health.

    Colony sees Apple for what it was, not what it is -- a business led by a charismatic leader:

    In charismatic organizations, the magical leader must be succeeded by another charismatic -- the emotional connection of employees and (in the case of Apple) customers demands it. Apple has chosen a proven and competent executive to succeed Jobs. But his legal/bureaucratic approach will prove to be a mismatch for an organization that feeds off the gift of grace.

    That's not Apple 2012, nor was it before Cook's ascension to CEO about eight months ago. There's a well-known management maxim that charismatic leaders often can't grow companies far enough because they micromanage too much. Many of the most successful startups required the charismatic leader to step back and put someone else in charge. Given Jobs' health situation and Cook largely running day-to-day operations, at least from January 2009, this leadership change effectively occurred at Apple years ago. Jobs continued to provide vision -- and good taste -- while Cook expanded the core business. As I asserted yesterday, Jobs' ego held back Apple. His declining health let Cook make competent decisions about manufacturing and distribution logistics that generated huge sales. Apple can design pretty products, but it means nothing if there is no place for people to buy them.

    Meanwhile, the faithful decreased in numbers, particularly outside the company. That Apple shares soared, rather than collapsing, after Jobs stepped down as chief executive and then tragically died, says much about the myth and the man -- that the charismatic leader and company are one. They aren't.

    Colony and I agree about something that is important to Apple's future: "When Steve Jobs departed, he took three things with him: 1) singular charismatic leadership that bound the company together and elicited extraordinary performance from its people; 2) the ability to take big risks, and 3) an unparalleled ability to envision and design products". I absolutely agree on the second, but question the other two -- how much is myth versus the man. Colony says that "Apple's momentum will carry it for 24-48 months", and without a charismatic replacement will decline like the company did after Jobs left in 1985 or following the departure of Polaroid and Walt Disney founders.

    No Risks, No Gain

    Apple doesn't need charismatic leadership. The company requires someone with vision to think like David, to constantly change the rules of the game and in process take risks in innovation. That was Apple under Steve Jobs.

    What's risky about iPhone 4S or new iPad? Sure, Apple developed these products while Jobs was CEO, but he also was ailing and Cook ran day-to-day operations. Cook has yet to demonstrate David Thinking, not that he's had much time. Still, there's time enough.

    My favorite example of Jobs' disruptive approach is iPod nano, and I watched to see if there might be something similar with third-generation iPad. Apple introduced the diminutive music player in September 2005 to replace the iPod mini, which was the standard copied by competitors. Just as their larger devices arrived for the holidays, Apple transformed the category with the tiny nano.

    Something else: Apple killed off iPod mini at the height of popularity. No one does that! But Apple did. iPod sales dramatically rose with launch of the mini in early 2004 and simply skyrocketed after the nano. iPad's high-resolution display adopts similar philosophy but is nothing near as radical. In more ways, it preserves the status quo rather than defies it. Cook must do better.

    For Apple to remain Apple, disruption and risk should be defining characteristics. If not, then there is no Apple without Steve Jobs. The company has become something else.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/25/Would_you_pay_Google__399_for_unlocked__HSPA__Galaxy_Nexus_'

    Would you pay Google $399 for unlocked, HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus?

    Publié: avril 25, 2012, 9:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google has surreptitiously answered whether AT&T or T-Mobile would carry Galaxy Nexus, which is available from Sprint and Verizon here in the United States: No. Otherwise, why would Google sell the smartphone direct, which it started doing yesterday. It's a helluva price, too -- $399, unlocked, with no contractual commitment.

    This is the HSPA+ model released internationally in November 2011. That means no LTE and only 16GB storage, rather than 32GB -- and it's not expandable. The phone sold for $729 or more from Amazon and handset resellers just a few months ago. Amazon lists the 16GB model for $438 today. But, hey, $399 is better. But is it low enough for you? You can get 64GB iPhone 4S from AT&T for same price -- granted locked, with 2-year contractual commitment. Both handsets are HSPA+, though, and AppleCare+, which offers cheap replacement for broken phones, is an extra $99. So I ask: Would you -- or will you -- buy Galaxy Nexus direct from Google?

    "First available in the US, Galaxy Nexus costs $399 and arrives at your door unlocked, without a carrier commitment or contract", Android chief Andy Rubin says. "You can use it on the GSM network of your choice, including T-Mobile and AT&T. It also comes pre-installed with the Google Wallet app which lets you easily make purchases and redeem offers with a tap of your phone. Best of all, we'll give you a $10 credit to get you started with your new mobile wallet".

    Galaxy Nexus is available from Google Play's new "devices" section. I purchased two Nexus One smartphones direct from Google in 2010. Process was simple and delivery fast. I expect similar customer service here.

    Google's timing is strange, though. Samsung plans to debut Galaxy S II's successor during a London event next week. Galaxy Nexus may soon lose its crown as hottest Android handset, although "pure Google" -- meaning newest Android and no sneaky skins -- remains an important differentiator.

    Google had the right idea when selling Nexus One direct starting in January 2010. Many bloggers, journalists and pundits got it wrong, presuming Google wanted to circumvent carriers. As I said then, Google rightly wanted to establish a reference design for Android smartphones and provide developers and enthusiasts with the most current OS version. Galaxy Nexus is similar, but more.

    This time, Google is trying to get around carriers as well. Some partners have corrupted pure Google -- Verizon among them -- by disabling or muting some Galaxy Nexus/Ice Cream Sandwich features while holding back updates. Then there is the distribution problem, with AT&T and T-Mobile being glaring examples.

    Neither carrier offered predecessor Nexus S, either. Best Buy sold the phones for Google, unlocked with or without carrier commitment -- but $529 no contract. By that measure, the considerably better Galaxy Nexus is a bargain at $399. Still, it's pricey compared to what Americans are used to paying with contractual commitment.

    So what do you get? Galaxy Nexus sports 4.65-inch multitouch display with 1280 x 720 resolution (100,000:1 contrast ratio); 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage; GSM/EDGE/GPRS (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz), 3G (850, 1700, 1900, 2100 MHz), HSPA+ 21; 5MP rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Near-Field Communication (NFC); Bluetooth; WiFi; Android 4. Measurements: 135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams. The battery is 1750 mAh, which is less than the 1850 mAh available with Sprint and Verizon models.

    I reviewed the Verizon Galaxy Nexus in December. I highly recommend the carrier's model, which gets big boost from LTE. I presume the HSPA+ model experience is comparable, but would want to test one, considering how much better I find cellular and data service from Verizon than AT&T.

    So back to where we started: Would you buy unlocked, HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus from Google for $399. Comments await your response.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/25/Apple_is_better_off_without_Steve_Jobs'

    Apple is better off without Steve Jobs

    Publié: avril 25, 2012, 6:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For all practical purposes, Tim Cook has run Apple since cofounder, and then CEO, Steve Jobs' January 2009 medical leave. Sure Jobs returned six months later and continued his micromanaging ways, but Cook, as COO, continued responsibility for day-to-day operations. He already had distinguished himself as a logistics genius, at Compaq and for a decade at Apple, before assuming Jobs' daily role -- and becoming CEO in August 2011. Cook's influence on the current state of Apple cannot be understated.

    As I write Apple shares are up, following yesterday's stunning fiscal 2012 second quarter earnings results; net income rose a stunning 94 percent year over year. The stock closed down 2 percent yesterday, but shot up more than 7 percent in after-hours trading. Apple closed at $560.28 yesterday and opened at $615.99 today. But the measure of Cook's success, and why he is the better man to run Apple, is much more than rising share price. It's really about performance.

    Dollars and Sense

    During fiscal first quarter 2012 (synchronous with calendar Q4 2011) Apple generated more revenue ($46.33 billion) than all fiscal 2009 ($42.9 billion). During the first half of fiscal 2012, Apple generated more revenue ($85.83 billion) than all fiscal 2010 ($65.23 billion). If Apple meets or surpasses targets for fiscal third quarter, revenue for the first nine months will top all of fiscal 2011 ($108.25 billion).

    Looked at differently, Apple's net income for the first fiscal half of 2012 ($24.12 billion) exceeds that of fiscal 2009 and 2010 combined ($22.25 billion) and is surprisingly close to all of fiscal 2011 ($25.9 billion). This all happened effectively on Cook's watch and is measure of his influence and performance long before officially becoming Apple CEO last summer.

    Finally, under Cook, Apple delivers performance that meets Jobs' hype and the reality distortion field that long kept interest in the company, its products and stock. Effectively, Apple has traded reality distortion for reality -- and unequivocally Cook deserves more credit than Jobs. It's one thing to design pretty products and something altogether different to sell them. There Cook's manufacturing and distribution genius has proved greater than Apple cofounder's.

    These numbers speak for themselves, as do milestones like: May 2010, Apple market capitalization tops Microsoft, to become world's most valuable tech company; August 2011, Apple's market capitalization passed Exxon to become world's most valuable company.

    The Devices' Story

    Then there are the hard device numbers. Jobs may have had the vision with iPhone, which launched in June 2007, but Cook executed on it, particularly in 2010 and 2011, with launches of iPad and iPad 2 and iPhone 4 and 4S.

    At the end of calendar 2011, Apple had 315 million cumulative iOS device sales. The 55 million iPads sold to then accounted for 17 percent of the total and iPhone, with 175 million sold, 56 percent.

    But 2011 was the break-out year for iOS devices -- 156 million, according to Asymco's calculations. So Apple sold 49.5 percent of all iOS devices in a single year, which indicates considerable accelerated momentum.

    According to company financial filings, for calendar 2011, Apple sold 92.95 million iPhones and 40.45 million iPads -- generating $61 billion and $24.95 billion revenue, respectively. For all calendar 2011, all Apple generated $127.84 billion revenue. The two products accounted for 67 percent of the company's sales for the year (again referring to calendar and not Apple's fiscal year).

    Three months later, end of first calendar quarter 2012 (and Apple's fiscal second) and cumulative iOS device sales are 365 million, as stated during yesterday's earnings call. Apple sold 50 million iOS devices in the quarter, generating $29.8 billion revenue, or 76 percent of the total.

    Measuring the Men

    I proposed this story to my BetaNews colleagues more than a month ago and planned on writing it since mid-February. But I kept holding back and decided to wait until Apple announced fiscal Q2 earnings. That was wise, considering how strongly the first two quarters compare to everything else and demonstrate the wisdom of decisions Cook made years ago, which Jobs obviously supported. Recent results derive from plans in motion long before Cook took the chief executive's chair.

    There's something else, which must be stated but unfortunately will draw fire from the Apple faithful: Jobs' ego hindered Cook's genius. For years before Job's 2009 medical leave, the company made asinine distribution decisions that courted to his need for attention. Apple kept products secret, so that showman Jobs could bask before the attention of "one more thing" unveilings.

    Practically, such approach is manufacturing and distribution lunacy. Rather than have products in channel to sell, Apple had to hold back -- sometimes even production -- leading to delayed distribution and shortages. The strategy also cut into margins, as Apple had to assume heavier costs ramping up production and rapidly shipping to customers.

    Something's different now: I preordered iPhone 4 in 2010 and it shipped FedEx from China. This year, my family preordered the new iPad and it shipped from California, which suggests, as rumored, that Apple prepped the channel -- something that would have been harder under Jobs' leadership.

    Perhaps Apple gross margins reflects some of the sanity returning to manufacturing distribution. In fiscal second quarter, they rose 6 points year over year to 47.4 percent.

    I've been writing about Apple product shortages for more than a decade. What differentiates now and then is reality distortion vs. reality. In the early 2000s, Apple suffered from supply-side problems. More recently, shortages are all about overwhelming demand.

    Cook understands this newer supply problem is all about distribution logistics, that's why he repeatedly turned to the topic during yesterday's earnings call. For example, going on at length about China:

    We have expanded point of sales. On a year-over-year basis Mac is up 70 percent, but still only 1,800 [outlets] for all of greater China. Obviously there is a lot more opportunity there. iPhone we're up over 11,000, which is up 138 percent. But 11,000 is a much smaller than the number we have in the US. Obviously China in the next few years will be a bigger opportunity. iPad is only in 2,500 points of sale. Yes, we've expanded, expanded a lot. However, there is a lot of headroom here in our view.

    During the quarter, Asia-Pacific region passed Europe to become second largest in revenue. If the trend continues China may exceed all of Europe in a couple quarters. During fiscal Q2, China generated $7.9 billion compared to $8.8 billion for Europe. Distribution is the key, something Cook understands. He visited China this month. Would Jobs have?

    Cook has done for Apple, what Jobs couldn't. Make reality distortion a reality. Make Apple the most successful technology company on the planet.

    Vision is one thing. Execution is another.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/25/Apple_had_an__incredible_quarter_in_China_'

    Apple had an 'incredible quarter in China'

    Publié: avril 25, 2012, 1:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today after the closing bell, Apple announced fiscal 2012 second quarter results, with earnings up a staggering 94 percent year over year. But one region -- and within it a single country -- stood out for performance and closed on the United States as Apple's most important market as measured by sales.

    Apple revenue to Asia-Pacific rose a staggering 114 percent to $10.15 billion. That data excludes Japan, where sales soared 91 percent. By comparison, Americas revenue topped $13.2 billion, up 41 percent year over year. During the quarter, Asia-Pacific pushed past Europe to be Apple's second most important region, as measured by revenue. In that region, China rises above all other countries.

    "It was an incredible quarter in China", says Apple CEO Tim Cook, speaking during today's earnings conference call. "Revenue was a record at $7.9 billion in greater China, which is up over three times year over year and brings the first half revenue for greater China to $12.4 billion. That compares to a full year of last year of $13.3 billion".

    Stated differently, China accounted for 78 percent of Asia-Pacific region revenues fiscal second quarter.

    "Part of this was the pent-up demand for iPhone 4S", he explains. "As you know we launched in mainland China in January. China was not able to get into the Q1 period, so all of that is in Q2".

    Demand was so great for iPhone 4S, Apple postponed the launch to protect store employees and customers. Crowds nearly rioted.

    "We also have very strong demand for iPad 2", Cook says. "We have not shipped in China yet the new iPad, although we are shipping in Hong Kong".

    Apple's iPad and iPhone sales success has other benefits. "It's a combination of these things and the halo that both of these products has produced for the Mac is also incredible", Cook explains. "Mac was up over 60 percent year over year, and that compares to a market rate of growth of about 6 percent".

    What China lacks, particularly compared to North America, is distribution. "We have expanded point of sales", Cook says. "On a year-over-year basis Mac is up 70 percent, but still only 1,800 [outlets] for all of greater China. Obviously there is a lot more opportunity there. iPhone we're up over 11,000, which is up 138 percent. But 11,000 is a much smaller than the number we have in the US. Obviously China in the next few years will be a bigger opportunity. iPad is only in 2,500 points of sale. Yes, we've expanded, expanded a lot. However, there is a lot of headroom here in our view".

    China's broader importance to Apple cannot be understated, particularly in a country where many Internet users will first use smartphone, or even tablet, as first connected device -- rather than a PC. It's a market all cloud-connected device makers covet.

    "It is mindbggling that we could do this well", Cook exclaims.

    Photo Credit: Elizabeth Phung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/24/Apple_Q2_2012_by_the_numbers___39.2B_revenue__net_profit_up_94%'

    Apple Q2 2012 by the numbers: $39.2B revenue, net profit up 94%

    Publié: avril 24, 2012, 10:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple investors expressed their nervousness this week, following earnings reports from AT&T and Verizon. Carrier iPhones sales sagged from calendar fourth quarter -- and why should they not, considering the holidays and iPhone 4S launch. So the question for Apple today: How many iPhones sold during fiscal second quarter, and iPads, for that matter.

    Apple shipped 5.2 million Macs, 11.8 million iPads and 35.1 million iPhones during the quarter. Analyst consensus was around 4 million, 11 million and 33.5 million, respectively. Number of iOS devices sold to date: 365 million.

    For fiscal Q2, Apple reported $39.2 billion revenue and net profits of $11.06 billion, or $12.30 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $24.67 billion and $5.99 billion net quarterly profit, or $6.40 per share. Net profit rose by 94 percent.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast $32.5 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 second quarter, with earnings per share of $8.50. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $36.81 billion revenue and $10.06 earnings per share.

    Gross margins rose a stunning 6 points year over year to 47.4 percent. International sales accounted for 64 percent of revenues.

    Looking ahead to fiscal third quarter, Apple projects $34 billion revenue and $8.68 earnings per share.

    Apple ended the quarter with $110.2 billion in cash, up from 97.6 billion three months earlier.

    After closing down 2 percent today, Apple shares jumped more than 7 percent in after-hours trading.

    Q2 2012 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.56 billion, up 8 percent from $1.44 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $3.5 billion, down 7 percent from $3.7 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.2 billion, down 25 percent from $1.6 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $2.51 billion, up 32 percent from $1.6 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $22.7 billion, up 85 percent from $12.3 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $6.6 billion, up 132 percent from $2.84 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $643 million, up 11 percent from $580 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $832 million, up 12 percent from $743 million a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped 35.1 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal second quarter, up from 18.65 million iPhones a year earlier. That's an 88 percent increase, year over year. Wall Street analyst average estimate was about 33.5 million units. Apple counts shipments into the channel, typically making them several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales.

    During the quarter, iPhone 4S was available in 100 countries from 230 carriers. Apple ended the quarter with 8.6 million units in the channel, up 2.4 million sequently for 4 to 6 weeks of inventory.

    Recent analyst data bodes well for iPhone. Earlier this month, Nielsen reported a huge surge in the number of new purchasers choosing iPhones compared to Android. For the three months ending in February, 48 percent of Americans who recently bought a smartphone, chose Android -- 43 percent iPhone, according to Nielsen. A year earlier, 27 percent of new acquirers chose Android versus 10 percent for iPhone.

    comScore reports share for overall market, not new purchasers. During the three months ending in February, Android share was 50.1 percent among smartphone subscribers 13 and older -- that's up 3.2 points. iOS: 30.2 percent, up 5 points year over year and 1.5 points three months earlier. Those numbers are fairly consistent with Nielsen's: 48 percent for Android and 32 percent for iOS.

    But Verizon caused some market panic following news it activated 3.2 million iPhones during first calendar quarter, a 1-millon sequential decrease. I don't see a problem in that but something else: Quarter on quarter, iPhone dropped from 58 percent to about half of Verizon smartphone sales, based on activations. Android is gaining, no doubt propelled by 4G LTE.

    Q2 2012 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.2 million units, up 19 percent from 1 million units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 2.82 million units, up 2 percent from 2.75 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 7.7 million units, down 15 percent from 9.02 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 35.1 million units, up 88 percent from 18.65 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 11.8 million units, up 151 percent from 4.7 million units a year earlier.

    iPad. Apple shipped 11.8 million iPads globally during the quarter -- that's up from 4.7 million -- a 151 percent -- a year earlier.

    Apple ended the quarter with 2 million iPads in the channel, that's down 300,000 units sequentially, for 4 to 6 weeks in inventory. About a month ago, my daughter said that San Diego School District would buy iPads for 2012-13. Today, during Apple's earnings conference call, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer says that the school district bought 10,000 iPads during fiscal Q2 and will get another 15,000 this quarter.

    "The new iPad is on fire", Oppenheimer says, adding that Apple is selling as fast as it can make them. Supplies are constrained globally. New iPad is available in 40 countries.

    Analysts repeatedly asked about the impact of $399 iPad 2 on overall sales. Apple CEO Tim Cook says that lower pricing definitely appeals to educational buyers and in some geographic markets. However, Apple isn't yet certain about the final sales mix between iPad 2 and new iPad.

    iPad continues to dominate the tablet market, and it's an increasingly important category. In a report issued yesterday, Forrester Research analyst Frank Gillett proclaims: "Tablets will rule the future personal computing landscape". He predicts the global install base of tablets will be 760 million by 2016, with 375 million sold just in that year -- one third of them to businesses.

    He predicts that "tablets will become our primary computing device".

    Q2 2012 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $13.2 billion, up 41 percent from $9.32 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $8.81 billion, up 46 percent from $6.03 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $2.65 billion, up 91 percent from $1.38 billion a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $10.15 billion, up 114 percent from $4.74 billion a year earlier.
    • Retail: $4.4 billion, up 38 percent from $3.2 billion a year earlier.

    Computers. Mac shipments rose significantly during fiscal second quarter. Apple sold -- what company executives really mean by shipped -- 4 million Macs during the quarter, up from 3.54 million units during fiscal Q2 2011; growth was 7 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus was about 4.5 million units worldwide.

    Apple PC growth easily beats the market at large. Two weeks ago, Gartner and IDC reported dismal global shipments. IDC put year-over-year growth at 2.3 percent, but only 1.9 percent by Gartner's estimates. The hard drive shortage had nominal impact compared to fourth calendar quarter.

    The Mac is big windfall benefactor of the PC shipment/sales crisis, because:

    • Apple's brand is sizzling hot right now.
    • Most people use Windows, which is old to them if upgrading, while the Mac is fresh.
    • iPad cannibalizes Windows PC sales, as businesses and consumers buy the tablet as upgrade companion or even replacement.
    • Apple is more insulated from the hard drive shortage, in part because of how it sources components compared to most other computer makers.

    "The consumer segment continued to be a drag on market growth, as PC demand was low", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. "Questions remain on whether low-end systems can attract consumers, as their attention has moved to other devices". Reiterating previous observations, Gartner again highlighted smartphones and tablets as leaders among those "other devices".

    But those consumer sales problems are specific to the larger industry, and not Apple. In the United States, Apple ranks third. IDC puts market share at 10 percent and Gartner at 10.6 percent.

    Q2 2012 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.21 million units, flat from 1.21 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 1.05 million units, up 5 percent from 995,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 158,000 units, up 2 percent from 155,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 771,000 units, up 29 percent from 596,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 826,000 units, up 4 percent from 797,000 units a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 7.7 million iPods during fiscal first quarter, down from 9.02 million a year earlier -- a 15 percent decline. iPod touch accounted for more than half of units sold. Apple ended the quarter with 4 to 6 weeks of inventory.

    iTunes revenue: $1.9 billion, up 35 percent year over year.

    Retail. Revenue was $4.4 billion up 38 percent year over year. Apple retail stores sold 826,000 Macs during the quarter. Apple opened two new stores for 363 worldwide. With average 361 stores open for the quarter, they generated $12.2 million each.

    Photo Credit: Francesco Dazzi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/24/Windows_Server_2012_release_candidate_coming_in_June'

    Windows Server 2012 release candidate coming in June

    Publié: avril 24, 2012, 8:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This just in from Microsoft: Windows 8 release candidate won't be the only one coming your way in less than six weeks. Expect Windows Server 2012, too. "The Windows 8 Release Preview will be publicly available in the first week of June 2012", Microsoft's Jeffrey Snover says. "We plan to deliver a release candidate of Windows Server 2012 in the same timeframe".

    Windows & Windows Live President Steven Sinofsky revealed the June RC for the desktop operating system earlier today in Tokyo. Concurrent Windows Server 2012 release candidate isn't surprising given the operating systems share common code and development has tracked closely all along.

    Last week, Microsoft formally named Windows Server 2012, which is a cornerstone of the company's public and private -- really, hybrid -- cloud strategy. Both products are tracking for October launch, although urgency is less with Windows Server 2012. Microsoft's PC partners are counting on Windows 8 to boost holiday device sales. Business sales aren't seasonal.

    Photo Credit: gualtiero boffi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/24/You_can_assemble_IKEA_s_Uppleva_HDTV__video_'

    You can assemble IKEA's Uppleva HDTV [video]

    Publié: avril 24, 2012, 7:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    My wife and I just about collapsed laughing while watching Conan last night. Episode's highlight: Two videos -- one for IKEA's Uppleva television. Team Coco isn't waiting for the official release and offers set-up instructions now.

    The other segment, featuring a video, may not be SFW. Conan O`Brien accepts viewer responses, via YouTube, about mistakes he makes during the show. Last night, he went to great lengths to get around one. Keep liquids away from your computer before watching this one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/24/Macs_may_not_get_PC_viruses__but_they_sure_can_spread_them'

    Macs may not get PC viruses, but they sure can spread them

    Publié: avril 24, 2012, 6:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What do sexually transmitted diseases and Mac viruses share in common? Surprisingly lots, according to security software developer Sophos. People can spread both without exhibiting symptoms, and the infection rates for "Macs carrying malware and level of Chlamydia infection amongst young people" are about the same.

    Say what? That's the question asked in BetaNews group chat this morning about the seemingly strange correlation. But it makes sense to me. My colleague Tim Conneally gets it, too. He observed (after doing a little research): "One in 4 people with Chlamydia have no symptoms. They're saying it's spreading but not affecting the host". That's exactly Sophos' point. The firm found a shocking number of Macs infected with PC viruses, in a 100,000 sampling. The Macs are immune but can infect Windows PCs.

    Not long ago, Apple tweaked its OS X security page by removing something: "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses". That's absolutely true. Most viruses are designed for Windows and, therefore, don't infect Macs. But as the Sophos study shows, Macs sure can carry Windows viruses. Sophos finds that one in five Macs carry Windows malware, which can be spread by email and other means. One in 36 -- that's 2.7 percent -- are infected with Mac malware.

    "Amazingly, some of the malware discovered by Sophos on the 100,000 Mac computers sampled dates back to 2007, and would have been easily detected if the users had run an anti-virus sooner", Graham Cluley, Sophos senior technology consultant, observes.

    Like Windows, "malware can spread onto Macs via USB drives, email attachments, website download, or even a silent drive-by installation where the user doesn't realize their Mac's security has been subverted", Cluley explains. "Some Apple fans might feel relieved that they are seven times more likely to have Windows malware on their Macs than Mac OS X-specific threats, but they shouldn't be".

    The recent Flashback Trojan, which infected 700,000 Macs and may still persistent on 500,000, is good example. That's not some asymptomatic Windows malware but something catchable by OS X.

    "Sadly, cybercriminals view Macs as a soft target, because their owners are less likely to be running anti-virus software", Cluley warns. According to complimentary BetaNews polls, 74 percent of respondents do not have anti-malware installed on their primary Macs, while 92 percent of Windows users do.

    "Bad guys may also believe that Mac users are likely to have a higher level of disposable income than the typical Windows user" Cluley speculates. "So, they might believe the potential for return is much higher". I've often wondered about that and am surprised attacks against Macs aren't greater because of it.

    Linking Mac and Chlamydia infection-rates is brilliant. For one, it's a startling, memorable analogy. For another, the analogy links together pervasive behavior about taking unnecessary risks against viruses -- being unprotected. Finally, there is the youth angle, since the same demographic often seen using Macs also has high rates of STD infection.

    Cluley makes the important point: "Just like malware on your computer, Chlamydia commonly shows no obvious symptoms. But left undetected Chlamydia can cause serious problems, such as infertility". He notes that some countries have created national screening programs to test people under 25, annually, for Chlamydia.

    Maybe there should something like this for Macs. Once a year, Apple, working with security software developers, offers a free check up to scan and rid Macs of malware -- with special emphasis on clearing out the crap spread to Windows users.

    Photo Credit: Vasilchenko Nikita/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/24/Suddenly_I_m_uneasy_about_Windows_8_s_release_date'

    Suddenly I'm uneasy about Windows 8's release date

    Publié: avril 24, 2012, 4:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    While I was sleeping -- and perhaps you, too -- Microsoft announced that one more public Windows 8 test build will come before the code is gold. Right now, Windows 8 Release Preview will be available the first week of June. What? Microsoft no longer calls these things release candidates? Timing is tight, unless Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky and his team exude absolute confidence they can finalize code in time for autumn launch.

    It's a narrow path from early June release candidate to August release to manufacturing to October launch, unless there are no major changes from the Consumer Preview released in February or last-minute show-stopping bugs. You can read this as sign that Windows 8 is rock-solid ready and that Sinofsky and team are absolutely certain about the operating system's readiness or that they need to stretch out the time as long as possible. The Consumer Preview came at the last possible milestone for Microsoft to ship this year, and the next one follows similar tight track.

    Measuring Windows 7 Milestones

    As I wrote nearly three months ago you can expect Windows 8 in October, or not at all this year. To get there, RTM must come no later than end of August.

    By measure of Windows 7, its successor trails considerably behind development track for October, which is the last month to launch so that new PCs fill the channel before holiday sales begin in earnest. Microsoft released Windows 7 Beta 1 on Jan. 9, 2009. By measure of that milestone in 2012, Windows 8 Consumer Preview came about seven weeks later. Typically, Microsoft would have offered a second Windows 7 beta but went right to release candidate, on April 30, 2009. Windows 8 needs similar accelerated track to be ready for the holidays. Instead, we have late-April announcement about June release candidate.

    Windows 7 RTM: July 22, 2009, about six weeks from release candidate. Early June is even longer between public preview and RC for Windows 8. Windows 7 launched on Oct. 22, 2009 -- or three months after RTM. By that measure, Windows 8 gold code should come in late July to make October release.

    OEMs need time to test new Windows versions, put together software images and ship PCs into the channel. Even in this era of real-time manufacturing, retail remains the primary sales channel. PC manufacturers still need a good six weeks from final Windows code's release to manufacturing to actual launch -- a little longer to get PCs in stores. Ideally, then, Windows 8 must RTM by end of August to make October launch, which is best timeframe assuring the channel is stocked for Black Friday.

    Problem: Windows 8 brings dramatic changes compared to its predecessor, particularly because of the aforementioned user interface changes -- touch-oriented Metro and legacy desktop, which nixes the Start Button and Menu and adds the Office Ribbon throughout. Customers, developers and hardware partners will have to adapt to these changes. The more time the better, and they may not have it.

    Last Chance to RTM

    The good news: Windows 8's development will only trail its predecessor's by about 5 weeks if Microsoft meets the early June milestone. That's a refreshing sign for October release, but bodes ill for customers hoping for major changes, particularly around the Metro UI. Reaction among BetaNews readers is largely negative, for example. It's now unlikely that changes will come, with such a late release candidate. If you don't like Metro, stick with Windows 7 or get used to it.

    I believe that Microsoft can ship Windows 8 in time for the holidays. But the less time the ecosystem has to prepare the less likely truly exciting hardware designs and Metro-supporting applications will be ready for the holidays.

    Still, there's sense to what I hope is going on at Microsoft. In the writing business, there are deadlines. A story is ready when the deadline comes, regardless of what more the editor or writer might want to change. That's good analogy for software development. The Windows ecosystem needs the operating system ready for holiday PCs. Windows 8 is ready enough when the deadline to ship comes -- and that's whatever Microsoft and partners decide when its to be, not predecessor operating systems.

    Something else: Microsoft's announcement timing is brilliant, and I hope by design. Apple announces first calendar quarter earnings today. Today's Windows 8 announcement should silence some of the ridiculous pre-Apple earnings blathering that floods the InterWebs. To Steven Sinofsky, I offer thanks for dulling the Apple noise -- even for just a few hours.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/23/Samsung_Galaxy_S_III_promo_dares_iPhone_users_to_be_different__video_'

    Samsung Galaxy S III promo dares iPhone users to be different [video]

    Publié: avril 23, 2012, 10:17pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Samsung's new promo for next week's big mobile event is a real snoozer. It's nothing like those cheesy videos mocking iPhone users for being wannabe hipsters, who have such no lives they'll wait hours on end to buy a phone that looks exactly like the one owned now. Instead of chutzpah, galaxies pass before your eyes. Get it? New Galaxy device launch. Wake me, I fell asleep.

    But wait for it. There's a pretty good punchline, if you can bear through the video's first 48 seconds. Be sure that if an iPhone user, Samsung means the dig for you.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/21/Apple_s_Flashback_Trojan_tool_fixes_nothing'

    Apple's Flashback Trojan tool fixes nothing

    Publié: avril 21, 2012, 7:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    As if there isn't problem enough, with Apple giving Mac users a false sense of security. Now security software vendors do it, too. Earlier in the week, Symantec reported that the number of Flashback-infected Macs had fallen to 140,000 -- that's from as many as 700,000 by Kaspersky Lab's reckoning. But yesterday, Dr. Web put the number at 500,000, leading Symantec to acknowledge low reporting of actual infections.

    The revelation -- and it most certainly is -- comes more than a week after Apple released a security update designed to remove the Flashback Trojan, which also is called Flashfake. Half-a-million compromised Macs, tied together as a botnet, is the tipping point for Apple computers. Apple and its security software partners must rally quick, to kill this beast before it bursts the fragile dike protecting the Mac user community from the tsunamis that occasionally wash across the Windows world. This the turning point, where OS X joins Windows as a platform aggressively targeted by cybercriminals.

    Mr. Gates' Neighborhood

    People have talked about this tipping point for years, but it never came -- creating yet another false sense of security (damn there are so many). This is the time, should the Flashback botnet flourish -- or even just persist. As I expressed last week, before Apple released the security fix: "Botnets this size are self-propogating. Cyberciminals can use a large botnet to attack and infect other computers. Can this one be taken down?" No is the worst possible answer to the question.

    For years, I've heard pundits of every kind claim that cybercriminals largely attack Windows over Macs because of the large number of users. One day, should Apple PC market share increase, they argued, Macs would become targets. That thinking is a load of horse poop.

    The problem started first by design. Microsoft developed Windows before the popular, public Internet and designed early networking and other features for the corporate network. The simple concept: Make sharing as easy as possible. Years ago, I referred to Windows and supporting productivity apps like Office as Mr. Gates' Neighborhood, playing off the public television kids program Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood. It was a safe place, where people had no locks on their doors or windows and even connected their homes (think of that as Microsoft cross-integrating features). But then the big city -- the Internet -- grew up around the safe neighborhood. Suddenly, those lockless doors and windows and interconnected homes were a liability. Anywhere criminals could get in, they freely moved everywhere.

    A decade ago, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates made security the company's number one priority. Microsoft changed the way it develops software, took an aggressive and proactive approach to security fixes and put in locks, so to speak. But securing the Windows ecosystem was a slow process -- and still is. End users didn't change their behavior right away.

    Meanwhile, cybercriminals assailed Windows with great success, creating vast botnets of infected PCs to advance their activities. This is hugely important to understand. Windows isn't the larger target because there are more PCs running the operating system. Cybercriminals succeeded creating botnets early on that are persistent, and they will continue to be unless one thing changes rapidly in the Wintel market: XP.

    Botnet Backbones

    Windows is quite a secure operating system today. But the majority of the install base uses Windows XP, which shipped long before Gates made security Microsoft's top priority. Granted, Service Pack 2's release in 2004, did much to improve Windows XP's security architecture. But escalated user privileges, among other features, make XP considerably more vulnerable to malware attacks than Windows Vista or 7. It's explosive when mixed with careless, or simply stupid, user behavior.

    Windows botnets are the backbones of cybercriminal activity. They spread spam and phishing email, mask cybercriminal's IP identities and steal personal information on massive scales. Botnets are the ground forces in a global attack against Internet users. Their persistence is devastating.

    In March 2011, Microsoft and law enforcement took down the Rustock botnet, which had operated since 2006. Global spam volumes fell by 40 percent following the takedown. Even then, with the head and tail cut off the beast, Rustock's body persisted, with the botnet still about half its size, based on infected IPs, three months later.

    As the market slowly moves off XP, Windows botnets are threatened. How much depends on many factors, such as user behavior and development of new attack vectors. Cybercriminals need to look somewhere else, and OS X is easy pickings (same can be said of Android and iOS) since most users don't install anti-malware and a false sense of security leads many to take unnecessary risks.

    The Flashback botnet is a huge concern. If not reduced or eliminated quickly, it will spread more Mac malware and lead other cybercriminals to increase their attacks against the OS X platform. If you look at the rise of cyber attacks against Windows there is more correlation to botnets' reach than number of Wintel PC users (that's hard data I'll put together some other time -- it is Saturday!).

    This is the turning point, if Flashback is unchecked. Not because Mac market share has increased or OS X is any more vulnerable to exploitation than Windows 7. It's the successful creation of a viable Mac botnet and promise of others.

    Photo Credits: maraga/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/20/Windows_Phone_holds_back_Nokia_'

    Windows Phone holds back Nokia?

    Publié: avril 20, 2012, 9:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's the sentiment expressed by a commenter to an exciting promotional video Nokia uploaded to YouTube today. The Finnish handset maker shot the promo using the new Nokia 808 PureView, which sports 41-megapixel camera. The comment: "This is true Nokia innovation. Windows Phone is just holding them back". My question: Do you agree with either or both sentiments?

    I'm a big Nokia fan, who relished the benefits of great camera capabilities long before iPhone even had a crappy one. I've owned E71, N79, two different N95s, N96, N97 and N900. Nokia's N Series set the standard for mobile phone photography that most rivals have yet to catch up -- and that includes the N8 and N9, which capabilities should shame every iPhone 4/4S photographer. I clamor for Nokia 808 PureView but won't buy one. Symbian holds me back, or perhaps I should say Windows Phone. Compelling as the smartphone may be, Symbian is a dead end. Windows Phone is Nokia's primary mobile OS now.

    Not in This Universe

    Perhaps in an alternate universe, Nokia stuck with Symbian and set out to reinvigorate the brand with 808 Purview and smartphones like it. As truly innovative design, the handset outclasses every Windows Phone Nokia sells, including flagship Lumia 900.

    808 PureView key features: 4-inch AMOLED screen (Gorilla Glass); 16GB storage, expandable to 48GB with microSD card; 41MP camera with Xenon flash and f/2.4 Carl Zeiss lens; HSPA+ (up to 14Mbps), WCDMA 850/900/1700/1900/2100, GSM/EDGE 850/900/1800/1900; WiFi N; Bluetooth 3; GPS; Near Field Communications; FM transmitter; 1400 mAh battery; and Symbian Belle Feature Pack 1.

    Lumia 900 key features: 4.3-inch AMOLED display (Gorilla Glass); 16GB storage: 8-megapixel rear-facing camera with Carl Zeiss lens and dual-LED flash; 1MP front-facing camera; 720p video capture from rear camera and VGA from front camera; GSM 850/900/1800/1900 radio; WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100 radio; 4G LTE; Bluetooth 2.1+EDR; Stereo Bluetooth; WiFi; 1830 mAh battery; and Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" Commercial Release 2.

    PureView is the brand Nokia should spend tens of millions to promote, rather than Lumia 900. But Symbian is going nowhere fast, so PureView instead puts a fitting end to Nokia's smart Symbian cameraphone heritage. Of course, PureView isn't dead. The technology, and hopefully the brand, is destined for Windows Phone one day.

    808 Purview joins N9 as a truly compelling smartphone few people will buy. Why should they? There are no compelling future applications or services given Symbian's death sentence. Both phones should have anchored Nokia's brand revival. Instead, resources dedicated to the Windows Phone transition hold back the kind of marketing Nokia is renown for -- well, that is outside the United States.

    Proud Legacy

    Americans are cheated that way. Lumia 900 commercials are poor introduction to Nokia marketing, which is unusual for high-tech companies by emphasizing benefits over features and doing so with taste and humor. Nokia also launched many, successful viral marketing campaigns before social was in vogue -- grass-roots contests, too.

    The video above is one among many shot with a Nokia smartphone. The company has long promoted its phone by shooting videos with them. A favorite marketing campaign, which looks dated in the YouTube HD era: Jealous Computers, promoting N95 in 2007. Amazingly, the marketing website is still live. Quick! Get there before Nokia CEO Stephen Elop orders it dismantled!

    Nokia's N95 campaign was post-PC before anyone really talked about the concept. The handset maker positioned N95 as a computer in your pocket. In the videos, shot with the cameraphone, jealous computers attack N95 owners.

    Yesterday, following Nokia's dismal first quarter earnings results -- smart device sales declined 52 percent year over year -- colleague Ed Oswald and I took opposite sides. I wrote: "Nokia does the Windows Phone death dance". Ed opined: "Nokia's short-term pain is the result of long term problems".

    Windows Phone is a pleasing operating system that looks and feels different from anything else available today. Now if only Nokia hardware could do for Microsoft's OS what it did for Symbian. Soon.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/20/As_many_as_100_000_WordPress_blogs_infected_700_000_Macs_with_malware'

    As many as 100,000 WordPress blogs infected 700,000 Macs with malware

    Publié: avril 20, 2012, 5:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If computer security is your thing -- it really should be everyone's -- and you own a Mac, Kaspersky's analysis of Flashfake malware, also called Flashback, is a must-read. Gasp, this is only part one. There's more to come from the security software developer.

    Flashfake's success -- Kaspersky raises the number of infected Macs to 700,000 from previous 600,000 estimates -- is bigger than the obvious conclusion Apple computers aren't safe havens from cybercriminals. Late last week, Apple released a Flashfake removal tool that contrary to earlier reports failed to substantially reduce the botnet. But as many as 100,000 infected WordPress blogs, the majority in the United States, lay in wait for unpatched Macs or even a Flashfake variant that unleashes another outbreak. Like last year's MacDefender outbreak, cybercriminals used tactics tried and proven against Windows users.

    Drive-by Downloads

    Before March, Flashfake bothered few Mac users because the attack vector was largely social engineering. All that changed thanks in part to current Apple security policies. Flashback exploits a Java vulnerability that Apple could have patched sooner but didn't.

    Last week I praised Apple for disabling the Java plug-in with the most recent update. Now I'm not so sure, since in context of Alexander Gostev's analysis Apple really covers its ass more than protects Mac users. That's because "Apple never uses patches from Oracle and creates its own patches to close Java vulnerabilities", he explains. Oracle patched the vulnerability in February, while Apple got round to it in April. "This practice of releasing patches with delays of about two months is traditional for Apple".

    Apple's Lion security page claims: "OS X has you covered...With virtually no effort on your part, OS X offers a multilayered system of defenses against viruses and other malicious applications, or malware". OS X hasn't got you covered, if Apple doesn't take readily available Java patches, waiting to produce its own instead. The adage Apple's way or the highway will get you run down.

    Gostev, who heads Kaspersky's Global Research and Analysis Team, explains what happened next:

    In order to spread Flashfake in March 2012, its authors made use of a cybercriminal partner program that appears to be of Russian origin. The partner program was based on script redirects from huge numbers of legitimate websites all over the world. Around the end of February/early March 2012, tens of thousands of sites powered by WordPress were compromised. How this happened is unclear. The main theories are that bloggers were using vulnerable versions of WordPress or they had installed the ToolsPack plugin. Websense put the number of affected sites at 30,000, while other companies say the figure could be as high as 100,000. Approximately 85 percent of the compromised blogs are located in the US.

    Gostev continues:

    Code was injected into the main pages when the blogs were hacked...As a result, when any of the compromised sites were visited, a partner program TDS was contacted. Depending on the operating system and browser version, the browser then performed a hidden redirect to sites in the rr.nu domain zone that had the appropriate set of exploits installed on them to carry out an infection.

    He goes on to describe in detail the process of infection, which I encourage reading over your late-morning coffee and bagel (breakfast sandwich or cinnamon roll). But the main point is this: Drive-by download spread malicious code -- something users of older Windows versions see but is much, much less common on Vista or 7. Mac Defender, which largely spread by SEO poisoning, used similar infection tactic.

    People Problems

    There has been much buzz this week about there being more Mac malware or increasing vulnerabilities in OS X. That's BS. OS X and Windows 7 are both fairly hardened operating systems. Flashback's success spotlights people problems instead:

    1. Apple's response is inadequate. The company doesn't patch vulnerabilities fast enough, as both Flashback and Mac Defender demonstrate. Meanwhile Apple doesn't disclose enough information to end users. To both outbreaks, Apple either failed to acknowledge a security problem existed or waited too long doing so.

    2. OS X marketing creates a false sense of security among Mac users. Apple propagates the myth Macs are safe from malware with statements like "OS X has you covered" or "OS X doesn't get PC viruses". Better security is one reason many people switch to the Mac, where they're lulled into believing they're safe. Meanwhile long-time Mac users already are believers.

    3. Most Mac users don't use anti-malware. That's the finding of BetaNews polls conducted in May 2011 and earlier this month. Seventy-four precent of respondents say they do not have anti-malware software installed on their primary Mac. Ninety-two percent of Windows users do. If Apple isn't adequately protecting Mac users, they need to look after themselves. They don't.

    4. Half of new Mac users come from Windows. From where is the Mac install base growing? Windows users. Apple executives consistently say that half of Mac buyers are Windows users. As both malware outbreaks demonstrate, the same social engineering techniques common to Windows PCs are used. Windows users bring bad habits to the Mac, which Flashback and Mac Defender show can be exploited as easily on Apple computers as Windows PCs. Those habits are deadly for users lulled into a sense of safety and not using anti-malware.

    Editors Note: After posting, Dr. Web released startling new data that shows Flashback still infects more than 500,000 Macs. That following release of Apple's tool for removing the Trojan.

    Photo Credit: Julien Tromeur/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/19/Microsoft_Q3_2012_by_the_numbers___17B_revenue__60_cents_EPS'

    Microsoft Q3 2012 by the numbers: $17B revenue, 60 cents EPS

    Publié: avril 19, 2012, 10:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, after the closing bell, Microsoft revealed results for one of its most uncertain quarters in years. That's because Gartner and IDC report tepid PC shipments and Microsoft prepares to launch a horde of new products later this year, including new versions of Office, Windows and Windows Server, among others. Sometimes sales sag in the quarter or two before new product releases -- and for 2012 there are many core ones coming.

    "With the upcoming release of new Windows 8 PCs and tablets, the next version of Office, and a wide array of products and services for the enterprise and consumers, we will be delivering exceptional value to all our customers in the year ahead", Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer says.

    Perhaps businesses share Ballmer's enthusiasm and aren't backing off purchases, particularly those looking to lock in Software Assurance upgrades. For fiscal Q3, ended March 31, Microsoft revenue was $17.41 billion, up 6 percent year over year. Operating income: $6.37 billion, a 12 percent increase. Net income was $5.11 billion, or 60 cents a share -- that's down from $5.23 billion and 61 cents a share a year earlier. However, in the year-ago quarter, Microsoft received a settlement from the IRS that boosted EPS by 5 cents. Removing this one-time event, EPS rose by 7 percent.

    Average analyst consensus was $17.18 billion revenue and 58 cents earnings per share, for the quarter. Revenue estimates ranged from $16.61 billion to $17.46 billion, with estimated year-over-year growth of 4.6 percent. By both measures, Microsoft beat the Street.

    Q3 2012 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.62 billion, up 4 percent from $4.45 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $4.6 billion, up 14 percent from $4.1 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $5.81 billion, up 9 percent from $5.33 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $707 million, up 6 percent from $667 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.6 billion, down 16 percent from $1.94 billion a year earlier.

    Q3 2012 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $2.95 billion, up 6 percent from $2.8 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.74 billion, up 29 percent from $1.35 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.77 billion, up 14 percent from $3.31 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $479 million, up 38 percent from $776 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $229 million loss compared to 210 million profit a year earlier.

    Whither Windows

    Laggard PC shipments weighed on Microsoft, which isn't surprising given the continued distraction smartphones and tablets cause consumers -- and that includes those bringing personal devices to work. Still, Windows and Windows Live division revenue grew 4 percent year over year and income by 6 percent (after falling 6 percent and 11 percent, respectively, in fiscal Q2).

    IDC puts first calendar quarter year-over-year PC shipment growth at 2.3 percent, but only 1.9 percent by Gartner's estimates.

    "The consumer segment continued to be a drag on market growth, as PC demand was low", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. The analyst firm again highlights smartphones and tablets as leaders among those "other devices".

    "Slow growth in the US shows that despite interesting and new form factors like all-in-one (AIO) desktop PCs and Ultrabook-class notebook PCs, the market remains conservative and focused on replacements", Loren Loverde, IDC vice president, says. Replacements don't just refer to necessary PC upgrades but tablets being used to supplement existing PCs. The devices replace behavior rather than the older computer.

    Still, both analysts expressed optimism for the holidays. "We expect PC shipments to pick up significantly by the fourth quarter and beyond as HDD supply and pricing are normalized, Windows 8 is launched, and replacements pick up", Loverde says. But "the US PC market is likely to remain constrained at least until the launch of Windows 8, which is expected in the fourth quarter of 2012".

    The future looks interesting, as Microsoft prepares its increasingly aggressive response to iPad. Yesterday, the company disclosed Windows 8 Enterprise feature and licensing benefits -- and nearly all relate to mobility or mobile devices. They also tip how much emphasis Microsoft will place on Windows RT, which runs on ARM processors and is queued for tablets.

    Two Software Assurance benefits stand out: Extended Virtual Desktop rights for Windows RT devices and extended rights for companion devices.

    "So that means that WinRT devices, when used by someone with a PC covered by SA, are automatically given the same virtualization rights as the PC itself, notably the right to access a remote instance of Windows running in a VM (a VDI scenario)", Paul DeGroot, president of Pica Communications, tells me today.

    "If you have something other than a WinRT device you have to pay more", he continues. "As with the WinRT device, you need SA on the PC; but after that you still need to purchase a Companion Device License for Windows SA. However, this license will cover up to four devices, like your iPhone, iPad, and home PC or Mac.

    DeGroot emphasizes: "Overall, I'd rate this as an improvement over the old SA Roaming Rights, which were useless to most people, but this is a case where MS is clearly giving WinRT an advantage over the competition".

    Division Highlights

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Strong demand among businesses helped the division to overcome the effects of weaker than-expected PC demand. Revenue rose by 4 percent year over year, and operating income by 6 percent.

    Microsoft estimates that global PC sales to businesses grew 8 percent, but were flat among consumers. However, when removing continued, steep netbook sales declines, consumer PCs actually rose 6 percent. Together, Microsoft estimates that PC sales grew by 2 percent and 4 percent, which is stronger than either Gartner or IDC estimates.

    More granularly, like other recent quarters, OEMs accounted for 75 percent of Windows sales. Despite the increase in sales to businesses, the mix was only 33 percent to them but 41 percent to consumers. OEM revenue grew by 4 percent.

    Looking ahead to fiscal fourth quarter, Microsoft is cautious about negative market dynamics, but expects business PC sales to continue growing.

    The company estimates that Windows 7 is deployed on 40 percent of enterprise desktops.

    Server & Tools. Revenue rose 14 percent year over year and operating income by 29 percent, delivering a simply stunning quarter. The division is insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements.

    "Product revenue increased $396 million or 12%, driven primarily by growth in SQL Server, Windows Server, and System Center, reflecting continued adoption of Windows platform applications.", according to the company's 10-Q filing.

    Looking ahead to fiscal Q4, Microsoft expects volume-license sales to grow in the high teens.

    Business. The division was the quarter's big overall performer (again); revenue rose 9 percent and income by 14 percent year over year.

    Annuity licensing continued to lift sales, an ongoing trend. "MBD revenue increased primarily reflecting sales of the 2010 Microsoft Office system. Business revenue increased $469 million or 11 percent, primarily reflecting growth in multi-year volume licensing revenue, licensing of the 2010 Microsoft Office system to transactional business customers, and an 11 percent increase in Microsoft Dynamics revenue. Consumer revenue increased $16 million or 2 percent due mainly to increased sales of the 2010 Microsoft Office system", according to the company.

    More numbers: Multi-year license revenue grew by 13 percent, Dynamics CRM by 30 percent and Lync by 35 percent.

    Like Server & Tools, Business division is largely insulated against sluggish PC sales. Sixty percent of revenue comes from annuity licensing to businesses.

    Looking ahead to fiscal fourth quarter, Microsoft expects double-digit volume-license growth.

    Online Services Business. Online services revenue rose by 6 percent, while the operating loss decreased by 38 percent. Search and display ads drove up online advertising revenue by 9 percent -- $51 million to $639 million. "OSD operating loss decreased due to higher revenue and lower cost of revenue and sales and marketing expenses.", according to the 10-Q.

    Looking ahead to fiscal Q4, Microsoft expects continued improvements.

    Entertainment & Devices.  Revenue fell by 16 percent. Microsoft shipped 1.4 million Xboxes during the quarter -- a 1.3 million-unit decline from a year earlier. Xbox revenue fell 33 percent, or $584 million.

    There were -- get this -- 100 billion minutes of Skype calls -- up 40 percent year over year.

    Looking ahead to fiscal Q4, Microsoft expects double-digit revenue growth.

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/19/Nokia_does_the_Windows_Phone_death_dance'

    Nokia does the Windows Phone death dance

    Publié: avril 19, 2012, 6:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Few high-tech companies have imploded like Nokia and at the strangest time. Typically, dominant companies get killed during transitions from where they rule to where they don't. Nokia is oddest exception, imploding during a major computing era shift that favors its core competency. Transition from the PC to the mobile device eras is underway -- to a market where Nokia was, until recently, share leader by huge margins. How low the mighty has fallen, and former Microsoft division president turned Nokia CEO Stephen Elop wields the missile codes that launched self-inflicted nuclear strikes.

    Today's Nokia earnings report is a disaster. It's radioactive fallout from Elop's decision to turn over the Finnish company's crown jewels to Microsoft. Elop sold Nokia's soul to his former masters, which I described at the time as a "silent takeover" of the company. Nokia needed new leadership, not new technology -- Elop's fundamental platform and cloud services switch -- to combat escalating Android and iOS competition. Before his tenure, Nokia did the right things, just in the wrong ways. Since taking the chief executive's seat in Autumn 2010, Elop has done the wrong things in all the right ways to destroy a once proud mobile device innovator.

    Elop's Nuclear Nightmare

    Companies are successful for many reasons. Leadership is among the most important. Good leaders inspire their underlings. They instill confidence among the loyal troops and raise their morale. Instead Elop disgraced all Nokia employees by showing absolutely no faith in them or the hugely successful mobile business their work produced. When justifying the Windows Phone switch, he called Symbian a "burning platform".

    In a long memo, Elop wrote: "I have learned that we are standing on a burning platform...We poured gasoline on our own burning platform...Nokia, our platform is burning". In business, perception is everything. Yet Elop contributed to the perception that the global leader in handsets and mobile operating systems was a failure. He fed the fire of hype burning behind Android and iPhone. If anyone lit Nokia's platform afire, it was Elop and his negative memo that spread more FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt -- about Nokia's future than any competitor ever could. Elop isn't the harbinger of positive change but negative perceptions.

    Then he chucked away the most successful mobile operating system on the planet -- with install base that dwarfed Android and iOS. The only thing burning about Symbian and planned successor Meego was the fire Elop set. He burned down the house -- no, he nuked the city -- in order to build anew.

    The extent of devastation is nowhere more apparent than Q1, the first full quarter of results after Nokia shipped the first handsets running Windows Phone. Smartphone sales boom everywhere else, globally rising 58 percent in 2011 to 472 million units, accounting for 31 percent of all handset sales, according to Gartner. There is huge market transition underway that rivals capitalize on. Look at Apple's 35.5 million iPhones sold in fourth quarter, by Gartner's reckoning.

    Lumia 'Sales Have Been Mixed'

    Today, Nokia revealed that Q1 sales plummeted by 29 percent, leading to a $1.76 billion loss. Sales fell 26 percent quarter-on-quarter, too. Device and services net sales plummet by a stunning 40 percent year over year and 29 percent sequentially. Other year-over year declines: smart devices, 52 percent; mobile phones, 32 percent.

    Nokia's Windows Phone transition is a major part of the problem, lessening demand for Symbian smartphones. First quarter global sales aren't available from analysts yet, but, according to Gartner, Symbian smartphone share fell to 11.7 percent from 32.3 percent in Q4 2011. The company that invented the smartphone, dropped from first to third place, behind Android and iOS, respectively.

    Today, Elop says the hard thing -- and he deserves credit for it: "Actual sales results have been mixed", referring to Lumia Windows Phones. That's a polite way of saying they suck. During fourth quarter, Microsoft mobile OS share fell from 3.4 percent to 1.9 percent, according to Gartner. First quarter numbers aren't available, but as the IDC chart above shows it's a trend.

    In February 2011 I warned: "Nokia will lose customers and market share. It's the inevitable consequence of such a massive operating system switch. Timing is terrible". That's not a rocket science conclusion. Android and iOS device sales soared and higher still later in 2011. Again mixing metaphors, it's like Elop called his race car to the pits during the Indianapolis 500 to change engines.

    Now he's desperate. "We have a clear sense of urgency to move our strategy forward even faster". Elop says -- and he should. But where was that urgency in early 2011, when he turned over platform development responsibility to Microsoft?

    Burning Down the Brand

    Nokia had much to build on before Elop nuked it. For starters the brand. Wireless analyst Tomi explains: "More people use a Nokia phone than drink a Coca Cola, than wear Levis's jeans, than tell time on a Timex watch, than wear Nike running shoes, than smoke Marlboro cigarettes, or write with a Bic pen". While Nokia's brand may not seem much to Americans, it's huge everywhere else, particularly Asia, Europe and Africa.

    "What was life like before Stephen Elop started to destroy the brand most widely spread on the planet?" Ahonen asks. Much better is the answer. While Nokia bled share before, the Windows Phone transition and Elop's performance opened an artery.

    Unquestionably, Nokia had problems before Elop joined the company. Smartphones like N97 couldn't compete with iPhone, cloud services proved to be clunky and developers fled for Android Market (now Google Play) and Apple's App Store. But these were fixable problems with leadership and even a few cloud and software acquisitions. Instead, Elop nuked this city in lieu of urban renewal.

    Nokia 808 PureView, announced in late February is sure sign of what the company could have done with Symbian. The truly innovative smartphone sports a 41-megapixel camera but not Windows Phone. So much good that was Nokia is now lost.

    I'm a big Nokia phone fan -- have been for years. I would be ecstatic to be proved wrong, to a year hence write a mea culpa story. But looking at how much worse off Nokia is today than 14 months ago, when Elop cut the Microsoft deal, the big Windows Phone turnaround is more Harry Potter magic than Albert Einstein Relativity.

    Editor's Note: Ed Oswald and Joe Wilcox wrote opposing positions about Nokia's Windows Phone strategy, independently today (we didn't want one directly responding to the other but to circumstances). Please read Ed's "Nokia's short-term pain is the result of long term problems".

    Photo Credit: andrea crisante/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/19/Is_Microsoft_s_carrot_enough_for_businesses_to_take_the_Windows_8_Enterprise_stick_'

    Is Microsoft's carrot enough for businesses to take the Windows 8 Enterprise stick?

    Publié: avril 19, 2012, 3:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft pours out the Windows 8 news this week, ahead of fiscal 2012 third quarter earnings results. Yesterday, the company revealed the new SKUs and Windows Server 2012 naming. Today comes more information on the most distinct edition -- Windows 8 Enterprise. I debated all day what to write about the software, feeling that there's more marketing speak than substantive information in the blog post announcement. The devil is in the details as they say, and never more than Windows Enterprise and so-called Software Assurance benefits coming with it.

    That's because Enterprise is a slippery slope for large businesses to climb. Most enterprises acquire Windows on new PCs -- OEMs account for 75 percent of sales -- but from there Microsoft licensing rules get sticky. Businesses can reimage PCs based on whatever license rights they have. Those wanting to deploy Windows Enterprise must take on something else: Software Assurance is required and adds considerable upfront cost: 29 percent of the full price for two or three years, paid annually. The real benefits -- that carrot -- are all about licensing, for those businesses willing to be beat by the stick (Software Assurance).

    Assessing Software Assurance

    Eleven months ago, Pica Communications president Paul DeGroot wrote an 8-part Microsoft licensing series for BetaNews. Microsoft has tweaked licensing over the past year, largely to support the cloud and Windows 8 Enterprise Software Assurance reflects some of the tweaking. Largely, what DeGroot laid out in May 2011 still holds true. That 29 percent works out to 13 percent savings over a three-year annuity contract. He explains:

    At 29 percent a year on desktop products like Windows and Office, if you hold out for four years or more, the non-SA customer will pay 'only' 100 percent for the upgrade license, while the SA customer will pay 116 percent. In effect, the Software Assurance customer is paying a 16 percent premium to get a 13 percent discount. In fact, since larger business customers pay for Software Assurance three years at a time, they pay 87 percent for the first three years, and if they renew SA without getting an upgrade, another 87 percent for the next three years. That adds up to 174 percent, or a 74 percent premium to get a 13 percent discount.

    Most enterprises upgrade less frequently than three or even four years, based on multiple analyst studies and an easily observable situation: More than 10 years after its release -- with Vista and 7 in between, XP is still the most widely deployed Windows. As an upgrade plan, for the majority of large businesses buying Windows, Software Assurance is no benefit at all from cost-savings perspective.

    However, one benefit is commonly used -- and it's one Microsoft likes to keep secret: Many large businesses use annuity contracts to exercise downgrade rights, so they can maintain compatability across the organization. So they buy new PCs with, say, Windows 7 and reimage with XP.

    But there are other benefits that Microsoft touts, and few have done much to increase Enterprise Edition adoption. When Windows 7 launched nearly three years ago, OEMs accounted for 80 percent of sales. Since, with Microsoft all but forcing enterprises to take Software Assurance, there has been 5 percent shift. I have argued since Vista's release more than 5 five years ago that the Software Assurance requirement discourages enterprises from deploying newer Windows versions.

    Microsoft won't change, because it wants for Windows what it has with Office: The majority of sales are tied to lucrative annuity contracts, not uncertain PC sales.

    Enterprise Edition Benefits

    Microsoft's Software Assurance stick is hard. What about the carrot? In today's blog post, Erwin Visser breaks down the benefits by features and licensing terms -- but they're really all about licensing. Microsoft makes a choice to license certain features in one Windows 8 edition or another. There is no technical reason, as there might be for hardware, for any distinction. About features, he explains:

    • Windows To Go is a fully manageable corporate Windows 8 desktop on a bootable external USB stick. This will allow IT organizations to support the “Bring Your Own PC” trend and businesses can give contingent staff access to the corporate environment without compromising security.
    • DirectAccess allows remote users to seamlessly access resources inside a corporate network without having to launch a separate VPN and helps IT administrators keep remote users’ PCs in compliance by applying the latest policies, software updates, is easier to deploy, and it can be implemented with the existing IPv4 infrastructure.
    • BranchCache allows users’ PCs to cache files, websites, and other content from central servers, so content is not repeatedly downloaded across the wide area network (WAN). When used with Windows Server 2012, Windows 8 brings several improvements to BranchCache to streamline the deployment process, optimize bandwidth over WAN connections and ensure better security and scalabilty.
    • AppLocker can help mitigate issues by restricting the files and apps that users or groups are allowed to run.
    • VDI enhancements: Enhancements in Microsoft RemoteFX and Windows Server 2012, provide users with a rich desktop experience with the ability to play 3D graphics, use USB peripherals and use touch-enabled devices across any type of network (LAN or WAN) for VDI scenarios.
    • New Windows 8 App Deployment: Domain joined PCs and tablets running Windows 8 Enterprise will automatically be enabled to side-load internal, Windows 8 Metro style apps.

    Regarding benefits directly related to Software Assurance:

    • Windows To Go Use Rights: Windows To Go will allow companies to support Bring Your Own PC scenarios and will give employees who need to work from home more secure access to their full corporate environment. With Windows To Go use rights under Software Assurance, an employee will be able to use Windows To Go on any company PC licensed with Windows SA as well as from their home PC. Additionally, through a new companion device license for SA, employees will be able to use WTG on their personal devices at work.
    • Windows RT Virtual Desktop Access (VDA) Rights: When used as a companion of a Windows Software Assurance licensed PC, Windows RT will automatically receive extended VDA rights. These rights will provide access to a full VDI image running in the datacenter which will make Windows RT a great complementary tablet option for business customers.
    • Companion Device License: For customers who want to provide full flexibility for how employees access their corporate desktop across devices, we are introducing a new Companion Device License for Windows SA customers. For users of Windows Software Assurance licensed PCs this optional add-on will provide rights to access a corporate desktop either through VDI or Windows To Go on up to four personally owned devices.

    In looking over both lists, I make an immediate observation: The major benefits are all about enabling businesses to better handle different device types. Stated differently: Windows 8 Enterprise is Microsoft's solution to businesses' consumerization of IT problem -- if you can really call it a problem.

    Analysts Weigh In

    When Microsoft introduced Software Assurance in May 2001, it positioned the annuity license plan for upgrades. But over time, businesses consistently used SA to exercise the aforementioned downgrade rights, while many others chose to pay full price since they wouldn't upgrade any sooner than four years. Microsoft responded by adding so-called benefits, such as home use rights, to tempt more enterprises to Software Assurance. The real question about Windows 8 Enterprise: Are the select features and new SA benefits enough for the bulk of businesses?

    "The transition is going to be pretty slow for enterprise", Roger Kay, Endpoint Technologies president told me today. "It always is, and it seems like the pace of OS turnover is slowing as the incremental increase in value of each transition declines (oddly, because the last one was so good)".

    In looking at new features, "there is some new value here", Kay says, "but is it enough to stimulate a large-scale transition? The Win7 transition is still under way. So, I'd say first tentative experiments in 2012 and 2013, more adoption in 2014, and flood tide in 2015". Oh? If Microsoft keeps to releasing a new Windows every three years, the tide would like, Windows 8 this year, flood the new version.

    DeGroot is a bit more optimistic, but not exactly glowing. He told me today:

    Windows RT VDA rights and the Companion device licenses could be very important. While I still think Microsoft's VDI licensing stinks, and this doesn't change it a lot, these new rights are vastly superior to the current SA Roaming Right for Windows, which are ridiculously restrictive. The SA Roaming Right only gives you the right to use third-party devices over other people's networks.

    My short description of this is that it gives you the right to access corporate resources only over insecure networks from untrusted devices. These two benefits, in contrast get it right: SA on Win 8 will give customers the added flexibility that they should have been getting all along when they bought SA.

    Earlier today, Microsoft refreshed Intune. Licensing changes related to Windows 8 Enterprise are promising.

    "The accompanying Windows Intune blot/release says you'll be able to manage up to four addtional devices, and it will cover iPads, Android, etc, at the same $11 a month price", DeGroot explains. "I have always thought Intune was seriously overpriced, but this really can deliver value, and it's much better for mobile devices than using conventional management tools".

    That circles back to the actual features and extent of their appeal.

    "They've got some new stuff here: AppLocker, probably the VDI stuff (although it would be nice to get a closer look), the sideloading of Metro apps", Kay says. "I imagine Windows To Go and DirectAccess, taken together, make a pretty nice offering".

    DeGroot sees Microsoft making an important concession to all businesses that actually diminishes Windows 8 Enterprise's appeal. "The two most important enterprise pieces, BitLocker and the MUI, are in Win 8 Pro and don't require SA anymore. I'm happy to see those changes, but they also reduce the value of SA somewhat", he says.

    "The other stuff, like App Locker, DirectAccess, BranchCache, are features that some folks appreciate, but they're not going to drive many people to Enterprise", he adds. "Microsoft is always evolving RDP, and I'll give them credit for an excellent job there, so I'm not sure what additional VDI enhancements SA provides".

    Consider all this an introduction to posing the question to you and your IT organization: Is Microsoft promising enough for you to seriously consider adopting Windows 8 Enterprise, particularly if you don't have Software Assurance coverage today?

    Photo Credit: mikeledray/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/18/I_applaud_Windows_8_versions_because_I_remember_pure_XP'

    I applaud Windows 8 versions because I remember pure XP

    Publié: avril 18, 2012, 7:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I certainly hadn't planned on responding to a story written in 2003 today. But, hey, the Internet's memory is better than an elephant's -- and I've been called to task for "forgetting". Most certainly I did not forget. Circumstances changed.

    Yesterday, while waiting for my 90 year-old father-in-law at the optometrist, I got out my smartphone and started scanning Tumblr posts. One led to a Time magazine story about the "Hug Me Coke Machine", which I Tumblred hours late. While at Time's site, I spied something else: "Windows 8 Versions: The News Is Mostly Good" by Harry McCracken. He referred back to my old CNET story "Windows faces new competition: Itself", about fragmenting versions, and contrasted it against my more recent musings for BetaNews. Thanks for remembering, Harry.

    XP Fragmented

    Microsoft launched Windows XP with two versions: Home and Professional, but quickly added more: Embedded, Media Center, Tablet PC and 64-bit, among them. End users could easily buy 32-bit or 64-bit Home and Pro editions but not Embedded, Media Center or Tablet (and much later Starter), which shipped on new hardware -- like Windows RT will, presumably, later this year. I observed then that Microsoft confused customers by fragmenting Windows and attempted to artificially create competition in a monopoly market.

    People want choice, and there was little of it and for many; the existing Windows installed on corporate and consumer PCs was good enough. Microsoft wanted to create competition that might spur upgrades. The strategy failed -- more on the significance later.

    The XP fragmentation story posted in April 2003, within weeks of my leaving CNET and joining Jupiter Research as analyst responsible for the Microsoft practice. Two-and-half years later, I met Microsoft product managers to discuss Windows Vista. The company planned to greatly expand the number of Windows editions but, in the end, not as many as discussed during that meeting.

    Whither Windows 8

    Now fast forward to this week's announcement, where Microsoft modestly trimmed Windows 8 editions. For the majority of non-Chinese speaking users there are two: Windows 8 and Pro. This is the software that will ship on new PCs or you can buy to upgrade Windows 7 systems. These are largely comparable to Windows XP Home and Pro. Microsoft also will keep the Enterprise Edition introduced with Windows Vista that is available only through volume-licensing and release a Chinese-language Windows 8 version. Like Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, the new Windows RT, for devices running on ARM processors, will be available only on new hardware.

    That brings me to McCracken's story. He writes:

    People somtimes pine for the Windows XP era and talk about XP coming in just two well-defined editions: Home and Professional.  (Here’s Joe Wilcox recently doing that -- even though he wrote that 2003 article about the excessive number of XP versions.) They seem to be forgetting that XP is where the concept of endless specialized versions of Windows began. You had your Tablet PC Edition, your Media Center Edition, your Starter Edition, forgotten variants such as Windows XP for subscription computers.

    I agree that "XP is where the concept of endless specialized versions of Windows began". But Windows XP also started with only two versions, in October 2001, and that's my point in the stories McCracken references and the newest: "Three Windows 8 versions is just right". I don't drum on about the endless XP versions because they're no more. The hardware-only versions are way out of vogue, if you can find them for sale anywhere at all. The editions that matter -- the ones installed on hundreds of millions PCs are Home and Pro, sprinkled with a little Starter for good measure.

    Remember This

    I didn't forget; what happened to Windows XP editions between 2003 and 2007 isn't relevant to the current discussion or what's available in the market. But getting back to basics -- two versions for x86 processors that end users can buy and install -- is. Meaning: What Microsoft released in October 2001. As I've repeatedly expressed, one Windows would be even better -- going even more back to basics. Windows 95 was one version for businesses and consumers. That's the ideal product scenario: Windows 8 for x86 and Windows RT for ARM, and nothing more.

    Windows XP Media Center and Media Center editions were market failures. They sold poorly. Microsoft tried to recoup them and artificially create choice by expanding the number of editions with Windows Vista. Ultimate replaced Tablet PC and Media Center. Today Microsoft sells six Windows 7 editions, three at retail (Home, Professional and Ultimate), which is tacit admission the number is too many. Basic and Starter come on new computers and Enterprise is volume-license only.

    The big difference is something I predicted in February 2006, which sets apart the versioning strategy adopted with Windows Vista from that extended from two Windows XP editions: "The version strategy may also allow Microsoft to do something not done in more than a decade: Raise desktop operating system prices, a tact that can be difficult to take in a market where one product dominates and where monopoly and a contentious antitrust case cast long shadows". That's exactly what happened by introducing Ultimate and strong-arm licensing tactics for Enterprise (Microsoft demands enterprises use this edition, which also requires paying extra for Software Assurance).

    I didn't forget. I made reference to what was Windows XP at launch and what it is today as widely-deployed software: Home and Pro. Then there is what Microsoft did with new editions later on: Effectively raise prices in a non-competitive market. Everyone would be wise to remember that and wonder, with increased competition from non-PC devices and Macs running other operating systems, what Microsoft will charge end users, OEMs and volume-license subscribers for Windows 8.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/18/Microsoft__Nokia__don_t_cheat_Lumia_owners_of_Windows_Phone_8'

    Microsoft, Nokia, don't cheat Lumia owners of Windows Phone 8

    Publié: avril 18, 2012, 5:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Children often suffer when parents make bad decisions. For the marriage of Microsoft and Nokia, there is trouble looming for the kids -- that's you, buyers of Lumia smartphones. The next version of Windows Phone codename Apollo may not be supported. That's the rumor shooting across the web today. Here's one bit of gossip every current Windows Phone owner should hope is wrong.

    I've got no inside intelligence here, hearing nothing either way about Lumia upgrades. But I can see scenarios where Apollo might be a problem, particularly for older CPUs or GPUs. For example, all current Windows Phones are single-core. Surely double-core handsets are coming, but will the software support single-core CPUs? It's the first question to ask, with rumors a flying and Microsoft not denying.

    Microsoft has long made backward compatibility a top design priority, and that's something I can only hope won't change for Windows Phone. So far, Microsoft has done right by end users, quickly dispatching Windows Phone software upgrades and supporting most existing hardware. Looking ahead, anything less would be a marketing disaster for flagship handsets.

    AT&T started selling Lumia 900 here in the United States on April 8, in three colors. White model hits stores April 22. The smartphone is Nokia's flagship, for which Microsoft and its partners are spending beacoup bucks to market. Then what, a few months into subscribers' two-year contractual commitment, they discover their sizzling hot Windows Phone is obsolete? Say it ain't so, Microsoft and Nokia.

    But if it's true, they can't say anything. It's a rock and a hard place. What Microsoft, Nokia or Windows Phone enthusiasts will buy now knowing they'll be cheated later? Silence is confirmation, if it persists. Speak up Nokia and Microsoft. Tell us you'll do the right thing by customers -- in the way we expect you to.

    CNET's Lance Whitney asks my question: "No Windows Phone 8 upgrade for you?" The Verge has conflicting reports: "Sources: current Windows Phone devices will not get 'Apollo' upgrade" and "All Windows Phones to get upgrade to 'next major version,' according to Microsoft developer evangelist" both by Dieter Bohn. The "no upgrade" story is more recent and the one setting off lots of InterWeb chatter this morning.

    The trouble I see is Lumia. Backward compatibility can only go so far. It's not reasonable to expect Microsoft to support the oldest Windows Phones. Lumia is different, however. The first handsets hit market late last year, and Lumia 900 is freshly baked. Lumia is the first offspring of the Microsoft-Nokia marriage. There are high expectations here, which Apollo could lay low.

    Microsoft, Nokia, do the right thing. Don't cheat Lumia owners of Windows Phone 8.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/17/Meet_Windows_Server_2012'

    Meet Windows Server 2012

    Publié: avril 17, 2012, 6:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's codename Windows 8 Server no more. Keeping with previous year nomenclature, Microsoft today officially announced Windows Server 2012, during its Management Summit in Las Vegas. Corporate vice president Brad Anderson also confirmed the software would ship later this year, another indicator Windows 8 is on track for autumn launch.

    Microsoft tends to be very specific with products that have a year in the name. Windows Server 2008 got its name in Mid-May 2007. The company has some rules about nomenclature, and that one foreshadowed late-year release at best (the software launched in February 2008). The deliberate 2012 nomenclature signals Microsoft's confidence that the new Windows Server will ship this year and likely sooner than later.

    The official naming comes less than a day after Microsoft unveiled official desktop editions: Windows 8 and Windows 8 Pro for x86. The Redmond, Wash.-based company will continue offering a volume-license-only Enterprise edition and, separately, Chinese-language Windows 8. Another edition, Windows RT, will be available for ARM processors.

    Windows Server 2012's big marketing push is the cloud and the software as foundation for businesses creating private clouds or third-parties -- Microsoft among them -- public cloud infrastructure. After years of toe-in-the-water experimentation, IT organizations are accelerating cloud adoption.

    "There is a feeling of optimism in IT and excitement about the benefits of cloud computing", Anderson asserts. He adds:

    What I hear now is you are still worried about the challenges, but you see how cloud computing can help you and your IT departments deliver more business value to your companies than ever before. You see that you can enable this change and help your business realize cloud computing benefits – greater agility, increased focus on innovation and significant cost savings.

    "Many organizations have now passed the definitional stage of cloud computing and are testing cloud architectures inside and outside the enterprise and over time, the cloud will simply become one of the ways that we 'do' computing, and workloads will move around in hybrid internal/external IT environments", Chris Howard, Gartner managing vice president, says.

    "As a result, the traditional role of the enterprise IT professional is changing and becoming multifaceted", he adds. "A hybrid IT model requires internal and external IT professionals to support the business capabilities of the enterprise".

    Many organizations are choosing public cloud services for non-critical applications, but building private clouds where critical applications or data demand accountable security and privacy mechanisms. There Windows Server 2012 -- what Microsoft calls a "cloud-optimized OS" -- will be a crucial product for many businesses.

    Microsoft's timing for Windows 8, Windows Server 2012 and System Server 2012, which is available today, bucks against uncertain economic times. But Gartner's recent CEO survey shows chief executives' determination to keep investing in technology this year.

    "The intention to invest in technology is comparatively healthy" Jorge Lopez, Gartner vice president, says. "The newer trends, such as mobile and cloud, are rising to the foreground of CEO’s attention. However, CRM remains CEOs’ favorite IT capability because marketing is a never-ending competitive quest for customer retention".

    Will your business invest in Windows Server 2012 this year?

    Photo Credit: fbmadeira/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/17/Dead_rapper_performs_at_California_music_fest'

    Dead rapper performs at California music fest

    Publié: avril 17, 2012, 5:26pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    My daughter watched him sing last night on YouTube, so it must be true.

    The Coachella Valley Music and Arts Annual Festival is underway here in California. Weekend 1 just finished, with another three days of performances coming April 20-22. Third night's bang-up headliner: Rapper Tupac Shakur. He died in 1996.

    MTV's Gil Kaufman explains how Tupac returned from the grave via hologram. You can thank Dr. Dre and AV Concepts, which is based here in San Diego.

    "This show was by far one of the most exciting yet challenging projects we have ever worked on", AV Concepts president Nick Smith says. "A highly choreographed, live, outdoor holographic production of this magnitude with hundreds of thousands of people watching gave us the added incentive, and pressure, to deliver".

    2Pac performed with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dog, reportedly before a crowd of 100,000.

    Seriously, this is every music label executive's dream come true. Rock Star X dies young and posthumously sells beaucoup albums. Then he starts performing live gigs, resurrected by hologram, generating massive ticket sales, too.

    "To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time anyone decided it would be a good idea to resurrect a long-dead music icon for the sole purpose of a performance", James Montgomery observes for MTV. "I'm willing to bet it won't be the last. Whether or not that's a good thing is largely up to you. Part séance, part neo-necromancy, Holo-pac also almost certainly heralds the coming of a brave new era of revenue-grabbing, legacy-tarnishing spectacle".

    Do we perhaps love our musicians a little too much to let them go? Surely music labels love the money they generate. Hollywood Reporter's Jordan Zakarin says 2Pac's hologram may go on tour.

    Then there are aging rockers. Who wants to see a bunch of balding, middle-aged fat guys singing yesteryear's hits. Put the old frakers behind a curtain, instead. They play and sing while holograms of their younger selves romp the stage and scream at moshers.

    Say, Bud, you better check the fine print on that recording contract and see exactly who controls rights to your image when you die. Technology that amazes today could be mainstream tomorrow.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/17/Three_Windows_8_editions_is_just_right'

    Three Windows 8 editions is just right

    Publié: avril 17, 2012, 3:24am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Common sense has returned to Windows product marketing. After rumors of nine Windows 8 editions sent me into near cardiac arrest last month, Microsoft instead has gone back to basics. The new operating system will come in just two editions for x86 processors -- Windows 8 and 8 Pro. If you're running Windows XP today, as most people still are, these two will be familiar to you, right down to the major differences between them, being similar to Home and Professional Editions. The third, Windows RT, is for devices running ARM processors, and, as Microsoft previously disclosed, will only be available on new hardware. You can install Windows 8 or Pro on your PC, but RT comes preloaded.

    Hot damn! There's seriously fresh thinking going on over at the Windows & Windows Live division. Someone pinch me and pray tell I'm not dreaming. The only thing better than this would be lower pricing, which, admittedly, I'm not hopeful for. But one can dream within the dream!

    Windows isn't Toothpaste

    Today's announcement also signals, with certainty short of alien invasion or Mayan-end-of-the-world predictions come true, that Windows 8 will ship this year. I'm still looking for October launch, and September is still reachable depending on when gold code is ready. Microsoft also tips that Windows 8 marketing will be Mad Men worthy. The stars are lining up for something truly exceptional, and given lackluster PC sales Microsoft partners need it.

    I've long criticized Microsoft for the multi-edition approach, back to when product managers revealed the plan to me during meetings in late 2005. My suggestion then: One version and no more than two. Operating systems aren't toothpaste. Microsoft sought to create choice where none existed, because of the Windows monopoly.

    Today, consumers have lots of choices. Mac market share is over 10 percent in the United States, according to Gartner and IDC, and tablets running Android or iOS compete against Windows Tablet PCs. Gartner and IDC report negligible market share for Windows tablets. By comparison, Pew Internet says that two out of every 10 American adults already own a tablet -- and, yes, based on other market share data most likely iPad. Given increasing competition for device dollars, the last thing Microsoft should do is make buying Windows any more complicated. Two versions for x86 plus one for ARM is enough -- it's just right.

    KISS of Death

    KISS -- keep it simple, stupid -- is the kiss of death when not followed in marketing matters. Simplicity sells, complexity smells, and this is truer in marketing than almost anything else. I've long argued that one reason Windows XP hung around so long is the overwhelming marketing complexity -- and price increases with it -- Microsoft introduced with Windows Vista and continued with successor 7.

    Microsoft chose the features differentiating one of the many editions from the next, rather than letting competition and consumer choice dictate them. Not surprisingly, buyers -- and OEMs selling PCs -- chose differently and consistently two editions: Home Premium and Enterprise, the latter of which is purchased through Microsoft volume-licensing programs.

    The market consolidated around two editions. Finally Microsoft meets that choice, by going back to basics: Home and Pro. I would still prefer to see one edition, which is what Apple does with OS X on the desktop. But I'm too giddy about the positives here to really complain.

    Something else: Businesses and consumers have enough change to deal with because of Metro. The new user interface will jar many users and scar others, because, regrettably, many people don't like change. The last thing Microsoft should want to do is add complexity onto complexity, by pumping out mucho Windows 8 editions along with a radical user-interface re-design.

    One strong ARM

    Core features will largely overlap between Windows 8 and Pro. Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc explains the important differences:

    Windows 8 Pro is designed to help tech enthusiasts and business/technical professionals obtain a broader set of Windows 8 technologies. It includes all the features in Windows 8 plus features for encryption, virtualization, PC management and domain connectivity. Windows Media Center will be available as an economical 'media pack' add-on to Windows 8 Pro. If you are an enthusiast or you want to use your PC in a business environment, you will want Windows 8 Pro.

    Windows RT will be a "single edition" for ARM processors, he explains further. It's clear the nomenclature plays off WinRT and emphasizes its importance. That won't mean much to consumers perhaps, but it will to developers and some IT departments. Windows RT is a Metro-only environment. Microsoft doesn't provide a legacy desktop, like with Windows 8 and Pro.

    "Windows RT will include touch-optimized desktop versions of the new Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote", LeBlanc explains. "For new apps, the focus for Windows RT is development on the new Windows runtime, or WinRT, which we unveiled in September and forms the foundation of a new generation of cloud-enabled, touch-enabled, web-connected apps of all kinds". As I explained in February, Windows on ARM is the future of the operating system.

    One version makes sense. On ARM, Microsoft faces lots of competition, looking at Android and iOS lead on media tablets and smartphones. KISS is the only sensible marketing approach.

    Windows Secret Edition

    I originally titled this post "Three Windows 8 editions is just right, Enterprise is too many", but condensed it to cut Microsoft some slack. There's a hidden gotcha -- the third x86 edition not emphasized in today's announcement. Enterprise edition isn't going away.

    I only see it as a problem if Microsoft keeps requirements applied to Windows Vista and 7. Microsoft demands larger businesses to take Enterprise, which requires they also pay up for Software Assurance, too. I've long argued this licensing requirement discourages businesses from getting off Windows XP.

    If Microsoft applies same terms to Windows 8, then Windows Pro is nothing but reduced-feature Vista or 7 Ultimate Edition. Perhaps Pro and Enterprise will be the same functionally, but one only available through volume-licensing. If they're feature equivalent, why have three x86 editions at all? Two is enough. Three's a crowd.

    So what do you think? Is this approach sensible or simple enough? I'm impressed now, but the devil is in the details, as they say. Pricing and any more surprises are details that will matter much.

    Editor's Note: Home Premium name corrected.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/16/What_is_the_most_popular_household_gadget_'

    What is the most popular household gadget?

    Publié: avril 16, 2012, 10:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Surely it's no surprise that nearly nine out of 10 American adults owns a cell phone. But would you believe that 19 percent own an ebook reader or tablet? Or that one in five dosen't use the Internet? These are among the fascinating findings from a fresh Pew Internet report "Digital Differences".

    The findings are a blueprint for understanding Americans' digital lifestyles and what gadgets -- and supporting products and services -- fit in where. Major tech companies create distinct digital lifestyles people buy into, which is particularly true for Apple, Dell, Google, Microsoft, Samsung and Sony among others. Apple, Google and Microsoft are in pitched lifestyle product competition, and should look to studies like this one to understand the stunning nuances connected, so-called post-PC devices bring to consumer behavior.

    Pew's Aaron Smith and Kathryn Zickuhr write:

    Currently, 88 percent of American adults age 18 and older have a cell phone, 57 percent have a laptop, 19 percent own an ebook reader, and 19 percent have a tablet computer; about six in ten adults (63 percent) go online wirelessly with one of those devices. Gadget ownership is generally correlated with age, education, and household income, although some devices, notably ebook readers and tablets, are as popular or even more popular with adults ages 30-49 than those under 30.

    Then there is Internet usage, for which demographics show wide gulfs. For example, 85 percent of college educated American adults have broadband at home compared to 22 percent of those who didn't complete high school. More broadly, six in 10 American adults have broadband at home -- that's up from 11 percent a decade ago.

    But Pew's data presents an interesting trend the report's authors don't really address. Broadband adoption is down from 2010, when it was 66 percent. Based on this report and others from Pew, I can guess. Some Americans are replacing home broadband with connected-device wireless, whether built-in cellular 3G/4G, public hotspots or (more likely) both.

    The change and reasons for it are hugely important as what I call the cloud-connected device (many analysts use the aforementioned post-PC and others PC-plus) era advances. Here Smith and Zickuhr identify changes in digital lifestyle:

    As our research has documented the rise of mobile Internet use, we have also noticed a 'mobile difference': Once someone has a wireless device, she becomes much more active in how she uses the internet -- not just with wireless connectivity, but also with wired devices. The same holds true for the impact of wireless connections and people’s interest in using the internet to connect with others. These mobile users go online not just to find information but to share what they find and even create new content much more than they did before.

    Connected-device owners use the Internet more and they are more engaged than traditional PC users, particularly cloud services (cue trumpets for Facebook and Google). Pew identified the early trend three years ago in report "The Mobile Difference".

    AT&T gouges me for Internet usage -- 30 bucks a piece for three cellular data plans and another $65 for 24Mbps wired Internet. We get faster throughput on the LTE phones, and I'd gladly dump broadband and only use LTE and the local Internet cafe if there was unlimited family data plan for our smartphones. That's how my behavior would change.

    For everyone else, Pew's report adds much to Gartner's recent prediction: cloud will replace the PC as the "center of users' digital lives" by 2014. Today's digital lifestyle is more about the cloud, sync, multiple devices and mobile Internet connections. But you knew that already, right? Because you're living the cloud connected-device life style already -- yes?

    Photo Credit: Digital Storm/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/13/_7_million_worth_of_phones_will_be_lost_today__infographic_'

    $7 million worth of phones will be lost today [infographic]

    Publié: avril 13, 2012, 12:09am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Not a day passes by without a couple infographics dropped in my inbox and somehow I just don't get around to posting them. My bad, since they can be fun and informative. Granted the producers hope for a little promotion along the way, but hey.

    This one comes from BackgroundCheck.org, which blogs stuff like "8 Crazy Nannies Who Should’ve Been Background Checked" and "7 Things You Should Know Before Choosing a Babysitter" (Hey, whatever happened to 10 things?).

    The infographic comes in cooperation with Lookout, which I confess makes a better-than "Find My iPhone" app for Android. Okay, have I plugged everyone? I'm only doing so feeling guilty for not posting some of their other infographics and because this is the first one. Besides I just had to get in the nanny and babysitter links (pay attention, parents).

    I'm not going to repeat here much of anything from the infographic -- otherwise why post it? But I've got to wonder if there is any correlation between Manchester, England (where more phones are lost) and 9 pm and 2 am (when more handsets disappear).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/12/PC_shipments_rally_for_big__cough__cough__2%_growth'

    PC shipments rally for big (cough, cough) 2% growth

    Publié: avril 12, 2012, 2:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, if fourth quarter PC shipments were bad (and they were), Q1 was not so bad, according to preliminary data Gartner and IDC released today. Woohoo, break out the sparklers, IDC put year-over-year growth at 2.3 percent, but only 1.9 percent by Gartner's estimates. Somebody cue up "Nearer My God To Thee", because the Titanic tragedy's centennial anniversary feels timely. Is the PC market suddenly sinking?

    IDC already called 2011 the worst year for PCs since 2001, when recession robbed manufacturers and retailers of Christmas and set off a chain of profit warnings, including Apple and Microsoft. There are no profit warnings this time around, just plenty of misery. Well, unless your business is selling so-called Post-PC devices, like smartphones and tablets.

    Microsoft and Windows OEMs can no longer blame the hard drive shortage, which had a "limited impact on PC supply", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. Limited means select segments, such as low-cost notebooks, which didn't sell well anyway.

    "The consumer segment continued to be a drag on market growth, as PC demand was low", Kitagawa says. "Questions remain on whether low-end systems can attract consumers, as their attention has moved to other devices". Reiterating previous observations, Gartner again highlighted smartphones and tablets as leaders among those "other devices".

    "Slow growth in the US shows that despite interesting and new form factors like all-in-one (AIO) desktop PCs and Ultrabook-class notebook PCs, the market remains conservative and focused on replacements", Loren Loverde, IDC vice president, says. Replacements don't just refer to necessary PC upgrades but tablets being used to supplement existing PCs. The devices replace behavior rather than the older computer.

    Still, both analysts expressed optimism for the holidays -- and, whoa, if they're wrong the Good Ship PC really could join Titanic at the bottom of the Atlantic. "We expect PC shipments to pick up significantly by the fourth quarter and beyond as HDD supply and pricing are normalized, Windows 8 is launched, and replacements pick up", Loverde says. But "the US PC market is likely to remain constrained at least until the launch of Windows 8, which is expected in the fourth quarter of 2012".

    Kitagawa isn't as optimistic:

    The first quarter of 2012 was a transitional period as the PC industry is awaiting two big releases: Intel's Ivy Bridge and Microsoft's Windows 8. Both are expected to be launched this year. Although these new releases are not expected to stimulate demand as much as the industry hopes, they will affect PC supply so that there will be artificial supply control before and after the product releases. There will be few products rolled out into the market until these major releases have taken place.

    Looking at the hard numbers, global PC shipments reached 87.1 million units in first quarter, according to IDC and 89 million by Gartner's reckoning. IDC says US PC shipments grew 1 percent year over year to 16.57 million. Gartner: Shipments fell 3.5 percent to 15.5 million. There's big disparity in those numbers. Well, there are reasons why they're called preliminary.

    US share leaders: HP, Dell and Apple. HP share was 28 percent, according to IDC and 29 percent according to Gartner. Dell: 21.7 percent and 22.3 percent, respectively. IDC put Apple market share at 10 percent and Gartner at 10.6 percent.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/12/Google__redesign_generates_wicked__whitespace_meme__slideshow_'

    Google+ redesign generates wicked #whitespace meme [slideshow]

    Publié: avril 12, 2012, 12:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox
    Christian Martel

    Credit: Christian Martel

    David Meetze

    Credit: David Meetze

    AJ Batac

    Credit: AJ Batac

    Christopher Rizzo

    Credit: Christopher Rizzo

    Lewi Hussey

    Credit: Lewi Hussey

    Michael McAdams

    Credit: Michael McAdams

    Gisel Ocañas

    Credit: Gisel Ocañas

    Vtipy

    Credit: Vtipy

    Vtipy

    Credit: Vtipy

    Cory Miller

    Credit: Cory Miller

    Eric Rice

    Credit: Eric Rice

    E Online

    Credit: E Online

    Prashanth Rao

    Credit: Prashanth Rao

    Timothy Jordan

    Credit: Timothy Jordan

    Serhane Med Amine

    Credit: Serhane Med Amine

    People have too much time to waste, and I'm not one of them. But occasionally I have fun and write about others goofing off. Waste away, baby, because today's Google+ redesign has generated strange reaction to a sudden amount of white space to the right of the friend feed. People are posting with hashtag #whitespace.

    Google Plusers are finding all kinds of uses for that white space, which brings new meaning to making something out of nothing. It's fascinating watching the white space viral geekfest. I must live in an alternate universe, because it's just white to me. Or perhaps I lack any real sense of creative humor (don't comment on that!). Anyway, I've grabbed 15 photos from Google+ -- all credited, but none taken with any permission first (hey, they were shared publicly).

    Jonathan Chalker wins my vote for best #whitespace meme contribution, with this fako news story:

    Google Acquires WhiteSpace For $120M

    In a surprise move perhaps intended to counter Facebook's acquisition of Instagram, Google has purchased a little known app company, WhiteSpace, which cleverly adds large, random pockets of white space to any interface.

    When asked why WhiteSpace posed an interest, David Lawee, Head of Google's Business Development team responded:

    "There are synergies here, the scale of which we don't yet fully understand. The color white, to Google, is like air. WhiteSpace is like air in outer space and everyone agrees it would be cool if there was more air in outer space. It is equally as cool to have more white in our space".

    Lawee refused to speculate as to whether WhiteSpace would be added to their new Google Glasses interface.

    What would you do with all that white space?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/11/InstaHam_app_for_smartphones__an_idea_worth__1_billion__video_'

    InstaHam app for smartphones, an idea worth $1 billion [video]

    Publié: avril 11, 2012, 10:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Some really strange stuff (I want to use the other "s" word, but content filters) comes into the BetaNews Tips box. I'm paying more attention to what's in it this week, given my 7-day Google Reader fast. Weirdness knows no bounds, nor my perplexity to embrace and share it. I swear to debating for 10 minutes about sharing this video. It's strange. Topical. From a vlogger with 26,664 subscribers (now I'm one of them). And, sheepishly confess, made me laugh.

    Hell, I even liked the text of the email before the video link and made it the headline. If Instagram is worth one billion bucks... You got me Khyan Mansley. Commenters don't be cruel.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/11/Google__makeover_is_much_more_than_a_pretty_face'

    Google+ makeover is much more than a pretty face

    Publié: avril 11, 2012, 8:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Just as Facebook forces users to adopt a more cluttered, confusing appearance, Google+ simplifies and provides social networkers more control over the layout. Much as I've tried to use Facebook more, because that's where my family hangs out, Google+ is inescapable. It's a gravity well too strong to resist. For 170 million, the number of users Google revealed today, Plus perhaps is irresistible, too. That's a lot of people for a service less than a year old.

    Google+ is more than a social network. It is the future of Google. Like it or not, the company has embarked on a strategy around social search, and Plus is a pillar. Competing against Facebook clearly is one of Google's goals. But there also is realistic appraisal that social is the web's future -- and why shouldn't it be with gregarious humans? Additionally, Google+ is the sun around which the company's other products will revolve -- even search -- defining a digital lifestyle empowering connections, communications and commerce.

    The New Social

    I strongly encourage anyone trying to understand this concept to closely read Vic Gundotra's blog post about Google+ changes. The vice president of engineering writes:

    We're more excited than ever to build a seamless social experience, all across Google. A critical piece of this social layer is a design that grows alongside our aspirations. So today we’re introducing a more functional and flexible version of Google+. We think you’ll find it easier to use and nicer to look at, but most importantly, it accelerates our efforts to create a simpler, more beautiful Google.

    This isn't marketing gobbledygook. Gundotra's theme is consistent with past statements and Google's actions building out Plus. Stand-outs: "grows alongside our aspirations" and "create a simpler, more beautiful Google". He doesn't write about creating a more beautiful Google+, but Google. The whole shebang. Page and company are reinventing Google. Make no mistake about their "aspirations".

    Plus Your World

    Services like +1, Search Plus Your World and, of course, Google+ are part of this transformation in progress. Two weeks ago in post "Google, there's no good 'without doing evil'", I reviewed the colossal amount of cross-product and service integration taking place over the last year. Search anchors the integration effort, but its role changes as social creeps into everything Google does, with G+ and Search Plus Your World as key pillars.

    In that post, I asked readers: "Does all this newfangled integration -- Android, Chrome, Google+, +1, search and other services benefit you?" I'll answer yes before anyone else, particularly how search now lets me tap into social when looking for something or answers to questions.

    I'm not alone. "I love the integration of Google products", John Thomas comments. "Things just keep getting better. I worry about Google's dominance, but that dominance has come through providing amazingly useful services for a great price -- free. I'm happy to share my browsing history with Google. It's very useful to me to find places I've been and it helps Google fund their amazing services".

    "The integration benefits me a lot", Ismail Hammoud agrees.

    Renovation Row

    I started writing this post early morning, then had to shelve it to report the Justice Department's lawsuit against Apple and five publishers. When Gundotra announced Google+ changes, I didn't have them. Now I do, and they impress.

    There isn't as much generous white space as before, but Google+ still is largely uncluttered. Facebook looks like a horder's house, by comparison. Google moved the top menu bar -- Navigation Ribbon -- to the left, which isn't my preferred location. But I can live with it. My eye tends to gravitate up, but when reading posts in the flow there's sense to having the menu bar with them. Nicety: The apps on the Navigation Ribbon can be dragged to the order you prefer. There are pop-up options behind some of the menu bar apps, too.

    Gundotra highlights other changes:

    Once you’ve upgraded to Google+, it’s easy to share with your circles from just about anywhere. We’re dreaming bigger, though. We're aiming for an experience that fuses utility with beauty—one that inspires you to connect with others, and cherish the conversations that unfold. Today’s update is an important step in this direction, including:

    • Full bleed photos and videos that'll make you really proud to post
    • A stream of conversation 'cards' that make it easier to scan and join discussions
    • An activity drawer that highlights the community around your content

    Better Place to Be?

    From my perspective, the most startling and important changes are two: Trending topics and revamped Hangouts page. There are now trending topics visibly placed on your main G+ page and even more under the "Explore" button, where Google finally succumbs to clutter creep -- lots of it. Hangouts is busier still, but, whoa, what a place now to discover new folks to video chat with. Trash the TV, baby, and light up the webcam.

    The two areas share common theme: Increasing interaction around interests or people that matter most to you.

    Circling back to where I started, Google's reinvention is all about cross-product integration with search and social as core. Gundotra writes:

    By focusing on you, the people you care about, and the stuff you’re into, we’re going to continue upgrading all the features you already know and love -- from Search and Maps to Gmail and YouTube. With today’s foundational changes we can move even faster -- toward a simpler, more beautiful Google.

    Sorry, Vic, but I'm struggling with my nerd stereotypes. Can a geek hangout really be beautiful or are you just putting lipstick on a pig?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/11/DOJ_accuses_Apple__five_publishers_of_colluding_to_fix_ebook_prices'

    DOJ accuses Apple, five publishers of colluding to fix ebook prices

    Publié: avril 11, 2012, 6:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In December 2010 I asked: "Is someone fixing ebook prices?" Google's digital bookstore opened for business, and I started comparing prices only to find them fairly consistent across all retailers. I expected to see huge variances, not pricing consistency, which shouldn't be in a competitive market but is systematic of one where businesses conspire to "fix" prices.

    I wasn't alone wondering about this abnormal consistency. After weeks of rumors, today, the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Apple and five publishers. The antitrust enforcement agency accuses them of colluding to fix ebook prices, thus impeding competition and, more importantly, consumer choice.

    The lawsuit names five publishers: Hachette SA, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin and Simon & Schuster. However, Bloomberg reports that three of the publishers already have settled with the Justice Department. As previously reported by BetaNews, MacMillan and Penguin, along with Apple, refused.

    Causing Consumers Harm

    There are few areas of US antitrust law that is more clear or so aggressively enforced as price fixing. Unlike Europe, where trustbusters focus a bit more on protecting competitors, US priority is the consumer. The 1890 Sherman Act and the court precedents following it allow for aggressive competition -- some really rough play. But what's fair among competitors is a problem when they collude in ways that diminish competition at the expense of consumers.

    US Antitrust law looks harshly on price fixing, because it causes harm to consumers. They don't receive the benefits, lower pricing among them, of companies vying for the same customers.

    I wrote 16 months ago about ebooks:

    Nearly uniform pricing is highly suspicious. Brick-and-mortar retailer book pricing does vary more, depending on initial discount, volume of inventory to sell (or unload if too many) and time on shelf, among many other factors. Remember: Ebooks don't grow old on the shelf. Retailers can't over-order or be compelled to offer overstock deals.

    In looking at these four ebookstores, pricing is too similar. It stinks of publishers demanding prices be such and such to grant distribution. It wasn't that many months ago, that in a disagreement with publishers Amazon was forced to raise ebook prices and adopt an agency sales model. I have to wonder: Are major publishers fixing prices?

    Conspiracy Theory

    The Justice Department answers yes and says that Apple helped them. Before Apple opened iBookstore, Amazon sold many ebooks at a loss, to gain market share. Had Amazon been allowed to continue, consumer demand surely would have compelled publishers to lower prices. Amazon typically sold new ebooks for $9.99.

    During negotiations for iBookstore, Apple pushed for an "Agency" revenue-sharing model. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company would take a 30-percent cut and sell books at prices dictated by publishers. Amazon got into a scuffle with several publishers, leading to threats of withholding books. The retailer ended up adopting the Agency model, thus raising prices to match Apple's. That's reverse of how competition works -- one company lowering prices to match another's.

    Before today's criminal filing, a civil case was underway. There, in a legal filing, Apple strangely admitted to collusion: "Apple knew that if Amazon were allowed to continue to solidify its position in the ebook market, these network effects would make it nearly impossible for Apple to dislodge Amazon in the near term".

    More: "It would make perfect sense as a rational and competitive business strategy for Apple not to enter as a retailer incurring losses, but instead as an agent on commission with a competitive offering – which is exactly what the agency agreements negotiated by Apple accomplished".

    Based on the civil case, San Diego-based antitrust attorney William Markham tells my colleague Ed Oswald that the behavior of Apple and publishers "easily meets the standard for stating actionable antitrust claims". He adds:

    By this conspiracy they have apparently raised and fixed the prices of ebooks so as to preserve Apple’s sales of iPads, improve its share of sales of ebooks, allow the old publishers a few more years to exact profits that their own honest services can no longer produce, and harm the fortunes and progress of the new Walmart of our era, Amazon.

    Bad, But Worse

    Collusion is much bigger than single-title pricing. Publishers also demand onerous digital rights mechanisms that defy fair use-laws permitting people to share print books. Ebook sharing is limited at best and rights often are confined to a single user account. That's a secondary form of price fixing, since it compels even members of the same household to buy more than one title when using separate accounts on different devices. I can read Kindle books on any device running Amazon's software, but rights restrictions limit or prevent sharing the titles with my wife and daughter on their separate accounts.

    In a competitive market, particularly a growth one, competition should loosen rights. That's what happened with digital music, where DRM ruled early on but today is all but gone. Consumers benefit from the ability to share music within a household. Ebook publishers generally grant no such rights.

    I've warned several times that Apple policies regarding publishers would likely lead to antitrust problems:

    But there is another policy that suddenly makes sense in context of today's lawsuit: Apple's iBooks Author EULA. The company unveiled the software in January with surprisingly restrictive terms. Simply stated: If you publish ebooks using iBooks Author, no other publisher but Apple can profit. Distribution anywhere else must be for free. Authors can only charge money at iBookstore.

    The onerous terms didn't make much sense, since they might detract some people from using the software to create ebooks. Now they do, or so I conjecture. Apple must have known what was going on before anything leaked about the Justice Department ebook pricing investigation. Apple knew if the Justice Department filed a case, and anyone settled, it would lose control of favorable pricing terms, allowing Amazon to undercut prices. So in making a compelling publishing tool, Apple also placed restrictions favoring distribution through its ebookstore. The EULA was a pre-emptive strike.

    I proposed this idea to Ed Oswald last week, since he leads our ebook price-fixing reporting. He answers that Apple is "threatening to shut the whole damn thing down if that happens".

    My response in group chat: "But Apple won't because of education market. For many obvious reasons. Core market. Nab the youth young. Sell more Macs, since tools require OS X. Besides, people pay more for Macs. They'll pay more for ebooks, too. Customer loyalty to the brand, for starters and what publishers can add to the books beyond text".

    Ebooks are serious business to Apple, because they can help sell more iPads and, via the authoring tool, more Macs. There's your reason for Apple colluding with publishers and fighting the Justice Department's case.

    Photo Credit: JustASC/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/10/Did_you_buy_Nokia_Lumia_900_Windows_Phone_'

    Did you buy Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone?

    Publié: avril 10, 2012, 7:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I just have to ask, because your first impressions will matter to other possible buyers. Colleague Tim Conneally reviewed Lumia 900, but good as that is we need more. I want your review, too. AT&T started selling the 4G LTE Windows Phone on April 8 -- Easter Sunday -- when the major malls here in San Diego were closed. Heck, even my local Target shuttered for the holiday. It's Tuesday, and that's time enough for your first impressions.

    I got to thinking more about Lumia 900 last night when something quite unexpected happened. My wife asked: "That new phone is only $99?" Which one? "The Nokia". She had seen a TV commercial for the handset. My wife has never asked me about an advertised phone before. Never. Never. Never. If Mrs. Non-Geek Artist is intrigued, what about enthusiasts rushing out to buy Lumia 900? Is it a bruiser or a loser?

    "Readers help other readers" is one of my mottos, and your Lumia 900 review can do just that. You can comment to this post or, better, submit a review to joe at betanews dot com; I'll need a bio and photo, too, as your name will appear in the byline.

    Strong Buying Intentions

    I know somebody bought Lumia 900. Two weeks ago, I posted a poll asking who would. The sample size is excellent -- 3,025 as I write. A whopping 70.45 percent of respondents say they will buy the Windows Phone within 3 months (including preorders). Only 16.96 percent won't buy at all.

    Granted, respondents aren't qualified (meaning I don't know who they are) and are presumably Windows Phone enthusiasts (based on what I know about BetaNews readership). But I've been doing these buying polls for about 18 months and this is by far the most overwhelmingly positive response to any smartphone. The questions: How wide is this enthusiasm? Will it turn into real sales?

    Commenter IT advisor doesn't believe the numbers: "How bizarre. Microsoft Windows Phone gets a market share of 75 percent among BetaNews readers. In the general population, it gets only 1.9 percent. Are these the same people who bought Zunes and Kins? Yes, they are! Hey, you can wave around your Microsoft Kin phone at parties these days and everyone will laugh!"

    "Say what you will, and I am sure you will, but the Zune was actually a really nice device", PC_Tool responds. (Once you got over their utter lack of marketing and whatever childish 'color phobias you might have)." I agree, as expressed in my September 2009 Zune HD review. But he concedes, "not that I'll be getting a Windows Phone -- in the foreseeable, ever".

    Shutter Speed

    I'm a long-time Nokia fan, and only abandoned the manufacturer after it abandoned me (and perhaps you, too). Nokia had great hardware -- hell, it invented the smartphone around the time Windows 95 launched. But software and services stumbled after iPhone released in June 2007 and fell far behind Apple after App Store opened in July 2008 -- and later Google. I don't believe that Windows Phone can recapture Nokia's glory days, but I can hope!

    Last week, in group chat, Tim expressed amazement at just how good is Lumia 900's camera. I explained that Nokia cameras have been great for years. Don't believe me? Gander at my Nokia N97 Flickr set or these tagged photos and compare to Tim's Lumia 900 slideshow.

    Circling back where we started. Please submit your Lumia 900 mini-review in comments below or email the big shebang to joe at betanews dot com. Your first impressions take can help others decide whether to take the plunge -- and, remember, the white model comes out April 22nd -- or choose another.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/06/Three_quarters_of_Mac_owners_don_t_use_anti_malware_software'

    Three-quarters of Mac owners don't use anti-malware software

    Publié: avril 6, 2012, 7:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Early results from our "do you have anti-malware installed on your primary computer" polls are in, and there's some change from the ones conducted last May. More respondents on Mac and Windows use security software, but the split remains polarized: 75 percent of Mac users don't, while 90 percent of their Windows counterparts do. Welcome to the wonderful world of Apple denial. There are no pesticides to save this crop.

    Responses are unusually low to both polls. I should know better asking anything over the Easter holiday weekend and start of Passover. I'm re-embedding the polls, hoping to jack up the numbers -- 315 for Mac and 358 for Windows, as I write. But the polarized results are consistent enough with the previous polls, when 86 percent of Windows PC users answered yes and 81 percent of Mac owners no. The difference between the polls is within reasonable margin of error, particularly considering respondents aren't qualified. Responses also could represent increased anti-malware usage in both camps.

    I asked the poll following reports that the Flashback Trojan infects more than 600,000 Macs, binding them together as a botnet. Flashback first popped up last summer, so this isn't something new -- just the success as new variants appeared, Apple released updates (often too slowly) and Mac users failed to apply them.

    Readers Respond

    BetaNews reader Joel Medina uses OS X and Windows, and on the latter runs Microsoft Security Essentials. "But on my mac I rarely install an AV program -- not because I think I'm immune but because it's just so rare that Macs get them because the focus for years for hackers was to attack Windows. But now that Macs are starting to get into mainstream usage I'm considering an antivirus program for my Macs."

    Andrew Johnson comments earlier today:

    Getting nasties such as Mac Defender or System Tool 2012 or whatever on your computer has always been more about the user's browsing habits than about any supposed flaws, or lack thereof, in the browser and/or operating system. This is not to say that those flaws do not exist, but they would be harder to exploit if most users knew what and how to avoid infection.

    Mac has had a pretty good track record up until recently, but I have always said, Apple versus Microsoft is an irritating debate, because it's all code, and if you can write code for it, you can write malicious code. I'm not using the "security through obscurity" argument here, I'm just saying it was always just a matter of time.

    On a side note, I find it sad how many people think that their smartphones are unassailable fortresses even though the number of infected mobile devices is on the rise.

    The real question to ask: Do you need antivirus software at all? Reader capncoad has an answer for that: "Anti-malware apps are simply a moron detector with no real security. Every time it dings and tell you that it blocked a virus, it's really saying 'moron'...If someone created an antivirus app that caused your PC to shock you every time you downloaded a 200kb executable thinking it was a free song then I think we'd be on to something".

    That's the point isn't it? Behavior. Windows 7 and OS X 10.7 are pretty hardened. Often malware infections are about stupid online behavior. "How stupid can people be", maddy143ded writes. "Why download stuff from websites that promise you a song and instead give you a small executable?"


    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home Macintosh?

     


    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home Windows PC?

    Do I Feel Lucky?

    There are lots of reasons, like social media. Your friend whom you trust recommends a link and you click. Or you trust Google and search for band X, only to find SEO poisoning in place. Or you trust Apple marketing statements like "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses", creating a false sense of security. Or you're browsing from home, you feel safe and project that feeling to web browsing. Trust is the constant.

    Last year I kicked Apple in the groin for making security claims like this: "Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses", which fosters a false sense of security. Oftentimes, as Flashback and countless Windows malware show, successful attacks are more about social engineering than lax operating system security. Human behavior matters as much, sometimes more. Criminals can break in no matter how good the locks if people open the door for them.

    But do they need to install a separate security system (e.g. anti-malware)? I would feel pretty safe using Windows 8 and OS X Snow Leopard without anti-malware software. But then, again, I'm cautious of what I click.

    After making Snow Leopard seem like the toughest thing next to the Terminator, the updated OS X security page concedes and recommends:

    The Mac is designed with built-in technologies that provide protection against malicious software and security threats right out of the box. However, since no system can be 100 percent immune from every threat, here are some other ways to help keep your information as safe as possible:

    • Download files only from known and trusted websites.
    • Use FileVault 2 to encrypt everything on your Mac.
    • Control access to your Mac by locking your screen after a period of inactivity.
    • Securely delete outdated sensitive files with the Secure Empty Trash command.

    As Clint Eastwood playing Dirty Harry said, "You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

    Photo Credits: maraga/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/05/Do_you_use_a_smartphone_or_tablet_and_watch_TV_'

    Do you use a smartphone or tablet and watch TV?

    Publié: avril 5, 2012, 11:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I occasionally do. My wife does every day, multiple times, either using her Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket or Amazon Kindle. "In the US, 88 percent of tablet owners and 86 percent of smartphone owners said they used their device while watching TV at least once during a 30-day period", Nielsen says today. That's me. "For 45 percent of tablet tapping Americans, using their device while watching TV was a daily event". That's my better half. What about you?

    I do tend to use my smartphone more often than a tablet while watching TV, that's to Shazam music -- something I frequently do everywhere. I was a deejay in an earlier life and compulsively search for good music. I'm not alone. Shazam audio QR codes appeared in Super Bowl ads for Best Buy, Pepsi and Toyota, among others. I see more QR codes in ads and TV shows every day. They're everywhere, and in some surprising places.

    Nielsen's findings make sense of an increasing trend I see during prime-time programming: Interactive, companion smartphone and tablet apps. Second-screen they're often called, and emphasis often is social networking and sharing. "The Walking Dead" comes to mind. If I recall, viewers could track the number of people killed in real time, but the season's over and I didn't use the app. Last month, The Peel app extended its mobile apps second-screen in a pilot program with "American Idol". Suddenly, the live finalist broadcasts are interactive and social.

    "It seems there are always a few controversial moments on American Idol, whether it is an overly harsh judge or the beloved contestant who is unexpectedly voted off", Peel CEO Greg Lindley says. "We are looking forward to being able to share our community's predictions and passion".

    There is no shortage of second-screen apps. Among those for dedicated shows: "Bones"; "Celebrity Apprentice"; "New Girl"; MTVWatchWith, which covers the network's prime-time lineup; and NBC Live, which likewise is for prime-time programming; among many others.

    Networks are getting more involved. For example, Fox has taken a small equity stake in ACTV8.me, which produces the "New Girl" app.

    I'm surprised to see how far this second-screen thing goes. In late November eBay broke a feature from its iOS app as standalone for iPad: Watch with eBay. "You can browse and buy items related to the TV shows you’re watching", according to the auction site (This is where my jaw drops).

    Definitely TV watching is increasingly social. Whether Facebook, Twitter, other social networks or broadly-dedicated second-screen apps like IntoNow, Miso or Zeebox (for UK audiences). How often do you see hashtags displayed during prime-time broadcasts, for example? I see them every day.

    I wonder about these second-screen apps. "The most frequent tablet or smartphone activity across all countries while also watching TV was checking email, either during a commercial break or during the show", Nielsen says. I must confess, on the rare occasions I use a tablet while watching TV it's to manage email, which is faster by touch than mouse (well for me).

    "Device owners also seem to engage with content related to the TV as well, either by looking up information related to the show or looking for deals and general information on products advertised on TV", according to Nielsen.

    The closest I ever came to social watching: Dave Barry's live blogging commentaries of Fox series "24". Barry is a riot. But that was all before Facebook and Twitter added a different social element to TV watching -- or second-screen apps. But after writing this post, I might just start doing so.

    Not that I need more reasons to sit in front of the boob tube. Do you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/05/Are_you_a_Mac_zombie_'

    Are you a Mac zombie?

    Publié: avril 5, 2012, 5:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Sometimes when dealing with the so-called Mac faithful -- diehard users who relentlessly demean and attack anyone (reporters, particularly) who doesn't share their unquestioning enthusiasm -- I think of the "Walking Dead"; TV show or comic, it's your choice. Nothing stops their relentless, mindless walk. As if there weren't zombies enough, cybercriminals have unleashed another kind that is much worse.

    Late last week, I started following progress of a new Trojan injected via rogue Java applet. Flashback is a variant of older malware and Apple issued a patch, so I chose not to write about it. Whoa, that was a mistake. Yesterday, Russian security firm Dr. Web claimed that more than 600,000 Macs are infected and part of a sophisticated botnet. Cybercriminals have amassed a sizable army of zombie Macs. Let me take a moment to welcome Mac users to zombieland -- a place many Windows users have lived for years.

    No One is Safe

    Trojans are nothing new, they're just not as common on Mac OS as Windows, but they're increasingly common enough for concern. For all the other Mac zombies -- let's call them the Walking Dead for differentiation -- who claim there is no Mac malware, 600,000-plus is nothing, nothing. Close your eyes and wish them away.

    Two May 2011 BetaNews polls found that eight out of 10 Mac users don't have anti-malware installed, while as many Windows users do. I've started the polls anew, to see what's changed, if anything, in 11 months. Please respond to them. The Walking Dead aren't only to blame here as I explained last year: "Apple has created, by asserting things like 'Mac OS X doesn't get PC viruses,' a false sense of Mac security".

    "Despite what Apple's marketing department would have you believe, Macs are not invulnerable to attacks and malware targeting OS X does exist", security consultant Adrian Sanabria explains. "Our main takeaway from [Flashback] should be that many Mac users have been lured into a false sense of security, and will be, or may already be, in for a rude awakening".

    Think about something. From where is the Mac install base growing? Windows users. Apple executives consistently say that half of Mac buyers are Windows users. As Mac Defender showed last year, successful Mac malware uses the same social engineering techniques common to Windows PCs. Windows users bring bad habits to the Mac, which Mac Defender showed can be exploited as easily on Apple computers as Windows PCs.

    Then there is the Walking Dead and other long-time Mac users who aren't accustomed to their computers being assaulted. They're naive and leave the windows open and doors unlocked, so to speak. They feel safe when they shouldn't and don't know what behavior creates risk. Yes, I'm generalizing, but the point is valid.

    Risks increase with malware success. Botnets this size are self-propogating. Cyberciminals can use a large botnet to attack and infect other computers. Can this one be taken down? We shall see.


    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home Macintosh?

     


    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home Windows PC?

    Flashback to Terror

    Initially, Dr. Web reported 550,000 Macs in the botnet but later updated the number to more than 600,000, get this, with "274 bots from Cupertino" -- the city presumably referring to Apple, as it's common shorthand.

    SEO poisoning spread the last big malware outbreak. Similarly, Flashback spreads through compromised websites. Dr. Web explains:

    Systems get infected with BackDoor.Flashback.39 after a user is redirected to a bogus site from a compromised resource or via a traffic distribution system. JavaScript code is used to load a Java-applet containing an exploit. Doctor Web's virus analysts discovered a large number of web-sites containing the code.

    More than half of the compromised computers are in the United States and more than three quarters in North America.

    More specifically, how are Macs infected? Security vendor F-Secure explains:

    Trojan-Downloader:OSX/Flashback.I is dropped by malicious Java applets that exploit the known CVE-2011-3544 vulnerability.

    On execution, the malware will prompt the unsuspecting user for the administrator password. Whether or not the user inputs the administrator password, the malware will attempt to infect the system, though entering the password will affect how the infection is done.

    If infection is successful, the malware will modify the contents of certain webpages displayed by web browsers; the specific webpages targeted and changes made are determined based on configuration information retrieved by the malware from a remote server.

    F-Secure also offers detailed instructions to detect and remove Flashback.

    Apple has patched the vulnerability but took six weeks doing so. Meanwhile, like Mac Defender, new Flashback variants spread. Will you be a Mac zombie, or are you one already? Now might be a good time to invest in a Mac anti-malware app.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/04/Samsung_Galaxy_Nexus_and_Nokia_Lumia_900_is_a_fair_comparison'

    Samsung Galaxy Nexus and Nokia Lumia 900 is a fair comparison

    Publié: avril 4, 2012, 9:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Discussion Counterpoint. Colleague Tim Conneally and I got into a heated debate about smartphone comparisons this morning. He has the Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone for review (and I -- whaaaaa -- don't). I suggested Tim do a comparison with Google-branded Galaxy Nexus, which we both have. He refused. Tim was quite adamant about it, too. His out-and-out refusal clearly taps into strong feelings about how products are compared.

    We bantered back and forth over group chat, with neither of our positions changing. "Buyers make these product comparisons all the time", I expressed late in our debate. "I can see we won't agree. If I had the Lumia 900, I would compare them". But I don't, and Tim won't. So I suggested: "Let's ask the readers...something like: 'Would you like the Samsung Galaxy Nexus and Nokia Lumia 900 compared?'"

    I had planned on one story with both our perspectives, but Tim smartly wrote something longer -- hence we have a separate point and counterpoint. Please read his "Stop comparing unlike objects. RIGHT. NOW." Tim makes the case for why we shouldn't write a post/review comparing the two smartphones, while I advocate such comparison. Your feedback is vital to resolving our debate but also illuminating something else: How products are compared. There are lots of dumb comparisons out there, particularly tech products. Would this be one of them?

    It's Our Job

    Reporters aren't analysts or marketers. Our job isn't to divide the products we write about into tidy little demographic groups. So what if grandmas living on social security in Cleveland are more likely to get free iPhone 3GS, while their grandchildren soaking up sunny Malibu cough up $399 for 64GB iPhone 4S.

    Market researchers live for this crap. We aren't Mad Men. We're the last visage of the Fourth Estate, before the Huffington Posts of the world extinguish our breed forever. We write for our readers, who love gadgets and compare many different products by measures that defy demographic modeling. Aggregators and marketers present varnished perspectives. We present the raw wood, with no blemishes covered (so that someone can better put one over the other to sell something).

    Helicopters and Motorcycles

    Tim contends that from the demographic perspective, the two smartphones aren't comparable -- that they appeal to different people. "Comparing them would be like comparing a
    helicopter to a motorcycle because they both run on gasoline", he writes. Price is one reason ($299.99 for Galaxy Nexus and $99.99 for Lumia 900) and segmentation another (the Android handset appeals to bleeding-edge enthusiasts and the Windows Phone to the mass-market). That reasoning is a bunch of Android apologist horse poo-poo.

    Galaxy Nexus and Lumia 900 is a fair comparison, because many BetaNews readers will do so in choosing one over the other. Google "Galaxy Nexus vs Lumia 900" or "Which is better Galaxy Nexus or Lumia 900?" There are comparisons out there already and for a reason. People want them, which is good enough for me.

    Tim contends that in part because of price Galaxy Nexus "was not --and is still not-- a mass market device". Really? So what, Google, Samsung and Verizon partnered to sell the smartphone to 100 people? This is Google's flagship phone -- of course, the goal is to sell many of them.

    By Any Other Name a Smartphone

    Galaxy Nexus isn't a helicopter and Lumia 900 a motorcycle. They are LTE smartphones sold nearby one another in stores like Best Buy. They would be in a carrier's store if AT&T or Verizon sold both. Falling back to hollow out the market position thing, the segment that matters most here is smartphone -- people shopping for one and making decisions on lots of similar criteria: Battery life, brand, camera, carrier, data speed, ease of use, operating system and size, among many similar attributes.

    Best Buy also sells many different televisions alongside one another. By the no-comparison reasoning, no budget shopper would ever consider the $1,200 big-screen TV over a $500 model. People make product decisions every day based on all kinds of different criteria. A friend of mine recently compared the Fuji X10 and X100 digital cameras. The X10 sells for around $600 and the X100 for $1,200. One is an advanced point-and-shoot camera, while the costlier model is more for amateurs and pros. Their target segments are different, yet there is much overlap in features and appearance. By Tim's reasoning, my friend would never have compared them.

    My other reasons for comparing the phones have little to do with product segmentation or buyer demographics:

    • Pitting flagship phones -- Google's and Nokia's -- against one another
    • Platform vs platform -- Ice Cream Sandwich, Windows Phone 7.5 Commercial Release 2
    • Nokia vs Samsung -- the old smartphone market share leader takes on the rising upstart
    • Google vs Microsoft, which offer radically different philosophies on mobile digital lifestyles

    Those are enough reasons for now. But are they reason enough? I say Galaxy Nexus and Lumia 900 is a fair comparison. Tim disagrees. What do you say?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/04/Uh_oh__iPhone_fanboys'

    Uh-oh, iPhone fanboys

    Publié: avril 4, 2012, 6:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    iPhone Idolators, please meet the Android Army. Now retreat! Android's share of the US smartphone market topped 50 percent in February, according to comScore. iOS gained share but trails considerably -- by like 20 points. You can have your iPhone, but many more Americans take Android. I'm waiting. What's your smarty-pants response to that, Apple apologists?

    The findings butt against those from Nielsen -- a life raft of apology for those insisting iPhone will rule the world. Last week, Nielsen reported a huge surge in the number of new purchasers choosing iPhones compared to Android. For the three months ending in February, 48 percent of Americans who recently bought a smartphone, chose Android -- 43 percent iPhone, according to Nielsen. A year earlier, 27 percent of new acquirers chose Android versus 10 percent for iPhone.

    comScore reports share for overall market, not new purchasers. During the three months ending in February, Android share was 50.1 percent among smartphone subscribers 13 and older -- that's up 3.2 points. iOS: 30.2 percent, up 5 points year over year and 1.5 points three months earlier. Those numbers are fairly consistent with Nielsen's: 48 percent for Android and 32 percent for iOS.

    Fifty percent is a big number and puts iPhone in potentially perennial second place -- unless Android suddenly loses share. There's nothing in comScore, Nielsen or any other analyst data that remotely suggests a reversal. Android's dramatic growth slowed following the release of iPhone 4S in October, but there's no reversal in growth or share gains.

    Something else: Where Android and iOS gains come from. Microsoft and Research in Motion mobile operating systems lost share (again), 1.3 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively -- or nearly what Android and iOS gained. BlackBerry's downward trend seems unstoppable. Windows Phone is uncertain, given the arrival of hot, new LTE models, led by the Nokia Lumia 900. RIM can't give up share forever.

    Where Apple apologists can find solace is the one-against-many argument -- iPhone alone shows tremendous gains against dozens of Androids. Among them, Samsung is smartphone leader, with 25.6 percent share, which is flat over three months. Second-ranked LG lost 1.1 points to 19.4 percent share, while Apple gained 2.3 points to 13.5 percent share. Apple gains pushed Motorola to fourth place, with 12.8 percent share.

    But nothing gets past Android's 50 percent, which comes as the US smartphone market approaches its saturation point and growth gains slow down for the leaders. Over three months, the number of Americans owning a smartphone rose 14 percent -- to 104 million, or 44 percent of all handset owners. iPhone would need to make dramatic gains against Android for all of 2012 to close the distance. At the current smartphone adoption rate, saturation is perhaps coming within 18 months.

    Considering that major carriers require two-year contractual agreements and more people will have recently purchased new smartphones then not, saturation is on track to lock in share for the major competitors sometime next year. If Windows Phone is to gain anything, new LTE models coming now must bring it while BlackBerry can still give up share. There's nothing in comScore, Nielsen or any other analyst data to suggest Androids or iPhone will relinquish anything.

    Apple apologists can dance on BlackBerry's grave and laugh at (what they consider to be) Windows Phone dorks. But Android rules the world -- well, at least these United States.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/04/How_do_you_rate_Larry_Page_s_first_year_as_Google_CEO_'

    How do you rate Larry Page's first year as Google CEO?

    Publié: avril 4, 2012, 6:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    On April 4, 2011, Larry Page returned as Google's chief executive after a decade's repast. In his first year back on the job, Google has dramatically changed. I planned to write a massive reflective story, but thought it'd be better if you did. A story with your assessment of Page and Google will be more interesting, and revealing, about the company and perceptions about it. I'll collect your comments here and put them together into a follow-up post. To get you started, I'll do a quickie review of Google over the last 12 months and call out a few highlights.

    At the start of 2011, I called it the "year of Google", and it was. Much credit belongs to Page as he axed services not core to the Google lifestyle, acquired Motorola Mobility and refocused the company on rapid iteration. Just look how far Android and Chrome advanced over the last 12 months or how quickly Google+ went from conception to 100 million-plus users. If 2011 wasn't the year of Larry Page, 2012 will be. But will you like it, or what he has done to Google?

    Below I've gathered some Google highlights to remind you what a year it has been. The list is by no means inclusive, but covers a wide range of events.

    June 2011

    July 2011

    August 2011

    September 2011

    October 2011

    November 2011

    December 2011

    January 2012

    February 2012

    March 2012

    One reason I chose not to write a retrospective today is this analysis from last week, which more or less is one looking at the increased cross-integration of products and services since Page returned as CEO.

    So how would you rate Page's first year? At the least, please use a 1-to-5 scale, with the higher number being more satisfactorily. Better: Offer your quick assessment of Google and what it means to you -- or doesn't -- and, of course, Larry Page.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/03/Google_isn_t_trying_to_save_Android_tablets_but_kill_Kindle_Fire'

    Google isn't trying to save Android tablets but kill Kindle Fire

    Publié: avril 3, 2012, 6:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Rumors about Google's forthcoming tablet are increasing, which astounds me -- as they portray this as something new. Hey, Google already formally stated it would produce an Android tablet. The rumormongers have got the reasons wrong, too. Google isn't gunning for Apple but Amazon.

    The retail giant is by far the biggest competitive threat standing before Android today. Amazon has customized Android, released its own hardware, ditched Google's browser for its own Silk, established a viable app store alternative to Google Play and created a curated user experience that rivals Apple's. In just one quarter, Amazon's Kindle Fire jumped ahead of all other Android tablets, putting it second to iPad. Every Kindle Fire sold is one more brick in the wall blocking the success of the broader Android ecosystem.

    I strongly disagree with CNET's Roger Cheng, who asserts: "The worst thing Google could do to its budding Android tablet business is get into it". A branded tablet is the best thing Google can do now for Android tablets.

    Kindle Fire burns Android

    Amazon announced $199 Kindle Fire in late September 2011 and started selling the media tablet in early November. According to IDC, the retailer shipped 4.7 million Kindle Fires during Q4, jumping to second place market share during the launch quarter. Amazon pushed Samsung down to third place. The Android tablet makers had 16.8 percent and 5.8 percent share, respectively, with Samsung growing from 5.5 percent in third quarter.

    Something else: Kindle Fire is largely responsible for Android market share gains -- to 44.6 percent during fourth quarter, up from 32.3 percent three months earlier. During Q4 the two leading tablet operating systems were iOS and Amazon's Android, with combined share of 71.5 percent. Let me restate that: Not Android, but Amazon Android.

    Google's tablet has got to get past Kindle Fire before ever touching iPad, which had 54.7 percent market share during fourth quarter, according to IDC.

    Amazon's $199 is focus of Google tablet rumors, for good reason. Our polls show that most people don't want to spend more. But there is much more to Kindle Fire's success than price. There are other compelling $199 tablets, such as Lenovo's Ideapad A1, that trail far behind. Price is just table stakes. iPad competitors need more than lower-cost tablets to win.

    Fractured Android

    What Amazon does right, like Apple, that Google must do: Sell a lifestyle. Amazon prioritizes features and pricing that matter for living one digital lifestyle around its cloud-connected services, rather than offering the latest, hardware and software. Like Apple, Amazon offers a stack of content and services. Kindle Fire isn't about techie features but a digital lifestyle around Amazon products and services.

    Unlike other Android tablet manufacturers, Amazon takes complete control over the entire stack. Kindle Fire features an Amazon-customized version of Android 2.x, its own Android app store, music and movie stores, ebook store, web browser and customized media consumption software and services. Sony is closest, followed by Samsung, among Android tablet manufacturers.

    Amazon is creating a curated experience that matches Apple's and, in some respects, exceeds it. Consumers can buy Kindle books for Fire, but read them on their iPhone, Android handset or other device. Amazon allows movies and music on Kindle Fire or other devices. From Apple it's just devices supporting iTunes Store. People buying into the Amazon lifestyle get Kindle Fire plus something else. That's an added benefit not available from Apple or other Android tablet vendors -- okay, Sony is closest.

    Amazon's continued success is good for driving up Android shipments against iPad, but it's bad broadly. Kindle Fire benefits Amazon and its customers willing to buy into the curated experience but at the expense of the larger Android ecosystem.

    Amazon's objectives are contrary to Google's. For example, if I type the web address to Google's Android Market into the Silk browser on my wife's Kindle Fire, Amazon's Android app store opens instead. On other Android tablets, Google Play is default but there is option to sideload from other stores, like Amazon's.

    Android already is fragmented. Kindle Fire, Amazon Android, the retailer's app store and curated services stand to fracture the platform and wrestle control from Google. CEO Larry Page, Android leader Andy Rubin and other Google execs aren't dummies. They can see exactly what's happening.

    Google Play to Win

    Google will bring a large arsenal to bear on Amazon:

    1. The Google brand, which like Apple's and Amazon's is well-known and highly regarded. Branding and perception are everything in business.

    2. Price, assuming Google goes for $199, as rumored. It's what I'd do.

    3. Ice Cream Sandwich. Why wouldn't Google offer its newest Android version and in process finally jumpstart adoption. Google's partners are dragging their asses getting their devices to Android 4.0. As of April 2, ICS accounted for just 2.9 percent of all Android devices, which means cell phones, too.

    4. Curated digital lifestyle apps. The Android ecosystem should prepare for the coming Google Android stack to rival Amazon's and to compete with other partners. About a month ago, the search and information giant renamed Android Market Google Play and last week prominently placed a link on the dark bar across services pages like Gmail and Plus.

    The name change emphasizes Google over Android as dominant brand and foreshadows the curated approach to come. Like Amazon and Apple, Google offers ebooks, movies and music at its store. Then there is the broader digital lifestyle supported by services like search and maps.

    5. Integration. Google is in process of cross-integrating all its products and services, many of which are tightly tied to Android and most prominently and deeply in Ice Cream Sandwich. Already, Google integration pays off big on smartphones. According to comScore's "2012 Mobile Future in Focus" report:

    Google-owned apps led across both iPhones and Android devices in terms of total unique active users. For iPhone users, YouTube ranked as the top app by unique visitors, followed by Google Maps, Facebook, Yahoo! Weather and Pandora Radio. Analysis of the Android market found that Google Search led as the top app, followed by Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook and Google News & Weather.

    What Google needs now is a successful tablet running ICS.

    6. Reference Design. In January 2010, Google unveiled the Nexus One smartphone, which it sold direct to customers. Many bloggers and journalists wrongly wrote that Google charted new retail waters by selling direct, missing the point: Google wasn't going into retail sales but establishing a reference design for manufacturers and developers. From that perspective, Google executed brilliantly with N1 and continued with December release of the Samsung-made Nexus S and the Galaxy Nexus a year later.

    A Google tablet as reference design is more important now than when I called for it in January 2011. Because of Amazon Android. Google can rally developers to a pure Android tablet running the newest OS version, while leading way for hardware partners to follow.

    If Google fails, there will be two Androids competing against iOS tablets. What's that saying about a house divided?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/02/What_is_new_iPad_s_biggest_benefit_'

    What is new iPad's biggest benefit?

    Publié: avril 2, 2012, 10:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Simply stated: customer satisfaction. Lots of it. Oh, yeah, and the new display.

    Apple started selling its newest tablet on March 8. Between the 22nd and 28th, ChangeWave surveyed new iPad buyers; 82 percent claim to be "very satisfied", which is up from February and 74 percent of iPad 2 owners. When combined with "somewhat" responses, 98 percent of new iPad owners are satisfied, compared to 97 percent for the previous model. The difference is the increase in "very" satisfied versus "somewhat".

    Satisfaction is no small benefit. Consumer product nirvana is joy, for the user and the manufacturer/retailer. Happy customers are loyal ones. They tell their friends. Joy is paramount for products, like iPad, with aspirational attributes. It's not coincidence that new iPad commercials fit into the "if you buy this your life will be better" product marketing category.

    What ChangeWave's findings lack is competitive reference. Okay, so new iPad owners are more satisfied. But how does this compare to other tablets? Amazon Kindle Fire? ASUS Eee Pad Tansformer Prime? Motorola XYBORAD? Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1?

    See Me, Feel Me, Touch Me

    More significantly, there is a killer feature that has new iPad owners clamoring with excitement. Can you guess? The high-resolution display. "By a landslide, the high-resolution "Retina" Display (75 percent) is what new iPad owners report they like best about the device", according to ChangeWave. Battery life ranked second (22 percent) and 4G LTE third (21 percent).

    Frankly, new iPad's screen resolution bugs me. The better-than-HD display (2048 x 1536 resolution) diminishes the user experience of most every other device I use. New iPad's screen looks so good, everything else looks bad. I've wondered about giving the tablet a go as my primary PC for awhile because of the negative impact on everything else. Hey, I did Chromebook for two months last summer, why not new iPad? But I digress.

    ChangeWave's study, of a paltry 200 owners, also reveals major dislikes. "Users cited the 'cost of the device' (26 percent) and the 'cost of the wireless data plan' (23 percent) as their two biggest gripes".

    Cost isn't surprising. BetaNews polls show that most readers don't want to pay more than $199 for a tablet. Data plan demonstrates Apple's wisdom in working with carriers to make cellular optional, rather than required. If overwhelmingly satisfied new iPad owners don't like data pricing, what about those buying Androids and getting locked into multi-year contracts?

    Fourteen months ago, I called onerous, mandatory data plans "the real reason Android tablets don't stand a chance against iPad". Now there is another: The display.

    Heatwave

    The question, of course, is how will Android competitors respond to new iPad? This year. Gartner expects quad-core processors and high-resolution displays to be mainstream during second half. Where will that put new iPad?

    I'll answer "in the hot seat" to segue to another ChangeWave finding: New iPad isn't too hot. Consumer Reports made quite the to-do last month about the tablet being hotter than its predecessor. Today, in a rather sheepish turnabout, CR recommended new iPad, despite so-called "Heatgate".

    If ChangeWave's survey is any indication, Consumer Reports blew a lot of hot air. Exactly zero percent of respondents find heat to be a "very big problem", while a mere 4 percent say "somewhat".

    Wrapping up, I'll ask: If you bought new iPad, are you satisfied? Why? Please answer in comments -- and if responding on new iPad, then let us know.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/02/Internet_Explorer_is_a_winner'

    Internet Explorer is a winner

    Publié: avril 2, 2012, 6:33pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft competes the old-fashion way with its web browser -- innovation and marketing -- and that's a fairly recent trend. There are reasons companies advertise their products. Promotion raises awareness and, ideally, product adoption. Finally, after years of steady decline, Internet Explorer has sustained growth, at least for five months -- that's a quantifiable trend. In fact, IE was the only major browser to increase usage share in March. Additionally, Microsoft finally sees payback from its risky strategy of not making IE9 Windows XP compatible.

    Net Applications releases new data the first of every month, but I waited a day to make absolutely sure this statement was no April Fools prank: "With a gain of .99 percent last month and a net gain of 1.2 percent global usage share over the last five months, Internet Explorer has stabilized and even reversed its usage share declines of the last few years".

    Internet Explorer usage share rose to 53.83 percent in March. Yes, that's a long way from the 57.15 percent a year earlier or 60.35 percent in November 2010. IE usage share was over 90 percent in December 2004, when Firefox launched. How the mighty has fallen. But perhaps there is a second chance for Microsoft's browser, like Rocky Balboa's comeback in the third movie of the series.

    What irony! Internet Explorer's recent rise started in November 2011, when I reported it was hemorrhaging usage share, following a long, steep decline. What changed? Microsoft set out on a specific strategy and stuck with it, by:

    1. Making changes only as often as necessary. Google and Mozilla are now on fast-track development cycles, essentially six-weeks, with multiple versions in simultaneous development. That's fine for revving new innovations but terrible for business adoption. Enterprises, particularly, look for stability not change. Sure IE9 offers some dramatic security and plug-in changes from its predecessor, but over a manageable time period. In April 2011 I asked: "Is web browser development moving too fast?" For many businesses, yes.

    In August 2011, Google started killing off support for old browsers, yet not that old. Venkat Panchapakesan, Google vice president of engineering, explains in a blog post a few months earlier: "Each time a new version is released, we'll begin supporting the update and stop supporting the third-oldest version." This approach makes Chrome obsolete about every 12 weeks, which isn't enough time for most businesses to qualify a browser.

    Microsoft wisely chooses to develop at a pace more in step with its core customer base of businesses. Developers see rapid iteration on the beta front, but Microsoft saves big changes for major releases.

    2. More soundly adopting web stands. After years of pushing proprietary stuff, Microsoft is a leader adopting and advocating accepted and emerging web standards, like HTML5. The approach has many benefits, with positive perceptions among the most important.

    3. Steadily promoting new benefits and upping the advertising ante. Microsoft promotes the hell out of Internet Explorer across the web and on TV. I'm a big fan of the recent "A More Beautiful Web" commercial, which is lively and contemporary. Microsoft is slowly, and successfully, rebuilding IE's brand image.

    document.getElementById("na634689667010923400").src="http://www.netmarketshare.com/report.aspx?qprid=1"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qptimeframe=M"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpsp=148"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpnp=11"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpdt=1"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpct=4"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpcustomb=0"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpf=16"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpwidth=600"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpdisplay=1111"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"qpmr=10"+String.fromCharCode(38)+"site="+window.location.hostname

    4. Leaving Windows XP behind. Google and Mozilla browsers support XP (although that ends soon for Firefox), which accounted for 85 percent of the Windows install base when IE9 released in 2009. I questioned the soundness of the strategy in several blog posts over the last 18 months. But the approach appears to be working for Microsoft, and surely somebodies inside the company fiercely debated the strategy as Chrome usage share dramatically rose during the same time period. As Windows 7 adoption increases, so does IE9 adoption.

    Still, IE is in a pitched battle with Chrome. That's right, not Firefox! By browser version, IE9 is just barely ahead of Chrome for second place -- 15.17 percent usage share to 14.73 percent, respectively. IE8 leads with 25.4 percent usage share. Frankly, Chrome could lead if Google released new versions less frequently.

    Back to the broad strokes, Firefox usage share fell to 20.55 percent in March from 20.92 percent the previous month. Chrome dropped to 18.57 percent from 18.90 percent. Safari: 5.07 percent from 5.24 percent. Opera: 1.62 percent from 1.71 percent.

    These declines reverse gains for Firefox and Safari. What really changed in March for competitors? Microsoft started the new IE marketing campaign.

    My question to you: Are Internet Explorer usage gains sustainable?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/04/01/Anonymous_hack_reveals_truth_about_Obama_s_birthplace'

    Anonymous hack reveals truth about Obama's birthplace

    Publié: avril 1, 2012, 7:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, hacktavist group Anonymous put to rest one of the most important debates about Barack Obama. Is he really a US citizen? Only native-born Americans are legally permitted to be president, and early during his 2008 election campaign Obama fought off accusations that he was born in another country and not the great state of Hawaii. The accusations turn out to be true. But his place of origin is farther out. Barack Obama was born on another planet.

    Anonymous published the stunning revelatory material to Pastebin, marking its most courageous hack to date. For anyone questioning the group's motivations, the stolen material puts to rest any doubt about being a force of good. Hacktavists obtained emails and other documents from Obama's BlackBerry, along with foiled plans to invade the earth. The White House immediately issued a denial, calling the disclosure a prank.

    Aliens Among Us

    The revelation brings new meaning to terms like "resident alien". They're not from another country. The freshly released material also explains how Obama, with little political experience, mesmerized Americans during his presidential bid. People who four years ago called his campaign and its success "out of this world" were right in ways they never imagined. Anonymous revealed that alien agents instigated the financial collapse that preceded the November 2008 presidential vote, while using subliminal messages in campaign TV commercials -- even rival John McCain's -- to convince Americans to vote Obama.

    Meanwhile, the US government's $700 billion-plus "TARP" bailout to crippled financial institutions paid off the rich elite cooperating with the aliens, while seeking to breakdown Americans' will to resist when the invasion came. Aliens also instigated similar bailouts across the globe, and even the current Euro crisis. The documents reveal that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake, and predecessor Alan Greenspan, are aliens, too.

    Occupy Wall Street organizer Terrance Travis Tonka immediately called for a protest against "the other 1 percent. I'm mortified, and soulfully sorry, to admit that we were wrong. Our woes weren't caused by the 1 percent of rich mother-effers but the other 1 percent -- the aliens among us. They want to break our will, our willingness to fight for ourselves. Yes, we are beaten down. But we won't give up. We call on all Americans, all peoples of the planet earth, to make April 1st a day of protest and start of a global campaign to uncover the identity of every alien invader".

    Soon after Anonymous' stunning disclosure, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin called for a recall of the 2008 election results, Obama's impeachment and Senator John McCain's instatement as president -- with her alongside him. But Anonymous revealed that Palin is an alien, too! Her seemingly irrational behavior four years ago was meant to undermine McCain's candidacy, while providing a back-up plan to the Oval House should Obama lose. Later, Palin and her non-alien collaborators founded the Tea Party Movement, which placed aliens in Congress for the purpose of destabilizing the US government. To date, given the deadlocked Congress, those plans succeeded.

    Failed Invasion

    However, while Palin and others laid the groundwork for invasion, top alien leaders worked against it. The "change" Obama campaigned for four years ago was more than leadership in Washington but capitol cities around the globe. Anonymous revealed that aliens planned to land their ships during Easter 2011, masquerading as the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Aliens hoped to create confusion enough to lay siege to major cities before governments could respond. The reasoning: Who would nuke Jesus?

    The invasion failed because the first alien leaders enjoy their lives so much on earth, Anonymous revealed in several email exchanges between Obama and his brethren expressing their desire to keep the planet for themselves. The aliens sent misleading communiqué to their home world indicating that earth's inhabitants had already depleted its valuable resources and that a period of global cooling was underway. The aliens require higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and warmer temperatures -- sustained 40 degrees Celsius and above -- to thrive. There are reasons Obama is known to constantly complain about being cold in hot, humid Washington, DC.

    Today's hack comes a day after Anonymous organized a coordinated attack against the Internet's 13 primary DNS servers. Group spokesperson #ductape revealed that its efforts to bring down the Internet were coordinated with a more brazen hack of Obama's BlackBerry.

    The White House wasted no time responding to #ductape, issuing a followup statement claiming that the hactavist group's members are the real alien invaders. "What more proof do you need than bringing down the Internet and the recent surge of hackers seeking to destabilize global authority", according to the statement.

    The Pastebin post is a wellspring of stunning revelations, some of which no science fiction writer could conceive. Example: For years, many analysts questioned the irrational leadership of Research in Motion's former co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis -- almost like they were trying to destroy the company. They were! Anonymous revealed that they're aliens, too. By crippling RIM, and diminishing BlackBerry's popularity, aliens hoped to quietly implement their own security measures on Obama's smartphone and make the platform less appealing to hackers. Obviously, with today's disclosure, the plan failed.

    Editor's Note, April 2, 2012: Yes, this is an April Fools.

    Photo Credit: The White House

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/30/The_Cloud__Big_Data_and_connected_devices_lift_Intel_semiconductors_sales'

    The Cloud, Big Data and connected devices lift Intel semiconductors sales

    Publié: mars 30, 2012, 11:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For all the talk about the post-PC era and rise of alternate chip architectures, Intel defies gravity's pull. The microprocessing giant's dominance grows stronger, not lesser, which is strange juxtaposition to analyst predictions about media tablets and smartphones running ARM processors ending the PC's decades-long supremacy.

    This week, iSuppli reports that Intel's share of the semiconductor market reached its highest level in a decade, 15.6 percent, largely based on its core chip business. "Intel in 2011 saw its revenue jump by 20.6 percent", Dale Ford, head of iSuppli Electronics and Semiconductor Research, says. "This outpaced every other semiconductor supplier in the Top 20 with the exception of Qualcomm Inc. and ON Semiconductor, both of which also saw exceptionally high levels of growth based on a combination of organic expansion and key acquisitions".

    Ford adds: "Until 2011, Samsung had been steadily closing the gap with Intel, with its share of global semiconductor market revenue rising from 3.9 percent in 2000 to 9.2 percent in 2010", Ford says. "Samsung’s revenue growth of 0.6 percent in 2011 left its overall market share unchanged at 9.2 percent in 2011". Texas and Toshiba ranked third and fourth.

    Other measures show Intel's dominance in its traditionally core market -- x86 processors. During fourth quarter, the broader market for PC and server microprocessors generated $10.9 billion in sales, up 14.2 percent year over year, according to IDC. Intel's overall market share was 80.3 percent, but much higher for servers: 94.5 percent.

    Looking ahead, Gartner predicts a surge in semiconductor spending during second half of 2012, reaching $316 billion for the year, a 4 percent increase. Product highlights:

    • Media tablet production will increase 78 percent year over year to $9.5 billion. Gartner expects quad-core processors and high-resolution displays to be mainstream this year.
    • PC unit production will increase by 4.7 percent, generating $57.8 billion in revenue.
    • Mobile phone production will increase by 6.7 percent, to $57.2 billion.

    "2012 should be a reasonably strong year for the semiconductor industry if the macroeconomic outlook stays in check", Bryan Lewis, Gartner research vice president, says. "Growth projections assume the European debt issues stay contained, Iran/Israel tensions stay in check, and solid growth from China".

    Planets Align

    Intel benefits from a convergence of events -- the planets lining up, so the speak, much as they will for Mayan 2012 end-of-the-world predictions. These are particularly true for businesses. I've identified eight trends, many of which benefit Intel's recently announced Xeon processor E5-2600 product family. They are:

    1. Economic recovery. While the post-2008 economic collapse initially forced cutbacks in IT spending, the recovery, however modest, unleashed pent up demand for enterprise infrastructure upgrades last year. But the Euro crisis has put the kibosh on some spending. Two months ago, Gartner lowered IT spending projections for 2012 -- to $3.8 trillion, with growth expected to be 3.7 percent year over year instead of 4.6 percent.

    Other forecasters are more optimistic. Forrester predicts that IT spending will rise by 5.4 percent in 2012.

    2. Changing role of IT. Ongoing economic crises have helped foster unexpected change, leading more businesses to look to CIOs and their staffs to generate revenue rather rather than just slash budgets.

    "There has been a whole transformation that IT has played over the years", Ajay Chandramouly, Intel IT Cloud Computing and Datacenter Industry Engagement manager, says. "If you go back to 2008, perhaps earlier, IT was viewed as a cost center. It was all about doing more with less. Since then, with things like Big Data, cloud and consumerization, things have changed for IT. We now have a seat at the table, with business groups making product decisions that impact the top line".

    3. Windows. When Microsoft launched Windows 7 in autumn 2009, XP accounted for 85 percent of the install base. Many businesses spent the following two years upgrading to the newest desktop operating system. During Microsoft's fiscal 2012 second quarter, Windows division revenue decline 6 percent and profit by 11 percent -- but that was mostly from a fall-off in consumer spending. Many businesses continued deploy Windows 7 on new PCs, which benefitted Intel microprocessor sales. Windows 8 is coming, along with a slew of supporting server software.

    4. Consumerization of IT. Smartphones and tablets are now an undeniable reality among businesses. For example, Forrester finds that 27 percent companies support iPads today with another 31 percent planning to. Meanwhile, many businesses build out private, public or hybrid clouds to support these devices (see #7).

    5. Virtualization. Businesses see many benefits for desktop and server virtualization. On the desktop, connecting to disparate devices drives demand. On the server consolidation is leading trend (see #6).

    "As organizations begin to support connected smart devices such as iPads and smartphones, they also want to connect them to their enterprise data and applications", Forrester analyst Clarence Villanueva says. "Companies are turning to desktop virtualization as a solution to make that happen"

    6. Server consolidation. Not since the three years preceding the so-called Y2K crisis has server consolidation been such a hot trend, and virtualization is driving catalyst allowing more businesses to maintain legacy operations while investing in newer tech.

    Globally, server revenue rose 7.9 percent year over year in 2011 and units by 7 percent, according to Gartner. Forrester predicts server spending will reach $79 billion this year.

    7. Cloud computing. The cloud has three primary faces: Public, private on-premise and hybrid between the two. The cloud is one of the major forces driving semiconductor spending today, whether devices or servers supporting them.

    For example, many businesses continue to increasing spending on software as service, which will drive up revenues 17.9 percent year over year in 2012 -- to $14.5 billion, according to Gartner, which expects them to reach $22.1 billion by 2016.

    One hot new server trend is infrastructure as a service, but right now "the main effects of IaaS have been to boost demand for server and storage hardware from telecommunications firms, outsourcers, Chinese regional governments, and hardware vendors themselves that want to compete with the early leaders like Amazon.com and Rackspace", Forrester analyst Andrew Bartels writes in a January report.

    "Increasing familiarity with the SaaS model, continued oversight on IT budgets, the growth of platform as a service (PaaS) developer communities and interest in cloud computing are now driving adoption forward", Sharon Mertz, Gartner research director, says.

    8. Big Data. You can't much of anywhere in IT without hearing this buzzword. But it's more than some analyst marketing gimmick, as more businesses see the value of information in global economy and the push to public and private clouds generate terabytes of data.

    "The Big Data market is expanding rapidly as large IT companies and startups vie for customers and market share", Dan Vesset, IDC program vice president, says. "For technology buyers, opportunities exist to use Big Data technology to improve operational efficiency and to drive innovation".

    IDC expects the market to reach $16.9 billion by 2015. Yesterday, the White House launched a $200 million Big Data initiative for the federal government.

    "There are also Big Data opportunities for both large IT vendors and start ups", Vesset says. "Major IT vendors are offering both database solutions and configurations supporting Big Data by evolving their own products as well as by acquisition. At the same time, more than half a billion dollars in venture capital has been invested in new Big Data technology".

    Big Iron

    Intel had a great year for semiconductors, but the challenge ahead is change, and there is lots of it. Many of these eight trends demand more processing power on the server, which the company plans to meet with the recently announced Xeon processor E5-2600 product family.

    Chandramouly describes the E5 as a "bandwidth machine". The chip features eight cores, but effectively more. "Each of these cores is multithreaded, so effectively you have up to 16 cores, or 16 threads".

    Other benefits include:

    • Up to 768GB of system memory
    • Integrated PCI Express controller
    • Improved energy efficiency (up to 50 percent)
    • Increased performance (up to 80 percent over previous generation)

    Intel also improved the caching technology such that "all the cores can access data simultaneously, so logically it's one cache but physically it's multiple slices", Chandramouly says. The E5 also bumps up to four-channel DDR3 memory, "which gives us a 30 percent bump in bandwidth".

    Editor's note: Intel sponsored this story, which was independently conceived, reported and written. The company did provide an executive for us to interview. BetaNews' policy is full editorial control, which we maintained for this analysis.

    Photo Credit: Sergey150770/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/30/If__Operation_Blackout__succeeds__I_might_get_a_day_off_work'

    If 'Operation Blackout' succeeds, I might get a day off work

    Publié: mars 30, 2012, 8:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    There are no snow days on the Internet. If you work from home and write online like I do, drudgery never ends. Or does it? This Saturday, Anonymous may change that.

    "To protest SOPA, Wallstreet, our irresponsible leaders and the beloved bankers who are starving the world for their own selfish needs out of sheer sadistic fun, on March 31, Anonymous will shut the Internet down", so claims a February 19 Pastebin post.

    I know it's still Friday and early to be reporting the Internet's demise. But I thought some of you might appreciate opportunity to plan for a one-day -- hell, if you're lucky two-day -- weekend.

    But wait? Has Anonymous betrayed our leisure time? Tweets over the last 24 hours suggest the blackout so meticulously explained last month isn't happening after all.

    Yesterday: "For the billionth time: #Anonymous will not shut down the Internet on 31 March. #OpGlobalBlackout is just another #OpFacebook failop. #yawn". And: "Think for a moment: Why would #Anonymous shut down our playground, the Internet? Really, how would that help ANY of us? #NextQuestion".

    I dunno. I suppose no one would notice the Internet going black. No news organization would report such a feat, mentioning Anonymous and debating the attack ad nauseam. None of this would happen if Anonymous kept the plan.

    Or is it all just a ploy -- a distraction before the strike against the Internet's primary DNS servers. I'm ready. I've waited six weeks for this day off work.

    Anonymous had planned an attack against 13 root DNS servers:

    By cutting these off the Internet, nobody will be able to perform a domain name look-up, thus, disabling the HTTP Internet, which is, after all, the most widely used function of the Web. Anybody entering "http://www.google.com" or ANY other url, will get an error page, thus, they will think the Internet is down, which is, close enough. Remember, this is a protest, we are not trying to 'kill' the Internet, we are only temporarily shutting it down where it hurts the most.

    Of course, the Internet's distributed structure is quite resilient. The original ARPANET was designed to survive nuclear strikes. It would take one hell of a coordinated DDoS to cripple all the primary DNS servers.

    Sadly, I may have to wait another month. Anonymous' big, new campaign supports Occupy May 1st -- a call for a global workers' strike; "a day without the 99 percent".

    Anonymous: "On May Day, wherever you are, we are calling for: No Work. No School. No Housework. No Shopping. No Banking. Instead, take to the streets and protest with us!"

    Well, such a protest, if possible, surely would cause more disruption that hitting the Internet. But, damn, I'll have to work. Someone has to report about the May 1st protests. That is unless Anonymous can bring down the Internet, too. Hey, that's a Tuesday. I never get those off, not even to vote.

    Photo Credit: arindambanerjee/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/30/You_will_buy_Nokia_Lumia_900_Windows_Phone'

    You will buy Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone

    Publié: mars 30, 2012, 6:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    March 30 is finally here. Can you believe it took so long to arrive? Today, AT&T is taking preorders for the tasty Nokia Lumia 900. Yes, tasty. What? You think only Google's Ice Cream Sandwich is sweet? Not so. Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" Commercial Release 2 is, too. It's yours on a swanky Nokia smartphone pimped with Carl Zeiss lens for the 8-megapixel camera and pumped with speedy LTE for data. For 99 bucks, AT&T practically gives away Lumia 900.

    Many of you think so, too. Earlier in the week I asked: "Will you buy Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone for $99?" The overwhelming majority of respondents will -- nearly three out of four. The Finnish phone maker bet the company on Microsoft's mobile OS and brings this handset to a large, overlooked market. Nokia's US presence is mighty invisible outside T-Mobile. If Lumia 900 and its companions fail, so may Nokia.

    Before giving the poll results, I owe you an apology. Typically, the greatest number of respondents come during the initial burst of reads. I made a last-minute change to the poll's appearance right before posting, then ran off to help my 90 year-old father-in-law with something. When I returned and checked the story, the poll wasn't there. After editing and re-saving, the poll appeared but missed the early burst of pageviews. Still, there are 1,296 responses as I write, which is more than I expected considering.

    Among them, 29.94 percent will preorder, while 30.17 percent will do so within three months. That's more than 60 percent of you planning on buying Lumia 900 between today and early July. That's a simply stunning number.

    What's interesting: How this poll compares to another, because I asked the same question before -- after Microsoft Store started taking preorders but before AT&T announced pricing. For that poll, 25.22 percent of respondents preordered or planned to, while 42.09 percent would do so within three months. That works out to 67.31 percent buying within three months, when including preorders, compared to 60.11 percent for the newer poll. Is that difference a problem?

    No. The older poll's sample size is more than twice as large -- 3,041 as I write. The number of respondents choosing "Yes, within 3 months of release" for the first poll (1,280) is nearly as large as the total number for the second. Still, the number answering "No" is considerably higher for the second -- 26.16 percent compared to 18.18 percent. That's where the difference lies. The responses for "within 6 months" and "more than 6 months" are statistically the same. Assuming the polls are indicative of anything, fewer respondents plan on buying Lumia 900 now than nearly two months ago.

    What You Say

    Many reader comments show tremendous enthusiasm for Nokia's flagship Windows Phone, but lots of debate about the operating system's future and also the handset maker's.

    Commenter weetigo "preordered the Lumia 900". Avatar Roku is "leaving Sprint, getting the blue cyan version of the Nokia Lumia 900".

    Reader Joe (it's not me!): "Better industrial design than Apple, much more durable and also a better UI/UX; $99 means it will be free or near free on AmazonWireless soon. Fing awesome!"

    Several of you see AT&T distribution as reason not to buy Lumia 900. "I think more people would have bought if AT&T were not involved", Matt Reid comments. "If the Nokia 900 can be sold for so little maybe they should have hit the prepaid market hard. I'd run to get this phone at anyone other than AT&T". Still, "I will be dumping my Epic 4G for the Lumia 900". Anthony Clark: "I would, but not on AT&T. Bring it over to Verizon and we can talk".

    Gary Prusso won't buy on April 8. "I'm going for white, which will be offered on April 22nd".

    "Considering the crap that phone manufacturers and service providers put on Android, and the crap that Apple puts their user through, I'll consider giving WP7 a fair shake", Daniel Ahn writes.


    AT&T will take preorders for Nokia's flagship LTE handset on March 30, 2012; sales start April 8. Will you buy the Lumia 900 Windows Phone?

    "Nokia is on its way down just as PalmOS and RIM and the dodo", ilev comments. "Lumia is a dog of a phone and will not succeed. Finnish resellers channels are steering customers away from Lumia".

    AS147 answers: "Yes, Nokia is losing market share but that doesn't mean the game is over. Symbian is their major product and they are moving to something else so it will obviously lose market share for a while, give it time now that a new approach has been adopted".

    Reader Car Audio-Outlet also answers ilev: "Wrong. Actually sales are increasing and Nokia already have over 80 percent of the Windows Phone market. The newer Nokia handsets will obviously only improve this. I have not seen a single review that doesn't highly rate the Lumia platform -- you are living in your own microcosm".

    My colleague Tim Conneally will review Lumia 900 for BetaNews. I told him yesterday in group chat that, given my recent lambasting posts about Nokia's CEO, the only phone I could get would be with exploding battery and love note from Stephen Elop.

    Since I don't expect to receive a review unit, and am not contractually eligible for $99 price, my request is reviews from you. Please contact me, joe at betanews dot com, to submit your Lumia 900 review. We love our readers and opportunity to promote them. Why write a long comment that might be lost on the InterWebs, when it could be a review instead?

    I've embedded the Lumia buying poll above, so we can collect more responses, particularly on this first day of real preorders.

    Photo Credit: Nokia

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/29/Don_t_cry_for_me__Steve_Ballmer'

    Don't cry for me, Steve Ballmer

    Publié: mars 29, 2012, 10:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    But I'll shed a tear for you and remember the good times we had together.

    That's because IDC asserts, despite exciting Windows 8's coming launch, that the PC era will be over by 2016. Gartner uses a different metric to arrive at 2014. But whatever the measure, the Windows era is over, too, as (gulp) Android becomes the most widely shipped operating system on the planet. I guess you were right to obsess about Google after all. Cripes! As long ago as 2003, wasn't it? Who could have imagined that it would really come to this? You weren't being paranoid at all.

    There has been talk for some time now about the post-PC era, which I call the cloud-connected device era. The rascals at IDC have similar thinking, creating the "smart connected devices" segment, which includes PCs, media tablets and smartphones. IDC predicts that x86 Windows PC share will drop from 35.9 percent last year to 25.1 percent in 2016. That's behind Android, which share goes from 29.4 percent to 31.1 percent -- not much of a gain if you really think about it. But the point, of course, is Android's ascension over Windows.

    You know, perhaps hope isn't lost, Steve. Maybe we can have our Windows somewhere else, because I don't see that IDC has reckoned Windows on ARM. The analysts refer to Windows on x86 and Android on ARM. But, hey, aren't you prepping a slanky Windows 8 version for ARM, too? I hear rumors about Windows Phone 8 sharing same kernel. Now that would be something to get excited about.

    "We are in the multi-device age, and we believe the number of people who use multiple devices will only continue to increase", Bob O`Donnell, IDC vice president, says. "The trick, moving forward, will be to integrate all these devices into a unified whole through use of personal cloud-type applications and services. That's the real challenge of what we have often called the 'PC Plus' era".

    I'm Ready to Fly

    Now, Steve, I heard you talk during Consumer Electronics Show about bringing a unified user experience across devices. That's Metro and what it inherits from the Windows Phone UI. I'm really excited about the cloud stuff behind it. My Windows Live SkyDrive is primed and ready for seamless sync and storage.

    You best hurry and connect together the cloud and Windows-powered devices (Xbox, too!). Gartner's rash prediction puts the cloud as "center of users' digital lives" by 2014, replacing the PC. Rather than be the hub, the personal computer will be among the devices connected to the new one.

    "Emerging cloud services will become the glue that connects the web of devices that users choose to access during the different aspects of their daily life", Steve Kleynhans, Gartner research vice president, says.

    I believe him, Steve, and surely you do, too. Why else are you investing so much in the cloud, and why is its role so paramount to Windows 8 and Phone 7.5?

    Google Gripes

    I got to tell you that Google cloud sync pulls users into that "evil", competing ecosystem. comScore points out how much in February report "2012 Mobile Future in Focus". Looking at the US smartphone market:

    Google-owned apps led across both iPhones and Android devices in terms of total unique active users. For iPhone users, YouTube ranked as the top app by unique visitors, followed by Google Maps, Facebook, Yahoo! Weather and Pandora Radio. Analysis of the Android market found that Google Search led as the top app, followed by Gmail, Google Maps, Facebook and Google News & Weather.

    Google product and services integration is especially tight on Android 4.0, as I've seen from using Galaxy Nexus. Say, why is it I don't have a Windows Phone to use? Must I play Smoked by Windows Phone and win to get one?

    Of course, Google just gives it all away for free, and that's good news for you. Android's share may rise above Windows, but not its appeal to developers.

    "Android's growth is tied directly to the propagation of lower-priced devices," Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, says. "So, while we expect dozens of hardware vendors to own some share in the Android market, many will find profitability difficult to sustain". Same goes for developers he adds, then Mainelli ruins it all by emphasizing "we expect a large percentage of application developers to continue to focus their efforts on iOS". Oh yeah? What about Windows?

    Steve, you really need to set these analysts straight. They act as if Windows is dead and buried already. I haven't given up on Windows yet -- version 8 is great -- but it's hard to keep the faith some days.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/29/iPhone_is_unstoppable'

    iPhone is unstoppable

    Publié: mars 29, 2012, 8:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Now there's a headline I never expected to write, particularly following "Android is unstoppable" nine months ago. But in the United States, at least, iPhone has nearly matched pace with Androids. Looks like the Apple apologists will get their day. After years of wrongly boasting iPhone's leadership over Androids, they might yet be right.

    For the three months ending in February, 48 percent of Americans who recently bought a smartphone, chose Android -- 43 percent iPhone, according to Nielsen. Those numbers are up considerably for both, but iPhone surged to close the gap, following the release of the 4S in October. A year ago, 27 percent of new acquirers chose Android versus 10 percent for iPhone.

    The Gain Drain

    Android's overall market share is still considerably greater than iPhone's -- 48 percent to 32 percent, respectively. That's up from 38 percent for Android, 27 percent for iPhone nine months ago, by Nielsen's reckoning.

    comScore reports similar share, but for end of January -- 48.6 percent for Androids and 29.5 percent iPhone, based on smartphone operating systems among US cellular subscribers.

    Neilsen's findings join others. In February, Pew Internet asked American adults what kind of smartphone they own. Twenty percent responded "Android device", up from 15 percent in May 2011. iPhone: 19 percent, up from 10 percent during the same time period.

    Pew puts the number of American adults with smartphones at 53 percent. Nielsen says 49.7 percent -- that's up from 36 percent in February 2011. Either way, smartphone sales soar, as the market rapidly consolidates around Androids and iPhone.

    The China Syndrome

    With the 4S launch, iPhone benefits from broader US distribution -- three of the four major carriers and regional ones, too. Additionally, Apple and its partners lowered the price to zero for the older iPhone 3GS and $99 for the 4, opening up the market to consumers who could't or wouldn't spend $199 or more.

    iPhone's gains here may not be sustainable abroad. "Smartphone growth will be driven by Asia/Pacific countries, especially China, where mobile operators are subsidizing the purchase of 3G smartphones, thus increasing the total addressable market", Will Stofega, IDC program director, says. The analyst firm expect low-cost Androids to be market leaders. "In countries where devices are not subsidized by the mobile operators, competitive and component-based pricing will help drive volume".

    CEO Tim Cook has repeatedly called China Apple's second most-important market, next to the United States. Perhaps this importance has something to do with his visit there this week.

    Bold Predictions

    IDC isn't exactly bullish about iPhone's future, particularly as smartphone adoption increases internationally, predicting that Windows Phone would beat out Apple's iOS by 2015. Two weeks ago, IDC made similar prediction about tablets: Android shipments will exceed iPad, also by 2015. By that reckoning, the firm predicts that Google's mobile OS will dominate the two major cloud-connected -- post-PC, if you insist -- device categories.

    But I predict that Apple will win the mobile platform wars. Perhaps IDC tacitly agrees.

    "Android's growth is tied directly to the propagation of lower-priced devices," Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, says. "So, while we expect dozens of hardware vendors to own some share in the Android market, many will find profitability difficult to sustain".

    Show Me the Money

    In platforms, profitability is everything. Typically, successful platforms share six common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • The platform is broadly available
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    But profitability matters most. Developers go where the money is.

    IDC now lumps together PCs, smartphones and media tablets into the "smart connected devices segment". Among them, the firm sees Androids reaching 31.1 percent share in 2016, compared to 17.3 percent for iOS devices.

    However, "we expect a large percentage of application developers to continue to focus their efforts on iOS, despite the platform's smaller overall market share, because iOS end users have proven more willing to pay for high-quality apps", Mainelli says.

    Developers go where the money is. End users go where the apps are. Developers create apps where users are. iPhone 4S isn't an exceptional upgrade compared to its predecessor. There's no LTE, for example. Siri is interesting, for sure. But they're not compelling enough to explain iPhone's recent sales surge.

    It is the broader ecosystem -- of apps, cases and peripherals -- that matters more. In the 1990s, Microsoft sought to achieve a "standard" platform for developers and succeeded with Windows. Apple is quickly doing the same around iOS, iPhone and iPad.

    iPhone is unstoppable because the broader iOS ecosystem has such momentum -- and there iPad hugely matters. I don't believe iPhone can win the smartphone wars. But does it matter if iOS apps and devices win the platform wars?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/29/Face.com__You_can_t_stay_29_forever'

    Face.com: You can't stay 29 forever

    Publié: mars 29, 2012, 5:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Are you 35 and claiming to be 29? Don't post photos to Facebook. Today Face.com added a new attribute to its facial-detection API: age detection. The startup claims the new attribute will let developers create apps that use three criteria -- minimum, maximum and estimated age -- to determine how old people are in photos.

    While the technology surely will appeal to social networkers, the big boon could be marketers looking to maximize exposure to select demographic groups, such as 18-24 year olds. Developers can set the attribute to look for specific age segments, hence the marketing potential. But there are others, such as detecting fake IDs at establishments serving alcoholic beverages. Additionally, Face.com claims to have improved facial recognition by 30 percent in this release of the API.

    Face.com launched in March 2009 and claims that 40,000 developers use its API, which still is in beta (Is nothing ever finished anymore?). There is a developer website, for anyone interested in using the API.

    The company also offers several apps, including KLIK for iOS. Yes, the tech is available on Facebook.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/28/Got_Ice_Cream_Sandwich__Get_Google_Maps_6.5_for_Android_now'

    Got Ice Cream Sandwich? Get Google Maps 6.5 for Android now

    Publié: mars 28, 2012, 9:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google isn't waiting for the install base of Android users to move to Ice Cream Sandwich, not that carriers or handset manufacturers help much (if you're waiting for that upgrade from Gingerbread, you know what I mean). Today the search and information giant updated Google Maps for Android to version 6.5, packing in capabilities specific to version 4.x. Don't you feel cheated? I would.

    Google offers the best to a minority of users, and small is too big a word to describe them. According to Google's official stats, as of March 5, Ice Cream Sandwich accounts for a mere 1.6 percent of Android devices. But, hey, many of these users are the bleeding edge of influencers Google should want to reach -- and keep enthusiastic.

    The big changes are to Navigation, which is a beta feature. Harlan Hile, Google software engineer, boasts: "So far, Navigation on Google Maps for Android has provided 50 billion kilometers of turn-by-turn directions, the equivalent of 130,000 trips to the moon, 334 trips to the sun, 10 trips to Neptune or 0.005 light years!"

    The new version sports a redesigned screen on Android 4.x devices, which Hile says makes it "easier to enter a new destination or select from recent and favorite locations by swiping left or right". Additionally:

    If your device has a high pixel density screen, such as those on Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy S II, Droid Razr and others, you’ll now get higher resolution map tiles that take better advantage of the pixels-per-inch on your screen. The result is a crisper, less cluttered map that is easier to read.

    Changes may not be immediately apparent. "You'll start seeing the new style as you navigate around new areas on the map; however, you can see these changes immediately by clearing your cache from the Maps settings", Hile advises.

    The early reviews are generally positive. User Elderon gives the app five stars: "This is probably the most important Android app on my phone. aside from the fact that I like Google the company, maps with GPS navigation was and is the biggest selling point for me. It works great for me (I can't find a way out of a paper bag lol). Wish maybe there were more addons in the lab option section. Anyways works great and is free, can't beat that". Elderon has Galaxy Nexus, which ships with Ice Cream Sandwich.

    Keith says: "Brilliant and invaluable on Nexus S running ICS, but absolute disaster on Acer A500 running Honeycomb 3.2.1 -- crashes 9 times out of 10 within seconds of launch (other apps work just fine) So 3 stars for inconsistent performance, hope for improvement when ICS rolled out to tablet".

    "The best app on android that isn't on iOS", says Jon, another Galaxy Nexus user.

    Google Maps for Android (with Navigation beta) is available now. The app will install the appropriate version for your device. It's v6.5 for Ice Cream Sandwich.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/28/Who_bought_5_million_Galaxy_Notes__because_I_want_to_know'

    Who bought 5 million Galaxy Notes, because I want to know

    Publié: mars 28, 2012, 7:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today's big Samsung Galaxy Note announcement -- 5 million shipped in five months -- has me wondering "Who?" Is it you?

    It's a big number for an over-sized smartphone, under-sized tablet measuring 146.85 x 82.95 x 9.65 mm, weighing 178 grams and packing beastly 5.29-inch display. On Dec. 29, 2011, Samsung announced shipment of 1 million Galaxy Notes. Just weeks ago Samsung put shipments at 2 million. That's a helluva jump in just three weeks.

    I'm totally intrigued by the Galaxy Note concept, just not the size. It's too damn big for me. I can see loads of creative potential in the device. A January video by colleague Tim Conneally shows off Galaxy Note as a tool for artists and musicians. Ha! Try that with your puny iPhone, Bud.

    In mid February, I mentioned in passing that a good friend back East planned to replace Galaxy Nexus with the Note. Three weeks later, he returned the so-called phablet. Top complaints: Pen accuracy, available pen apps and TouchWiz UI inferior to Android 4.0. He's in process of switching to Verizon; AT&T must reset his contract first.

    My friend, Sebastian, really wants to like Galaxy Note, too, and he isn't put off by the size as much as I am. But he's a gadget geek and chases every newfangled thing. So I wasn't terribly surprised he ignored me and bought the phablet, knowing he could return it within 30 days.

    My interest in Galaxy Note started as soon as Samsung launched the phablet internationally in October. The specs certainly impress: 1.5GHz dual-core processor; HD Super AMOLED display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage, expandable with microSD card; 8-megapixel rear-facing camera with LED flash; 2MP front-facing cameras; 1080p recording and playback; touch and pen input; 4G LTE (US AT&T model); HSPA+; Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi N; 2,500 mAh battery; TouchWiz UI; and, unfortunately, Android 3.2. C`mon, give us some Ice Cream Sandwich, Samsung!

    After seeing the phablet up close, I couldn't get passed the whopping size. I wear my phone in a belt clip and couldn't see the fit in my digital lifestyle. Sigh. Besides, I love Galaxy Nexus.

    Galaxy Note's early sales success shows what's right about Android compared to iPhone: Differentiation, which, as I claimed in November, trumps Android fragmentation. Android OEMs can and do create compelling devices and so more choice for consumers. Samsung is leader by far, with, for example, Note, Galaxy S II series and TouchWiz UI (I like it more than my buddy, but agree that pure Android 4.0 appeals more).

    AT&T started selling Galaxy Note here in the States on February 19 for $299.99, with two-year contract. AmazonWireless has the phablet for $50 less.

    So, did you buy Galaxy Note? Why? I just got to know.

    Photo Credit Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/28/_This_summer__when_hunger_strikes__and_all_hope_seems_lost__a_small_device_will__change_your_destiny_____the_VIP_Fridge_Magnet'

    'This summer, when hunger strikes, and all hope seems lost, a small device will change your destiny' -- the VIP Fridge Magnet

    Publié: mars 28, 2012, 6:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Pack my bags, I'm moving to Dubai.

    Local shop Red Tomato Pizza promises to make available a fridge magnet that you tap to place orders. For all I know, it's all gimmick. The promotional YouTube video is a smart production. Spoiler: You will want to order pizza after watching it.

    I often rave about the importance of user interfaces, of making them as simple and straightforward as possible. This concept takes the crown. One button, attached to your fridge. Press and order. I love it! Say, can Apple's Siri do that, click and speak? To order a pizza? Now there's one for the gamer: Pizza advertisement pops up during Xbox Kinect play. Wave and order. That would be good UX, too!

    The concept is creative. A Bluetooth-enabled magnet synced to your mobile. Tapping texts the pizzeria, which prepares and delivers your default order. Of course, it can be changed any time, but you'll have to call. Oh the inconvenience of nine button pushes!

    If you live in Dubai, or will by summer, a magnet ordering page already is available.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/27/Will_you_buy_Nokia_Lumia_900_Windows_Phone_for__99___poll_'

    Will you buy Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone for $99? [poll]

    Publié: mars 27, 2012, 2:54am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    If you feel like I've asked this question before, absolutely. Just without the price. Now that AT&T has announced availability -- and more importantly, pricing -- I ask again. Will you buy the Lumia 900?

    AT&T starts taking pre-orders on March 30, with the phone available in stores on April 2 (What? Not April Fools Day?). Available colors are cyan, magenta and black, or you can wait until April 22 for white. Oh my. Decisions, decisions. Lumia 900 is one hotly anticipated Windows Phone and marks Nokia's biggest push into the US market in years. There's LTE, too, something your haughty, obnoxious iPhone friends don't have. So will you buy? Please answer in comments (with color choice, please) and take our poll.

    That $99 requires a two-year contract and strikes me as mighty cheap for a smartphone this classy. Specs: 1.4GHz Qualcomm APQ8055 processor; 4.3-inch AMOLED display (yes, it's Corning Gorilla Glass), with 800 x 480 resolution; 512MB RAM; 16GB storage: 8-megapixel rear-facing camera with Carl Zeiss lens and dual-LED flash; 1MP front-facing camera; 720p video capture from rear camera and VGA from front camera; GSM 850/900/1800/1900 radio; WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100 radio; 4G LTE; Bluetooth 2.1+EDR; Stereo Bluetooth; WiFi; accelerometer; ambient and proximity sensors; gyroscope; 2 microphones; 1830 mAh battery; Internet Explorer 9 mobile; and Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" Commercial Release 2.

    On February 6, Microsoft Store started taking Lumia 900 pre-orders for $25 deposit. That's when I asked the "Will you buy?" question. To date, there are 2,943 responses to our poll -- and, whoa, were you interested when there was no price given and many people assumed $199.

    One-quarter of respondents say they had preordered or would, with another 42 percent planning to purchase within three months. Only 18 percent don't plan on buying the phone. As I expressed a few days later, if Lumia 900 was as popular everywhere as with BetaNews readers, Windows Phone would be a huge success.

    Commenting today, BetaNews reader "woe" captures my sentiment: "Flat out if this phone (which I consider very good) at this price does not propel Windows Phone, nothing will".

    InfoDave is more pessimistic: "Remember the conversation around here, back in the day? Windows Phone was going to own the market. Now, we're going to have trouble getting people interested. Looking forward to any sales figures made available. I don't see hope till Windows Phone 8 ties it all together".

    "I'd wait until after April 8th before making any 'doom-and-gloom' predictions", BBB40 opines, like InfoDave commenting today. "I have been waiting for the Lumia 900 before taking the WP7 plunge as I suspect quite a few people have. The Titan II also comes out that day. I'm curious to see if there is a surge in WP7 sales in April".

    Like Lumia 900, HTC Titan II packs LTE, and, like its predecessor, a 4.7-inch screen! Surely, it's no coincidence that the first LTE Windows Phones launch on the same day. BBB40 is right to wonder about April Windows Phone sales figures.


    AT&T will take preorders for Nokia's flagship LTE handset on March 30, 2012; sales start April 2. Will you buy the Lumia 900 Windows Phone?

    Windows Phone certainly needs a good month, or quarter. At the end of January, Microsoft's US smartphone OS market share was 4.4 percent, according to comScore. That's a decrease of 1 point since the end of October. Can Lumia 900, or even Titan II, lift Windows Phone share -- or even the compelling "Smoked" marketing campaign?

    We'll know for certain in a month or so. You can foreshadow the future by taking our poll above and in comments below answering: Will you buy Lumia 900?

    Editor's Note: Do to a technical error, the poll did not display during the first 4,000+ pageviews. So poll numbers will be lower. Typically, the majority of responses come early on. I expect at best a few hundred responses, instead of a few thousand. Damnit.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/26/Nokia_and_Microsoft_save_face_by_investing_18_million_Euros_in_Finnish_apps_dev_project'

    Nokia and Microsoft save face by investing 18 million Euros in Finnish apps dev project

    Publié: mars 26, 2012, 8:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Nokia has shown a score of developers the door since announcing its Windows Phone distribution deal in February 2011. Surely you remember the 3,000 Symbian developers off-loaded to Accenture? Is it cheaper to invest in new ones than keep the old? I ask because of today's Microsoft-Nokia announcement: Each will invest up to 9 million to fund AppCampus at Aalto University, in Finland.

    The program is designed to help generate applications for Windows Phone and, get this, Symbian! Someone slap me aside the head and explain why Nokia doesn't just capitalize on the experience of existing Symbian developers. Easy answer: Both platforms need more third-party apps, and Nokia CEO Stephen Elop must make a desperate show of face, given his brutal axing of employees and ripping the Finnish heart out of Nokia's management culture.

    Finnish prime minister Jyrki Katainenat calls the country "an early-adopter" and says that "technology innovation is deeply rooted in our culture". He praises the up to 18 million Euro contribution as a "critical investment in this growing ecosystem and represents an exciting opportunity and access to global markets for our local startup community".

    Canadian Elop has already done so much for Nokia's home country. Last month, the company announced plans to lay off another 4,400 -- in manufacturing facilities located in Finland and other countries. Elop already had handed Nokia's crown jewels of innovation to Microsoft, after calling Symbian a "burning platform". I say he traded one for the other, in a deal that benefits Microsoft, where he was a divisional president before going to Nokia, more.

    Nokia is doing so well with Windows Phone that its most innovative handset to date -- the 808 PureView, packing 41-megapixel camera -- runs Symbian.

    "AppCampus offers an unprecedented opportunity for entrepreneurs to put their ideas into practice and create world-class mobile products," Ari Rahkonen, Microsoft Oy GM, says. Finland's Nokia glory days are over, since Microsoft assumed all major responsibility for platform, app and services research and development.

    "We are proud to announce this new program, which will enable new and existing developers to create next-generation mobile apps and unique user experiences," Kai Öistämö, Nokia executive veep, says. Oh yeah? Then why has Nokia done so much to disenfranchise existing developers?

    Or customers? As I explained last summer, the Windows Phone transition is killing Nokia, and blame squarely falls on Elop. If anything, the phone maker's situation has gotten worse, even after the fourth-quarter launch of Windows Phone Lumia handsets.

    IDC and Strategy Analytics data show continued, and quite dramatic, Nokia smartphone share losses during the Lumia's launch quarter -- 28.1 percent to 12.6 percent and 27.6 percent to 12.4 percent, respectively.

    Not that Windows Phone does any better. Based on actual global sales to end users, not shipments into the channel, during fourth quarter, Microsoft's smartphone OS market share plunged to 1.9 percent from 3.4 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner. That works out to about 2.7 million units sold and behind Samsung's homegrown Bada, following a trend that started in Q2 2011.

    Still, there is modest glimmer of hope in some markets. According to Kanter Worldpanel, Windows Phone now outsells Symbian in Great Britain, with Lumia 800 accounting for 87 percent of Windows Phone 7 sales.

    "There are strong signs that WP7 Nokia handsets are starting to make an impact on the European smartphone market though US sales, where the Nokia brand is weaker, remain underwhelming", Dominic Sunnebo, Kantar Worldpanel global consumer insight director, says. "The fact that WP7 sales have overtaken Symbian based on one handset is encouraging; however, Nokia will need to expand the range quickly in order to keep up with the slew of next generation competitor products being launched in quarter two".

    However, Nokia's UK market share is in free fall, from February to February, 12.4 percent to 4.6 percent.

    Much now depends on the success of Lumia 900, which AT&T will make available here in the United States on April 2nd.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/26/Intel_rises_to_the_cloud'

    Intel rises to the cloud

    Publié: mars 26, 2012, 7:27pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Cloud computing presents both challenges and opportunities for personal computing giants. Microsoft is "re-imagining" Windows for cloud-connected devices. Meanwhile, Intel rethinks its microprocessor strategies for mobile devices and servers, seeking to embrace the cloud at both ends of the consumption supply chain. For these incumbents that defined the personal computing era, the post-PC era future requires leaping from the past, not clinging to it.

    Where the "Wintel" marriage is likely to remain strongest is the server. Microsoft's post-PC -- what I call cloud-connected device -- strategy is two-fold: Providing direct, hosted services or applications businesses can host internally and expanding Windows's support for additional chip architectures. For its part, Intel develops microprocessors for more device categories, while optimizing server chips for cloud applications and services, such as the recently announced Xeon processor E5-2600 product family.

    For a time, Intel and Microsoft will diverge on desktop and mobile PCs, particularly tablets. Windows 8 "is a completely reimagined operating system for us as an organization", Microsoft COO Kevin Turner says, in his keynote last week during Convergence 2012. "It not only runs great on Intel and x86, it will also be the first operating system on the planet that also runs on ARM and system-on-a-chip. So, the ability to have multiple architectures that we support with a consistent user experience is something that we're just very, very excited about".

    Meanwhile, Intel plays catch up in microprocessors that compete directly with ARM. Intel specifically designed the Atom processor Z2460 platform, which some of you may know as "Medfield", for smartphones and tablets.

    In January, Intel struck a multi-year, multi-device deal with Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google, for the processor family and others like it. Motorola -- and Lenovo, too -- plan to ship Intel-powered smartphones in the second half of this year.

    "By developing the Medfield chip for mobile devices, Intel will open the doors for further innovation for mobile device OEMs by providing a very capable alternative to existing ARM based chipsets," Wayne Lam, iSuppli analyst, says. However, Intel still must solve some power-consumption issues that ARM already has surpassed, as well as gain share as virtual newcomer.

    Serving the Cloud

    It's the server where there is opportunity pursued but often overlooked in analyses of the Santa Clara, Calif.-based company's chip strategy for cloud-connected devices.

    Intel is the overwhelming x86 chip market leader. During fourth quarter, PC and server microprocessors generated $10.9 billion in sales, up 14.2 percent year over year, according to IDC. Intel's overall market share was 80.3 percent, but much higher for servers: 94.5 percent.

    As cloud connectivity increases so do demands for servers and storage capable of handling the load. This year, spending on digital technology products will account for 10 percent of the average household's disposal income -- or $2.2 trillion in total, says Gartner, which projects spending to reach $2.8 trillion by 2015.

    "The shift to the personal cloud will accelerate rapidly in 2012 as consumers learn how to use new services on their devices", Andrew Johnson, Gartner managing vice president, says. "As cloud services become part of people’s lives, device vendors and platform providers must integrate cloud services in order to win customers in 2012 or risk being displaces by those that offer these services. Brands must stretch across multiple devices, platforms and services".

    Many of these cloud-connected devices don't run Intel processors, but servers supporting public and private clouds and synchronization services do. Server sales are strong, with the majority running x86 processors. Globally, server revenue rose 7.9 percent year over year in 2011 and units by 7 percent, according to Gartner. The cloud is the key force driving demand.

    "2011 was a year that saw worldwide server growth driven by mega datacenters and the explosion of client devices such as smartphones and tablets accessing Web content", Jeffrey Hewitt, Gartner research vice president, says. "We have definitely seen a more pronounced segmentation between hyper-scale datacenters and the traditional enterprise and mid-sized customer".

    Intel's cloud datacenter microprocessor is the aforementioned Xeon processor E5-2600. "The E5 really is a bandwidth machine", Ajay Chandramouly, Intel IT Cloud Computing and Datacenter Industry Engagement manager, says. "As you add more cores to the processor, you have more data to get in and out of the CPU as quickly as you possibly can. Each of these cores is multithreaded, so effectively you have up to 16 cores, or 16 threads".

    Intel also improved the caching technology such that "all the cores can access data simultaneously, so logically it's one cache but physically it's multiple slices", he adds. The E5 also bumps up to four-channel DDR3 memory, "which gives us a 30 percent bump in bandwidth".

    Hybrid IT

    The E5 isn't about the private or public cloud, but both, particularly among enterprises. There is need.

    Analyst firms generate attention and client interest by creating buzzwords -- everything from Web 2.0 to Business Intelligence to Big Data. Among them: Hybrid IT, about which Gartner released a report earlier this month. The analyst firm defines Hybrid IT as the mixing of internal and external cloud services with long-standing network architectures.

    "Many organizations have now passed the definitional stage of cloud computing and are testing cloud architectures inside and outside the enterprise and over time, the cloud will simply become one of the ways that we 'do' computing, and workloads will move around in hybrid internal/external IT environments", Chris Howard, Gartner managing vice president, says.

    "As a result, the traditional role of the enterprise IT professional is changing and becoming multifaceted", he adds. "A hybrid IT model requires internal and external IT professionals to support the business capabilities of the enterprise".

    Many organizations are choosing public cloud services for non-critical applications, but building private clouds where critical applications or data demand accountable security and privacy mechanisms.

    The problem: The transition to the hybrid model may not move fast enough for employees. While Howard doesn't use the term "Consumerization of IT" to describe the trend, that's what it is. Rather than rogue devices, like smartphones and tablets, however, employees will bring the consumer cloud inside the corporate firewall.

    "IT organizations that do not match the request for IT as a service run the risk of internal customers bypassing the IT organization and consuming IT services from the external cloud, thereby placing the company at greater risk", Howard warns. "IT organizations realize that they not only need to compete with the public cloud consumption model, but also must serve as the intermediary between their internal customers and all IT services, whether internal or external".

    He emphasizes: "Hybrid IT is the new IT and it is here to stay. While the cloud market matures, IT organizations must adopt a Hybrid IT strategy".

    That circles back to where I started, and where Microsoft and Intel cloud strategies are highly congruous. Microsoft's enterprise cloud is all about choice, providing businesses with cloud applications they can host internally or subscribe to externally. It's also the opportunity Intel seeks with Xeon processor E5-2600, providing the microprocessing platform to support the hybrid cloud.

    Chandramouly claims that the "E5 really is a groundbreaking product. It addresses almost everything that affects performance. We increased the number of cores, cache, memory and integration".

    Editor's note: Intel sponsored this story, which was independently conceived, reported and written. The company did provide an executive for us to interview. BetaNews' policy is full editorial control, which we maintained for this analysis. Another is planned for March 30.

    Photo Credits: zzoplanet/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/25/App_developers_should_adopt_the_Moore_is_less_principle'

    App developers should adopt the Moore-is-less principle

    Publié: mars 25, 2012, 7:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Programmer Chris Boss has contributed some intriguing BetaNews commentaries and analyses about the state of application development and also Windows 8. Some readers call him old-fashioned, for his views on developing software. I disagree. Chris is new-fashioned, and this old dog could teach you young pups some new tricks.

    I don't refer to developer tools but Chris' philosophy -- that applications should be lightweight rather than bloated. He contends that some of the tools commonly used today encourage bloat. I'm not knowledgeable enough there to make a case for or against anything. But I can comment on trends that demand less bloat and well-written apps that consume less disk space yet are powerful.

    Right now, the sudden surge in cloud-connected device sales has put Moore's Law in reverse. Newer computing products have less processing power, smaller storage capacity and tinier displays than PCs. Big is out. Small is in. This is true as much for notebooks -- particularly the new class of ultrabooks -- as smartphones or tablets. The trend affects Windows developers as much as those creating apps for, say, Android or iOS.

    Mobility Matters

    On Friday, we joked in the newsroom about an IDC press release stating Slovak PC shipments fell 13.4 percent year over year in 2011 -- notebooks by 17.8 percent. I posted the note about the findings, asking "Can we blame iPad?" but was earnest. Individual markets such as Slovakia, which aren't yet saturated as are so-called mature ones like the United States, foreshadow sweeping trends. Earlier in the week, IDC reported Spanish PC shipments falling a stunning 33.7 percent in 2011.

    Pockets of growth remain: PC shipments to Central and Eastern Europe grew 7.5 percent year over year in 2011, IDC says. Vietnam: up 9.8 percent. However, whether shipments are growing or not, one trend is consistent: Laptops account for the majority of PC shipments in all markets. Mobility matters.

    Meanwhile, smartphone and tablet shipments are way up, and they drag down PC sales in many markets. "Major trends in client computing have shifted the market away from a focus on personal computers to a broader device perspective that includes smartphones, tablets and other consumer devices", Steve Kleynhans, Gartner research vice president, says. The firm predicts that the cloud will replace the PC as most peoples' personal content hub by 2016.

    The increasing popularity of smaller devices, even laptops, puts Moore's Law in reverse -- and that's a trend likely to last for several years. Hell, Microsoft champions it, by touting the value of ultrabooks over other laptops and developing Windows on ARM. Suddenly, Moore is less.

    The trend is by no means new. The first laptops lagged behind desktop PCs, in terms of processor, graphics and storage. Then about three years ago along came netbooks, which during their brief surge accounted for about 10 percent of PC shipments. Since, tablets have largely pushed aside netbooks, but their computing processing, graphics and storage capabilities are about the same -- or less. Each category shares other attributes: smaller physical size, tinier displays, cloud connectivity, near-instant on capability and less of everything compared to PC desktops or notebooks.

    Flash Your World

    Storage capacity is moving in reverse, an accelerating trend as smartphone and tablet sales accelerate and newer laptops use solid-state disks. Sure, you can buy a laptop with beefy 500GB or 750GB hard drive but that svelte ultrabook is more likely to have a puny, but more efficient, SSD. For example, Best Buy sells 13 different ultrabooks, 11 of which come with SSDs-only. Five pack 128GB storage, while the others have either 240GB or 256GB solid-state disks.

    The good news, sold-state storage capacity is growing and viewed by itself is on Moore's Law-growth track. But within the larger market, it's a step backwards -- Moore is less -- compared to overall PC storage growth trends.

    Globally, SSD revenue grew 105 percent year over year in 2011 -- to $5 billion from $2.4 billion, according to IDC, which predicts 51 percent compound annual growth rate through 2015. "The increasing use of flash in enterprise solutions, explosive growth of mobile client devices, and lower SSD pricing is creating a perfect storm for increased SSD shipments and revenue over our forecast", Jeff Janukowicz, IDC research director, says. The analyst firm expects SSD prices to fall to $1 a gigabyte by second half of this year, increasing adoption in PCs.

    Meanwhile, solid-sate storage with even smaller capacities is standard among smartphones and tablets. iSuppli predicts that NAND flash in media tablets will rise from 1.6 billion gigabytes last year to 16.3 billion gigabytes by 2015. Media tablets share of NAND shipments will rise from 9 percent to 17 percent during the time period. The analyst firm expects iPad to consume the most NAND flash, with 72 percent market share, this year.

    "Apple’s continued domination of the sales of NAND flash for media tablets reflects not only the iPad’s commanding market share lead, but its extensive memory usage" Dee Nguyen, iSuppli analyst, says. "In keeping with its status as a high-end offering in the tablet market, the iPad employs a larger density of NAND than its competitors. Because of this, Apple’s iPad will continue to drive the growth of NAND sales in the tablet market for the next several years".

    Solid-stage storage capacity on tablets is considerably less than ultrabooks or other laptops. iPad offers 16GB, 32GB or 64GB capacity, while most Androids top out at 32GB; a few come with more or micro-SD slots for storage expansion.

    As storage decreases, need for more of it exceeds Moore's Law by several fold. Content isn't getting smaller but increasingly bigger, as people use more HD-capable cameras and camcorders. Already, more photos are taken with phones, many packing 5-megapixel cameras or better, than point-and-shoot digicams. That bloated, 500MB app suddenly is a storage burden when vacation photos and videos consume gigabytes on a 64GB or 128GB drive. Apps need to make room for content, which matters more to users.

    App Diet Plan

    Platform providers and developers cannot sustain the same approach to creating applications, as processing power, storage capacity and device and screen sizes decrease. Apple had the right idea with the App Store in 2008. Others followed suit, with Android and Windows Phone markets as leading examples. Mobile apps tend to be smaller, tighter -- and, granted, not necessarily as feature-filled as desktop counterparts. Apple's iPhoto for the Mac is a 725MB download, compared to 106MB -- still, pretty hefty -- for iPad; they sell for $14.99 and $4.99, respectively. Adobe Photoshop CS 5.1 Extended is 1.5GB, compared to 50.2MB for Photoshop Touch for iPad; they sell for $999 and $9.99, respectively.

    Smaller and cheaper isn't necessarily bad. A developer can provide users with features they are most-likely to use -- and cut the bloat in the process. Meanwhile, the developer can sell additional apps that offer more functionality specific to tasks, rather than one, big bloated package that costs considerably more and puts all sales dollars in one basket. Truism: It's easier to sell several things for less than one item for much more.

    The potential volumes are considerably higher, too. IDC forecasts smartphone shipments to exceed 1 billion units by 2015, for example. But there is plenty of opportunity now. "In December 2011, 47.6 percent of the total mobile audience in the US used apps, an increase of 13.3 percentage points", according to comScore's "2012 Mobile Future in Focus" report. "In Europe, 38.2 percent of the total mobile audience accessed mobile media via application, up 10.1 percentage points". More:

    Apps are a critical component of the mobile media ecosystem, playing an important role in consumers' mobile device purchase decision while shaping their engagement with mobile media content...The strong rise in penetration of mobile media usage and continued adoption of different means of accessing digital content indicate significant opportunity for content creators, publishers and app developers as this behavior becomes even more ubiquitous.

    Smaller apps for a larger range of devices -- and, for now, packing less oomph than PCs -- is the foreseeable future. Developers creating mobile apps are there today, in part because the platforms demand it. That's not so for Windows, where big is a motto only Texas can match. To embrace the future, which in part is Microsoft "re-imagining" the OS for touch and tablets, developers must start thinking Moore is less -- or less is more, if you like. That includes, Microsoft.

    Chris Boss writes last week about currently available Windows 7 tablets:

    If the principles of writing efficient software we learned years ago were implimented when writing software for today's Windows tablet computers, I think "fast and fluid" would definitely be the norm...

    Today, Intel Atom CPU's are regularly criticised as being too slow, lacking power. Windows tablets (the reasonably priced ones) usually come with an Atom CPU. But it is programmers who are most likely to make this criticism. Why? Because their software runs too slow on these CPUs. But the problem is not the CPUs, but the software. A well-written WIN32 application can run very fast even on the Atom CPU.

    He makes a good point. Windows developers can produce leaner software, and Windows Store gives them a means of doing so profitably. Microsoft puts the apps right in front of customers, inside Windows 8, and the opportunity to sell more apps for less.

    Mmmm, maybe there's another principle here: More apps for less, and in the process trimming the bloat, offering users the tasks they need most and selling more apps instead of one big one. What could possibly be wrong with that?

    Photo Credit:  CLIPAREA l Custom media/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/23/AT_T_blames_FCC_for_T_Mobile_layoffs'

    AT&T blames FCC for T-Mobile layoffs

    Publié: mars 23, 2012, 9:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    You'd never know that the execs over at AT&T are bitter about the failed T-Mobile USA merger or paying out $3 billion for absolutely nothing.

    Yesterday, T-Mobile handed out 1,900 pink slips, mostly to employees working in call centers. Gee, that's not a vital area, now is it? Today, AT&T rallies to T-Mobile's defense, blaming not the nation's fourth-largest carrier but the Federal Communications Commission. AT&T's rationale: The carrier would have preserved those jobs if allowed to buy T-Mobile.

    Of course, the blame game accomplishes something else: Absolves AT&T's responsibility. The consequences of a failed merger left T-Mobile limping along. Cutbacks or downsizing of some kind were inevitable. Last month during its quarterly earnings report, T-Mobile acknowledged net loss of 706,000 subscribers.

    Stated differently: The failed merger weakened T-Mobile -- that and being the only major carrier without iPhone. But is the merger gone bust the FCC's fault or AT&T's -- or perhaps a little and a lot of both?

    You know AT&T's answer to that question. Jim Cicconi, AT&T Senior executive veep of External and Legislative Affairs, posted after market close today:

    Yesterday, T-Mobile made the sad announcement that it would be closing seven call centers, laying off thousands of workers, and that more layoff announcements may follow. Normally, we’d not comment on something like this. But I feel this is an exception for one big reason: only a few months ago AT&T promised to preserve these very same call centers and jobs if our merger was approved. We also predicted that if the merger failed, T-Mobile would be forced into major layoffs.

    At that time, the current FCC not only rejected our pledges and predictions, they also questioned our credibility. The FCC argued that the merger would cost jobs, not preserve them, and that rejecting it would save jobs. In short, the FCC said they were right, we were wrong, and did so in an aggressive and adamant way.

    Rarely are a regulatory agency’s predictive judgments proven so wrong so fast. But for the government’s decision, centers now being closed would be staying open, workers now facing layoffs would have job guarantees, and communities facing turmoil would have security. Only a few months later, the truth of who was right is sadly obvious.

    So what’s the lesson here? For one thing, it’s a reminder of why 'regulatory humility' should be more than a slogan. The FCC may consider itself an expert agency on telecom, but it is not omniscient. And when it ventures far afield from technical issues, and into judgments about employment or predictions about business decisions, it has often been wildly wrong.

    The other lesson is even more important, and should be sobering. It is a reminder that in government, as in life, decisions have consequences. One must approach them not as an exercise of power but instead of responsibility, because, as I learned in my years of public service, the price of a bad decision is too often paid by someone else.

    AT&T did leave T-Mobile with spectrum in 128 markets and $3 billion breakup fee. If data throttling is any indication, AT&T subscribers, and I'm among them, will pay for executives' T-Mobile remorse for some time ahead.

    As for the FCC. Did regulators' objection to the merger preserve competition, and jobs, or squash it? You tell me in comments.

    Photo Credit:  Jonnystockphoto/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/23/Has_an_employer_asked_for_your_Facebook_password_'

    Has an employer asked for your Facebook password?

    Publié: mars 23, 2012, 7:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's a serious question, following today's stunning privacy post from Facebook. Has an employer or prospective one asked you for your Facebook password, or that of another social media site; could be Google+, Tumblr or Twitter, among others?

    The request might have come as condition of continued employment, and there threat of reprisal might seem, or even be, real given the current job market. Or perhaps a prospective employer said that you couldn't be considered for a new position without first giving up your password. Please answer in comments. This is one of those rare occasions I don't mind, and even recommend, anonymous commenting if answer is "Yes". There also is a poll. Please answer, and you can choose multiple responses.

    Anyone who asks for your Facebook or other social media password(s) as condition of continued or new employment should be fired immediately. Any company that allows such a practice should be vilified and prosecuted.

    The practice is an egregious privacy breech of widening circles. Particularly for Facebook, there are boundaries -- anywhere from no one to friends or friend of friends -- who can view one another's Facebooks. The employer voyeur doesn't just violate your privacy but theirs.

    Erin Egan, Facebook chief privacy policy officer, makes the social network's position clear:

    As a user, you shouldn’t be forced to share your private information and communications just to get a job.  And as the friend of a user, you shouldn’t have to worry that your private information or communications will be revealed to someone you don’t know and didn’t intend to share with just because that user is looking for a job.  That’s why we’ve made it a violation of Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities to share or solicit a Facebook password.

    My question for Facebook: How far are you really willing to go? If I as an individual user violate your terms of service, the consequence can be fatal: Closing my account. Facebook, are you willing to similarly enforce the ToS against businesses, by pulling their brand pages -- even if they are advertisers? Nothing less shows your commitment to protecting Facebook users' privacy.

    No one could rightly accuse me of being a friend of Facebook. The company needs to do much to put its privacy house in order, I contend. Facebook profits from pretty much everything that anyone shares on the social network. People talk about the omniscience of God. What about CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook?

    Abuse of Power

    Still, there's a difference. The existing or prospective employer is in a position of power over the employee or job seeker. There is a power imbalance, which legally is at the core of sexual harassment or discrimination statutes. The employer misuses his or her power for gain. The motivation isn't as self-gratifying or self-serving as sexual harassment -- or anywhere as demeaning or abusive. But it's a power imbalance leading to personal violation nevertheless, and potentially that of others.

    Something else: Many companies have strict security policies about making and not sharing passwords. So why is Mr. or Mrs. Human Resources person so cavalierly demanding personal passwords from people they hire -- or fire.


    Has an employer or prospective employer asked for your Facebook password?

    Again, it's a power imbalance, and worse. HR manager is position of utmost trust, because he or she has so much access to employee information. Asking for the personal password from a position of power might seem to the HR manager and even those above him or her as serving the company's interest. Instead, the practice is a legal, as well as moral, quagmire.

    US law prohibits asking about sexual preferences or religion, for example. Forced access to Facebook accounts can provide that information -- and more. Some smart lawyer can, and should, argue that existing statutes already cover Facebook password privacy prying because it reveals information companies aren't allowed to ask for during the employment process.

    That some employers ask for what they shouldn't isn't surprising. When haven't businesses pushed the hiring and firing limits? That's how we got trade unions or laws governing what employers can ask you or me for.

    Something else: Zuckerberg has repeatedly stated he wants to shake up standard mores about privacy, and Facebook's business model is about pushing down the body bubbles that separate us, encouraging people to share more and more publicly. But it's one thing to freely share personal information and another to be coerced or compelled to get or keep a job.

    Photo Credit: Adam Gregor/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/23/New_iPad_is_now_available_in_35_countries'

    New iPad is now available in 35 countries

    Publié: mars 23, 2012, 4:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Apple released new iPad in 25 more countries, bringing the total to 35 plus one US territory since sales started one week ago. What a week, too.

    Sales over the three-day launch weekend reached 3 million units. After initially positive reviews, the knocks started in droves. Consumer Reports' tests found new iPad to be quite hot, as much as 116 degrees F, setting off a web maelstrom of blogs, news stories and social media posts. CR plans to release a more formal, and final, examination as early as today. Other complaints claim the supplied charger is inadequate for new iPad's giant battery. BetaNews hasn't found the tablet to be too hot or to charge too slowly. But tongues will wag.

    New iPad is now also available in: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden. The tablet launched in these 10 plus territory: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdon, United States and the US Virgin Islands.

    Distribution is key to success in the global economy, and one of the fundamental reasons iPad has sold so well since its launch nearly two years ago. Apple leveraged logistical operations established for iPod and iPhone. So far, only Amazon and Samsung have shown similar manufacturing and distribution wherewithal to compete with iPad, which is global media tablet leader, followed by Kindle Fire and Galaxy Tab.

    BetaNews readers aren't exactly excited about Apple's tablet. According to our poll, which has an unusually low 848 responses, 47.17 percent of you won't buy new iPad. Meanwhile, little more than 31 percent have ordered (and most likely received) the tablet, while another 15.21 percent plan to get it within 3 months.

    Based on your comments, and others around the web, new iPad's high resolution display -- 2048 x 1536 -- is the major, appealing feature. Every platform needs a killer app/feature to succeed, and the better-than-HD display is it for new iPad.

    DisplayMate president Raymond Soneira finds after exhaustive, comparative testing: "The display on the new iPad decisively beats (blows away) all of the tablets we have previously tested, including the iPad 2...the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Barnes & Noble Nook tablet, and the Amazon Kindle Fire at the back of the pack".

    But price and size matter, too. ABI Research predicts the media tablet market will dramatically change within five years. Today, Apple is market leader in the two major segments -- tablets priced above $400 and those with displays larger than 9 inches. These "wide-aspect" tablets accounted for 75 percent of tablet volumes last year -- the majority iPad 2. By 2016, sub-$400, 7-to-9-inch tablets will account for 60 percent of tablet market share, ABI predicts. Sales to emerging markets like India and Russia will open the way for lower-cost, smaller tablets -- and that's good for Android.

    Frequent BetaNews commenter "woe" sizes up tablet competition by perhaps the most important metric:

    1. iPad (ecosystem)
    2. Kindle Fire (ecosystem)
    3. Everything else (no ecosystem, no one cares)

    Amazon and Apple device ecosystems are built in part on curation, offering an end-to-end hardware, software and services stack, which includes sync, apps and digital content.

    Only Amazon has done any meaningful Android customization on tablets, making its curated experience similar to Apple's. ASUS has carved out a niche for Eee Pad Transformer, but nothing really reaching beyond Android enthusiasts and gamers. Amazon's continued success is good for driving up Android shipments against iPad, but it's bad broadly. Kindle Fire benefits Amazon's ecosystem and its customers willing to buy into the curated experience but not the expanse of third-party developers or larger Android ecosystem.

    Will media tablet competition come down to iPad and Kindle Fire a year from now? I wonder.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/22/5_things_you_should_know_about_new_iPad'

    5 things you should know about new iPad

    Publié: mars 22, 2012, 8:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Has less than one week passed since new iPad starting selling in 10 countries and one US territory? It seems like longer. Tomorrow, Apple's tablet will be available in 25 more. With more people set to buy new iPad, which sold 3 million units over the three-day launch weekend, time is right to discuss things you should know before plunking down your hard-earned cash.

    There is suddenly lots of confusion about new iPad, with all these conflicting media reports -- blogs and news sites running praising reviews alongside stories about yet another fatal design flaw. You just don't know who to believe. Perhaps these five things will help you find clarity.

    1. If you carry new iPad to Starbucks, employees will hand you a protective mat for your lap (made of the same material used for their cup holders). The coffee shop is super sensitive about hot things in your lap (and the lawsuits they might generate). There's good reason. Consumer Reports claims that Apple's newest tablet runs 10 degrees F hotter than the old one -- as much as 116 degrees F.

    Nevermind that your big brick laptop probably runs even hotter and tickles with first-degree burns every time your fingers pass by the heat vent. Consumer Reports has everyone scared about the potential lap and hand hazards or the possibility your new iPad might melt into a Starbucks table.

    Strange, though. My family has one of these new iPads, which doesn't seem the least bit overly hot.

    2. It's best not to to charge new iPad during that quick trip to the relatives (because you'll be there a long time). The InterWebs are chock full of reports about how slowly new iPad charges, with some bloggers claiming the charger is too small for the big battery -- so much that it can't keep up with the drain. You don't want that 15 minute visit to be 15 hours.

    Strange, again. Our new iPad charges up nearly as quickly as the older one. Granted, charging time wasn't exactly fast with iPad 2.

    3. New iPad won't make you popular. If anything, you're more at risk carrying one. Two years ago, the original iPad could draw a crowd at the coffee shop. But now that everyone has an iPad, or wants one, it's kind of passé. Perhaps matters would be different if this and last year's models weren't almost indistinguishable even closeup.

    You might instead draw attention you don't want. There are now 220 tablets for sale globally, according to ABI Research, and the majority are Androids. Fanboys are called the Android Army for a reason. They'll heckle and call you a Steve Jobs cultist. They'll preach about the benefits of choice over Apple's Way (or no way). The most aggressive will grab your iPad and perform and impromptu drop test. Eh, did you buy AppleCare+?

    4. Your photos will look even worse. Apple's new iPad TV commercial touts the benefits of the greater-than HD display, with its haughty 2048 x 1536 resolution, and how your photos will look better. Banderstanch! Pics taken with your cheesy cameraphone and old Kodak digital clunker won't get better with age. The higher the display's resolution, the worse your low-res pics will look.

    What about new photos taken with your swanky Canon, Fuji or Nikon digicam? HD brings out all your imperfections. There's a reason why more TV news anchors opt for plastic surgery now that broadcasts are HD. The lens doesn't lie, and there's no Photoshop for live television. There is Photoshop for iPad -- and iPhoto, too. Ten bucks per app might be the best new iPad investment you'll ever make.

    5. 4G LTE is simply too fast. Besides the Retina display, Apple touts LTE as another big benefit. Too bad 4G is too costly to use. Wall Street Journal calls it a "video speed trap". Bigger pipes bring HD content faster but also burn through the data cap faster. How's a single two-hour movie to use up your monthly allowance, 2GB, from Verizon. Then the overage charges start.

    I must say LTE is fast. I'm consistently seeing 27Mbps around San Diego on AT&T. But I'm scared to use it. :) Wouldn't you be?

    That's a wrap and qualifier that Starbucks isn't really giving out lap-mats.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/22/Are_hacktivists_more_dangerous__or_just_more_determined_'

    Are hacktivists more dangerous, or just more determined?

    Publié: mars 22, 2012, 6:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    As if Anonymous didn't have enough to boast about. While cybercriminals accounted for the most breaches, "activist groups created their fair share of misery and mayhem last year as well -- and they stole more data than any other group", according to a report Verizon released today in cooperation with Australian, Dutch, English, Irish and US officials. The study attributes 58 percent of data thefts to hacktivists.

    "The most significant change we saw in 2011 was the rise of 'hacktivism' against larger organizations worldwide", Verizon reports. "The frequency and regularity of cases tied to activist groups that came through our doors in 2011 exceeded the number worked in all previous years combined".

    No shock, Anonymous brags a little, tweeting today: "Verizon Study Confirms 2011 Was The Year Of #Anonymous, With 100 Million Users' Data Breached By Hacktivists" -- and linking to a Forbes story.

    Breaches by the Numbers

    In total, cybercriminals and hackers compromised 174 million records, the second-highest level in 7 years, across 855 incidents. Breaches occurred in organizations spanning 36 countries. "While good old-fashioned greed and avarice were still the prime movers, ideological dissent and schadenfreude took a more prominent role across the caseload", according to the report.

    "Hacking and malware have traditionally led the pack, but this year they’ve pulled away from the group even further while waving 'Hi Mom!' to the camera". Eighty-one percent of breaches came from hacking, up 31 percent year over year, and 69 percent from malware, which rose 20 percent. "An impressive 61 percent of all breaches featured a combination of hacking techniques and malware", Verizon reports.

    "Findings from the past year continue to show that target selection is based more on opportunity than on choice. Most victims fell prey because they were found to possess an (often easily) exploitable weakness rather than because they were pre-identified for attack". Targets of opportunity: 79 percent. Easily done: 96 percent. "Most breaches were avoidable", Verizon concludes.

    Ease and targets of opportunity cannot be overstated: "Perpetrators rarely know who they are hacking. In most cases it seems that they learn the identity of their victim after they have gained unauthorized access".

    Differing Motivations

    The report identifies a gaping disparity between hacktivists and cybercriminals. The former accounted for 3 percent of breaches, but stole the majority of data -- "over 100 million records. That’s almost twice the amount pinched by all those financially-motivated professionals...although ideological attacks were less frequent, they sure took a heavy toll".

    Perhaps cybercriminals are lazy, by comparison?

    Looking through the case data, it is apparent that money-driven crooks continue to focus more on opportunistic attacks against weaker targets. This may be at least partly because a good number of their brethren are enjoying jail time. Instead of major (and risky) heists, they pilfer smaller hauls of data from a multitude of smaller organizations that present a lower risk to the attacker. Think of it as a way to streamline business processes. Find an easy way to prey on the unsuspecting, the weak, and the lame, and then simply repeat on a large scale. This high-volume, low-yield business model has become the standard M.O. for organized criminal groups...

    Nearly all data stolen by activist groups were taken from larger organizations. Furthermore, the proportion of breaches tied to hacktivism-related motives rises to 25 percent. This stands to reason, since a low-profile brand is less likely to draw the ire of these groups.

    Hacktivists take more risks, and that includes targeting law enforcement agencies pursuing them.

    Cybercriminals' predictability is strange comfort to IT security professionals. Verizon's claims that hacktivists "haunt organizations around the world" and their "proclivity to embarrass victims" make "this trend more frightening than other threats, whether real or imagined. Doubly concerning for many organizations and executives was that target selection by these groups didn’t follow the logical lines of who has money and/or valuable information. Enemies are even scarier when you can’t predict their behavior".

    Victims certainly ranged a swath of organizations. Among the hackvistisms we reported last year:

    There's a whole lot more to Verizon's 77-page report than hacktivism. It's worth reading.

    Photo Credit: Rob Kints/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/22/220_tablets_for_sale_but_you_only_want_one'

    220 tablets for sale but you only want one

    Publié: mars 22, 2012, 2:39am CET par Joe Wilcox

    What's the saying about the rock that caused the avalanche? That might be the best analogy for iPad since its launch nearly two years ago. ABI Research says there are now 220 different tablets available globally -- the majority came after iPad. Judging by early new iPad sales, 3 million over the three-day launch weekend, many of you want just one.

    But ABI says that will change, particularly as buyers in emerging markets scoop up smaller tablets. Surely that has to be good for Android and perhaps even Windows 8 someday.

    "The majority of new entrant media tablet models have been in the sub-$400 segment that focuses on growth markets like India and China", Jeff Orr, ABI group director, says. "The strong wave of growth in this segment over the next few years is expected to be driven by the adoption in emerging markets".

    Today, Apple is market leader in the two major segments -- tablets priced above $400 and those with displays larger than 9 inches. These "wide-aspect" tablets accounted for 75 percent of tablet volumes last year -- the majority iPad 2. By 2016, sub-$400, 7-to-9-inch tablets will account for 60 percent of tablet market share, ABI predicts.

    Akin to tablets are ereaders. More than 30 models are available, and shipments grew 33 percent year over year in 2011. ABI predicts more modest 20 percent growth this year.

    "Availability of competing models increases options for consumers and will help to boost ereader adoption", Aishwarya Singh, ABI research analyst, says. "However, the slower pace of digitization of local content will be the key market inhibitor for adoption of ebook readers, as well as media tablets, in the emerging markets".

    I got to wondering about that and did some quick research on China. Competition there is fierce, with new ebook sellers coming to market (buy360.com, this month) and prices plummeting. In China, it's not unusual for ebooks to sell for 75 percent less than print. A movie typically costs 70 yuan at the cinema, while an ebook might be 2.5 yuan -- less than a can of soda at the theater.

    Apple is rumored to be working on a sub-9-inch tablet, which, with iBookstore, would make it a fair competitor to ereaders -- as Amazon Kindle Fire already is today. Last month I asked: "Would you buy an 8-inch iPad?" Fifty-five percent of the 3,574 respondents answered "Yes".

    "I have had a 7-inch Android tablet for over a year", commenter LS650 responds. "I really prefer the smaller format over my roommate's 10-inch iPad. If there were a smaller iPad I would definitely consider buying one".

    Paul Smith: "I absolutely believe people would buy an 8-inch iPad, at a lower price".

    "A smaller screen at a lower price point would be perfect for kids and other entry level users", JEPaul comments. "From a marketing perspective, these users would most likely stick with an apple product and ultimately upgrade to the bigger more expensive version. I see this as a win-win for Apple and the consumer".

    So the question for ABI and other tablet forecasters: What if that 7-to-9-inch tablet is iPad? What of the 220 then?

    Photo Credit: CLIPAREA l Custom media/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/20/Will_you_deploy_Office_365_now_'

    Will you deploy Office 365 now?

    Publié: mars 20, 2012, 1:27am CET par Joe Wilcox

    We gave you the weekend to ponder the significance to your business. Now it's time to ask: Will you deploy Office 365 (or additional seats), following last week's price cuts? Are you now more likely to adopt cloud-based productivity apps?

    Four days ago, Microsoft cut Office 365 prices by up to 20 percent, depending on the plan and number of seats. It's a hefty cut coming at a time of increased Google Apps acceptance among enterprises. Microsoft's calling card is familiarity -- cloud apps connecting to Office on the desktop while providing anytime, anywhere access.

    Four basic Office 365 plans (six in all) are available, ranging from $4 (email only) to $20 (with Office 2010 pro subscription) per seat. For sense of changes, when Office 365 launched in June 2011, the higher plans ranged from $10 to $27 per user per month; $8 to $22 now.

    By comparison, Google Apps basic pricing: $50 per user per year with annual subscription or $5 per user per month without one.

    For some users, savings are bigger. Microsoft's Kirk Koenigsbauer explains:

    We are also excited to make pricing changes to Office 365 for education. In line with our longstanding commitment to education, we will make our 'A2' service plan free to not only students, but also to faculty and staff. A2 includes the core capabilities of Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync and the Office Web Applications. Exchange Online and Lync Online are available today for academic institutions, and we'll launch the full Office 365 for education service starting this summer.

    There is good reason. Google Apps is free to educational institutions. Well-accepted tech industry maxim: What students adopt while in school they are likely to continue using later in life.

    Why Cut Prices?

    Microsoft Office 365 price-cut objectives are six-fold:

    • Ratcheting up Office 365 adoption
    • Combating Google Apps competition
    • Extending Office desktop's enterprise appeal
    • Incentivizing more customers to move to the cloud
    • Upselling customers to additional cloud services (like Azure)
    • Preparing enterprises for Windows 8 and Windows on Arm deployments

    Microsoft faces a big hurdle to enterprise adoption. Osterman Research estimates that 90 percent of Office 365 subscribers have fewer than 50 employees.

    Our own research finds, not surprisingly, that price cuts spur demand, but there is substantial variability in the increase of demand at different levels of price reduction. For example:

    • At $20 per seat per month, 16 percent of mid-sized and large organizations are likely or definite adopters of cloud-based email services.
    • Dropping the price by $5 increases likely or definite adoption to 27 percent (an increase of 69 percent).
    • Dropping it another $5 increases potential adoption to 49 percent (an increase of 81 percent).
    • Dropping prices another $5 will increase demand, but only a modest 24 percent.

    Microsoft is beginning to accelerate its emphasis on cloud computing, which Forrester Research predicts will grow from being a "$40 billion industry to a $240 billion industry just by 2020", Microsoft COO Kevin Turner says. "We actually think that number is light, maybe even by two, at the speed that we're seeing the cloud take hold".

    Office 365 price cuts come ahead of other Microsoft cloud moves. Today, the company announced that Dynamics NAV 2013 and Dynamics GP 2013 will separately be available in calendar fourth quarter. Kirill Tatarinov, president of Microsoft Business Solutions, says they "will run on Windows Azure in an elastic Microsoft cloud". Additionally, Dynamics CRM Online is scheduled for two sets of updates this year.

    So, will you deploy Office 365 now?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/19/Microsoft_Dynamics_looks_to_the_cloud'

    Microsoft Dynamics looks to the cloud

    Publié: mars 19, 2012, 11:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft reaffirmed its commitment to bring business process software to Azure. Kirill Tatarinov, president of the company's Business Solutions group, promises that Dynamics NAV 2013 and Dynamics GP 2013, which are separately set to be available in calendar fourth quarter, "will run on Windows Azure in an elastic Microsoft cloud". Dynamics AX 2012 R2 is on track for similar release.

    Dynamics NAV and GP are designed for small-to-midsize organizations. SMBs looking for an early taste of NAV 2013 will get their chance when a beta becomes available in May, says Tatarinov, during Microsoft Convergence 2012. The next AX version, which looks to be v2014, will evolve into an enterprise cloud service.

    Looked at together, and with Dynamics CRM, Microsoft is ever-so-slowly, but methodically, building out cloud-based ERP, particularly for mid-size businesses and enterprises. "Last year at Convergence 2011 we announced that the entire portfolio of Microsoft Dynamics ERP solutions is moving to the cloud", Tatarinov says. With today's announcements, there's light in the distance, but no end of the tunnel yet.

    During the main keynote, COO Kevin Turner touts a "new era for Dynamics", emphasizing: "It's a very exciting time to be in technology, and to be in IT". Microsoft tailors its products for private, public and hybrid clouds, an increasingly popular trend among companies selling enterprise software and services.

    "The shift to the cloud, ladies and gentlemen, a year ago it was sort of talked about as a trend, now it's in full mainstream", Turner says. "We're seeing tens of millions of customers move to the cloud in very, very rapid ways -- and if you look at this particular quote from Forrester, it's going to go from a $40 billion industry to a $240 billion industry just by 2020. We actually think that number is light, maybe even by two, at the speed that we're seeing the cloud take hold".

    That's a stunning proclamation about cloud computing's future.

    The majority of cloud deployments are the hybrid type, Turner says. But his sales pitch should make former CEO Steve Jobs (if he was still with us) blush. Microsoft's COO boasts about giving customers choice of cloud solutions, but delivers a veiled caveat intended to be benefit: "As long as you have Active Directory completely deployed, and System Center completely deployed, you can really leverage the common technologies that we have across identity, virtualization, management, and development -- and no other company can provide that to you in the cloud".

    Well, yeah, if the cloud requires Microsoft infrastructure, of course "no other company can provide that to you".

    Not to be ignored, Microsoft revealed some data about Dynamics CRM, which competes with Salesforce.com: 33,000 customers and 2.25 million users.

    "Dynamics CRM Online has been a poster child of what business solutions in the cloud ought to be", Tatarinov says. When it's the only major Dynamics product truly in the cloud, how can it not be?

    "Later this spring, we will provide Dynamics CRM Online with capabilities that truly enable consumerized scenarios in the business", Tatarinov promises. "We will support a broad range of browsers in addition to Internet Explorer. And we will support a broad range of devices". Would you believe Android and iOS?

    "Later this year we will update Dynamics CRM Online again -- and with that full update we will provide capabilities for social interaction and customer care scenarios", he continues.

    Photo Credit: ra2 studio/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/19/If_new_iPad_sales_are_so_good__where_are_the_numbers_'

    If new iPad sales are so good, where are the numbers?

    Publié: mars 19, 2012, 6:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    During today's conference call announcing Apple's cash dividend and stock repurchase plans, CEO Tim Cook said about new iPad's launch: "We had a record weekend, and we're thrilled with it". Later, in a one-sentence press release issued by the nation's second-largest carrier: "On Friday, March 16, AT&T set a new single-day record for its iPad sales and activations". Apple and AT&T today talked record sales without giving actual numbers.

    So how many is "record"? Hell if I know. That's the point. "Record" means nothing without real numbers behind it. Did Apple and AT&T sell 45 iPads? That would be a record if sales were 44 during iPad 2's launch. Perhaps the number is 1 million, which would certainly be sales to boast about -- in just 10 countries. (Please jump to the exciting update below.)

    Apple has reason not to reveal numbers today, if it plans to at all before the next earnings report. The company's dividend and repurchase plans are news enough to lift the stock. There's PR advantage to waiting a day or two and getting another lift on real iPad sales figures. Not that shareholders are all that giddy about the $2.65 dividend coming during fiscal 2013 first quarter. Shares are up a modest 2.31 percent in mid-afternoon trading.

    Anecdotally, I saw lots of iPads yesterday. While my daughter shopped at Fashion Valley Mall here in San Diego, I walked around talking to a Verizon service rep about a major billing screwup. Easily 30 people passed by carrying new iPads. Around 3 pm PDT, there was a short line outside Apple Store. I asked inside. Some models had sold out, but there were still plenty available.

    Around 9:30 this morning, Pacific Time, I called to check availability. White is the popular color. The store rep said that AT&T 4G models in white are sold out in all capacities, as are the 16GB and 32GB WiFi. The store has limited quantities of Verizon 4G iPads in all colors.

    Apple started taking preorders on March 7 and new iPad arrived in stores on the 16th in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Japan, Puerto Rico, Singapore, Switzerland, United Kingdon, United States and the US Virgin Islands.

    On March 23, iPad store sales will start in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macau, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

    I have to ask: Did you buy new iPad? Which one?

    Update: Apple released the sales number hours after I posted this story. Unfortunately, I didn't see the announcement until evening. I depend too much on RSS, perhaps. Apple's press release popped way late.

    The company says it sold 3 million iPads since launch day, which clearly is a record number. If the RSS timestamp is correct, Apple waited until after market close to reveal the sales figure.

    What's not reflected in the number: How many discounted iPad 2s sold over the four days or since Apple cut the price of the 16GB model by $100 on March 7.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/19/Bing_Maps_is_lost_on_the_Internet'

    Bing Maps is lost on the Internet

    Publié: mars 19, 2012, 6:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Is Microsoft's Bing having a meltdown? One of my colleagues just alerted me to troubles accessing Bing Maps. He gets an error message, as do two other BetaNews staffers. We're located in different parts of the country using various cable or DSL services. This is not a localized problem.

    The outage appears to be broader than Bing Maps. I also can't get to Bing News, while someone else couldn't get Search, which works for me. Colleague Tim Conneally pinged Bing Maps while I wrote the first paragraph and got repeated timeouts. Are you having Bing troubles today?

    While I wrote the paragraphs above, colleague Ed Oswald got this notice on the Bing home page: "Bing services aren't available right now. We're working to restore all services as soon as possible. We know you want to get back to searching. Please check back soon".

    Now I can't access Bing at all.

    Update 1:42 pm EDT: I've got Bing back, as do some of readers. Do you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/19/Apple_will_pay_dividend__buy_back_shares'

    Apple will pay dividend, buy back shares

    Publié: mars 19, 2012, 2:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    "We are going to initiate a dividend and share repurchase program", Apple CEO Tim Cook told financial analysts this morning. Late yesterday, Apple announced a surprise 9 am EDT conference call today to discuss what it would do with its nearly $100 billion in cash.

    During the September quarter, Apple will start paying a $2.65 dividend, which the company expects will amount to about $10 billion a year. During the December quarter, the Cupertino, Calif.-based tech giant will start the share buy-back program. Apple fiscal 2013 Q1 begins September 30.

    Apple shares rose about .95 percent ahead of the announcement and 1.6 percent afterwards but before the opening bell.

    Apple's cash horde has been a topic of shareholder concern, particularly since cofounder Steve Jobs died and the company's stunning calendar fourth quarter. Apple ended the quarter with $98 billion in cash, $64 billion outside the United States. "Apple's cash has increased for all the right reasons," CFO Peter Oppenheimer said during the conference call. The company generated $31 billion of the cash last year, $16 billion during fourth calendar quarter (fiscal 2012 Q1).

    The amount of cash overseas, and not readily available, is a major concern. Apple expects to utilize about $45 billion of its domestic cash over three years. This morning, Cook said that Apple is satisfied the approach keeps enough cash on hand for running operations and for expansion (which could include acquisitions). The company still plans to open 40 stores during 2012, for example. Neither program affects future Apple product or research and investment plans.

    Oppenheimer said Apple chose to use domestic cash to avoid the tax hit associated with that held overseas.

    Apple will initiate the cash dividend sometime in July, during fiscal 2012 Q4, with the aforementioned payout coming in the September quarter. Oppenheimer said the dividend "would make us one of the highest dividend payers in the United States".

    Apple is initiating the dividend in part to make the stock more attractive to new investors. The repurchase program is more about employees, by neutralizing the impact of equity grants and stock repurchase programs.

    There were "17.7 million RSUs that had not vested" at the end of fiscal 2012 Q1, Oppenheimer said. Presumably, Apple employees hold most RSUs, or restricted stock units.

    Cook said he is "confident about Apple's future". He touted fourth calendar quarter successes, such as 15.4 million tablets sold. Gartner forecasts 325 million tablet shipments in 2015, he said. "It's just a question of when", Cook said about tablet shipments exceeding PCs.

    On Friday, Apple started selling the new iPad in 10 countries. "We had a record weekend, and we're thrilled with it" Cook said.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/19/Why_report_news_the_way_we_do'

    Why report news the way we do

    Publié: mars 19, 2012, 3:34am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I have a reputation for provocative headlines and affirmative writing style, and this irks some readers. But I, and my colleagues here at BetaNews, strive for accuracy in reporting. You can bitch about tone and disagree with storyline and dispute posts' points. I confidently say that we report responsibly.

    Following the lead of my predecessor, Scott M. Fulton, BetaNews steers away from rumor stories and the feeding frenzies that often envelope the news media -- sometimes even when the originating blog or news site is highly trusted. Some of you accuse me of being anti-Apple, but I treated with great caution January reports from "This American Life" and the New York Times about worker abuses at Foxconn factories producing Apple gadgets. The ensuing controversy was opportunity to repeatedly zing Apple, as many sites did -- obviously to drum up pageviews. BetaNews didn't. My agenda is responsible reporting, not standing for or against any company or product. The Mike Daisey scandal proves the wisdom of that policy and spotlights what's wrong with news on the web today.

    This Chinese Worker Life

    On January 6, esteemed public radio show "This American Life" aired "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory" -- its most popular segment ever and one removed from the web last week. Yesterday, TAL aired "Retraction", which followed Friday's stunning blog post by show producer Ira Glass.

    For two months, following TAL episode #454 and a New York Times exposé, bloggers and journalists pounded Apple, with a relentless barrage of commentaries and stories about conditions at Foxconn factories. Protesters rallied against Apple, tainting the company's public image at a time of soaring popularity. My problem isn't TAL's report, but the others that followed. The feeding frenzy generally regurgitated what others' reported, rather than obtaining original sourcing. Bloggers and journalists treated hearsay as fact, perpetuating a massive circle-jerk.

    But someone did choose to act responsibly. "Marketplace" reporter Rob Schmitz is on the ground in Shanghai, China, and followed up on some of Daisey's claims, leading to the smoking gun -- Daisey's translator during his China trip. Last week, Glass and Schmitz confronted Daisey, who suddenly reversed position and admitted to having exaggerated and even fabricated information.

    In "An acclaimed Apple critic made up the details", Schmitz lays it out: "Daisey told 'This American Life' and numerous other news outlets that his account was all true. But it wasn’t".

    He lied to BetaNews, too, but long before the TAL segment aired. In April 2011, Larry Seltzer wrote "The crimes of Foxconn, Steve Jobs and ourselves", a riveting review of Daisey's play "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs", upon which TAL eventually based program #454. Larry used the one-man monologue as mirror for ourselves, but also questioned the veracity of Daisey's claims. (By the way, I republished Larry's review/commentary today with refreshed headline: "The crimes of Foxconn, Mike Daisey and ourselves".) Daisey responded to our April story and others in this blog post, which is more self-indictment in light of this week's confession.

    Daisey blogged on Friday: "My show is a theatrical piece...What I do is not journalism. The tools of the theater are not the same as the tools of journalism. For this reason, I regret that I allowed 'This American Life' to air an excerpt from my monologue. 'This American Life' is essentially a journalistic ­-- not a theatrical ­-- enterprise, and as such it operates under a different set of rules and expectations".

    Right. Accurate reporting is among those expectations and that sources tell the truth when asked if they are. After admitting to at least one undeniable lie, Daisey tells Glass and Schmitz about his monologue: "It’s not journalism. It’s theater".

    Today, AllThingsD's Arik Hesseldahl asks my first question in hearing about TAL's retraction: "Who in their right mind would lie to Ira Glass?" Mike Daisey, unbelievably. Glass is a remarkably good, and long-time radio reporter/personality. He, like me, is a 1959er. My first love was, and remains, radio. I got my FCC Third Class license (back when tests were required) at 17, which allowed me to broadcast on air. Point: I can appreciate Glass' passion for the airwaves.

    The Daisey debacle puts Glass and "This American Life" in a difficult position. I applaud their retracting the story so vocally and responsibly. Their problem is the risk every journalist faces: That a source will lie to achieve some other objective. In this case Daisey claims his passion about alleged atrocities in China. But surely there is money motive, which is one benefit of the notoriety received from the Apple-Foxconn scandal.

    Hands-off Story

    At BetaNews we largely stayed away from any hard commentary on this topic. Two stories ran. The first, "We must blame Apple for China", by Ryan Tyler, uses the New York Times report, not the "This American Life" segment, as foundation. The commentary mostly focuses on apologists defending Apple's behavior and logical fallacies of their defenses. I wrote the second, "Apple protestors make me really mad", questioning critics' sincerity and also expressing disgust about "bloggers and journalists looking to profit from the scandal -- riding the buzz to fame (in some cases infamy) and higher pageviews".

    Among the reasons BetaNews did no more:

    1. We didn't have access to sources in China to accurately report independently about working conditions there.

    2. Any stories written about Apple were sure to reflect negatively on a public company, making accurate and responsible reporting and, therefore, reliable sourcing more urgent.

    3. BetaNews' policy is to avoid news topic feeding frenzies, particularly when most sourcing is circular, meaning hundreds of reports going back to one or two blogs or news sites and our having no veritable, third-party sourcing.

    4. A barrage of heavy pageview driving stories would be morally reprehensible, by exploiting Foxconn workers in yet another way (e.g., profit motive for the posts).

    5. BetaNews is a small shop. We have limited resources. We use them as conscientiously as possible. I saw nothing conscientious about joining the anti-Apple chorus, recognizing that many blogs or news sites shift positions with the winds.

    Good journalists are mindful of their sourcing, particularly those sources who aren’t identified. Sadly the state of the news media is this: Gossip and rumors rapidly replace factual reporting -- in large part driven by the Google-free economy. Too typically, there is one source, as aforementioned often a single blog post or news story. Using a single source is careless. Referring to another blog or news story as single source is wreckless. Reporting news based on a single, anonymous source is negligence. Re-reporting as fact, or seeming fact, a blog post or news story relying on a single, anonymous source is criminal.

    The news feeding frenzies that follow give credence to a report's veracity, even if it's in fact flawed or out and out wrong -- often as is the case with many rumors. Just because everybody says something is true doesn’t make it that way. But often there is presumption of veracity.

    "This American Life" is a program with otherwise impeccable reputation for being reliable, trustworthy -- for checking its facts. If TAL can't get it right when trying, how can blogs or news sites that don't?

    Rarely a day goes by I'm not upset about the poor quality of news reporting, spurred on by the Google-free economy. The web would be better, we'd all be better informed, if more news organizations had the high journalistic standards of "This American Life". The Mike Daisey story is an aberration, and one TAL is taking responsibility for. There's an important lesson here that sadly I expect few will adopt.

    Photo Credit: Andrii Muzyka/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/16/It_s_an_Apple_and_Microsoft_tablet_war_now'

    It's an Apple and Microsoft tablet war now

    Publié: mars 16, 2012, 7:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The most interesting thing about the new iPad launch in San Diego isn't Apple Store, or people waiting in line there. It's the Microsoft Store down the way. In a brilliant, if overly optimistic, marketing move, the shop opened at 7 am PDT, one hour before Apple Store. The move was perhaps symbolic given the line waiting to buy new iPad, but nevertheless foreshadows competition to come. If you've been off-planet or other-dimension and missed the news, Apple's newest tablet is on sale today in 10 countries.

    Two employees set up under a small canopy outside Microsoft Store, showing off tablets running Windows 8 Consumer Preview. New iPad has big resolution on a small screen, but Windows 8 wows more. The OS is fast and fluid -- alive! It's like a living thing. Many BetaNews readers are sour on Metro, but I'm a big fan. The motif is a leap forward in user interface design, while iOS is oh-so been there, done that.

    Microsoft marketing for Vista used "Wow" as expression of surprise and delight. That's exactly the reaction Windows 8 generates -- well, on a tablet at least. You gotta utter "Wow". The only wow down the way at Apple Store: The short line waiting to buy new iPad. By the unofficial count, I was No. 121 at 7:35 am PT -- few compared to the hundreds more waiting for iPad 2 a year ago or the many thousands for iPhone 4 in June 2010. Perhaps Apple launches are now passé, or smart people preorder instead. When the doors opened, the number reached 130, and Apple employees had it cleared by 8:30 am.

    What surprised me: The seemingly different character of the people waiting. It was a reversion of sorts, in the scariest way. I covered the original iPhone launch, in June 2007, outside Apple Store Montgomery Mall, in Bethesda, Md. What surprised me then: Diversity of the people waiting. Few were geeks at all, and most weren't die-hard Apple fans. Buyers represented a real cross-section of America. I could say the same about the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 launches and a little less iPhone 4S. But this new iPad crowd looked like an Apple Fanclub -- diehards from the era before Apple reached mass-market popularity.

    They were so stereotypical, I repeatedly looked around for film crews. This bunch could have been pulled straight from one of Samsung's TV commercials mocking people who wait hours on end to buy the newest Apple thing. Perhaps everyone else was smart enough to preorder. The people in the front of the line waited from about 11 pm PT last night -- no time for Apple hardcores, or compared to earlier iPhone launches.

    Microsoft is right to show off Windows 8 on tablets -- to anyone and everyone who will look. If the crowd I saw outside Apple Store is any indication, then anybody is a whole lot of somebodies. I tweeted this morning: "Love it! Smart competition. Microsoft Store here in San Diego opened at 7 -- one hour before Apple Store. It's Windows 8 vs iPad!" Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg replied: "Except I can't buy Windows 8". He's right about that, but you can download the Consumer Preview to your tablet today. For free.

    Still, Apple has a compelling tablet available to buy right now, while Windows 8 slates are holiday debuts at best. Current Windows 7 tablets can run its successor right now. But the compelling hardware, like the Samsung Series 7 demoed outside Microsoft Store this morning, is pricey -- around $1,300, or about $470 more than the costliest iPad (64GB WiFi/4G model). Then there's new iPad's display, which resolution and pixel density outclasses every Windows slate currently available.

    Gartenberg claims the "Retina display is a major game changer. Wow". There's that "Wow" again. I agree; 2048 x 1536 resolution makes new iPad a transformative product. Apple will sell many tens of millions before the first Microsoft OEM assembles the first Windows 8 slate on the production line.

    It's war, and you are the territory. Judging by the early-store opening this morning, Microsoft is ready to fight -- for mindshare now and market share later. Sigh. If only Microsoft would release its own, branded tablet.

    The winner, if there is one, doesn't matter. Fierce competition means better products for you.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/16/Which_apps_are_ready_for_the_new_iPad_'

    Which apps are ready for the new iPad?

    Publié: mars 16, 2012, 4:08am CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you preordered Apple's tablet or will stand in line to buy on March 16, one question surely must come to mind: Which apps will look good on the high-resolution display? According to Apple there are 32, but we know that's a fib. There's at least one more, and its omission stinks of a little dirty competition -- Apple against one of its developer partners.

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company opened a new section on the iTunes Store: "Great Apps for the New iPad". Caveat: Apple doesn't explicitly say all the apps support the Retina display, just insinuates. Missing: Kindle 3.0 for iOS, which Amazon announced today. This competitor to Apple's iBooks app/iBookstore is ready for the new iPad's 2048 x 1536 resolution. Apple just isn't ready to let you know about it. Now why is that?

    Perhaps it's just an oversight. While I wrote this post, two more apps showed up on the list. Good thing I checked before reporting 30. Newest apps are listed as updated or new on March 16.

    Among the 32 apps in the section, only seven are free to download -- and among these only two are totally free. I applaud the approach of updating paid apps or those requiring subscriptions first.

    Two years ago, soon after Apple announced but hadn't shipped iPad, I recommended against offering free content. Reasoning: To establish iPad as a more premium brand and also to give publishers one place they could actually charge for content (versus the free web). Instead, there is free content but also a healthy dose of stuff paid for upfront, added to via in-app purchases or available on subscription basis. The balance between free and paid is actually quite good.

    The new iPad's Retina display offers a premium over every other tablet available, and it's sensible that developers charging for apps should cash in this benefit. Of course, free stuff will be updated in time. If you already paid for the app, it's a free update anyway.

    Among the apps Apple highlights:

    Barefoot World Atlas, which released today; $7.99.

    Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy, which also released today; $4.99.

    Flight Control Rocket, which also released today; 99 cents.

    The Daily, updated today; free to download, subscription required.

    Infinity Blade II, updated today; $6.99.

    Tweetbot, updated March 13; $2.99.

    SketchBook Pro, updated March 14; $4.99.

    The Early Edition II, updated today; $4.99.

    Mass Effect -- Infiltrator, updated today; $6.99.

    Solar Walk -- 3D System Model, updated March 16; $2.99.

    Surely the list will grow overnight and over the coming days. Who knows, maybe even Kindle for iOS will appear there.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/15/Windows_8_has_an_identity_crisis'

    Windows 8 has an identity crisis

    Publié: mars 15, 2012, 6:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Two weeks ago I asked: "So, what do you think of Windows 8?" Whoa, did you answer. I saved up your responses until today, when the first new iPad reviews hit and the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists can't seem to write about anything else. Surely there's something better than that. Say, apologists, how did that iPad unboxing video work out for you?

    Microsoft enthusiasts know that something better is coming along. Well, it's here right now for eager testers. The Apple Fanclub can have iPad. Many of you want Windows 8. But many BetaNews readers are disappointed, too, with the Consumer Preview released last month. You want your Start Menu back, you bristle at this mixing of touch-oriented Metro with the classic (well not so much anymore) desktop motif and you're concerned there's too much change coming way too fast.

    I originally planned to title this story "Windows 8 is a winner", before thoroughly reading your comments. For most of you, as a smooth-performing OS, that characterization is accurate. But Metro and the new Start Screen receive, at best, mixed reaction. Many of you are not loving either. Hence, the final headline, which more reflects the core debate about Windows 8: Is it a PC or tablet operating system? Can it really be both?

    Alexei Youditskiy: "Windows 8 is great!"

    Harold Teasley "loves" Windows 8. "The interface is clean, useful and informative. Multitasking is very fast on my computer and the switching between Metro and Aero is fast and almost seamless...I love the idea of the operating system presenting me with the tasks I need to get to right on the home screen For those of you who enjoy drilling down through a bunch of icons to find out the weather or if you have emails you need to respond to more power to you".

    Hector Macias Ayala: "This is stupid, even from a teenager who's excited to have a friggin' new UI, my whole activity on the PC depended on the Start Menu; everything I do is there, except just for Internet browsing, for which I have three icons in the taskbar, and a completely empty desktop. I hate having any icons there, and Win8 is all about having the stupid screen full of icons, and no wallpaper".

    A reader going simply by David comments:

    I installed Windows 8 on my laptop. My wife hates me right now, but I am still giving it a go. Many things are hard to find now, but they are there. It seems to me that Metro is a glorified Start Button. You can still get your Start button programs by going to the Charms bar and clicking on search. Scroll left to right to find most of the items in their program folders. Everything is left to right, which takes some getting used to. I also discovered that you can close Metro apps. You have to go to the upper left corner to get the currently open apps bar (like Charms bar on the other side). Right click on the app and click close. Done!

    I think everyone is just jumping to conclusions on Windows 8 due to everything being moved around. Right now it takes me longer to do things, but maybe it will be better once I 'tweak' the interface to my liking. Metro is butt ugly compared to my iPhone/iPod Touch. I think this will be great on tablets and phones, but they seriously need to tweak things for the desktop/laptop. Last gripe: Why is the shutdown button hidden under settings in the Charm bar? It should be a little icon on the Metro screen or the Charms bar".

    I can answer that one, David, and it also relates to why Microsoft removed the Start button: Windows 8 isn't meant to be regularly shut down.

    Eoin Malins sees Metro as "fine for tablets", but "unusable on a desktop computer. I felt so stupid when I had to Google for how to reboot the computer. Whoever thought hovering your mouse in an empty corner of the screen to make a 'Charms' (stupid name) toolbar appear, then make you pick 'settings', 'power', 'reboot' should be slapped. It leaves you feeling like you're playing a poorly written Lucas Arts game".

    Earth to Microsoft: No feature should ever make your intelligent users feel stupid. If it's not intuitive, the design is what's stupid.

    Commenter tinypocket astutely observes: "If Microsoft really listened to people, we'd probably still have windows 3.1 interface. I remember many people hated the Start button when it first came out. Now, almost 20 years later, they take it away and people start throwing riots".

    To reader plasticmonkey007 Metro is "just a giant step backward". Shawn MacLeod has more mixed-opinion, viewing Windows 8 as "useless as a keyboard and mouse OS, but it seems like it would be a pretty good touch-based tablet OS".

    "I definitely think there's improvements to be made to make the new interface more mouse-friendly, which hopefully come in the final build, but it isn't as horrible as people make it out to be", tinypocket comments. "At least the performance as an OS I find is much better -- feels more snappy than even Win 7".

    A reader going simply by John joins the chorus against mixed Metro and desktop motifs:

    Microsoft this message is for you: You should have designed two completely separate new Windows 8 versions, one for desktop/laptop users and another for touch screen/tablet users. By combining the two versions and releasing just one OS, you have failed miserably as the desktop experience is crap, horrible and very frustrating experience. I, and I am sure millions of other users, will never upgrade to your horrible new Windows 8. Unfortunately, you must go back to the drawing board, and fire all the idiots who programmed this piece of shit.

    Teasley sees the new UI differently: "Metro saves me loads of time. Metro isn't a bad interface, it just suffers from unsophisticated users who want to stay in the twentieth century. I'd prefer more control over my music and a way to put the tiles in folders, but the flaw isn't in Metro, it's in people who want to let their computers run their lives instead of having the computer package data for me in useful ways".

    HornyToad doesn't like Metro, which makes for extra work. "A system that makes you click three or four times to get somewhere when its predecessor would let you get away with one click and/or a press of the Windows key is in regression. In the Developer Preview builds, you could deactivate Metro and revert to the 'old' Windows 7 interface".

    Many commenters expressed their want to disable Metro and wonder why there isn't an option to do so. The tactic reminds of Office 2007, which introduced the Ribbon and no way to revert back to the old UI.

    HornyToad sees the Metro off-switch provided in the older Developer Preview as a "smart move, especially for the upcoming Enterprise and Professional versions. At work, our IT guys have installed Win8 on several desktops and laptops, usually with lower specs than on my machine, and though the new OS works fine on them, too (albeit slowly), the complicated interface already makes them say they might skip this Windows version and hope that the next will be more enterprise-friendly. (Remember how many professionals did that with Vista too?)"

    Nathan Ottenson is "absolutely blown away at how narrow minded so many of the users posting on here are. I was never much of a MSFT fan boy until I got my Windows Phone, and now they continue to blow me away time and time again". That said, "I agree there is a bit of a learning curve involved with picking up Win8, but I'm convinced that all the decision made in regards to navigating the GUI were done thoughtfully".

    Expect more of your reaction to Windows 8 in upcoming stories. The Metro-vs-desktop, PC-vs-tablet debate is one you can continue in comments. My main interest: How will the UI change affect your business' plan to deploy Windows 8.

    Photo Credits: Fer Gregory/Shutterstock (top); Microsoft (others)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/15/_Siri__who_is_Frank_M_Fazio__'

    'Siri, who is Frank M Fazio?'

    Publié: mars 15, 2012, 5:10am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm appalled by the sudden feeding frenzy about the Siri lawsuit, which was filed last week but only big-time hit the mainstream news yesterday. Now the damn thing is everywhere, and I've been asked to jump on the meat wagon and write something, too. Siri is the iPhone 4S "personal assistant".

    It's all so pointless, going after Apple for beta software, about which advertising states "sequences shortened" for Siri's responses. New Yorker Frank M. Fazio is suing Apple because he bought a 32GB iPhone 4S from a Best Buy in Brooklyn on Nov. 19, 2011. Gasp, "plaintiff was exposed to Apple's representations regarding the Siri feature" -- that is according to the legal filing. Siri's alleged crimes: Failing to understand Fazio and giving him the "wrong answer". Apple's alleged misdeed: Misleading and false advertising.

    I don't often have the lead party in a lawsuit so close to question. So I ask: "Siri, did you expose yourself to Frank M. Fazio?" To which she answers: "I don't know what you mean..." Mmmm, that could be regarded as a somewhat evasive response.

    Fazio "would not have paid the price he paid for the iPhone 4S, if he had not seen these representations", according to the lawsuit. So, what, Siri is the only reason he bought iPhone 4S? Anyone reading this really believe that? I won't excuse my skepticism.

    I'm confused. Why didn't Fazio return the phone? The lawsuit reads: "Promptly after the purchase of his iPhone 4S, Plaintiff realized that Siri was not performing as advertised?" Eh, what does, Bud? Stores have return policies for a reason. Did he not keep the receipt? He hasn't heard of eBay? Where iPhone 4S commanded top dollar last November. If Fazio knew "promptly", why didn't he get a refund promptly?

    The legal filing presents some of these representations that so influenced the plaintiff -- a few from an Oct. 4, 2011 Apple press release. As a test, I ask Siri a question quoted in the PR: "Will I need an umbrella this weekend?" Siri produces a weather forecast and answers: "Yes, it's likely to rain this weekend". Holy heck, three days rain is coming!

    From here, the lawsuit goes astray, and I hope the judge has a good watch and commonsense. The document refers to misleading Siri commercials that, for the most part, aired after Fazio bought iPhone 4S. What is he? A time traveller? Seeing the commercials in the future, they influenced his decision in the past?

    "Is time travel possible?" I ask. Siri doesn't know and offers a web search. The first result leads to April 22, 2010 Discovery News story "Is Time Travel Possible?" "The short answer is that time travel into the future is not only possible, it's been done, and we've known about it for over a century", answers theoretical physicist Paul Davies. Oh my, I didn't know that.

    I decide it's time for a direct question. "Siri, do you give inaccurate and misleading information?" "I'm sorry, Joe, I'm afraid I can't answer that". Oh? Man, those Apple lawyers are fast. Surely Siri has been instructed by legal counsel not to answer questions about an ongoing lawsuit. ;-)

    I change tactics. It's time for a misdirecting question: "Siri, where is Steve Jobs?" There's a tinge of hurt in her response: "Apple doesn't tell me everything, you know".

    "What is the distance between San Diego, Calif. and Caribou, Maine" (where I live to my hometown). "Here are the directions to San Diego," Siri responds, displaying a Google Map.

    After a response like that I ask: "Siri, do you give people accurate information?" Suddenly, she is defensive: "This is about you, not me".

    I'm not giving up that easy. "Who is Frank M. Fazio?" Siri doesn't know -- or won't say. "OK, how about a web search for 'Who is Frank M. Fazio?'"

    According to the web search, he practices emergency medicine in Flushing, N.Y. But I've read that Fazio is from Brooklyn. So I ask: "What's the weather forecast for Brooklyn, New York?" "OK, here's the weather forecast for Brooklyn, NY today through this Monday", Siri replies, displaying it.

    Mmmm. If Fazio's claim about misleading or inaccurate information is correct, then perhaps the web search found the wrong guy. What's a doctor doing suing Apple anyway? I could understand a lawsuit against a doctor using Siri as a diagnostic tool. Uh-oh, maybe that heartburn really was a heart attack (and Siri got it wrong).

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/15/If_your_Android_is_one_of_1_000__you_can_stream_Netflix'

    If your Android is one of 1,000, you can stream Netflix

    Publié: mars 15, 2012, 12:52am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Who says Android device diversity is bad for developers? There has been lots of blabbering on the InterWebs about fragmentation and how it hurts Android compared to iOS. Not at Netflix, which claims support for about 1,000 different Androids. Yowza!

    Fragmentation is real. As of March 5th, 93.9 percent of the install base was on Android 2.x -- 62 percent on Gingerbread (v2.3.x) and 25.3 percent on Froyo (v2.2). Newest version, Ice Cream Sandwich (v4.x) accounts, for just 1.2 percent, and that's nearly six months after release.

    Back in November, I decided that "Android fragmentation doesn't matter" and affirmed earlier today it's more a "perception problem". Reasoning: Diversity offers consumers more choice and increases competition among Android OEMs. But it's what developers think of Android that matters more.

    Netflix uses a homegrown solution for automating and testing content streaming via its HTML wrapper on hundreds of different Androids. Some devices matter more than others. Amol Kher, engineering manager for Netflix Android, iOS and AppleTV teams, explains:

    To put device diversity in context, we see almost around 1000 different devices streaming Netflix on Android every day. We had to figure out how to categorize these devices in buckets so that we can be reasonably sure that we are releasing something that will work properly on these devices. So the devices we choose to participate in our continuous integration system are based on the following criteria.

    • We have at least one device for each playback pipeline architecture we support (The app uses several approaches for video playback on Android such as hardware decoder, software decoder, OMX-AL, iOMX).
    • We choose devices with high and low end processors as well as devices with different memory capabilities.
    • We have representatives that support each major operating system by make in addition to supporting custom ROMs (most notably CM7, CM9).
    • We choose devices that are most heavily used by Netflix Subscribers.

    Netflix can't test for 1,000 devices all the time, and so prioritizes. "We are able to reduce our daily smoke automation devices to around 10 phones and 4 tablets and keep the rest for the longer release wide test cycles".

    From that perspective, yes, Android fragmentation is a problem. There is a subset of devices, and Kher doesn't name them, which are more compatible more of the time.

    How's Netflix on your Android?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/14/Android_rules_the_world_'

    Android rules the world?

    Publié: mars 14, 2012, 6:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Analysts love to make predictions. It's a no-risk gambit, because the forecasts are years away and nobody remembers if they're wrong. After thrice predicting that Windows Phone would beat out Apple's iOS by 2015, IDC has another for the same year: Android media tablet shipments will exceed iPad. By that reckoning, the firm predicts that Google's mobile OS will dominate the two major cloud-connected -- post-PC, if you insist -- device categories (the other being smartphones).

    "As the sole vendor shipping iOS products, Apple will remain dominant in terms of worldwide vendor unit shipments", Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, says. "However, the sheer number of vendors shipping low-priced, Android-based tablets means that Google's OS will overtake Apple's in terms of worldwide market share by 2015. We expect iOS to remain the revenue market share leader through the end of our 2016 forecast period and beyond".

    Well, hell, cancel my new iPad order. Give up my place in line outside Apple Store. Why bother if Androids will rule in just three years? Assuming that they will. Most analysts didn't see iPod coming. I remember forecasts showing Windows-powered portable media players would put iPod down. Who rightly anticipated iPhone's ascension? Or iPad's? Hell, even Android forecasts missed the mark.

    The question isn't shipments but platform dominance, and they're inseparable. As I explained 17 days ago in long missive, "Apple is winning the platform wars", iOS is gaining rapid momentum. Since then, Apple released some startling numbers:

    • 550,000 iOS apps are available -- 200,000 for iPad. Cough, cough, how many are there for Android tablets?
    • Apple sold 172 million iOS -- what it calls post-PC -- devices last year.
    • iOS devices accounted for 76 percent of Apple's 2011 revenues.
    • Apple sold 54 precent of all iOS devices during 2011.
    • Sixty-two million iOS devices sold in Q4.

    Platform Problems

    So does IDC's forecast take into account the larger platform and ecosystem around it? Not in any way that is obvious. So I will. Before Android can rule the world, Google and its partners must overcome some hefty obstacles:

    1. Android fragmentation. In November, I proclaimed that "Android fragmentation doesn't matter". It doesn't, except when it does. Android phone manufacturers have done an excellent job customizing the user interface for their smartphones, so that their customized experience matters more than the underly Android version. That's good for competition and differentiation among Android handsets. Choice is good.

    Fragmentation is by and large a perception problem, but also one that makes Android less appealing to many developers. Google sends the wrong message to everyone letting its Motorola Mobility subsidiary take as much as a year to update devices to Ice Cream Sandwich. Yeah, that sure instills confidence in the platform.

    2. Amazon. Only Amazon has done any meaningful Android customization on tablets, creating a curated experience similar to Apple's. ASUS has carved out a niche for Eee Pad Transformer, but nothing really reaching beyond Android enthusiasts and gamers.

    Tablet buyers rewarded Amazon. According to IDC, the retailer shipped 4.7 million Kindle Fires during Q4, jumping to second place market share during the launch quarter. Amazon's continued success is good for driving up Android shipments against iPad, but it's bad broadly. Kindle Fire benefits Amazon and its customers willing to buy into the curated experience but not the expanse of third-party developers or larger Android ecosystem.

    Amazon's objectives are contrary to Google's. For example, if I type the web address to Google's Android Market into the Silk browser on my wife's Kindle Fire, Amazon's Android app store opens instead. On other Android tablets, Google Play is default but there is option to sideload from other stores, like Amazon's.

    Yet Kindle Fire is largely responsible for Android market share gains -- 44.6 percent during fourth quarter, up from 32.3 percent three months earlier, according to IDC. If Android is fragmented now, its future is fractured if a heavily customized version leads the market. During fourth quarter the two leading tablet operating systems were iOS and Amazon's Android, not Google's, with combined share of 71.5 percent. The two most successful tablet platforms offer similar, curated -- apps, ebooks, music, movies and, in the case of Amazon, online physical goods -- experiences.

    3. Tablet reference design. During last year's Consumer Electronics Show, I observed: "The most important tablet is missing from CES, and it's not iPad 2". Google needed to take leadership over the Android tablet market 18 months ago. Amazon is filling the vacuum, culling Android and supporting apps to its own benefit, not the ecosystem's.

    Google had the right idea with the Nexus line of smartphones, which first two generations set reference designs for Android manufacturers to follow -- and they did. Google has promised a tablet this year, but it's still missing. There needs to be a standard reference -- a baseline -- for Android OEMs.

    4. Google device competition. Setting a reference design is harder now that Google owns a hardware manufacturer. Motorola devices put Google in direct competition with its partners. Already, Samsung is looking to beef up homegrown Bada and more broadly support Windows Phone. The South Korean electronics giant also is one of Microsoft's premiere partners for Windows tablets (see #8 for more).

    5. Google integration. Since Larry Page returned as CEO in April 2011, Google has dramatically increased cross-integration of products and services, with +1, Google+ and "Search Plus Your World" among obvious examples. They touch just about everything Google does. But cross-integration is much broader and is glaring in Android 4.0.

    By gluing its products and services to Android, Google lowers the appeal to third-party app developers. Some will argue Apple does the same with iOS, but it's lesser degree and nowhere as important. Google search arguably is a necessary utility, for example.

    6. Antitrust spectre. All this integration, along with privacy issues, is drawing antitrust fire on two continents. The US Federal Trade Commission has subpoenaed Apple and others regarding its Google investigation.

    Microsoft's US antitrust case stifled the company's innovation for more than a decade. Google could find itself in similar straights, which could negatively affect the Android platform during a crucial time of expansion.

    7. Android tax. Microsoft now collects patent licensing fees from all major Android manufacturers but Motorola (okay, now Google). Apple is looking to collect duties on Android devices, too. According to sources speaking to Dow Jones, Apple offered to settle Motorola and Samsung patent litigation with one term being $15 fee per device -- that's as much as Microsoft is rumored to get.

    The Android tax poses margin problems for manufacturers looking to release lower-cost tablets -- to reach the coveted $199 price Amazon commands today. That's harder if an Android OEM pays, say, $25 per device to Apple and Microsoft.

    IDC's forecast is based in part on the assumption that low-cost Android devices will proliferate during the forecast period. That's less likely if more OEMs pay the Android tax or it increases.

    8. Windows 8. IDC ignores Windows 8 and Windows on ARM, which Google can't. Like Gartner, the analyst firm separates tablets running the likes of Android, BlackBerry OS and iOS from those running Windows. IDC considers Windows tablets to be PCs. Surely the forecast would look quite different otherwise.

    Microsoft's new operating systems are sure to pull away interest in so-called media tablets running Android or iOS. That's a bigger problem in context of the aforementioned 7 things.

    One Thing is Certain

    Interest in tablets is exploding. Shipments rose 155 percent year over year in Q4 -- up 56.1 percent from third quarter, according to IDC. For the year, manufacturers shipped 68.7 million tablets, the majority from Apple. Growth is so strong, IDC raised its 2012 forecast to 106.1 million units from 87.7 million. For 2016: 198.2 million tablets, which presumably is too low based on recent IDC mobile device forecasts.

    ChangeWave says that 22 percent of enterprises plan to buy tablets during second quarter, with the majority overwhelmingly planning on iPad. That's 84 percent, up from 77 percent in November. Meanwhile, interest in all competing tablets declined.

    Gartner claims that the cloud will replace the PC as center of people's digital lives by 2014. Smartphones and tablets lead the way.

    The larger question is platform viability, and which one(s) dominate. It's too early to call Android, or even iOS, the one that rules.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/13/March_Madness__Win_an_Ultrabook'

    March Madness: Win an Ultrabook

    Publié: mars 13, 2012, 8:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    BetaNews is pleased to be a media sponsor of Newegg's March Mania Ultrabook-a-Day Giveaway, starting today and going for 21. Each day the tech retailer, in cooperation with Intel, will award one lucky winner an Acer Aspire S3-951-6646, ASUS Zenbook UX21E-DH52 or Lenovo IdeaPad U300s Ultrabook.

    Why just watch March Madness when you can get a little crazy trying to win one of these sleek Ultrabooks?

    "We are delighted to partner with Intel to offer slam dunk brands such as Acer, ASUS and Lenovo as giveaways for our sweepstakes", Bob Bellack, Newegg North America CEO, says.

    "College basketball fans will find that the only thing more amazing than the Ultrabook is what they’ll do with it" Steve Peterson, Intel North America retail marketing manager, says.

    Acer Aspire S3-951-6646 quick specs: 1.6GHz Intel Core i5 2467M processor; 13.3-inch display (with 1366 x 768 resolution); 4GB DDR3 memory; Intel HD Graphics 3000; 20GB SSD and 320GB 5400-rpm hard drive; 1.3MP WebCam; two USB ports; one HDMI port; WiFi N; Bluetooth 4; 3-cell battery; and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. Weighs: 2.98 pounds. Newegg sells the laptop for $799.99.

    ASUS Zenbook UX21E-DH52 quick specs: 1.6GHz Intel Core i5 2467M processor; 11.6-inch display (with 1366 x 768 resolution); 4GB DDR3 memory; Intel HD Graphics 3000; 128GB SSD; .3MP WebCam; two USB ports; one micro-HDMI port; WiFi N; Bluetooth 4; 6-cell battery; and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. Weighs: 2.43 pounds. Newegg sells the laptop for $999.99.

    Lenovo IdeaPad U300s quick specs: 1.8GHz Intel Core i7-2677M processor; 13.3-inch display (with 1366 x 768 resolution); 4GB DDR3 memory; Intel HD Graphics 3000; 256GB SSD; 1.3MP WebCam; two USB ports; one HDMI port; WiFi N; Bluetooth 3; 4-cell battery; and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. Weighs: 2.91 pounds. Newegg sells the laptop for $1,499.99.

    Contest rules: Open to anyone 18 years or older living in the District of Columbia or any US state other than Rhode Island. Prospective participants go to the sweepstakes website and submit one entry. Newegg will award the Acer Ultrabook during week one, the ASUS during week two and the Lenovo during the final 7 days.

    Ultrabook is a fairly new category of slim-and-light portables. Intel introduced the concept in May 2011. Lenovo announced Ideapad 300s in September; Acer the S3 in October; and ASUS the Zenbook also in October.

    PC shipments fell sharply in 2011, and Gartner predicts paltry 4.4 percent growth for this year. The analyst firm sees Ultrabooks as one vehicle for reviving sales.

    Okay, I appreciate your attention, but why are you still reading? Please enter the contest -- and good luck!

    Photo Credit: Solvod/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/12/Rest_in_Peace__PC__1975_2014'

    Rest in Peace, PC: 1975-2014

    Publié: mars 12, 2012, 8:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Gartner made a bold prediction about changing computing eras, claiming that the cloud will replace the PC as the "center of users' digital lives" by 2014. Welcome to the cloud-connected device era.

    The implications are staggering, if Gartner is right, and keep in mind the firm's core customers are enterprises not consumers -- hence the audience for this staggering prediction, which isn't so unbelievable. Computing and informational relevance has been shifting away from the PC to cloud-connected devices for nearly a decade. I started earnestly talking and writing about it in 2005, when still an analyst at Jupiter Research. Like other trends, this one started slowly and now accelerates quickly.

    "Major trends in client computing have shifted the market away from a focus on personal computers to a broader device perspective that includes smartphones, tablets and other consumer devices", Steve Kleynhans, Gartner research vice president, says. "Emerging cloud services will become the glue that connects the web of devices that users choose to access during the different aspects of their daily life".

    Shifting Relevancy

    The PC's relevance is rapidly diminishing, keeping with a long-standing trend of technological displacement -- a centuries old and fairly consistent phenomenon. Something new comes along and erodes interest in something else. The pace is slow at first reaching a crescendo, where there is a dramatic shift to the new from the old occurring within a short time span. Some older technologies continue for a time and disappear, while many others remain but in new niches. Some recent, and not-too-hard-to-grasp, examples:

    • Cottage industries and factories
    • Horse drawn carriages and trains
    • Trains and automobiles
    • Telegraphs and telephones
    • Mainframes and PCs
    • Digital music downloads and CDs

    As I explained in February 2011 post "The PC era is over" and May 2010 analysis "The Windows era is over", the personal computer won't disappear just diminish in relevance. But we're reaching a point of rapid change, much like the PC and mainframes in the 1980s.

    Computing and informational relevance shifted from the mainframe to the PC in part because of lower costs and greater availability. PCs cost much less than mainframes and made information more available, essentially more mobile, to more people. Similar transition is happening today, as cloud-connected mobile devices make more information available to more people in more places than do PCs. Computing and informational relevance is shifting once again. The mainframe didn't go away because of the PC era, the mainframe's relevancy simply declined. The PC won't go away, even though this story has a R.I.P. headline, but it's relevancy is declining -- and at accelerating pace. Enterprise adoption of cloud-connected device services is the tipping point.

    "In this new world, the specifics of devices will become less important for the organization to worry about", Kleynhans says. "Users will use a collection of devices, with the PC remaining one of many options, but no one device will be the primary hub. Rather, the personal cloud will take on that role. Access to the cloud and the content stored or shared in the cloud will be managed and secured, rather than solely focusing on the device itself".

    Trends Accelerating Change

    In its assessment of changing relevancy, Gartner identifies five trends:

    1. Consumerization of IT, which while a hot, current topic, has been going on almost as long I've written about technology. The difference: More of the workforce is technologically savvy and demands better tech to get the job done.

    Problem I see: Workers are killing themselves, by further blurring the line between home and work time and putting themselves in role of always being available.

    2. Virtualization accelerates the transition from the legacy PC era to its cloud-connected device successor. Enterprises can move forward without being held back by past investments.

    3. Big data. In the PC era, software applications define businesses' technology investment. The cloud-connected era is information-centric, which is exposed cross-platform across many different devices regardless of applications. Data, and access to it, matters more.

    4. Self-service cloud, which provides users more control over how they manage information and more access to it. Gartner says the "impacts for IT infrastructures are stunning".

    5. Anytime, anywhere, on-anything informational access is just too compelling. The cloud solves security and privacy problems businesses face today, as workers haul confidential information on laptops and other mobile devices outside the firewall's confines. Meanwhile there is commingling of personal and professional data on PCs, smartphones and tablets. The cloud fixes that problem, too, and allows businesses to maximize their return on investment across multiple devices.

    In the Year 2005

    Perhaps it's no coincidence that 2005, the year Microsoft originally planned to release Windows Vista, marks the beginning of dramatic changes affecting the PC's future relevance. Many of the most popular, disruptive technologies in use today didn't exist before YouTube opened to the public in November 2005. Google bought the service 11 months later. In August 2005, Google bought Android; while seemingly innocuous then, it is hugely important to cloud-connected devices today. Google activates 850,000 Androids everyday.

    In 2006, Facebook opened to the public and Twitter launched. Nearly all popular cloud services followed. Then came iPhone in June 2007, Apple's app store in July 2008, the first Android phone later that year followed by Chrome 1.0. Today, Facebook is the leading social network (with 850 million users); iPhone is the top-selling smartphone; Android is the global leading smartphone OS; and Chrome is the No. 3 most-used web browser. All this happened since 2005.

    "Many call this era the post-PC era, but it isn't really about being 'after' the PC, but rather about a new style of personal computing that frees individuals to use computing in fundamentally new ways to improve multiple aspects of their work and personal lives", Kleynhans says. He is absolutely right. I've called the so-called post-PC era the cloud-connected device era since 2006. The personal computer is but one of the devices, rather than the central one. The cloud matters more.

    I explained the importance to enterprises in March 2008 post "Do IT simply with sync". Synchronization is the glue sticking together the cloud and devices. Since that post, Apple, Google and Microsoft all advanced mature sync platforms.

    Last week I asked: "Does iPad make the PC obsolete?" The new iPad, with its high-resolution display, is a metaphor for all cloud-connected devices. It's a symbol for how non-PC devices increase in relevance, as the PC diminishes.

    You can believe Gartner or not. I'm a believer -- long ago.

    Photo Credit: Fer Gregory/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/12/You_re_not_buying_the_new_iPad__but_somebody_is'

    You're not buying the new iPad, but somebody is

    Publié: mars 12, 2012, 4:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you want Apple's third-generation tablet, retail is the only option short of waiting. Apple Store Online now lists shipping date as two to three weeks. Pre-orders started March 7, with the new iPad coming to stores in 10 countries this Friday. Did you miss out?

    For the majority of you, not at all. Last week I asked BetaNews readers "Will you buy the new iPad?" As of this morning, 54.56 percent had answered "No". That is from a small sample size, just 482 responses, which is atypical for buying polls and low compared to the story's pageviews. To me that says: So many of you are so uninterested in the new iPad, you couldn't be bothered to respond.

    Just 28.35 percent of you preordered, with another 12.24 percent planning to do so within 3 months of the March 16 release date. Now might be a good time to think about ordering, given delays. Another 6.85 percent will order within 6 months or longer; surely Apple will have cleared the backlog by then.

    A buddy of mine pre-ordered the 16GB WiFi white iPad and received shipment notice email on Saturday. He's golden, and likely to receive his tablet by March 16. He pre-ordered last Wednesday, hours after Apple announced the new iPad.

    New iPad specs: A5X dual-core processor (clockspeed not given by Apple); 9.7-inch LED display with 2048 x 1536 resolution; 1GB (unconfirmed) RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB internal memory; 5-megapixel camera; 1080p video recording and playback; accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; GPS; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi A/N; HSPA+, 4G LTE (on some models); 11,666 mAh battery (unconfirmed); iOS 5.1. Dimensions and weight: 7.31 x 9.5 x .37 inches and 1.44 pounds (1.46 pounds with 4G radio).

    High-res, Low-brow

    New iPad's big change is the high-resolution display, supported by beefier battery and faster cellular data. "Can't remember ever looking at my iPad 2 and thinking 'Gee I wish it had higher resolution", RCS_hkt comments "The limitation for doing productive work, that I currently do on my desktop (with dual 24-inch displays) is the small screen size, not the resolution".

    Reader KK is hot for the new display: "What are tablets other than big screens? The essence of the tablet is its screen. The New iPad has almost absurd resolution and there will only be a bit of optimized content available initially, but there can be no doubt that it's going to be a stellar experience". KK "did order an iPad 3 because I simply can't wait to experience that screen".

    KK is upgrading from iPad 2. "I purchased the first XOOM and loved it. I tweaked and geeked it without respite. At Xmas, I was given an iPad 2 and the XOOM was given away soon after. The eco-system, OS, and total experience was so far superior that I forgot about all the tweaks I enjoyed making on my XOOM".

    But among BetaNews readers responding to the buying question, KK was the exception, not the rule. Reader flamencoguy is "waiting for ASUS Transformer TF700T". John Crane has a "XOOM now, and will probably buy something from Samsung in a couple years".


    Apple's 3rd-generation tablet is in stores March 16, 2012. Will you buy the new iPad?

    Commenter vincentw56: "Nope"; trparky: "No, because Apple made it. Long live Android".

    Meanwhile, capncoad is "pretty happy with my $80 HP Touchpad running ICS. Don't think i'll be caring about a new tablet for a few years. Pricing for iPads are simply too expensive for what I'd use it for". Ice Cream Sandwich on TouchPad? Delicious!

    Ebay, Away!

    Reacer benjitek preordered, "and I won't sleep much until it arrives ;-). I'm upgrading from a 64GB 3G/WiFi iPad 2 -- and am glad I opted for that model. Even though the 2 is sticking around as the cheaper Apple tablet alternative, the 64GB models are being phased out and 32GB will be the upper limit.Should help on eBay".

    Concurrent with the new tablet's announcement, Apple lowered the price on 16GB WiFi iPad 2 to $399 and the 3G model to $529. Owners looking to unload smaller-capacity iPad 2s likely won't find their resale value as high as the original tablet. Still, they're not bad. This morning on eBay, used 16GB WiFi black iPad 2s averaged around $315. 64GB 3G/WiFi black iPad 2: $525 in auctions ending soon.

    "Nope, have iPad 2", Gene Vincent answers. "It's fine. Only use it to lie in bed and browse the Internet. I take it with me when going out of town to check email and websites. Great for that. Will want to take a look at a Windows 8 tablet but definitely no iPad 3".

    He's not alone. From comments to many BetaNews stories, lots of you are holding out for Windows 8 tablets.

    "My dream machine I'm waiting for is a 12-inch tablet that runs full Win 8 plus can run Android through emulation or dual boot, and with a keyboard case for extended traveling", RCS_hkt explains. "That would replace my iPad 2 and my laptop".

    Got something to add? At the least, please answer the poll.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/11/Is__399_iPad_2_cheap_enough_for_you_'

    Is $399 iPad 2 cheap enough for you?

    Publié: mars 11, 2012, 10:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last week, Apple lowered the price of iPad 2 16GB WiFi by $100 to $399 and the 3G model to $529. The move follows a pattern established for iPhone; during this release cycle 3GS is free and 4 is $99.

    My question: Is $399 iPad 2 cheap enough for you? Cheap refers to price, not quality, although you're welcome to debate the latter in comments.

    I got to thinking more about the price cut yesterday, while my wife and I shopped for a new Kindle Fire case. Not long ago, the local Best Buy had cell phones front and center as shoppers walked through the door. Recently, the store shifted handsets to the left and put tablets in this primo location.

    Yesterday, the phone and computer sections were virtual wastelands, while buyers buzzed around tablets like busy bees fleeting to and from Spring flowers sampling the nectar.

    By far, lower-cost models -- many also smaller -- drew most of the activity. During my 30 minutes in the store, not one person stopped to look at iPad 2 or Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. Best Buy sells WiFi 16GB models for $399.99 -- that's reductions on both. Actually, the electronics retailer has dropped the price on others, too. The 32GB models are now $499.99. Same is true of Sony S. Suddenly $400 is the new $500 for 9.7-inch or larger tablets at Best Buy.

    But, again, shoppers buzzed around lower-cost, often smaller, tablets. I can't say whether it was more about price or size, but I expect both. Obviously, a half hour watching tablet shoppers in one Best Buy store is no measure of anything. A bit more revealing: According to Best Buy Online, the top-selling tablets are Kindle Fire ($199.99) and black iPad 2 16GB. The majority of tablets available in store cost $349.99 or more, with $399.99 the aforementioned new sweet spot.

    Last September, I asked "Is $199 the right price for tablets?" after Amazon announced Kindle Fire. The poll is still open, and it's embedded below if you'd like to vote. Among the 2,172 respondents so far to poll question "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" only 4.79 percent answered $399. By comparison: 12.38 percent, $299; 26.89 percent, $199. Fifty three point six eight percent responded $199 or lower.


    On March 7, 2012, Apple lowered price on its older tablet by $100. Would you pay $399 for iPad 2?

    Best Buy certainly offers plenty of tablets selling for less than $200. Among them: Archos 70b; Barnes & Noble Nook; Cody Kyros; Le Pan TC970; Lenovo iPad A1; and Skytex SKYPAD Alpha2.

    Tablet competition is dramatically increasing and pulling away interest from PCs, and retailers like Best Buy are stocking up Androids, BlackBerries and iPads. "The use of applications such as email, social networking and Internet access, that were traditionally the domain of the PC, are now being used across media tablets and smartphones, making these devices in some cases more valued and attractive propositions", Ranjit Atwal, Gartner research director, says.

    Last week, Gartner forecast that 2012 PC shipments would grow just 4.4 percent year-over-year, and that's off a weak comparison. IDC calls 2011 the worst year for PC shipments in a decade. Over the last four quarters or so, Gartner -- and IDC, for that matter -- have consistently over-estimated PC shipments. So that growth number is likely too high.


    What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?

    Of course, there is a kind of calm in the PC market ahead of Windows 8's expected autumn launch. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 8 PCs take that front-and-center spot at my local Best Buy come the holidays. But for now, tablets are the new fad, and the question: Is $399 iPad 2 cheap enough for you?

    Some BetaNews readers already have expressed opinions. iPad 2 is "still way over-priced for what you get", Anthony Clark comments. ToeKnee: "Very cool, but really wanted $299".

    Commenter Douglas agrees. "That's what I was hoping too. I knew we wouldn't see $199, but I thought $299 was within reason. I still haven't purchased a tablet, simply because the functions I'd want it for just don't justify the price. I'm afraid I don't think $399 will change my mind".

    Woe: "Apple just -- Samsunged Android tablets".

    Please answer the question in comments below. If you are interested in another tablet, or recently bought one, please share that, too.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/09/Does_iPad_make_the_PC_obsolete_'

    Does iPad make the PC obsolete?

    Publié: mars 9, 2012, 6:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The question is really about the "new iPad" that Apple launched earlier this week. I say "Yes", for many people needing to upgrade their computers. Many of you will answer "No". Who is right?

    The new iPad is a transformative device, extending on the disruption caused by the original model in April 2010 and its successor a year ago. The 2048 x 1536 resolution display is main reason. For many people, the new iPad will offer the best computer screen they can afford, and, if they get a 4G model, one that is always connected. New iPad is the poster child for the cloud connected-device era.

    Imagine the creative and consumption possibilities of greater-than-HD display on a connected, whether cellular or WiFi, portable device. The high-res display widely opens up the tablet's utility for education, healthcare and publishing -- and every other vertical where portability and high resolution is a marriage of opportunity.

    The new iPad puts tremendous pressure on Microsoft as it preps Windows 8 and Windows on ARM for future tablet sales -- as in holiday 2012 the earliest. Nothing running Android competes, or likely will for at least the next 12 months. Unquestionably, many people needing to upgrade PCs won't. They'll choose new iPad instead.

    Chilling PC Sales

    Many PC owners already chose one of the first two models, which along with smartphones are chilling PC sales. "The use of applications such as email, social networking and Internet access, that were traditionally the domain of the PC, are now being used across media tablets and smartphones, making these devices in some cases more valued and attractive propositions", Ranjit Atwal, Gartner research director, says.

    Yesterday, Gartner offered a bleak forecast for 2012 PC shipments: 4.4 percent year-over-year growth, and that's off a weak comparison since 2011 disappointed -- the worst year in a decade, says IDC.

    "PC shipments will remain weak in 2012, as the PC market plays catch up in bringing a new level of innovation that consumers want to see in devices they purchase", Atwal says. Consider this: Gartner's forecast takes into account two sweeping changes coming to the traditional PC market this year: Ultrabooks and Windows 8 -- and still the forecast is tepid.

    "The real question is whether Windows 8 and ultrabooks will create the compelling offering that gets the earlier adopter of devices excited about PCs again", Atwal says.

    Thirteen months ago today, I declared: "The PC era is over". Being over doesn't mean dead. It's a transition, with the PC's relevance declining before cloud-connected devices. The PC will be with us for years, it just won't be as important as other devices. New iPad will be the star child for at least the next two quarters and capitalizes on changing behavioral trends.

    "Consumers will now look at a task that they have to perform, and they will determine which device will allow them to perform such a task in the most effective, fun and convenient way. The device has to meet the user needs not the other way round", Atwal says. Smartphones and tablets are more task-oriented devices than the traditional PC.

    Even Microsoft now tacitly acknowledges that the PC era is over. What is Windows 8 or Windows on ARM all about? The Metro UI they share is optimized for touchscreen interfaces for portable devices. Windows on ARM is the future of Microsoft operating systems, and will transcend the traditional PC. Windows 8 is a lifeline to those individuals and businesses that need support for legacy applications, hardware and behavior, while providing a way, through Metro, to what Apple calls the "post-PC era". I call it the cloud-connected device era.

    Microsoft will contribute to the decline of the traditional PC, which "will face more competition as we see new media tablets based on operating systems from Android and Microsoft, as well the new iPad", Atwal says. New iPad is here March 16.

    Apple's New Crop

    For Apple, the transition to the cloud-connected device era has brought breathtaking transformation. During fiscal first quarter 2012, iPhone generated nearly as much revenue as all Apple did in fiscal 2007 ($24.42 billion to $24.58 billion) -- the year the smartphone launched. During the same quarter, Apple revenue topped that for all of fiscal 2009 ($46.33 billion to $42.91 billion).

    In June 2007, I stood outside the Apple Store Montgomery Mall in Bethesda, Md., with people waiting to purchase the first iPhone. A buyer named Steve told me: "I think this is a day that you're going to see a change in how computers, how handheld computers are done. It's a little marketing history. I'm seeing it that way...I think we'll look back in 10 or 15 years, and like on that day the gadget came out -- same thing with iPod -- it changed the game".

    Chris, Steve and Eddie wait to buy first iPhone, June 2007

    I appreciated the sentiment, but didn't really believe it. iPhone buyer Steve was right about the transformation and the looking back to it, just not the time period. iPhone was the top-selling smartphone in 2011, according to Gartner, a feat Apple accomplished in less than four years, entering the market from scratch. Apple followed iPhone with the App Store (in July 2008) and iPad (April 2010). The rest really is history, culminating in 25 billion app downloads over the weekend and 62 million iOS devices sold just in fourth quarter, according to Apple CEO Tim Cook.

    Apple sold 172 million iOS devices during calendar 2011. By my math, considering 315 million cumulative sales, Apple sold 54.6 percent of all iOS devices in a single year, which indicates considerable accelerated momentum. Stated differently, according to Cook, iOS devices accounted for 76 percent of Apple revenues last year. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company already has moved to the cloud-connected device era.

    Apple's success will quake other markets. Today IHS iSuppli forecast that media tablets would be fourth-largest consumer of semiconductors by 2014 -- that's up from 35th in 2010.

    "Driven primarily by Apple’s iPad, the media tablet in four years is expected to scale semiconductor heights that took more than a decade for other products to attain, such as notebook PCs and cellphones", Dale Ford, head of IHS iSuppli electronics and semiconductor research, says. "This meteoric ascension will have major repercussions for the global semiconductor industry, as it realigns to accommodate the fast growth and vast size of the media tablet market".

    Based on revenue, that would put media tablets just behind desktop PCs, but far behind laptops.

    Intimacy is Why

    How is iPad driving such industry change? Intimacy is part of tablets' appeal, something I failed to grok when Apple announced the original iPad in January 2010. Days before, I opined: "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other". Six months later, after actually using the device, came my mea culpa: "I was wrong about Apple iPad".

    I made the change not because of any sales figures (Apple hadn't released any) but experience. I surprisingly found the experience using iPad to be intimate and reading to be immersive. Part of this immersive experience is the technology, but also how iPad is used. Apple's tablet is a sit down and focus device, as much because of size and shape as screen and user interface. The totality -- physical design and software benefits -- is immersion.

    As I've repeatedly expressed: The best user interface is you. Human beings are tool users who experience and manipulate the world through five senses. Hands and fingers are important because they are active -- they’re how people tactilely manipulate the world around them. Touch is hugely important, and makes tablets more personal, the experience more intimate. The finger and touch are more natural, because they extend you. Good user interfaces build on the familiar -- and there is nothing more familiar than me, myself and I.

    I predict that new iPad's high-resolution display will appeal as much for increasing intimacy and immersion as extending the device's utility to businesses. Many people will, by comparison, see their PCs as old, archaic -- like the cell phone to their landline -- obsolete, unnecessary. People still use landlines -- they haven't gone away. They're just not as relevant, and as relevancy decreases so does usage.

    iPad will make the PC obsolete, or lead the way to it. Microsoft is following along with Metro on Windows 8 and Windows on ARM. It's no longer a question of if but when.

    Photo Credits: Biehler, Michael/Shutterstock (top); Joe Wilcox (middle); Apple (bottom)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/08/Will_you_buy_the_new_iPad_'

    Will you buy the new iPad?

    Publié: mars 8, 2012, 6:30pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I just gotta ask. Apple launched the "new iPad" yesterday, with unexpected branding. It's not "3" or "HD", as rumored, just "new". Preorders started less than 24 hours ago, with the tablet coming to stores (or by FedEx to your home or office) on March 16th or 23rd, depending on where you live. Will you buy? Or perhaps you preordered already?

    The new iPad's compelling feature is the high-resolution display, which is 2048 x 1536. That is better than 1080p HD (1900 x 1080). The models with cellular radios offer either faster HSPA+ or 4G LTE -- the latter of which won't be available from all carriers in all markets. Pricing is unchanged, as I expected. Apple typically offers more rather than sells for less. It's tradition. Prices range from $499 to $829. Is that low enough for you? Are the features compelling enough?

    Please answer in comments, also explaining why or why not you will buy the new iPad. To help with the process, I've collected some specs and offer some for two other HSPA+/LTE tablets. iPad's big advantage over the Android competition is commitment. You will be asked to make one -- up to 24-months of data service. None is required with iPad. The 4G radio is there, but the user chooses to buy service rather than is compelled to.

    So for example: The Motorola XYBOARD 10.1 is, except for display resolution and roaming radios, reasonably comparable to the new iPad. Verizon sells the 16GB model for $529.99 and the same capacity iPad for $629. However, Verizon requires a 24-month data contract for the Android tablet. Assuming the $30 month/2GB plan, that adds $720 to the price and makes upgrading to a newer tablet harder later (since you're locked into the contract).

    Thirteen months ago, I posted: "The real reason Android tablets don't stand a chance against iPad -- onerous monthly data fees". Nothing has changed, other than carriers and competitors learning little from their mistakes.

    I followed up in December with "Cellular data contracts doom Android tablets", based on stunning research conducted by NPD showing a spike in the percentage of consumers buying WiFi-only tablets. One major reason: Onerous data contracts. Another: Many buyers don't perceive the advantage of having a cellular radio. That makes Apple's way -- of offering 3G or 4G radio with optional data plan -- more sensible.

    But, of course, WiFi-only Androids are available contract-free, and that's perhaps where comparisons might prove most interesting.

    Three Tablets Compared

    iPad: A5X dual-core processor (clockspeed not given by Apple); 9.7-inch LED display with 2048 x 1536 resolution; 1GB (unconfirmed) RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB internal memory; 5-megapixel camera; 1080p video recording and playback; accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; GPS; Bluetooth 4.0; WiFi A/N; HSPA+, 4G LTE (on some models); 11,666 mAh battery (unconfirmed); iOS 5.1. Dimensions and weight: 7.31 x 9.5 x .37 inches and 1.44 pounds (1.46 pounds with 4G radio).

    Pricing: 16GB WiFi, $499; 32GB WiFi, $599; 16GB WiFi and 4G, $629; 64GB WiFi, $699; 32GB WiFi and 4G, $729; 64GB WiFi and 4G, $829.

    Motorola Droid XYBOARD 10.1: 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB internal memory; 5-megapixel back-facing and 1.3-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; stylus; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; WiFi A/N; Bluetooth 2.1+EDR; 4G LTE; 7,000 mAh battery; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb). Dimensions and weight: 6.8 x 9.9 x 0.34 inches and 1.3 pounds.

    Pricing, with WiFi and LTE, from Verizon: 16GB, 32GB or 64GB -- $529.99, $629.99 and $729.99, respectively. Without 2-year contract commitment: $699.99, $799.99 and $899.99, respectively.

    Samsung Galaxy Tab 2: 1 GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch WXGA display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; microSD slot (up to 32GB additional storage); 3-megapixel rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; WiFi A/N; Bluetooth 3; WiFi and HSPA+ (on some models); 7,000 mAh battery; Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). Dimensions and weight: 6.9 x 10.1 x .38 inches and 1.4 pounds.

    Pricing: To be announced.


    Apple's 3rd-generation tablet is in stores March 16, 2012. Will you buy the new iPad?

    Readers React

    Some of you already have expressed strong, negative reaction in comments (not exactly unusual from the BetaNews community). I struggled to find one positive comment about the new iPad. Ah, that can't be good.

    "This new iPad is completely underwhelming", Duke2010 writes. "Apart from the high-res screen it's nothing special at all. I was expecting something exciting from Apple".

    Cristian Dragos: "More powerful than a 4 year-old Mac, but pretty much useless in doing some productive work. Don't really understand why would you need such hardware power on a tablet? If it would run a full desktop OS which would be used when docking to a docking station and could be used to replace a PC, then the hardware power would mean something".

    "Strange, I have no desire to upgrade my iPad", frankwick comments. "Does this make me a old? A dork? Immune to Apple hype? What's wrong with me?!?!?"

    So, what about you? Will you buy the new iPad. Please answer in comments below and take our poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/Who_needs_iPhone_4S_LTE_when_you_ve_got_iOS_5.1_'

    Who needs iPhone 4S LTE when you've got iOS 5.1?

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 11:37pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Wow, it's like magic. Apple frequently uses that word or some extension, right? Calling iPad "magical". Well something magical happened to an iPhone 4S one of my family members owns. Upgrading to iOS 5.1, which Apple released today, changed that cute signal indicator from 3G to 4G. What an upgrade! All for free, too.

    But wait! My speed test isn't any faster. It's still slow mo as ever. I conducted three speed tests in a row from my apartment. Ah, cough, cough -- .16Mbps, .94Mbps and .60Mps downstream. Woohoo! Gimme some of that 4G, AT&T!

    Of course, it's all a change in name only, and somewhat deceptive one at that. Apple had rightly called HSPA+ 3G until now. Other AT&T handsets call it "4G" and next-gen network phones like the Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket "4G LTE". There's enough confusion about what is 4G, without Apple mucking up things even more.

    But the change means that Apple and AT&T can claim iPhone and the new iPad are 4G. Whoa, the marketing planets have aligned. Quick, call the Mayans or Nostradamus before the world ends. I can feel gravity's pull now! iPhone 4S is now 4G, even though it's HSPA+ and not LTE. Hey, it's just like the new iPad, which is 4G LTE. The reality distortion field caused by this thing is overwhelming!

    No wonder Verizon can't get people to adopt LTE, with all this alternate-reality 4G hypnotism going on. AT&T claims it has the nation's largest 4G network -- all accomplished with LTE available in 28 metro areas compared to Verizon's 196. Last week, the folks over at big V acknowledged a scant 5 percent of their subscribers used LTE, which is real 4G.

    Or wait, did that number go up today? I don't have a Verizon iPhone here. Does iOS 5.1 magically turn 3G to 4G there, too? Please tell me if yours changed. Either Verizon's network of, ah, 4G subscribers just got bigger or AT&T got some more marketing FUD to murky the 4G waters.

    Apple shouldn't get off easier here, with a little more cuffing from me. The company gains even more from market confusion about 4G, considering there is no LTE iPhone. Suddenly the 4S -- and presumably 4, too -- appear to be more competitive to LTE Androids, all while Verizon pees away money on infrastructure upgrades and marketing.

    I know this: Verizon LTE pulls down average 15Mbps from my apartment. Even AT&T's LTE is good for 8Mbps to 10Mbps, consistently. But iPhone HSPA+ is, well, you can see from the screenshot, 4G in name only.

    Sometimes reality is stronger than the distortion field.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/iPhoto_comes_to_iOS__and_you_ll_want_it'

    iPhoto comes to iOS, and you'll want it

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 9:53pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    During today's media event, where Apple debuted new iPad and new Apple TV, software also took the stage, including the new iPhoto for iOS and updates to GarageBand and iMovie. All three apps are available for $4.99 each. Apple also released new iWork apps -- Keynote, Numbers and Pages -- and they sell for $9.99 a piece.

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company updated the apps in part to support the new iPad's 2048 x 1536 resolution "Retina" display. Yesterday I answered "Why does iPad need a HD display?".

    iPhoto completes the iLife suite for iOS and packs in lots of features. Users rely on a scrollable thumbnail filmstrip to navigate photos, and it's available in either portrait or landscape mode.

    Not surprisingly, the app relies heavily on touch for everything. As I expressed recently about Samsung Galaxy note, the pen isn't mightier than the finger. Samsung heavily promotes the quasi-phone tablet's stylus -- eh, pen -- as selling point.

    Human beings are tool users who experience and manipulate the world through five senses. Hands and fingers are important because they are active -- they’re how people tactilely manipulate the world around them. Touch is hugely important, and makes tablets more personal, the experience more intimate. The finger and touch are more natural, because they extend you. Good user interfaces build on the familiar -- and there is nothing more familiar than me, myself and I. Touch photos is very intimate, and Apple's choice of features for manipulating images is very personal.

    Apple's marketing material makes the point, about using fingers to "crop out a distracting background (or maybe an ex-boyfriend)". What could be more personal than that!

    Users can apply six photo effects, which number seems limited to me, with a simple touch. Apple also provides "brushes" for adjusting different areas of photos, such as "lighten", "darken" and "sharpen". These kinds of tools are common among photo-editing apps. Touch, with a little practice, promises more precision where, ah, touchups are applied.

    iPhoto for iOS also can create online "Photo Journals", leveraging Apple's iCloud. It's one of several interesting alternative products to Facebook Timeline.

    Another feature is less directly personal but no less meaningful. "Photo Beaming" wirelessly sends, say, a pic taken on iPhone immediately to iPad. No user intervention required.

    iPhoto for iOS requires iPhone 4, 4S, iPad 2 or the new iPad. iPhone 3GS and original iPad users are out of luck.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/Apple_slashes_iPad_2_price_by__100'

    Apple slashes iPad 2 price by $100

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 8:31pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Well, the price cut isn't as much as I predicted, but Apple today lowered iPad 2 pricing to $399 -- that's for the 16GB WiFi model. The WiFi plus 3G model is now $529. The price cuts came during a media event launching the "new iPad", which goes on sale March 16.

    Essentially, Apple is keeping the older model available, much as it does with iPhone 3GS and 4 for lower selling price, potentially opening sales to buyers who wouldn't or couldn't pay $499 or $629 -- the starting prices for the new iPad WiFi and WiFi plus 4G models.

    The pricing strategy is well-timed. The new iPad offers 2048 x 1536 resolution, compared to the predecessor's 1024 x 768 and offers faster wireless -- 4G LTE, as opposed to 3G. Other niceties include better camera and faster microprocessor. Those customers wanting more, will pay more. Those looking for an Apple tablet on the cheap can choose iPad 2.

    Apple sold 55 million iPads since the tablet launched nearly two years ago -- 15.4 million just in calendar fourth quarter 2011. The price cuts are sure to nip margins, depending on how many people see $399 as low enough. Apple sold 40.45 million iPads, generating $24.95 billion revenue, during calendar 2011. That works out to $616 revenue per iPad. Even a drop by $50 average selling price would keep Apple margins well ahead of competitors.

    Would you pay $399 for iPad 2?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/Preorder_new_iPad_today__in_stores_March_16'

    Preorder new iPad today, in stores March 16

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 7:47pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The wait is over. Today Apple officially unveiled the third-generation iPad, which is available for preorder today and will be in stores March 16, along with the new Apple TV. The company unveiled the new tablet during a highly-anticipated media event in San Francisco.

    Prices are unchanged, ranging from $499 to $829, depending on storage capacity and wireless radios: 16GB WiFi, $499; 32GB WiFi, $599; 16GB WiFi and 4G, $629; 64GB WiFi, $699; 32GB WiFi and 4G, $729; 32GB WiFi and 4G LTE; 64GB WiFi and 4G, $829.

    First countries to get the new iPad: United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Switzerland and Japan.

    The new iPad, as rumored, packs 2048 x 1536 pixels. Yesterday, I explained why the new iPad needs an HD display. This one has a pixel density of 264 dots per inch.

    The new tablet also adds 4G LTE support for AT&T and Verizon networks here in the United States. Verizon offers LTE to 200 million Americans in 196 cities. AT&T: 74 million Americans in 28 metropolitan areas.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/200_000_apps_available_for_iPad'

    200,000 apps available for iPad

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 7:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Apple now offers more than 550,000 mobile apps -- 200,000 specifically for iPad. CEO Tim Cook revealed the number today during a special event launching the third-generation iPad. Over the weekend, Apple's App Store reached a mighty milestone -- 25 billion downloads since opening nearly four years ago.

    Yesterday, Google rebranded Android Market. What's in a name? In this case lots of foreshadowing that should give open-source developers the willies. Google Play puts the search and information giant's brand front and center, removing Android altogether. Everyone with vested interest in Android should reflect long and hard on what that means, particularly now that with the Motorola Mobility acquisition Google can build its own branded devices.

    Google Play clearly is about offering a branded store that more directly competes with Apple's iTunes operation, including App Store, selling digital content of all varieties. Apple's early lead makes iOS an appealing platform to developers and iPad, iPhone and iPod touch users. On tablets, Apple's early tablet lead puts Android at a disadvantage.

    Android tablet shipments spiked during Q4, according to Strategy Analytics, but nowhere near parity with iPad. Respective market shares: 39.1 percent to 57.6 percent. However, Android unit shipments tripled year over year: 3.1 million to 10.5 million units compared to iPad's rise to 15.4 million from 7.3 million.

    DisplaySearch puts Apple's tablet share higher, 59.1 percent, followed by Amazon (16.7 percent) and Samsung (6.7 percent). If anything, Amazon poses more direct competition to iPad than all Android. Looked at differently: Next to Apple, Amazon is the biggest competitive threat to all other Android tablet makers. In its first, partial quarter of availability, Kindle Fire topped 5 million shipments, according to DisplaySearch.

    So Google Play also is about Amazon, and trying to prevent the retailer from fragmenting Android anew. The last thing Google wants is for Amazon, which like Apple offers a curated digital experience, to dominate the Android tablet market.

    From that perspective, major division in the Android camp is good for iPad and iOS app sales.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/Apple_sold_172_million__post_PC_devices__in_2011'

    Apple sold 172 million 'post-PC devices' in 2011

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 7:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last year's iOS device sales reached 172 million, Apple revealed today during a special media event for the third generation iPad. CEO Tim Cook said "Post-PC devices" account for 76 percent of Apple revenues.

    Apple ended 2011 with 315 million cumulative iOS device sales. A week ago, Google said that cumulative Android device sales had reached 300 million, with 850,000 activations per day.

    Android and iOS are engaged in a brutal platform war that likely will define the next major computing era (much still depends on what Microsoft accomplishes with its next-generation Windows PC and mobile operating systems). By activations, Android sets a brisk pace for iOS. "We get an activation rate of one million per day by mid August of this year," Asymco's Horace Dediu says about Android. "If it continues then we could see 1.5 million per day by end of 2013".

    For iOS device sales, 2011 was the break-out year -- 156 million, according to Asymco's calculations. The real figure is 16 million higher. By my math, then, Apple sold 54.6 percent of all iOS devices in a single year, which indicates considerable accelerated momentum. During fourth quarter alone, Apple sold 62 million iOS devices, Cook said.

    According to company financial filings, for calendar 2011, Apple sold 92.95 million iPhones and 40.45 million iPads -- generating $61 billion and $24.95 billion revenue, respectively. For all calendar 2011, Apple generated $127.84 billion revenue. The two products accounted for 67 percent of the company's sales for the year (again referring to calendar and not Apple's fiscal year, which is offset by one quarter).

    Cook didn't specify fiscal versus calendar year. I assume calendar for now.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/Verizon_stiffs_3G_Android_owners'

    Verizon stiffs 3G Android owners

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 4:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's no Ice Cream Sandwich for you, baby. Verizon has announced the smartphones and other devices eligible to receive the sweet Android 4.0 dessert, and all but two are 4G LTE. That's right, if you're among the 95 percent of Verizon subscribers on 3G, and you've got Android, no upgrade is planned.

    Only 5 percent of Verizon subscribers currently have LTE, even though the service is available to over 200 million in 196 metro areas. Verizon offers about two dozen LTE smartphones, tablets, netbooks and modems/mobile hotspots. Only 15 devices make the cut.

    By my quick count, Verizon offers 10 LTE handseets. Some of them will get the ICS middle finger, too. Ah, what about flagship Google phone Galaxy Nexus? It's not on the list! (Clarification in response to some of our readers. Yes, Galaxy Nexus ships with Android 4.0, but the non-Verizon, HSPA+ models are favored for updates. Didn't Google officially drop developer support for Verizon's model last month?)

    There is some good news here. Android loyalists who bought the Motorola XOOM a year ago will see their LTE tablet get Ice Cream Sandwich.

    Now if only Verizon would say when ICS updates will be available.

    The list, straight from Verizon:

    HTC:

    • HTC ThunderBolt
    • DROID Incredible 2 by HTC
    • HTC Rhyme
    • HTC Rezound

    Motorola:

    • Motorola XOOM
    • DROID BIONIC
    • DROID RAZR
    • DROID RAZR MAXX
    • DROID 4
    • DROID XYBOARD 8.2
    • DROID XYBOARD 10.1

    Samsung:

    • Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
    • Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7

    LG:

    • Spectrum by LG

    "We will continue to update this list as additional details become available throughout the year," says Verizon's Albert Aydin.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/07/What_if_iPad_HD_isn_t_LTE_'

    What if iPad HD isn't LTE?

    Publié: mars 7, 2012, 1:03am CET par Joe Wilcox

    If iPhone 4S is any measure, perhaps LTE isn't important after all.

    I asked the same question right before Apple announced the 4S in early October and honestly expected that 4G LTE would give Android handsets competitive edge. Not the least. According to Gartner, iPhone sales reached 35.46 million during calendar fourth quarter -- all without LTE. iPhone ranked tops in sales for the quarter and the year. The point: Sure, mobile geeks will pine for faster data. But will anyone else? Nah.

    Consider Verizon as case study. During fourth calendar quarter, the carrier sold 7.7 million smartphones. Verizon activated 4.3 million iPhones. Divide it up, and Apple's handset accounted for 55.8 percent of Verizon smartphone sales. By comparison, the United States' largest carrier sold 2.3 million 4G LTE devices, which includes mobile hotspots and tablets. At best, LTE devices accounted for 30 percent of smartphone sales. However, since that number includes other devices, iPhone outsold LTE smartphones by about 2 to 1.

    Verizon currently offers about two dozen LTE devices, including smartphones, tablets, netbooks and modems/portable hotspots. Yet, last week the company acknowledged that only 5 percent of subscribers had switched to LTE. This from the carrier with the largest LTE network by leaps and bounds -- 196 cities and reaching 200 million Americans.

    Sprint and T-Mobile are only just talking about building LTE networks, while AT&T's falls far behind Verizon. The nation's second-largest carrier offers eight LTE devices, four of them smartphones. Service reaches 74 million Americans in 28 metropolitan areas.

    That's another reason to wonder about LTE -- the infrastructure isn't yet there. Only one carrier has the reach right now. Something else: LTE adoption is even less advanced in major international markets, which HSPA/HSPA+ is more mature. According to Pyramid Research, there were just 7 million LTE connections in the United States at the end of 2011, representing 47 percent for the entire planet.

    Meanwhile, LTE device sales here accounted for 71 percent of the global number. More than 200 LTE devices are available around the world. However, "the majority of products are currently aimed at PCs, with three out of five devices models being discrete modems, either routers or PC add-on devices", Jan ten Sythoff, Pyramid's analyst at large, says.

    Apple could easily wait another release cycle -- and, judging by iPhone, most customers won't care.

    Why should they, when iPad is available with WiFi-only and cellular-data models. There is no cellular contractual commitment, as there is for Android 3G/4G tablets, so users have less urgency to future-proof, particularly considering that a new iPad likely will come in about a year (based on current release cycle). By comparison, people choosing iPhone 3GS, 4 or 4S over LTE Androids, are generally locked into 2-year data contracts -- and still they chose Apple.

    Analyst numbers are scant, but there is no indication from anyone that LTE has done any more for Android tablets than smartphones -- considerably less considering iPad's market lead. Apple generated $616 revenue per iPad during calendar 2011, which suggests at best modest sales of the $629 entry-level 3G model.

    Still, Apple could use the third-generation iPad to break ground on LTE, since the battery drain wouldn't be as noticeable on a tablet as a smartphone. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company could pave the way for iPhone 5 LTE -- or whatever it will be called.

    Then there is the rumored 2048 x 1536 resolution display, which is primed for HD video content -- something LTE would better enable streaming or downloading where available. Here is San Diego, I've seen downstream LTE speeds of 27Mbps.

    Based on the current crop of Apple rumors, the next iPad does pack LTE. But they've been wrong many times before.

    Ultimately only one thing matters. Do you care? Apple launched the original iPhone without 3G support at a time when it was becoming standard -- and still the smartphone sold well. Apple sold 55 million iPads cumulatively through the end of 2011, all without LTE. The question: Just how much does LTE matter to you? Would it keep you from buying the third-generation iPad? No-LTE support certainly hasn't stopped millions of people from buying Apple's tablet. Would it stop you? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/06/Why_does_iPad_need_a_HD_display_'

    Why does iPad need a HD display?

    Publié: mars 6, 2012, 10:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tomorrow, Apple holds a media event where the next iPad is expected to launch. There are rumors aplenty, with the most consistent being higher-resolution display -- 2048 x 1536. That's mighty big for a small screen. While the Apple Fan Club banters around rumors like Depression Era kids kicking tin cans, I wonder about the fundamental question: Why does iPad need a high-res display?

    It's not an idle question; 2048 x 1536 is unusually high resolution in computing. My Lenovo ThinkPad T420s display is 1600 x 900. Apple's 15.4-inch MacBook Pro is available with resolution up to 1680 x 1050. Then there is 1080p, which is 1920 x 1080. By many measures, iPad with greater-than HD resolution would be exceptional. That's nice to have, but do you really need it on a 9.7-inch screen? Someone does, and Apple is right to go after the market opportunity. For starters: Education, healthcare and publishing. Simply put: An iPad HD would be a transformative product.

    Already, Apple has demonstrated the value of greater resolution -- and with it higher pixel density -- with iPhone 4 and 4S. While only 3.5 inch displays, resolution is 960 x 640 and 326 dpi. I recently took out iPhone 4S for a test drive after using Galaxy Nexus for several months. The Android handset has 1280 x 720 resolution (that's 720p) and 316 dpi on a 4.65-inch screen. I expected to find the iPhone 4S to feel puny compared to Galaxy Nexus, but that's not the case. I actually prefer the smaller screen with high resolution.

    Size matters in portable devices, and there's much to be said for smaller. An iPad with 2048 x 1536 resolution would be transformative. Nothing available anywhere else could compete and likely wouldn't for at least 12 months, and likely longer. Current and announced Android tablets top out at 1280 x 800 resolution.

    Solutions architect Chris Koerner has prepared a compelling chart comparing iPad's rumored resolution to that of other devices. As he observes, "you could watch a full resolution HD movie and still have some space for content. On a 9.7 inch screen!"

    Like iPod nano

    Think of the new iPad like iPod nano. Apple introduced the diminutive music player in September 2005 to replace the iPod mini, which was the standard copied by competitors. Just as their larger devices arrived for the holidays, Apple transformed the category with the tiny nano. iPod sales dramatically rose with launch of the mini in early 2004 and simply skyrocketed after the nano. A greater-than-HD iPad would similarly redefine the tablet category, likely leading to a huge spike in sales and expansion of the addressable market.

    More importantly, iPad would be rightly positioned to further sap PC sales. Imagine the creative and consumption possibilities of greater-than-HD display on a connected, whether cellular or WiFi, portable device. Timing would put tremendous pressure on Microsoft as it preps Windows 8 and Windows on ARM for future tablet sales -- as in holiday 2012 the earliest.

    For many people, iPad would offer the best computer screen they could afford. That's assuming Apple keeps current pricing, which is my expectation. iPad has reached that point, where Apple typically makes dramatic improvements for the same price. This is historical practice.

    Assuming 2048 x 1536 iPad is reality, rumors about discounted iPad 2 make sense. Apple could easily offer an 8GB or 16GB iPad 2 alongside its successor without cannibalizing sales. The lower-cost model -- I anticipate $299 -- would open up sales to people who couldn't or wouldn't pay $499 or more for a tablet.

    Something else: There also are persistent rumors Apple will launch new Apple TV tomorrow. That makes more sense if there is an iPad HD. Right now Apple TV tops out at 720p resolution. If the tablet goes HD, timing would be right for Apple TV's boost and iTunes Store content for both devices.

    Marriage of Opportunity

    That brings me to larger and potentially more lucrative market opportunities. The first two iPads are more consumption devices for consumers, despite content creators' and businesses' interest in them. An iPad HD would widely open up the tablet's utility for education, healthcare and publishing -- and every other vertical where portability and high resolution is a marriage of opportunity.

    In January, Apple launched a major e-textbook initiative for one of its most important markets, education. High-resolution display offers all kinds of interactive, digital content options that make print as archaic as papyrus. E-textbooks are interesting at current iPads' 1024 x 768 resolution and compelling at 2048 x 1536, when mixing text, photos, video and live content.

    Same reasoning applies to publishing and there trendsetters transcending print, and more importantly online (where valuable content is given away freely). It's time people actually paid for content again. iPad as an e-zine platform is much more compelling at 2048 x 1536 resolution.

    Healthcare is full of possibilities. MRIs, X-rays and other diagnostic imaging demands clarity -- and there iPad's improved resolution and pixel density could be transformative.

    How about HD gaming or the possibilities around typography? A portable, greater-than-HD display opens up the tablet to lots of uses and, for Apple and its partners, loads of new market opportunities.

    All depends on the rumors being true.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/02/9_Windows_8_editions_is_7_too_many'

    9 Windows 8 editions is 7 too many

    Publié: mars 2, 2012, 6:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Two is enough. Windows 8 and Windows on ARM.

    Based on a registry key found in Windows 8 Consumer Preview, there are potentially nine different editions coming later this year: Windows 8 Starter; Home Basic; Home Premium; Professional; Professional Plus; Enterprise; Enterprise Eval; Ultimate; and ARM. The six Windows 7 editions already are too many. Nine is bad gone way worse and shows that Windows 8, for all the courageous changes, is too much about the past way of thinking. Microsoft is looking back at the old PC model rather than looking far enough ahead to the cloud-connected device era.

    Apple's approach of offering one desktop OS for consumers, small businesses or enterprises is better. But Apple exists in a competitive market. Microsoft generally competes against itself in PC operating systems. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has a monopoly on x86 processors, as determined by European and US courts. Differentiation typically drives competition, hence the number of toothpaste varieties. But Windows isn't toothpaste, because one product essentially owns the market. You't can sell Windows the same way as toothpaste, by trying to artificially create differentiation where it doesn't organically exist.

    Self-Competition

    But that's the approach Microsoft has tried since Windows Vista and it's an abysmal failure everywhere but one new edition: Enterprise. Businesses only can get this OS by signing up for or already participating in annuity licensing contracts with Software Assurance -- for which they pay more upfront. Microsoft imposes this requirement. There is nothing about Enterprise edition that requires it.

    In February 2006, when working as an analyst for Jupiter Research I blogged "the version strategy may also allow Microsoft to do something not done in more than a decade: Raise desktop operating system prices, a tact that can be difficult to take in a market where one product dominates and where monopoly and a contentious antitrust case cast long shadows". That's exactly what happened by introducing Ultimate and strong-arm licensing tactics for Enterprise.

    Microsoft wouldn't need to artificially differentiate Windows if there was competition. Monopoly creates three problems for the software giant:

    • Limited product choice -- because there isn't organic competition.
    • Self-competition -- where older versions of the monopoly product compete with newer ones.
    • Sales stagnation -- selling essentially the same product to the same customers over and over.

    Before someone jumps to comments and argues against sales stagnation, consider this: Ten-and-a-half years after its release -- and Windows Vista and 7 in between -- XP is still the most widely used version. Sure, Microsoft sold over 500 million Windows 7 licenses, but the majority went to customers using XP and not Vista.

    Keep It Simple, Stupid

    There are many reasons for this situation, but one is often overlooked. There are two Windows XP versions: Home and Professional. Microsoft added another four with Vista, kept a high number with 7 and looks to be preparing to up the number with the next version. The number of editions creates customer confusion and unnecessary barrier to adoption.

    Perhaps matters would be different if there was more natural competition or if Microsoft based Windows editions on something meaningful. But in looking at how Microsoft has divvied up features, they're arbitrarily done. This approach is more sensible in consumer markets where there is competition and differentiation a necessary byproduct.

    The versioning strategy works better with Office, another monopoly product, because customers typically buy the software separately. Three-quarters of Windows sales are through PC OEMs. The artificial differentiation forces -- or worse, fails to -- computer manufacturers to make hardware choices based on the operating system. There's a mishmash of hardware and software capabilities, all so Microsoft can offer multiple Windows editions.

    Three Office editions are available at retail: Home and Student, Home and Business and Professional. Two others are volume-license only. Microsoft sells three of the Windows 7 editions at retail, which is tacit admission six is too many. Basic and Starter come on new computers and Enterprise is license only. Conceptually, Windows 8 Professional Plus would make another available through retail.

    One is Enough

    In late 2005, when meeting with Microsoft executives and later blogging about the version strategy, I strongly recommended there be one Windows edition. The idea: Microsoft would externally release a single Windows version and, at most, keep internal versions for licensing purposes. After all, most customers buy Windows on new PCs anyway.

    OEMs would license Windows based on capabilities, and for them, different versions could make sense. Customers would make purchasing decisions around price and PC capabilities rather than trying to decide if a laptop with Ultimate is comparable to a similarly priced computer with Home Premium.

    The single-version approach isn't so radical. Apple does it, as Microsoft once did. Windows 95 came in one version, for consumers and businesses, and the OS was a huge sales success. Certainly, the single-version approach isn't the only reason. Nevertheless, simplicity made marketing Windows 95 easier and is more important now than 17 years ago. In 1995, Windows competed against products like Mac OS, OS/2 and DR DOS. Today, Android, iOS and OS X renews competition and, for the mobile operating systems, in markets where Microsoft has no monopoly position.

    Two is Better

    But one isn't the best approach anymore. Two is better: Windows 8 on Intel processors providing backward compatibility to older applications and bridge to the future with Metro UI and native coding around WinRT; Windows on ARM for mobile PCs, tablets and newer device categories.

    Microsoft might still get this versioning thing right, if there is only one Windows on ARM edition, which conceptually is possible since the operating system will only be available on new hardware. Microsoft plans no separate software sales. There Microsoft could offer a single license to all OEMs or make them pay based on capabilities they implement in the hardware. But to the buyer, there is one version and choice about capabilities offered by hardware and software together.

    Windows on ARM is the future of Microsoft's flagship operating system. There Microsoft faces lots of competition, looking at Android and iOS lead on media tablets and smartphones. Simplicity is key to effective marketing. Metro introduces change enough, without Microsoft overcomplicating Windows on ARM -- or Windows 8, for that matter. Simplicity sells, complexity smells, and this is truer in marketing than almost anything else.

    Apple's approach is better and undermines the sales value of Windows. With Snow Leopard, Apple lowered the desktop price to $29.99, or $49.99 for a Family Pack. Current version Lion costs less -- $29.99, which covers upgrades for multiple PCs in a household. So my cost for three Macs in our home was effectively $9.99 a piece. Windows 7 Home Premium retail upgrade from Amazon: $106.29 per license.

    And Microsoft wants to increase the number of confusing Windows editions and attempt to create arbitrary value around them? I sure hope not.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/02/It_s_March_Madness_for_Chrome_and_Internet_Explorer'

    It's March Madness for Chrome and Internet Explorer

    Publié: mars 2, 2012, 3:39am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Trouble looms ahead this month for Chrome, while Internet Explorer is poised for a growth surge. Behind this March Madness both browsers share something in common -- their ties to either Google or Microsoft other products or services. Chrome will be penalized for one, while IE is set to gain from the other.

    Chrome is one of the decade's stunning success stories, in part because of Google's rapid innovation that puts out a new version about every six weeks. But Google also benefits from ties to its other products and services, with search being high among them. Recent browser usage share growth reversals reveal just how much -- in January and February stats compiled by Net Applications.

    NetApps plans to close a technical loophole that helped Chrome game the system, so to speak, although Google's intention surely was more about keeping/getting users than raising usage stats. Concurrent with Chrome 13's release, Google started prerendering hidden pages from its search portal to speed up queries. With Chrome 17, Google extended the capability to the browser's "omnibox".

    "Chrome is the only major desktop browser that currently has this feature, which creates unviewed visits that should not be counted in Chrome’s usage share," according to NetApps. "However, the pages that are eventually viewed by the user should be treated normally".

    In February prerendering "accounted for 4.3 percent of Chrome's daily unique visitors. These visits will now be excluded from Chrome's desktop browser share".

    That could work out to a significant nip, in March, to Chrome usage share growth, which already hit a wall in January. Through December 2011, Chrome usage share grew for 14 consecutive months. On January 3, Google announced a temporary downgrading of Chrome's page rank -- how high it appears in searches -- following a minor scandal with a third-party ad agency. The marketer paid bloggers to write about Chrome, which violates Google policies on sponsored links. The search and information giant treated itself like other advertisers, lowering Chrome's search ranking for 60 days.

    The result: Chrome usage share declined in January, and again last month. NetApps released February data today. From December to January, Google usage share fell from 19.11 percent to 18.94 percent -- and to 18 percent last month. Google is scheduled to lift Chrome's page rank over the weekend. The questions: How much lower would the browser's usage share be without the prerendering benefit? How will its absence affect March, even as Google pushes up Chrome's search ranking? There may be answer when this month's stats are released on April Fools Day.

    Internet Explorer's situation is just the opposite. Chrome's January usage drain was IE's gain. Usage share rose 1.1 points month on month to 52.96 percent share, but dipped to 52.84 percent in February.

    Yesterday, Microsoft released Windows 8 Consumer Preview, which already passed 1 million downloads today. The operating system comes with Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 5. Integration into Windows benefits IE.

    The question: Will enough people download Windows 8 and use IE10 to boost browser usage share? Surely there has to be some benefit, say, if someone mostly or mainly using Chrome switches to IE10, even temporarily, to test the browser. Usage share isn't finite like market share. The latter typically tracks X over Y time period. The other measure takes into account that people can, and do, use multiple browsers -- and that's more likely when testing a new version of Windows.

    So as Chrome looks down, IE conceptually looks up -- and movement for either browser can affect others. In February, Firefox usage share was 20.92 percent, up from 20.88 percent. Safari also gained, rising to 5.24 percent from 4.9 percent a month earlier. Chrome losses could be their gains.

    Photo Credit: camicuibus/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/01/US_iPhone_ownership_catches_up_to_Android'

    US iPhone ownership catches up to Android

    Publié: mars 1, 2012, 11:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's one of the startling data points from a report that Pew Internet released today. The non-profit "fact tank" asked American adults what kind of smartphone they own. Twenty percent responded "Android device", up from 15 percent in May 2011. iPhone: 19 percent, up from 10 percent during the same time period. Pew concluded the newer survey in February.

    The percentage of people saying they own iPhone nearly doubled between surveys, which is stunning growth compared to Android. Meanwhile, BlackBerry ownership fell to 6 percent from 10 percent. Those respondents describing themselves as Windows Phone owners was unchanged, at 2 percent.

    The surge in iPhone owners surely reflects Apple's calendar fourth quarter success in smartphone sales -- 37 million globally. AT&T, Sprint and Verizon sell iPhone in the United States, collectively activating 13.7 million of the handsets during Q4.

    More broadly, 53 percent of American adult cellular handset owners have smartphones. "Since 88 percent of US adults are now cell phone owners, that means that a total of 46 percent of all American adults are smartphone users", according to Pew. That 46 percent is an 11 point increase from May 2011.

    "Two in five adults (41 percent) own a cell phone that is not a smartphone, meaning that smartphone owners are now more prevalent within the overall population than owners of more basic mobile phones".

    Survey questions about devices like smartphones often have a higher margin of error because people often don't know what they have. For example, someone might know they have a Samsung phone but not be sure whether it runs Android, Bada or Windows Phone.

    However, aggressive marketing raises awareness, and cell phones are heavily advertised across mediums and retail channels. As such, Americans are surer about their handsets. For example, the proportion of cell phone owners unsure what device they owned fell to just 4 percent in February from 13 percent in May. Pew put the margin of error for data pertaining to cell phone owners at 3 percent.

    Pew conducted its survey between mid-January and mid-February. The report, authored by Aaron Smith, senior research specialist, is available now.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/01/Windows_8_Consumer_Preview__1_million_downloads_first_day'

    Windows 8 Consumer Preview: 1 million downloads first day

    Publié: mars 1, 2012, 9:30pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's the official count as delivered rather surreptitiously via the Building Windows 8 twitter account. I guess some things just can't wait for a press release or blog post.

    The tweet: "One day later...one million downloads of the Consumer Preview".

    Considering this is pre-release software and a hefty download, 1 million is an impressive start for Microsoft.

    The Redmond, Wash.-based company unveiled Windows 8 Consumer Preview on Leap Day, during Mobile World Congress in Barcelona Spain. The Preview follows another, for developers, released in September 2011. During yesterday's media launch event, Windows and Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky said that Microsoft has made 100,000 code changes between the previews.

    The rush to download the software isn't surprising. Not since Windows 95 has the operating system changed so much, and the change is far from over. Separately, Microsoft is testing Windows on ARM, which leaves behind legacy apps as Microsoft attempts to push the Windows paradigm forward -- to cloud-connect devices, which includes non-PC form factors. Windows on ARM is the future of Microsoft operating systems, but the transition will be long for anyone relying on legacy code.

    Both operating systems share similar user interface motif, Metro, although Windows 8 also has a desktop motif to support legacy apps. But something is missing from the desktop -- the Start button introduced with Windows 95 and refashioned for Vista. Microsoft is pushing instant-on capabilities in Windows on Intel or ARM processors. Who needs a Start button if the PC is always on?

    Metro is a tile-like user interface with active content behind it. In many ways the approach fulfills Microsoft's Active Desktop vision that failed during the late 1990s. Not surprisingly, reaction to Metro is mixed, if BetaNews commenters are any measure. From a look elsewhere around the Web, I'd say they are.

    But in a brilliant commentary today, BetaNews reader and software developer Robert Johnson explains why Metro is so important and Microsoft's user interface approach is truly visionary. He writes:

    Microsoft is blazing a bold new path into a future where chrome is used when appropriate (Office, Visual Studio, etc.) and when it's not necessary (Metro apps). This is why so many people don't like Metro. The don't like the apps. They don't like the start screen. It's way too different from what they're used to. But I can't help but think that regardless of how many of us go kicking and screaming into the future of software interaction, Microsoft is on the right track.

    Metro represents something else. It is the bridge from past to future, and the future is Windows on ARM or Intel processors without legacy code, and that's a transition years -- even a decade or more in process. Consider that more than a decade after launch, Windows XP is still the most widely-used operating system. XP and Windows 7 still look much alike. Metro is an alien being.

    BetaNews reader frankwick expresses a sentiment I expect to hear lots among IT managers: "I would lose my job if I deployed Win8". He responds to Robert's commentary:

    I agree that it is forward thinking. I am glad they are thinking differently. What I do not like is how they are crippling the traditional desktop in favor of the touch UI. I manage 7,000 desktops and cannot imagine unleashing Win8 (in its current form) to my users. I have users that sit in an office, sit in trucks, and work in plants. Can you imagine what would happen if I gave them a computer without a Start button?

    Change will be hard, and Microsoft is courageous to attempt it.

    Perhaps Microsoft can boast 2 million downloads tomorrow or even the next day. My question: How many of those 1 million downloads will still be used a week from now or a month?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/03/01/Camera_Awesome_for_iPhone_first_impressions_review'

    Camera Awesome for iPhone first impressions review

    Publié: mars 1, 2012, 1:54am CET par Joe Wilcox

    There are few apps that could pull me away from Galaxy Nexus, the current Google phone, to iPhone 4S. But SmugMug's Camera Awesome is close. Real close. If you're an iPhone shutterbug, this app is for you -- or so I believe after a brief test late today.

    Photo buffs can find no shortage of apps for iPhone. But Camera Awesome literally lives up to its name, improving the photo-taking process -- not just enhancing images later. The app provides tools for easing image composition, adding effects before or after taking the pic and automatically post-processing your work -- what SmugMug calls "Awesomizing".

    I got email about the new app this morning during the Windows 8 Consumer Preview hoopla, when there wasn't time to leave my chair to pee, let alone try something new. Oh, but I wanted to.

    SmugMug is a true testament that the Google-free economy hasn't ruined all the Internet. SmugMug is a family-run photo sharing site that charges for its services and is profitable doing so. It's no free ride. The photo services, which cater more to pros, are exceptional, too. What's that axion? You get what you pay for.

    This is not a full review of Camera Awesome, since I simply couldn't spend enough time using the app today, but more of a first impression --and, whoa, is it good. If you're looking for a thorough review, I suggest Katherine Boehret's over at All Things Digital, which I deliberately didn't read before conducting and writing about my quick test.

    One Helluva Kit

    Camera Awesome is free from Apple's App Store, although SmugMug charges for some extras, as I learned when trying to choose a filter before taking a photo. The app isn't for post-processing pics taken using iPhone's camera feature. Rather you take photos from within Camera Awesome instead.

    There are so many useful tools, some people might be overwhelmed at first. But they are pleasingly presented in an uncluttered user interface that hides features behind drop-down or pop-up menus. Camera Awesome distinguishes itself right away by letting the photographer set exposure point as well as focal point. In my test photo below, I misunderstood and set the exposure where I wanted the focus, so the kitty's collar is sharp but not his face.

    Other useful tools surprised me. There are four for composing photos, such as leveling the horizon or following the rule of thirds. I was simply stunned to see a composition option for following the Golden Ratio, which is one of the best means of composing really good photos. If this app provided nothing more than these great composition tools, I'd rate it a keeper.

    Other options include image stabilization and two burst modes, with SmugMug claiming capability to shoot 9 images in quick succession.

    To the Cloud

    I used the SmugMug app to "Awesomize" the photo above, but I could have done much more. Camera Awesome presents some nifty effects that can be applied when taking a photo or afterwards. SmugMug provides some for free, but others require in-app purchases. I found this out when trying to apply automatic post-processing presets, which cost 99 cents for nine of them -- they're a bargain. Other goodies include filters, textures and frames, among others.

    To my surprise, images aren't stored in iPhone's Camera Roll by default, although there is an option to do this. That's because SmugMug looks to the cloud instead. However, cloud archive also is turned off by default. For people with SmugMug accounts, which cost from $40 to $150 a year, Camera Awesome will archive photos online. But there are options to post -- that is share -- to other services: Facebook, Flickr, Picasa, Photobucket, SmugMug, Twitter and YouTube.

    "YouTube?" you ask. Camera Awesome is also video awesome, offering a surprising feature. The big problem with phone video is timing. You see something to shoot, fumble with the video app and the moment is gone. You miss the shot. Camera Awesome captures 5 seconds of video before you even hit record. Well, that's what SmugMug claims. In three sample videos of a digital clock, I didn't see the promised "video time travel" benefit.

    Something else: Those cool composition tools and photo effects are available for video, too. But I simply didn't have time to amply test them.

    Aspiringly Awesome

    Presentation is everything in photography, and same should be said of promoting photo apps. Now this is marketing. From the Camera Awesome product page:

    awesomize [ˈô-səm-īz]
    verb
    To trick your friends into thinking you’re a famous photographer.

    How's that for aspirational? Good products make you feel better about yourself, or in this case photos you take.

    Well, that's if you've got iPhone. Don't expect to see Camera Awesome on Android or Windows Phone anytime soon. The SmugMug Family loves their Macs and other Apple products. This passion translates to the apps, which favor Apple platforms. Still, SmugMug supports Android, but finds coding for the platform problematic.

    SmugMug CEO Don MacAskill tweeted this morning about Camera Awesome: "On Android: It's coming. It's hard. Hardware fragmentation up the wazoo. Insane memory limitations. Ugh. But I want it! So building it!"

    For now, Camera Awesome is available from Apple's App Store. The app requires iOS 4.3 or later and supports iPad, iPhone and iPod touch but is not a native iPad app.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/29/So__what_do_you_think_of_Windows_8_'

    So, what do you think of Windows 8?

    Publié: février 29, 2012, 10:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I must be candid. The best product reviews come from you. You're the audience BetaNews reaches, and you use software in real ways that no benchmark can measure. So once again, I ask for your review -- this time Windows 8 Consumer Preview, which is now available for download as upgrade or in a virtual machine.

    Your first impressions will matter to other readers, or even a thorough review. Please comment to this post. I'll collect first impressions/short reviews into a separate post. However, I'd love to run your review, with name, photo and bio instead. Please email joe at betanews dot com to contribute a review. To everyone: Please provide specs on your test systems, which will be valuable reference for other Consumer Previewers.

    Several reader byline reviews is no problem. We can't write enough on Windows 8 or offer too many reactions to the Consumer Preview. An IT manager, software developer, small business owner or Windows enthusiast will have different impressions.

    Windows 8 Consumer Preview is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions, if you don't have it yet.

    Some of you have already shared first reactions in comments, which I bring here to whet other readers' interest in contributing, too.

    "This preview release is awesome", alshawwa comments. There are "big improvements over Windows 8 Developer Preview. I dont have a touchscreen; just by using it with a keyboard and mouse, I still like it. Dig in the new stuff you will find a lot of cool additions".

    Pedro Innecco:

    So far I don't like it. :(

    I find the Metro applications clumsy. I find the Metro apps too simplistic for a desktop OS. The calendar and people apps, for instance, are way limited when comparing to a traditional desktop counterpart.

    I said it before and I will say it again: I like Metro but leave it for tablets. The desktop aspect of Windows seems to have been cast aside even if Microsoft says otherwise.

    Brian Butterworth encountered some regional quirks:

    I'm just a little bit peeved that the installer has totally ignored that I said 'United Kingdom', and I've had to find all the UK settings myself, otherwise the date is the wrong way round and the keyboard unmapped. Bit crap for a beta, honestly.

    The 'finance app' seems to only have US things in it, too. Had a problem with the connection to Windows Live and the password being recognized. Needed a reboot to sort.

    Still hate Metro, in particular now because you can't drag the background to scroll, as you can on Android.

    Just trying to link the Photos app to Flickr and the screen wapper requires you to scroll around to sign in and approve the app. Had to sign into Flickr first with my Facebook account to get the Facebook connect to work in Pictures...

    Strange Music app doesn't seem to be able to access the 30,000 MP3 files on the PC. At least it's not a blank white screen like Messaging.

    Reader charliemaggot encountered some problems, too. He "installed into a clean VMWare image". He's frustrated by Metro and desktop behavior. "Running anything just throws you back to the standard Win7 desktop, but without a Start menu. That's pretty annoying. What's the point of having a whole new UI experience if you keep reverting the user back to the old style. "I hope I'm either doing something amazingly wrong, or this isn't even close to the final version".

    "The Windows app store is kinda cool", bigsexy022870 comments. "Not a huge amount of app yet. But what's there is pretty cool. Something they should have did long ago. There's alot of cool stuff that really is fun to play with".

    So what do you think of Windows 8? Please answer in comments or email joe at betanews dot com if you'd like a review published with your name, bio and photo.

    Reminder: Windows 8 Consumer Preview is available in 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/29/Who_is_downloading_Windows_8_Consumer_Preview__You_are_'

    Who is downloading Windows 8 Consumer Preview? You are!

    Publié: février 29, 2012, 6:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday I asked: "Will you try Windows 8 Consumer Preview?" It's here, and many of you are rip-roaring ready.

    Windows 8 is Microsoft's most important OS release since XP and quite possible ever. The company is reinventing Windows for the cloud-connected device era. There is major emphasis on mobility and syncing you across devices. The new Metro UI revives and fulfills Microsoft's Active Desktop concept attempted in the 1990s and abandoned by Windows XP's launch in October 2001.

    Not all BetaNews readers getting the Windows 8 preview are excited about Metro. "I will be upgrading the Developer Preview machine to the latest version", says Brian Butterworth. "As I will be using it with a keyboard and mouse I will be looking forward to improvements on that front. I still can't see me actually liking Metro, but I really want to be sure".

    Commenter carigis is "not really into the look of metro either".

    BetaNews reader thomas.tmc has run the Windows 8 Developer Preview since its September release "without even a hiccup. W8 DP has been phenomenal". He runs the software on a "budget box I built in Oct. 2007 for Vista: AMD Athlon 64 x2 4400+, 4 GB RAM, Radeon HD 5450 (upgrade installed Feb 2011), [and] dual display".

    He has advice that should be good for Butterworth and carigis:

    Metro Start takes a little getting used to, but even if used as just a place to find and launch programs (which I rarely used the old Start menu for) it's a significant improvement. Since I use menus on the taskbar (folder on desktop/desktop taskbar toolbar) for launching my most commonly used apps though, I rarely even see the Metro screen except at start up. I suspect that I will use it more when there are better apps available from the newly opened store however.

    Ayan Sarkar "can't wait". Oh yeah? So do you have the software already? James Portelli: "Can't wait to get my hands on Windows 8 Consumer Preview!!" Is it in your hands, James?

    Robert_IT is "blowing away three desktop boxes in my home lab and loading Windows 8 on all three. Might even splurge on a touch screen monitor or buy a Samsung Slate if I like it enough. If it will run on my wife's MAC I would install it there as well just to piss her off. LMAO".

    carigis "will try" the Consumer Preview "although the Developer Preview only lasted about 24 hours on my pc when I tried that.. I found the interface tedious, having to keep going into the Metro screen with the desktop basically being an app, not having the usual start button...We will see if it lasts more then a day".

    Microsoft offers two options for previewing the software -- one in a virtual machine. That's John Crane's choice. "I plan on installing it and running is as a guest OS using Virtual Box, running on a 64 bit Windows 7 machine".

    TomL_12953 answers: "Sure I will. I doubt I'll deploy it, though, until it's the only choice on new PCs. My users already complain when their icons get rearranged. Can you imagine the outcry with a whole new paradigm? I'll probably install it in VirtualBox on people's PCs and let them play with it for a while and get used to it.

    Khurram Javed: "Definitely installing it on my-not-so-high-end PC and my Mom's laptop as well ;)".

    S-o-o-o-o have you got it already?

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/29/Microsoft_releases_Windows_8_Consumer_Preview'

    Microsoft releases Windows 8 Consumer Preview

    Publié: février 29, 2012, 4:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Not since Windows XP has Microsoft promised so much and delivered it so quickly. Today, in Barcelona, Spain, Microsoft officially announced what we all knew was coming: Windows 8 Consumer Preview. The software is available for anyone to download and try, and its timing almost certainly assures -- short of atomic blast, alien invasion or Mayan end-of-the-world predictions come true -- that Windows 8 will release to manufacturing by end of summer and launch in time for holiday PC sales.

    Microsoft has greatly improved the look, feel and functionality of Windows 8 since releasing the Developer Preview in September. Given release timing, the software available today should be considered near-final code. Expect few changes before the release candidate, assuming Microsoft even sees need to make one publicly available. The Consumer Preview is available to anyone with a PC capable of running it.

    Windows "Reimagined"

    Windows and Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky made the formal announcement, as expected, at a press event during Mobile World Congress. "With Windows 8, we reimagined the different ways people interact with their PC and how to make everything feel like a natural extension of the device, whether using a Windows 8 tablet, laptop or all-in-one" Sinofsky says. "The Windows 8 Consumer Preview brings a no-compromises approach to using your PC".

    Microsoft has made 100,000 changes to Windows 8 code since the Developer Preview, Sinofsky told event attendees today.

    Along with the desktop software, Windows 8 Server Beta and Visual Studio 11 Beta, which developers will want for creating apps for both operating systems, are available. Microsoft didn't release Windows on ARM, which is available to select testers preinstalled on hardware.

    For most users, Windows 8 Consumer Preview will offer a dramatically different experience because of the tile-like Metro UI. Those stepping back to the more traditional desktop will find the Office Ribbon.

    Today's Preview also makes available the Windows Store, which is built-in to the new operating system. Here Microsoft takes a more curated approach to third-party software, which promises to improve security, diminish piracy and assure more developers are actually paid for their work.

    Internet Explorer 10 jumps to Platform Preview 5, with today's OS release. Microsoft has increased the browser's role in Windows 8, which extends HTML 5 capabilities throughout for developers and people using their apps.

    Home-Grown Fun

    The new user interface is extremely polished -- and modern. Suddenly Apple's OS X is outdated. Metro looks even better now than in any previous Microsoft demo or screenshot. To make the point -- from visual and user experience perspectives -- Windows 8 includes a plethora of homegrown apps. These include:

    • Bing Maps
    • Bing Weather
    • Calendar
    • Mail
    • Messaging
    • Music
    • People
    • SkyDrive

    The new apps extend the "glance-and-go" approach Microsoft uses for Windows Phone and similar delivery mechanism -- tile-like user interface. Related: Settings roam with users across devices when signed in with their Microsoft account ID. So these new apps are live, connected via Microsoft cloud services.

    "I can start a project on one Windows 8 PC and finish it on another", Microsoft's Kent Walter explains. Settings and themes also roam via the cloud. "If you share your Windows 8 PC, anyone else can have their own personalized, cloud-connected experience by signing in with their Microsoft account".

    Cloud services are clearly core to Windows 8. They, and the live tiles, revive and fulfill Microsoft's Active Desktop concept attempted in the 1990s and abandoned by Windows XP's launch in October 2001.

    What You Need

    Microsoft doesn't support prerelease software but does provide a forum for users. There's a FAQ that provides system requirements and other information. Regarding those, Microsoft says the operating system can be installed on any Windows PCs. More specifically:

    • Processor: 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster
    • RAM: 1 gigabyte (GB) (32-bit) or 2 GB (64-bit)
    • Hard disk space: 16 GB (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
    • Graphics card: Microsoft DirectX 9 graphics device or higher

    Additional requirements to use certain features:

    • To use touch, you need a tablet or a monitor that supports multitouch.
    • To access the Windows Store and to download and run apps, you need an active Internet connection and a screen resolution of at least 1024 x 768.
    • To snap apps, you need a screen resolution of at least 1366 x 768.

    Download links: Windows 8 Consumer Preview 32-bit and 64-bit versions; Windows 8 Server Beta; Visual Studio 11 Beta.

    Photo Credit: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/28/Apple_steals_Mobile_World_Congress__thunder'

    Apple steals Mobile World Congress' thunder

    Publié: février 28, 2012, 11:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Early today I asked colleague Tim Conneally in group chat: "What happened to Mobile World Congress? One day of announcements and nothing else?" Because Day 2 is unusually light on product news. Perhaps that's good thing for participating vendors, because late this morning Apple stole the show.

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company dispatched email invites for a March 7 event, presumably announcing iPad 3. The message teases: "We have something you really have to see. And touch". Well, Apple did Microsoft a favor by not sending invites tomorrow, when Windows 8 Consumer Preview debuts at Mobile World Congress. Or perhaps someone at Apple wisely considered that Microsoft's announcement is simply too big to thump -- or that getting in ahead steals thunder enough.

    Blogs and news stories that would have been written about MWC product announcements will go to Apple rumormongering and speculation. The gravity well is just too great. (I got in my MWC quota before writing this post, but still...)

    Twitter buzz around #ipad and #ipad3 was so great Mashbable posted a 20-page slideshow of tweets. What? There's no other news today? It's this kind of response that sucks the soul out of trade shows like Mobile World Congress.

    Mashable editor Lance Ulanoff tweeted this morning: "Eric Schmidt is on stage at #MWC talking global tech gap, blissfully unaware of the Apple news that just blotted out the sun. #iPad".

    Apple has done this many times before, let loose an invite or rumor during some big event or before (if not during) a competitor's product announcement.

    What Timing!

    Apple's newest iPad comes at a time of great tablet uncertainty. I chatted to Tim Conneally today about MWC announcements: "Lighter on tablets, here and CES [Consumer Electronics Show]" -- that's after more than 100 new ones announced at both 2011 events. Tablet announcements are few at MWC 2012.

    So far the only real stand-outs -- and they're not much for new hardware -- are Samsung Galaxy Tab 2.0, Galaxy Note 10.1 and Sony P, which goes on sale here in the United States from AT&T on March 4. That's three days before Apple's event. It's lousy timing for Sony.

    Meanwhile some executives attending MWC acknowledged that their Android tablet sales aren't meeting expectations, which is a polite way of admitting being whipped by iPad. "Honestly, we're not doing very well in the tablet market," Samsung executive Hankil Yoon said yesterday during a MWC roundtable.

    That's startling coming from the company ranked third in tablet sales, according to NPD DisplaySearch. Apple is leader, with 59.1 percent market share, followed by Amazon (16.7 percent) and Samsung (6.7 percent).

    Meanwhile, Google's Andy Rubin gave reporters attending the mobile event grim numbers: 12 million Android tablets sold to date. That compares to 55 million iPads sold through end of 2011 -- 15 million, or more than all Android tablets -- just in fourth quarter.

    Now along comes Apple's event announcement and presumed March launch of iPad 3. Want to guess what tablet everyone will talk about now. Apple just raised the cloak of invisibility on every other tablet, perhaps other than Amazon's Kindle Fire.

    Burning Ring of Fire

    Regarding Kindle Fire, there is the lingering question about a smaller iPad to compete. Two weeks ago, the Wall Street Journal reported rumors about the tablet's little sibling. I asked: "Would you buy 8-inch iPad?". Besides comments, there was a poll, to which 3,554 people responded so far. That's a healthy sample size. Results: 55.09 percent yes and, obviously, 44.91 percent no.

    The spread is enough to win an election, but lacks when planning product marketing. Consider the context: It's obvious Apple would sell an 8-inch tablet for less than the 9.7-inch model, which starts at $499, I suggested bottom price of $299 in the story accompanying the poll. Yet only little more than half the respondents would chose the smaller, lower-cost tablet. As for those responding no, there's no context to determine whether they would buy a costlier iPad or none at all.

    Apple rumors, like those about Microsoft products in the 1990s, have pull. Following just the rumor of 8-inch iPad, BetaNews reader Jessica changed her tablet plans: "I was thinking of buying a Kindle Fire, but am now thinking of waiting for the smaller iPad. The only reason I don't want am iPad is because it is so expensive. But for only about $100 more I would reconsider".

    Imagine what happens now. Apple just froze pretty much most tablet sales by sending out the invite. Yes, I'll ask a buying question when the new iPad is announced.

    BetaNews reader dougau cracked me up: "I'm loving all these 'would you buy' articles, Joe. I have a feeling 75 percent of BetaNews users would spend $500.00 for a bag of shit if it had a Apple logo on it". Is he right? It's not a frivolous question. Apple's invite couldn't take away from Mobile World Congress announcements, if there wasn't so much interest in that logo and the products behind it.

    Photo Credit: SFerdon/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/28/Will_you_try_Windows_8_Consumer_Preview_'

    Will you try Windows 8 Consumer Preview?

    Publié: février 28, 2012, 6:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The so-called consumerization of IT starts now. Sure people haul Androids, iPads, iPhones and other gadgets to work -- and mix together personal and professional data, and behavior. But workers the world over will soon have something else to haul into the office, and, whoa, may March roar in for many network managers.

    Tomorrow, during Mobile World Congress, Microsoft plans to debut Windows 8 Consumer Preview. It's not an IT preview, but, c`mon, you know where the software is going. Many of you will slap this puppy on to every PC you can, including that employer-issued clunker. Talk about March Madness, as Windows 8 storms the enterprise by every backdoor possible.

    Or so I contend. You can prove me right or wrong by answering question: Will you try Windows 8 Consumer Preview? And where? What computer? Personal or professional? What hardware configuration? Please answer in comments.

    Microsoft says that pretty much any PC running Windows 7 is pimped and ready for an 8 date. You bring the wine, I've got flowers. The computer may be ready, but are you? Windows 8 will demand much from users, starting with the many user interface changes and enhancements. But the operating system also offers much, in terms of potentially improved productivity and security.

    The changes have sparked much debate about Windows 8's suitability, particularly in the enterprise. My opinion: Windows 8 adoption will be low, similar to Vista. Most enterprises have recently deployed Windows 7 or will have done so by the time its successor ships. I see October as likely timeframe. From that perspective, most enterprises wouldn't deploy Windows 8 anyway, so now is a good time for Microsoft to make those radical architectural and user experience changes to prep its core market, businesses, for Windows 9. Consumers will take what's on their shiny, new PCs, and they'll bring them to work -- pushing enterprises to adapt and manage Windows 8 faster.

    BetaNews reader Froderik asks: "Will Microsoft have a Win8 'Tech Beta' cycle or just release consumer previews to all & sundry?" I don't see how. The Consumer Preview is for everyone, followed by a release candidate for all. Otherwise there's not enough time to release gold code and get Windows 8 on new PCs for holiday sales. Think: Consumerization of Windows, at least this release cycle.

    Many of you have used the Developer Preview released in September 2011. To my surprise, reactions are mixed. Commenter nilst2011: "Windows 8 is a joke. It is for tablets but not desktops. Who the H would like to sit and point at a screen with his/her arm for 8 hours a day? No way! The last OS worth its name is Windows 7. I did give it a last chance some weeks ago, and I am still running it and like it".

    I expect to hear complaints lots like this one during the Consumer Preview. Absolutely, fatigue is a problem using vertical touchscreens, but users don't have to stay in the Metro UI; they can fall back to the older desktop motif (granted, with Office Ribbon makeover).

    BetaNews reader Emi Cyberschreiber is more enthusiastic: "I like windows 8, I'm using, of course, [the] Developer Preview as my main OS since September, and it's been amazing -- lighter, faster, better (not counting bugs) than Win7 SP1 and with a cool new UI, nice new integration, like Xbox Live, SkyDrive, etc...For me it's fine, and I will get it on RTM. I like it now and I will like it more since it's getting better with each new build".

    So, will you try Windows 8 Consumer Preview?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/28/SAP_deploys_Samsung_Android_smartphones__tablets'

    SAP deploys Samsung Android smartphones, tablets

    Publié: février 28, 2012, 5:03pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    What's all this dirty talk about enterprises going gaga for iPads? During Mobile World Congress, Samsung announced that SAP will deploy Galaxy S II smartphones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets internally. Oh my, perhaps there is a place for Android in the enterprise. But how much room alongside iPad?

    SAP CIO Oliver Bussmann says the Android devices will be available to the company's "global workforce as part of our internal device-agnostic strategy. SAP software running on Samsung's Android devices will allow our workforce to do business in the moment". From an enterprise management perspective, he expressed confidence that SAP "can secure our business data on these devices using an extensive range of IT policies".

    Among enterprise software, Samsung Androids will run Sybase Afaria 7.0 "mobile device management system". Employees also will use Exchange Account Management for securely sending emails. Technology managers will have granular control over what apps can be downloaded, what devices can be connected and how passwords are used, among other capabilities.

    The companies didn't disclose how widely the Android devices would be deployed.

    During Mobile World Congress, SAP also announced the aforementioned Afaria 7.0. The highlight new feature is a redesigned user interface.

    "The consumerization of IT is driving our innovation path and commitment to providing customers with the industry’s most comprehensive, robust and streamlined mobility management platform, including mobile device management", Sanjay Poonen, SAP Global Solutions president, says. "The new, delightful UI significantly enhances the end-user experience while helping reduce management costs for enterprise IT".

    SAP's goal is to make enterprise software more "personal".

    Afaria 7.0 client software is available for iOS -- to mention before someone does in comments. And, of course, Android, as well as other operating systems.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/28/_Discovery__and__social__define_Vimeo_for_iPad'

    'Discovery' and 'social' define Vimeo for iPad

    Publié: février 28, 2012, 3:57am CET par Joe Wilcox

    That was unexpected. This evening I tried out Vimeo for iOS 2.0 and much prefer the Android version released last month during Consumer Electronics Show. Conceptually, Vimeo for iOS offers more, so I expected to appreciate it more. Instead, I find the Android app to be cleaner and more intuitive on a tablet. Then, again, I'm not the target audience.

    The new Vimeo app's big stand-out benefit is native, iPad support. The other explains why I'm perhaps tripping over perceived complexity: The app's approach and capabilities are more like Vimeo's website, where I have spent scant too little time over the last 12 months or so. If you frequent Vimeo on the web and often use features there, you might just love the app on iPad. You're the audience the video-sharing site wants to reach.

    To be clear, the user experience differences I observe with Android pertain more to tablets. I find the phone apps to look and feel similar enough.

    Vimeo released the app earlier today during Mobile World Congress 2012.

    "We’ve taken what we learned while creating our previous apps and applied it to the updated iOS to improve overall design and usability", Joseph Schmitt, Vimeo lead mobile developer, says. "We’re especially pleased with the awesome iPad user interface, which the Vimeo community has eagerly awaited".

    I assume that community will appreciate the iPad UI more than me. The Android app feels more fluid to me, and the iOS app more cluttered and, well, in my face. Those attributes reflect something about platform differences, closer ties to Vimeo's website and emphasis on video discovery and social sharing -- both of which are hugely desirable benefits. No doubt, after a couple hours, Vimeo for iOS 2.0 will fit me better.

    Definitely, if you use Vimeo lots -- whether to watch or post videos, or both -- this app is for you. Discovery tools, like at the Vimeo website, are exceptional. The app provides quick access to all the vitals about your uploads and what the heck you've been watching. Taking cues from the website, users can view from or save to their Watch Later queues, Like or access Liked videos, comment and share clips as well. Sharing options reflect some of the services where Vimeo is popular. Facebook and Twitter are givens, as well a Tumblr and WordPress.

    Like on Android tablets, there is video-editing capability, something I'm definitely interested to try out but didn't have time to this evening. Users can tap into the Vimeo Music Store from the editor for adding soundtracks to clips. Of course, content creators can upload videos, including those in HD, from the app.

    Vimeo is smart to finally support iPad. "We’ve seen mobile traffic triple since we launched our original iPhone app in early 2011", Schmitt says. I'm not surprised. According to comScore report "2012 Mobile Future in Focus", which released last week: "By the end of 2011, iOS was driving 60.1 percent of all connected device traffic in the US from iPads, iPhones and iPod touches. In contrast, the Android OS accounted for only 32.4 percent of traffic".

    More remarkable: "A breakdown of tablet traffic by platform indicates that iOS has a substantial lead, driving 90.4 percent of all tablet traffic in December 2011". So absolutely, iPad is where Vimeo should want to be, while improving the iPhone and iPod touch experiences -- and making them more familiar to those people frequenting the website.

    Vimeo for iOS 2.0 requires iOS 4.3 and above running on iPhone 3GS, 4 or 4S or iPad.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/28/The_best_smartphone_isn_t_at_Mobile_World_Congress'

    The best smartphone isn't at Mobile World Congress

    Publié: février 28, 2012, 12:41am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Now why is that? I want to know. Don't you?

    For weeks, persistent leaks and rumors teased about Samsung Galaxy S III and how the phone wouldn't debut at Mobile World Congress. Boy Genius Report has deets that are to die for: 4.8-inch 1080p display, 1.5GHz quad-core Samsung Exynos processor, 8-megapixel rear and 2MP front-facing cameras, ceramic case, 4G LTE and Ice Cream Sandwich.

    You can stop drooling on the keyboard now. Or if you haven't been then perhaps you misunderstood that 1080p. It doesn't refer to video playback but to the actual screen resolution. Can you say pocket Blu-ray, baby? I can already feel Samsung droid boys' swagger before iPhone idolaters and their puny 3.5-inch Retina displays. Not to be forgotten, but definitely mourned for momentary glory: HTC One X, announced yesterday, that suddenly is quite literally oh-so yesterday.

    That's all assuming the Boy Genius has got the right specs. Certainly previous track record would suggest they're golden. If S3 is the measure of greatness, then Apple had better start re-evaluating iPhone 5 plans now. ;-)

    Big question, assuming rumors about no MWC Galaxy S III launch are true: Why not? Hey, I've got some possible reasons:

    • The S3 simply isn't ready.
    • Galaxy S II is still selling well and Samsung doesn't want to hurt sales by announcing S3 too soon.
    • Galaxy S III won't launch soon (even though announcing in Barcelona, Spain, and shipping many moons later is typical).
    • If launch is aways off, Samsung doesn't want to give up too many details for concern competitors (Can you say Apple?) will copy or prepare counter-marketing.
    • Samsung plans a simultaneous global launch. The Galaxy S II arrived in major markets China and United States long after other countries. That's a mistake not to repeat.

    I rarely write about rumors, but BGR rarely misses and there's great context to fit Galaxy S III into a story.

    Photo: Boy Genius Report

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/27/Windows_Phone_isn_t_good_enough_for_41MP_Nokia_808_PureView'

    Windows Phone isn't good enough for 41MP Nokia 808 PureView

    Publié: février 27, 2012, 9:21pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Wow, Windows Phone is so bleeding-edge that Nokia's hot new 41-megapixel camera phone runs Symbian. You know, that "burning platform" CEO Stephen Elop dumped for Microsoft's mobile OS. Perhaps that burning should have had different context, as hot for high-brow hardware. Because a 41MP camera always with you is smokin'. I'm on fire. Aren't you?

    The Finnish-phone maker announced the Nokia 808 PureView during Mobile World Congress today in Barcelona, Spain. The 41-megapixel camera phone might just be the showstopper -- that despite Microsoft's Wednesday event launching Windows 8 Consumer Preview. There's some real software and hardware innovation here that shows Nokia isn't dead yet and shouldn't have turned over so much research and development to Microsoft. The lost R&D is Elop's doing, and again supports my contention he's killing Nokia.

    Nokia has long lead the market for exceptional camera phones, even with the popularity of iPhone 4 and 4S for candid shots. The 808 PureView is no exception -- well perhaps it is, for so considerably advancing the art. Too bad: Burning hardware and software overlay an operating system Nokia no longer has use for. Please, someone get a hanky so I can cry over Symbian's grave.

    I am Your Density

    Pixel density is perhaps the biggest problem with the size of sensors used in devices like camera phones. The 808 PureView's sensor has an active area of 7728 x 5368 pixels. Actual pixels used depend on image sizes. For example, 7152 x 5368 pixels at 4:3 ratio or 7728 x 4354 pixels for 16:9. Increasing the number of pixels (hence, giving more megapixel rating) over a small sensor area produces all kinds of problems -- with noise and artifacts among the top ones.

    The phone maker tries to solve these problems with some nifty engineering. Nokia's Ian Delaney explains:

    The technology means that taking typically sized shots (say, 5 megapixels) the camera can use oversampling to combine up to seven pixels into one 'pure' pixel, eliminating the visual noise found on other mobile phone cameras. On top of that, you can zoom in up to 3X without losing any of the details in your shot -- and there’s no artificially created pixels in your picture, either...

    The oversampling technology also allows for significantly improved low light performance than previous camera phones, Compared to a typical optical zoom camera used at full zoom, the Nokia 808 PureView captures over 5x more light. Under normal lighting conditions, performance is also enhanced, as this combination allows for faster shutter speeds, reducing the effects of camera shake.

    Nokia has produced a white paper explaining PureView technology.

    Zoom is another benefit for both photos and videos. For pics, think of it as cropping to go. For the most part, a zoom lens isn't practical in camera phones, and a prime, fixed focal-length lens tends to produce better images anyway. Digital zoom typically reduces photo quality. But with a 41MP sensor, digital zoom is workable, or so Nokia claims -- 4X lossless zoom at 1080p and 6X at 720p, both shooting 30 frames per second. Photos 3X.

    Delaney espouses another benefit:

    Great video is nothing without great audio. Here the Nokia 808 PureView also sets a new standard. The Nokia 808 PureView is the world’s first video recording device to allow recording without distortion at audio levels beyond the capability of human hearing. This allows you to even in the harshest of environment capture stereo CD-like audio quality.

    It's a Phone, Too

    Nokia makes some pretty big promises about the 808 PureView's photo and video capabilities. The sample images below, which the company claims are untouched, are stunning. Consider the context: The photographer must be mountain climbing, too. His phone is the camera.

    That brings in the other benefits, of carrying one device for making phone calls, checking GPS location or taking photos and videos while out on the mountain.

    Nokia 808 PureView key features: 4-inch AMOLED screen; capacitive touchscreen (Gorilla Glass); 16GB storage, expandable to 48GB with microSD card; 41MP camera with Xenon flash and f/2.4 Carl Zeiss lens; HSPA+ (up to 14Mbps), WCDMA 850/900/1700/1900/2100, GSM/EDGE 850/900/1800/1900; WiFi N; Bluetooth 3; GPS; Near Field Communications; FM transmitter; 1400 mAh battery; and Symbian Belle Feature Pack 1.

    Nokia did not immediately reveal availability or pricing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/27/Save_us_from_the_stylus__Samsung_unveils_Galaxy_Note_10.1_'

    Save us from the stylus! Samsung unveils Galaxy Note 10.1!

    Publié: février 27, 2012, 6:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I am seriously having Windows Tablet PC déjà vu. Today, at Mobile World Congress, Samsung unveiled Galaxy Note 10.1 -- a tablet with stylus (okay S Pen, as the South Korean electronics giant calls it). So much for capacitive touchscreen tablets -- really, Apple's emphasis on fingers -- liberating us from the stylus. There are reasons why Tablet PC failed, while iPad succeeded. The pen isn't mightier than the finger.

    Galaxy Note 10.1 is essentially a larger version of Galaxy Note, which Samsung is promoting heavily here in the United States. Difference: No telephony on the larger Note, which display is 10.1 inches. AT&T sells the 5.3-inch Note for $299.99, although Amazon has it for half as much. I know three people who bought the smaller Note. Two returned theirs, and the other says he will this week. Reason: The pen, which is supposed to be the device's main benefit. Complaints range from accuracy problems to less need for the stylus than expected.

    I'm looking at the 10.1-inch model and wondering how it can be any more appealing than its sibling, particularly with last-year's hardware. Like Galaxy Tab 2, which Samsung announced yesterday at MWC, the new Note comes with dual-core processor. Samsung, what have you got against quad-core?

    Key features: 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1.4 GHz dual-core processor; 3-megapixel rear-facing camera with LED flash; 2MP front-facing camera; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; microSD slot (storage expandable up to 32GB); HSPA＋ (21Mbps) 850/900/1900/2100, EDGE/GPRS 850/900/1800/1900; WiFi; 7000 mAH battery; S Pen; TouchWiz UI; and Android 4 (Ice Cream Sandwich). The tablet measures 256.7 x 175.3 x 8.9 mm and weighs 583 grams.

    Samsung didn't immediately announce availability or specific SKUs. Some models won't have HSPA+ radios, for example.

    Pen Pushers

    JK Shin, president of Samsung's IT & Mobile Communications division, says the larger tablet "takes productivity on a Note to a whole new level. With a larger, fully utilizable screen and superior performance, it combines the intuitiveness of handwriting with all the versatility of digital content to let users be more productive across all of life’s demanding tasks -- whether working, learning, or simply creating their own stories".

    I'm not convinced the pen is mightier than the finger. Human beings are tool users who experience and manipulate the world through five senses. Consider how people interact with items for sale in retail shops. First they look, and then they touch. People examine objects they desire as much with their hands as their eyes.

    Hands and fingers are important because they are active -- they’re how people tactilely manipulate the world around them. Touch is hugely important, and makes tablets more personal, the experience more intimate. The stylus increases complexity, creates distance, even when considering people write -- or do they? I almost never use an ink pen and paper. For many people, if I'm even remotely indicative, the stylus is even less familiar than keyboard and touchpad.

    The finger and touch are more natural, because they extend you. Good user interfaces build on the familiar -- and there is nothing more familiar than me, myself and I.

    That said, there is an argument for a stylus when looking at markets like China and the complexity of communicating complex language scripts. Voice is more natural than the pen. Speech-to-text would be better user interface than stylus, then.

    Granted, there are artists, who draw with pens and perhaps Galaxy Note 10.1 is for them. Samsung includes Adobe Photoshop Touch for Android, catering to that market. But Samsung isn't going after artists with either Note but the mass-market. I don't see how a pen-based tablet is for the masses. These are niche devices, at best, and the stylus more liability than asset.

    "We are demonstrating Samsung’s commitment to extend the mobile category and are working with key partners like Adobe to provide extraordinary experiences for users that enable them to be more productive, express themselves creatively and add a touch of fulfillment to their lives", Shin says.

    Oh yeah? If people felt so much "fulfillment" from the stylus, we'd all be using Windows Tablet PCs today rather than iPads or Androids.

    Is this tablet for you? Have you tried out the smaller Note (and how do you like it)? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/27/New_Samsung_mobiles_are_oh_so_last_year'

    New Samsung mobiles are oh-so last year

    Publié: février 27, 2012, 6:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Samsung wasted no time announcing new devices during Mobile World Congress 2012, and what a strange lot, too. There's a projector phone and successors to the original Galaxy Tab that, by the specs, are last year's models. That's right, Galaxy Tab 2 has no quad-core processor for you.

    Galaxy Beam stays in the past, too, running Android 2.3, rather than newest version Android 4.0 -- aka Ice Cream Sandwich.

    Samsung didn't give pricing or availability in its Galaxy Beam announcement, keeping to MWC's awful tradition of announcing in Barcelona, Spain, but not shipping for many months later.

    "Galaxy Beam provides mobile freedom, enabling a unique shared experience around digital content for everyone—anywhere and instantly—from a smartphone as slim and portable as any on the market", JK Shin, President of Samsung's IT & Mobile Communications division, says.

    "Galaxy Beam is a device borne out of Samsung’s insight and innovation, demonstrating Samsung’s commitment to providing extraordinary experiences for consumers with products that let them express and fulfill themselves".

    Oh? That would be "extraordinary" as in 5-megapixel camera and aging Android? Well, there is projection -- up to 50 inches. That's good enough to rent a movie from Android Market and have an impromptu movie with friends. Hey, Last night's Oscar winner, "The Artist", anyone?

    Galaxy Beam basic specs: 1 GHz dual-core processor; 4-inch WVGA display (800 x 480 resolution); 768MB RAM; 8GB storage; microSD slot (up to 32GB additional storage); 5-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; HSPA (14.4Mbps/5.76Mbps) 850/900/1900/2100; EDGE/GPRS 850/900/1800/1900; 2000 mAh battery; and Android 2.3.

    Samsung also unveiled Galaxy Tab 2 in two sizes, and the latter is a bit beefier than the original (could that be to avoid nuisance patent suits from Apple?). Again, the specs aren't exactly earth shattering. Other than Ice Cream Sandwich, I struggle to see much different from predecessor models.

    7-inch Galaxy Tab 2 basic specs: 1 GHz dual-core processor; 7-inch WSVGA display (1024 x 600 resolution); 1GB RAM; 8GB, 16GB or 32GB storage; microSD slot (up to 32GB additional storage); 3-megapixel rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; HSPA+ (21Mbps) 850/900/1900/2100; 4000 mAh battery; and Android 4.0.

    10.1-inch Galaxy Tab 2 basic specs: 1 GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch WXGA display (1280 x 800 resolution); 1GB RAM; 16GB or 32GB storage; microSD slot (up to 32GB additional storage); 3-megapixel rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; HSPA+ (21Mbps) 850/900/1900/2100; 7000 mAh battery; and Android 4.0.

    Samsung didn't immediately announce pricing for the two tablets, which begin shipping in March.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/27/HTC_One_X_is_all_quad_core_goodness'

    HTC One X is all quad-core goodness

    Publié: février 27, 2012, 2:54am CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's Mobile World Congress, where handset manufacturers announce phones they won't ship for months. HTC will do a little better, offering the new HTC One family of smartphones starting in April. Flagship handset One X is loaded for bear, with 1.5GHz quad-core Nvidia Tegra 3 processor and 4.7-inch 720p display.

    Is it me, or does the One X look a little like a beautified HTC Titan II but running Android, packing more cores and offering higher-res display? Or perhaps these HTC phones all kind of look the same. Whatever, the One family (pictured), particularly the X, looks lots like HTC trying to regain some of its Android mojo.

    If you're willing to wait those aforementioned months, AT&T will carry HTC One X minus two cores but with 4G LTE -- that's a 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 processor for you, bud. Hell, so much for that quad-core goodness.

    Other features: Super LCD 2 non-PenTile display, 32GB storage, 1GB DDR2 SDRAM, 8-megapixel f/2 rear-facing camera, 1080p video capture, Beats By Dr. Dre Audio, HSPA+ (up to 21Mbps), Sense 4 UI, Dropbox integration via Sense, 1800 mAh non-removable battery and, of course, Ice Cream Sandwich.

    "The best moments in life are captured with a photo or remembered by a song, so it was key for the HTC One series to improve these emotional experiences with an amazing camera and authentic sound experience", Peter Chou, HTC CEO, says. "We are very focused on creating a camera and audio experience customers will love and use often and we believe the HTC One series delivers this in a way never seen on a phone before".

    Seeing is believing, and I haven't seen yet.

    Along with the flagship phone, HTC announced the smaller One S, which shares same camera and audio benefits, Dropbox integration and also Sense 4 and Android 4. T-Mobile USA already announced plans to carry the phone. Other specs: 4.3-inch qHD Super AMOLED display (with 960 by 540 resolution), 1.5GHz dual-core Qualcomm Snapdragon processor, 16GB storage, HSPA+ (up to 42Mbps) and 1650 mAh non-removable battery.

    Finally, there is the One V, which design borrows from the HTC Legend. The One V is low-end and, for right now, sans carrier. The smartphone has 3.7-inch display (with 800 x 480 resolution), 1GHz single-core processor, 512MB RAM, 5-megapixel rear-facing camera, 1500 mAh battery, Dropbox integration, Sense 4 UI and Ice Cream Sandwich.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/27/Apple_is_winning_the_mobile_platform_wars'

    Apple is winning the mobile platform wars

    Publié: février 27, 2012, 1:04am CET par Joe Wilcox

    In October 2009, I explained why "iPhone cannot win the smartphone wars". Many of the reasons then still hold true today. But I wrote that analysis before Apple released iPad. So, 10 months later I followed up with "Apple can still win the mobile platform wars, but it won't be easy". Now, 18 months later, as Mobile World Congress starts in Barcelona, Spain, I claim: Apple is winning the mobile platform wars, but achieving ultimate supremacy won't be easy.

    In August 2010, I observed: "Pundits already are predicting iPhone's death brattle before the great Android god. I wouldn't write off Apple just yet. The mobile wars are bigger than smartphones, as Apple already has shown". Little has changed since. Android apologists still predict victory over iOS, while ignoring fundamental platform gains that put Apple in front.

    Dollars and Sense

    The numbers add up where they matter most, as they have trended for well over a year. At the end of 2011, Apple had 315 million cumulative iOS device sales. The 55 million iPads sold to date account for 17 percent of the total and iPhone, with 175 million sold, 56 percent.

    But 2011 was the break-out year for iOS devices -- 156 million, according to Asymco's calculations. So Apple sold 49.5 percent of all iOS devices in a single year, which indicates considerable accelerated momentum.

    According to company financial filings, for calendar 2011, Apple sold 92.95 million iPhones and 40.45 million iPads -- generating $61 billion and $24.95 billion revenue, respectively. For all calendar 2011, all Apple generated $127.84 billion revenue. The two products accounted for 67 percent of the company's sales for the year (again referring to calendar and not Apple's fiscal year).

    If my flu-socked brain matter calculates right, Apple generated around $656 per iPhone and $616 per iPad during calendar 2011.

    Update: But profits are more revealing. After I posted, on February 26, Asymco released a cost breakdown for iPhone that works out to $330 profit per handset.

    Something else: During fiscal first quarter 2012 (synchronous with calendar Q4 2011) Apple generated more revenue ($46.33 billion) than all fiscal 2009 ($42.9 billion). iOS drives revenue increases at an alarming pace.

    Platform Perfection

    The point: There are several metrics that define successful computing platforms, with money being the most important. Apple rakes in cash from iOS at accelerating pace, which trickles down dollars to third parties of all kinds, whether they be software developers, hardware manufacturers or other partners, like retailers and wireless carriers. Everyone wants to associate with a winner, which Apple and iOS increasingly are.

    As the month ends, so come two Apple milestones: 25 billion app downloads and $4 billion paid out to developers.

    Quick example of the benefits: I recently received email from developer Presselite, about 3 million downloads of its Vintage Camera app during first month on Apple's App Store. There are free and 99-cent versions available. Developers go where the money -- and distribution -- is.

    But money isn't everything. Typically, successful platforms share six common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily creating applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • The platform is broadly available
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    Platforms succeed for combinations of reasons leading to network effects. In November 2011 "Mobile Platforms: The Clash of Ecosystems" four VisionMobile analysts explain:

    It is clear that Apple’s iOS is a clever implementation of a mobile application platform coming from a company with the right kind of experience and DNA. Strong network effects between users and app developers are inherent to iOS ecosystem design...The unprecedented success of Apple iOS is a testament to the advantages of application platforms. All new platforms introduced after the original iPhone, including Android, attempt to copy Apple’s application platform recipe.

    iOS has all six platform attributes covered, but so does Android. In fact, in January, British analyst firm Ovum predicted that Android will become the most important platform to developers within the next 12 months, replacing iOS.

    Ovum's Adam Leach explains: "A smartphone platform's success is dictated not only by the pull of consumers and the push of handset vendors and mobile operators but also by a healthy economy of applications delivered by third-party developers". Except the platform is bigger than smartphones, including tablets, too. So Ovum's analysis is short-sighted. Nearly one-quarter of iOS sales in calendar 2011 were iPads.

    Assessing Android Tablets

    Android tablets have failed to significantly challenge iPad, despite predictions otherwise. For example, in January 2011, BMO Capital Markets analyst Keith Bachman predicted that "the number of players participating in Android tablets will replicate the success Google has had on phones" and that they would "reach unit parity" late in the year.

    Android tablet shipments did spike during Q4, according to Strategy Analytics, but nowhere near parity with iPad. Respective market shares: 39.1 percent to 57.6 percent. However, Android unit shipments tripled year over year: 3.1 million to 10.5 million units compared to iPad's rise to 15.4 million from 7.3 million.

    DisplaySearch puts Apple's tablet share higher, 59.1 percent, followed by Amazon (16.7 percent) and Samsung (6.7 percent). If anything, Amazon poses more direct competition to iPad than all Android. Looked at differently: Next to Apple, Amazon is the biggest competitive threat to all other Android tablet makers. In its first, partial quarter of availability, Kindle Fire topped 5 million shipments, according to DisplaySearch.

    By every measure that matters, and not just price, Amazon's tablet directly competes with iPad. Unlike other Android device manufacturers, Amazon takes complete control over the entire stack -- software, hardware, cloud services, retail sales and customer support. Kindle Fire features an Amazon-customized version of Android 2.x, its own Android app store, music and movie stores, ebook store, web browser and customized media consumption software and services. This curated approach reminds of Apple. Amazon is creating a curated experience that matches Apple's and exceeds it in some respects.

    Apple faces another change, more uncertain, and not from Android. Microsoft seeks to outflank iOS with Windows 8 and Windows on ARM. Then there is Windows Phone's possible future on Nokia tablets. Microsoft isn't DOA yet in emerging mobile categories, just lying in critical condition. The company is awake from the coma. The question: How much brain function is left? The answer will come with next-versions Windows execution, which looks promising enough.

    Differentiation, Dummy

    As the mobile platform wars rage, Apple has several unique advantages over competitors, which significance shouldn't be ignored. The next 12 months will determine whether Apple can keep winning the platform wars or fall behind Android. To be clear: Apple winning doesn't make Android a loser. The market is rapidly consolidating around Android and iOS.

    Update: In Barcelona, on February 27, Android chief Andy Rubin said that device sales had reached 300 million and daily activations 850,000, which are impressive numbers.

    Key Apple differentiators:

    1. Distribution. In January 2011 post "Why is iPad successful?" I explained ecosystem's advantages mainly around manufacturing and distribution. The latter is hugely important. Apple iOS devices are available from about 40,000 outlets globally. iPhone: more than 230 carriers in more than 100 countries and expanding. So the platform has huge reach, and that's ignoring 315 million cumulative sales -- install base of users buying apps.

    See #3, #4 and #5 about app distribution advantages.

    2. Apple Store. Apple operates more than 360 retail shops worldwide, and they give iOS huge boost over Android. In May 2011, I opined that "Apple would be nothing without its retail stores". They provide an important point of customer service and bring added confidence about buying iOS devices over others. If something goes wrong, Apple Store can fix or, often, replace the device.

    Example: With iPhone 4S, Apple offers an upgraded warranty service for $99. AppleCare+ extends coverage to 24 months and up to two phone replacements (for $49 service fee). If an iPhone 4S buyer drops the phone and shatters the glass, Apple Store replaces the smartphone. Apple would be smart to offer similar option for iPad 3; it's what I would do and expect Apple will.

    3. Unified platform. Apple controls the entire stack -- hardware, software and services -- and distribution. This control assures developers and users a consistent experience across iOS devices. Nothing on Android compares.

    4. Software distribution. When Apple issues an iOS update, every supported device gets it. By comparison Android updating is fragmented. In November 2011, I asserted that "Android fragmentation doesn't matter" in part because carriers and OEMs already do so much customization, such as HTC Sense or Samsung TouchWiz user interfaces.

    I stand by this opinion for Android 2.x on phones and even 3.x on tablets. Nevertheless, because Google doesn't exert enough control over Android, the market moves slowly to Android 4.0, which in many respects exceeds iOS 5. Hell, Google now owns Motorola and most of its own devices won't get Ice Cream Sandwich until second half of 2012 -- if ever. As of February, according to Google's official stats, only 1 percent of Android devices ran Ice Cream Sandwich.

    5. Curation. Apple offers a curated app, OS, device and user experience compared to fragmented Android. Sure, Android OEMs offer more choice, but also greater uncertainty for users and developers. Only Amazon offers as much a curated platform as Apple.

    "You" or "i"

    Mobile devices are by definition "connected", but iOS is considerably more so than Android. This attribute reflects much about the platform's health and long-term developer opportunity. According to comScore report "2012 Mobile Future in Focus": "By the end of 2011, iOS was driving 60.1 percent of all connected device traffic in the US from iPads, iPhones and iPod touches. In contrast, the Android OS accounted for only 32.4 percent of traffic".

    More remarkable: "A breakdown of tablet traffic by platform indicates that iOS has a substantial lead, driving 90.4 percent of all tablet traffic in December 2011".

    Mobile devices are more personal than PCs because of interaction, particularly fingers and touch, and how they're used to interact with people. Apps are part of this. They have caught up to browsers in terms of usage in the United States and five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and United Kingdom), according to comScore's report. On smartphones, apps are third most-popular attribute affecting choice among US users. comScore ranked on a 10-point scale. Mobile network quality: 8.2. Operating system: 8.1. Apps selection: 7.9.

    What consumers say they'll do often isn't what they do. Consider Verizon and the perceived network quality advantage of 4G LTE over its legacy CDMA data network. Yet during calendar fourth quarter, Verizon activated 4.3 million iPhones, representing 55.8 percent of smartphones sold. By comparison, Verizon sold 2.3 million 4G LTE devices, which includes mobile hotspots and tablets. At best, LTE devices accounted for 30 percent of smartphone sales.

    However, since that number includes other devices, iPhone outsold LTE smartphones by about 2 to 1. At Verizon at least, something about iPhone mattered more than network quality, nor was Android or its available apps compelling enough for the majority of smartphone buyers.
    Something else: According to comScore, iPhone was the most-acquired handset in the United States and five European countries. That's for all phones, not just smartphones.

    Actually, iPhone was the top-three selling handsets in the United States and top-two in the Euro five. United States, in order: iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS and 4S. Euro 5: iPhone 4 and 3GS. The 4S ranked fifth. Mmmm, by one measure, iPhone is winning the smartphone wars, too, despite my prediction otherwise in October 2009.

    These are all signs of Apple's increasingly mobile platform momentum, which hugely accelerated during second half 2011 and the final quarter, particularly. Apple is winning the mobile platform wars. But the market remains volatile. Winning isn't the same as won or splitting the market with another (Android). For now, many more people are putting the "you" or the "me" in mobile by choosing an "i" device.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/24/You_will_get__Smoked_by_Windows_Phone_'

    You will get 'Smoked by Windows Phone'

    Publié: février 24, 2012, 11:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If not for the flu, I would have caught this yesterday: Microsoft has launched a digital-only video ad campaign based on its "Smoked by Windows Phone" contest at this year's Consumer Electronics Show. It's another marketing win for Microsoft, and this has become habit -- and strangely so for a company that just a few years ago showed about as much advertising finesse as a dog scratching fleas.

    The video here is a long version. The actual Windows Phone clips appearing on popular tech sites are 15 or 30 seconds. I count four of these and another two-minuter. Microsoft reshot the contests at one of its retail shops, rather than use video from CES.

    And whoa, unless my perception is whacko, the exterior shot is Microsoft Store here in San Diego. Had I followed Microsoft's Windows Phone blog closely enough, I would have known that Ben Rudolph and company were here smokin' competing handsets on February 15. Well, hell, I didn't know Fashion Valley mall allowed smoking in stores.

    Some advice to Microsoft: Don't stop at the web. Cut 60-second commercials for TV. The concept is fabulous.

    "This is just the beginning", says Rudolph, the guy doing the smoking in the videos. "Look for more videos and fun stuff soon!"

    I should hope so.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/24/Who_wins_if_Android_and_iPhone_lose_the_smartphone_wars_'

    Who wins if Android and iPhone lose the smartphone wars?

    Publié: février 24, 2012, 9:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Finally, an analyst firm comes clean about the cell phone market's volatility. Gartner and IDC continue to make outrageous predictions -- like Windows Phone as No. 2 smartphone operating system in 2015 -- despite many earlier forecasts being drop-dead wrong. But comScore says pretty much anything can happen and likely will.

    That's a stunning assessment, considering Androids' and iPhone's 2011 success, as highlighted in comScore's "2012 Mobile Future in Focus" report. iPhone 4 -- right, not 4S -- was the top-acquired phone in the United States and five combined Euro countries (Germany, France, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom) last year. Android led among smartphone operating systems.

    comScore observes and asserts about the US handset market:

    If it looks like Android and Apple are positioned to lock up the smartphone market, one would be well-advised to recall the history of this market and how quickly leadership positions can change. If we travel back in time to 2005, Palm was the smartphone market leader at 35 percent, followed by [Research in Motion] and Symbian, each with more than 20 percent of the US market.

    By 2006, Microsoft had grabbed the lead, only to be overtaken by RIM in 2008, which would emerge as a strong leader for the next few years. In 2011, Android vaulted into the lead while Apple solidified a strong #2 position.

    While the lead has switched hands numerous times over the course of the entire history of the US smartphone market, Apple has never claimed that mantle.

    The situation in Europe is more volatile. Android snatched the smartphone OS share lead from Symbian -- 31.2 percent to 29.9 percent -- last year. Android was just 12 percent at end of 2010. Meanwhile, RIM's US share loss wasn't mirrored in Europe, where there were actual gains -- to 9.4 percent. The Windows Phone transition looms large on the Continent. "If Nokia can maintain a similar market share in the OEM market, then Microsoft will establish itself as a very strong third platform in Europe to contend against the likes of iOS and Android", according to comScore's report.

    However, for all the potential volatility, the market is larger and more consolidated now than even 12 months ago and certainly more so than 2009, when RIM's US smartphone market share, as measured by operating system, was 41 percent and Android's was just a few percent.

    Because:

    • In North America and the Euro 5 countries, smartphones now outsell feature phones.
    • Smartphone ownership in United Kingdom and Spain now is more than half of all handsets, and it's expected to pass this threshold in the other countries this year -- 100 million in the United States.
    • Success of Apple's App Store and Google's Android Market create platform lock-in, as people buy more mobile applications. As investment increases, likelihood of switching decreases.
    • Similarly, investment in cases and peripherals also decreases likelihood that users will so easily change platforms. This mattered with BlackBerry and Windows Mobile handsets in the past, but there was also smaller number of smartphone owners.

    Other mitigating factors suggest a market ready to reach some kind of crescendo in 2012 and for changes among market leaders:

    1. RIM has a new CEO and renewed focus that could slow market share losses in the United States and spur continued growth in international markets. According to comScore, 43 percent of BlackBerry customers buying a new smartphone last year stayed with the platform. There are many loyal RIM customers yet.

    2. Android laps up lost BlackBerry customers. "Of RIM users who purchased a new smartphone in 2011, 31 percent purchased Android phones", according to comScore.

    3. iPhone 4S has renewed Apple's platform in a big way. Partial fourth-quarter sales were so strong, iPhone 4S ranked as the third most acquired phone in the United States and fifth in the five Euro countries, based on comScore data.

    4. Nokia's flagship Windows Phone, the Lumia 900, launches in the United States next month, backed by big-dollar marketing campaign. Meanwhile, Microsoft prepares to launch Windows 8, which when available will have strong visual connection to Windows Phone 7.5.

    5. Google's Motorola acquisition troubles some Android partners, with major OEM partner Samsung increasing homegrown Bada's importance.

    6. ZTE is gaining huge success in its home country China and has started shipping compelling Android smartphones to other markets.

    Finally, there is the larger mobile OS context, such as tables, which I'll try to get to this weekend. I'm still down with the flu, or you would be reading that analysis already. The point: There are yet no assured winners in the smartphone wars, despite current Android handset and iPhone leadership.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/23/Got_unlocked_Xperia__Get_Ice_Cream_Sandwich_beta_ROM'

    Got unlocked Xperia? Get Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM

    Publié: février 23, 2012, 8:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Handset manufacturers aren't exactly rushing Android 4.0 out the door for recent smartphones. At least Sony has something for the cheery fan set who can't wait but might not want to install a rogue ROM. Today the consumer electronics giant posted an Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM for 2011 Xperia phones.

    The software can be applied to Xperia arc S, neo V and ray running Xperia software 4.0.2.A.0.42. However, the beta ROM isn't recommended for everyone. "Even though a lot of the basic functionality of this ICS beta ROM is working, you should only download and install the beta version if you are an advanced developer", according to Sony's mobile developer blog.

    Today's beta follows an alpha build released in December. New features include user interface improvements, enablement of lockscreen and Face Unlock, updated email client and quick call availability. Strangely, most Google mobile apps aren't available in the beta.

    "You must unlock your phone using our Unlock boot loader service, and agree to all the legal and warranty conditions that apply", Sony says. That is, if you haven't already, eh?

    Sony's installation instructions:

    1. Make sure your phone is running the latest software release, which is build number 4.0.2.A.0.42.  If you can’t upgrade to this build number, it is not possible to try the Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM for Xperia™ phones.

    2. Go to unlockbootloader.sonymobile.com and unlock the boot loader of your phone. To do this, you must read through and agree to all the legal and warranty conditions that apply.

    3. Download the Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM for Xperia™ arc S, the Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM for Xperia™ neo V or the Ice Cream Sandwich beta ROM for Xperia™ ray depending on your phone model.

    4. Extract the downloaded zip file to your Android Fastboot directory. For example: ..\android-sdk\fastboot\Xperia_arcS_ICS_beta.

    5. Open a command prompt and go to your Fastboot directory: ..\android-sdk\fastboot\

    6. Flash the three beta ROM files one at a time using Fastboot. Use these three commands (replace the folder name if you are using Xperia™ neo V or Xperia™ ray):

    • fastboot flash boot ..\Fastboot\Xperia_arcS_ICS_beta\boot.img
    • fastboot flash userdata ..\Fastboot\Xperia_arcS_ICS_beta\userdata.img
    • fastboot flash system ..\Fastboot\Xperia_arcS_ICS_beta\system.img

    7. Once done, please reboot your phone.

    But wait, before you rush to download the ROM, Sony has has a gotcha: "If you unlock the boot loader, you will not be able to download and install the final Ice Cream Sandwich software upgrade for Xperia phones". Huh?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/23/_199_iPad_is_a_bad_idea'

    $199 iPad is a bad idea

    Publié: février 23, 2012, 6:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Over at eWeek, Don Reisinger presents "A $199 iPad: 10 Reasons Apple Should Discount its Tablet". My retitle: "10 lame-ass reasons why Apple should slash iPad's price to $199".

    I don't often go for another reporter's jugular, but Reisinger is the king of top-10 lists and this is among his worst. We post top-10s sparingly at BetaNews, because of their limited news value. But they do generate traffic. Top-10s are the purview of pagevew whores. Well, hell, Google search might filter this post for the "W" word; so much for my pageviews. Frack it. I'm not a traffic slut; I just have a bad reputation.

    Not Everyone Else is Doing It

    Reisinger's first reason is by far the worst: "Everyone else is doing it". Oh yeah? Everyone else but Apple sells cheap PCs, too, and know-it-alls have called for price cuts for years. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company rightly resisted, drew a line at $999 and has fairly consistently stayed above it. That's MacBook Air's starting price. Higher pricing helped establish Mac as a premium brand and kept PC margins high.

    Apple generated $46.33 billion revenue and $13.06 billion profit during calendar fourth quarter. Macs alone generated $6.6 billion revenue. Dell, which is best known for low-cost PCs, announced quarterly results two days ago: About $16 billion in revenue but only $764 million in profit. That's what happens when a company sells products cheap and reaps low margins as a result. Apple rightly resisted going there with Macs and should do so with iPad.

    Apple's business model is very much not what everyone else is doing. So what if Amazon and Barnes & Noble sell $199 Android tablets? Why should Apple pee away margins? In the last quarter alone, Apple sold more than 15 million tablets, generating $9.1 billion in revenue. If my math is right -- and I am dog sick with the flu today, so it might not be -- that works out to about $591 per iPad. The tablet sells well, and according to every analyst tracking the market iPad is overwhelmingly the share leader.

    It's insane to suggest slashing prices because "everyone else is doing it", when iPad is top of its game and Apple would give away lucrative margins for minimal gains.

    Besides, everyone else isn't doing it. Most major brand tablets that compete head-to-head with iPad cost considerably more than $199. For example, Amazon's discounted price for Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 WiFi is $448 for the 16GB model and $480.53 for the 32GB. Heck, even the smaller Tab 7.0 Plus is $346.51 and $380.53 for the 16GB and 32GB models, respectively. Asus Eee Pad Transformer Prime ranges from $546.35 to $717.99. Yeah, everyone sure is doing it.

    It Devalues the Brand

    I won't rebut all Reisinger's reasons, mainly because I feel too sick but also it's professionally unbecoming. I've energy and inclination for two more, however. Next up: "It doesn’t devalue the brand". Doh, of course $199 iPad devalues the brand. Apple's successfully-proven pricing strategy is simple: Start high and go low only as needed to expand the market of available buyers.

    iPod and iPhone are excellent examples. Apple started selling the original iPod, with 5GB storage, in November 2001 for $399. The following summer, Apple introduced new models with lower and higher selling prices: 5GB ($299), 10GB ($399) and 20GB ($499). From there, prices dropped slowly, as Apple introduced smaller, lower-capacity models like iPod mini in early 2004.

    Today you can buy an iPod for as little as $49 or as much as $399. Apple carefully lowered prices, while spreading them out across a range, as it sought to reach more buyers and give existing iPod owners reasons to buy another.

    iPhone pricing is similar but less so, since it's a product subsidized by wireless carriers. The original iPhone went on sale in June 2007 for $499 and $599, respectively, for 4GB and 8GB capacities (soon after, Apple lowered prices and issued $100 credits to early buyers). Prices dramatically dropped for iPhone 3G to $199 and $299, in July 2008, but subsidized by wireless carriers. Apple collected much more money, averaged exceeding $600 per handset. So the company could lower prices in partnership with carriers without peeing away margins.

    iPad isn't iPhone

    My continued explanation hits on another of the 10 reasons: "It’s working with the iPhone". Reisinger observes that Apple and carriers are "giving away the iPhone 3GS for free, and the iPhone 4 is being sold for just $99" He asks: "If it works with the iPhone, why wouldn’t it work with the iPad?"

    For starters there's no need. Apple only lowered price on older iPhones outfitted with less storage capacity after maximizing sales and margins on higher-priced models. Discounts open the market to buyers wanting or needing to pay less. iPad still sells really well, starting at $499, as aforementioned.

    iPhone is a subsidized product, and iPad is not. iPhone 3GS might be free to the customer, but it's not to carriers, which, last I checked, pay Apple $375. What works for iPhone won't for iPad, unsubsidized.

    There is only one circumstance that justifies $199 iPad: Carrier subsidies. Because, like with iPhone, Apple would still get the big bucks for iPad from telcos like AT&T or Verizon. But, then, carriers would require monthly data plans, which are optional today. Definitely there are customers who would pay less now and commit to 24-month data contracts.

    In this scenario, Apple could hit lower price points and snatch some sales from $199 Amazon Kindle Fire and Barnes & Noble Nook. Customers looking for carrier-free arrangements would pay full price. Apple keeps its higher margins either way.

    There remains the question of reducing price on iPad 2, alongside iPad 3. Apple could possibly justify $399 but would sacrifice too much at $299. Considering how much demand there is for iPad 2 and interest in iPad 3, I don't see much reason for Apple to give up margins on older iPad selling for less. Yet.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/22/Google_Docs_for_Android_adds_real_time_collaboration'

    Google Docs for Android adds real-time collaboration

    Publié: février 22, 2012, 10:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There is some truth to Microsoft's "Googlighting" video -- that somehow every Google product feels like a work unfinished. Good Example: Google Docs for Android, which today got some features that should have been there in the first place. Collaboration is one of Google Docs headline features. But that feature lacked for something on Android phones or tablets. Today's update essentially brings more parity between the desktop and mobile clients.

    "We want to give everyone the chance to be productive no matter where they are, so today we’re releasing a new update to the Google Docs app for Android", Vadim Gerasimov, Google software engineer explains. "We've brought the collaborative experience from Google Docs on the desktop to your Android device. You'll see updates in real time as others type on their computers, tablets and phones, and you can just tap the document to join in". Well it's about time.

    "We also updated the interface to make it easier to work with your documents on the go", he continues. "For example, you can pinch to zoom and focus on a specific paragraph or see the whole document at a glance. We also added rich text formatting so you can do things like create a quick bullet list, add color to your documents, or just bold something important".

    Wow. Apply bold. I'm just so excited.

    "Finally, the office suite thhat should have been here since the start", comments Mark at the app's Android Market product page. "Works rather well on my Eee Pad, but it needs keyboard shortcuts -- like Ctrl+I for italics -- in order to be complete. Might aso be nice to have a page setting mode as well".

    "Google Docs is close to where it should have been a year or more ago!", writes Angel de Marc, who uses Motorola XOOM.

    V. Ellis Wade: "Today's update finally addressed the problem of document editing. Gonna give it a few more days, but this might mean an uninstall for Evernote".

    "Better interface and functionality now, but still not enough. Am I the only one who think so?", asks Oscar, another XOOM user.

    "This was the update I have been waiting for", writes Vachea, who uses Galaxy Nexus. "It looks so much more professional now. Love it, guys, keep up the good work".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/22/Microsoft__Google_and_Motorola_are_losers'

    Microsoft: Google and Motorola are losers

    Publié: février 22, 2012, 9:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Technology is becoming something of a fight club, as competitors (and some partners) beat up one another over intellectual property rights. Apple sues seemingly everyone, while Microsoft collects royalties from most Android licensees. Motorola, holder of 17,000 patents with about 7,000 more pending, joins the foray, too, and Microsoft is big-time pushing back.

    In a week where Microsoft accused Google of circumventing Internet Explorer privacy settings and posted the demeaning "Googlighting" video comes another slap down: The software giant filed antitrust complaints in Europe against Motorola and new owner Google.

    Microsoft claims that Motorola demands high licensing fees for video patents and seeks to block Windows and Xbox sales without payment. It's allegedly high-stakes extortion, a series of low blows that has Microsoft calling on the referee to step into the fight.

    Simply stated: To participate in technology standards, patent holders agree to license on "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms", better known simply as RAND here and FRAND in Europe, adding word "fair". These cover what are typically called "standard essential patents" that are broadly adopted and necessary, meaning certain products require them. Microsoft claims there's nothing fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory about Motorola licensing fees.

    FRAND removes monopoly advantage over patents used in industry standards, which is major reason why it can be an antitrust matter when any IP holder demands onerous licensing terms or otherwise interferes with competition.

    Microsoft filed the complaint with the European Union's Competition Commission, which also is investigating Samsung for abusing 3G FRAND patents. In separate statements, Google and Motorola said they had not yet seen the complaints.

    Fist-Fighting

    The underlying issues are more complex than just FRAND. Microsoft and Motorola already were locked in a legal row. In October, Microsoft filed an infringement claim alleging that Motorola violated patents related to Android. In December, the US International Trade Commission found that Motorola had violated one of seven Microsoft patents.

    A month earlier, Microsoft filed a lawsuit accusing Motorola of demanding exorbitant licensing fees for FRAND video and WiFi patents. Today's antitrust complaint extends Microsoft's legal fight over them.

    The question: What's fair and reasonable? Microsoft has an answer. "Motorola is demanding that Microsoft pay a royalty of $22.50 for its 50 patents on the video standard, called H.264", Dave Heiner, Microsoft deputy general counsel, asserts.

    "As it turns out, there are at least 2,300 other patents needed to implement this standard. They are available from a group of 29 companies that came together to offer their H.264 patents to the industry on FRAND terms. Microsoft’s patent royalty to this group on that $1,000 laptop? Two cents".

    Heiner gunned for Microsoft's search rival in corporate blog post "Google: Please Don't Kill Video on the Web". I couldn't have written a better title, and BetaNews readers often comment about my baiting headlines.

    He continues: "For a $2,000 laptop, Motorola is demanding double the royalty -- $45. Windows is the same on both laptops, and so is the video support in Windows. But the high-end laptop will have a bigger hard drive, more memory, perhaps a titanium case -- and Motorola is demanding a hefty royalty on all of this, even though none of these features implements Motorola’s video patents".

    Heiner's post is rich with rhetoric, which I chose not to sample. The tone rings similar to other recent attacks against Google and ignores Microsoft's own aggressive, competitive licensing tactics; there Android licensees stand tall among them. Microsoft now collects patent fees from most manufacturers making Android handsets, with Motorola being major exception.

    Under New Management

    Detente defines FRAND, or did until the recent patent fighting over mobile devices and Google's acquisition of a large patent horde. In putting up its "change of management" sign, Google's position on standard essential patents and FRAND causes concern everywhere. For example, European and US regulators approved Google's Motorola merger but with caveats.

    Earlier this month, the US Justice Department explains its reasons for approving the Google-Motorola merger and sale of other patents to Apple and Microsoft, among others.

    "Motorola Mobility has had a long and aggressive history of seeking to capitalize on its intellectual property and has been engaged in extended disputes with Apple, Microsoft and others", the Justice Department's letter explains. "Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility is unlikely to materially alter that policy".

    In approving three deals, trustbusters looked at possible abuse of standard essential patents. Apple and Microsoft assurances placated Justice Department lawyers, but not Google's.

    In a November letter to European competition authorities, Apple assured that: "A party who made a FRAND commitment to license its cellular standards essential patents or otherwise acquired assets/rights from a party who made the FRAND commitment must not seek injunctive relief on such patents. Seeking an injunction would be a violation of the party’s commitment to FRAND licensing".

    In a notice posted this month, Microsoft takes a clearer position:

    Microsoft’s approach is straight-forward:

    1. Microsoft will always adhere to the promises it has made to standards organizations to make its standard essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms.

    2. This means that Microsoft will not seek an injunction or exclusion order against any firm on the basis of those essential patents.

    3. This also means that Microsoft will make those essential patents available for license to other firms without requiring that those firms license their patents back to Microsoft, except for any patents they have that are essential to the same industry standard.

    4. Microsoft will not transfer those standard essential patents to any other firm unless that firm agrees to adhere to the points outlined above.

    By comparison, as the Justice Department observes, "Google’s commitments were more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP licensing policies".

    Google also didn't preclude seeking injunctions over standard essential licenses. "Google reserves its rights to seek any and all judicial remedies against counterparties that refuse a RAND license or subsequently breach any of their commitments on the terms of any license agreement covering the acquired [Motorola Mobility] Essential Patent Claims or the counterparty's Essential Patent Claims", according to a letter sent to IEEE earlier this month. Additionally, Google plans to seek patent cross-licensing agreements in some cases.

    "Google’s statement therefore does not directly provide the same assurance as the other companies’ statements concerning the exercise of its newly acquired patent rights", the Justice Department warns. "Nonetheless, the division determined that the acquisition of the patents by Google did not substantially lessen competition, but how Google may exercise its patents in the future remains a significant concern".

    Problem: No company's public position can truly be trusted since all have vested and often conflicting interests in the outcomes and there is so much money at stake. For example, Google has forsworn H.264 for open-source WebM. Onerous license terms could be used to dissuade other companies from licensing the video codec. Meanwhile, Microsoft is unlikely to embrace WebM by choice.

    Photo Credit: Nicholas Piccillo/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/21/Windows_Phone_isn_t_boring'

    Windows Phone isn't boring

    Publié: février 21, 2012, 8:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Well, that's what many of you say.

    Last week I asked: "Are you bored with Windows Phone?" Simple reason: Windows 8 and Windows 8 on ARM share in Metro a similar tile-like user interface, and I had seen some user complaints about being bored with WP 7.5. I asked the question in anticipation of Windows 8 Consumer Preview, which Microsoft promised to release by month's end.

    Given the UI similarities, WP users are a good measure for assessing Metro's viability as the new window to Windows. Windows 8 will bring the most fundamental change to the UI since the graphical user interface adopted for version 3.0 and then revamped for Windows 95. Such change comes with risks users will resist, stalling adoption or leading some customers to adopt something else (with Mac OS X near top of list).

    Maybe my post rallied the fanboys or represents a broad base of Windows Phone users. Whichever, neither or both, you give a rousing endorsement to the tile-like UI.

    "I have a had windows phone for a few months now, and I love it", Jesse Dobson comments. "The simplicity is cool, but I mostly like the phone because of the live tiles, social network integration, Windows Live services integration, the Xbox 360 Companion app, and, most importantly, Zune music pass!!" Many of these same features/benefits are expected with Windows 8's Metro UI.

    Jason Kohlhoff loves "Metro, and I can't wait for Windows 8". He and his wife have the HTC Trophy.

    Perhaps not meaning to, reader Carlos Ribeiro da Fonseca makes a point that is central to the reason why I posed the "boring" question:

    Yup, the tiles look boring. On paper or, well, the Interwebs. But that's because you can't show anything 'live' in a static image. On the actual phone, the tiles change, a lot. In fact, if one isn't careful, they can change too much and the home screen can become quite a mess. If anything, they're the complete opposite of boring.

    "Are you mad?" Dinesh Pabbi asks, in all caps, no less. "Metro is so good to use and looks absolutely beautiful".

    R Walrond, who develops Windows Phone apps, unsurprisingly isn't bored. "I switched to WP7 because I was bored of my iPhone (plus it was much easier to develop for). I don't understand the complaints about the tiles. They come to life with content all the time at least on my Samsung Focus".

    Rodney Jones:

    Windows Phone is visually, technically, and intuitively awesome to use everyday, even after a year with the device. The apps have the best aesthetics of any platform, and the live tile system works great, and displays the info I choose instantly. Windows Phone's design concept is perfect, and could never be boring because of its natural disposition. Those who say otherwise simply have not used WP!

    "'Boring' is certainly not the word I would use, but 'comfortable' is", Eric King comments. "I've had my WP7 for over a year now, and I can't imagine wanting to switch to either the iPhone or Android interfaces".

    "I've had a Samsung Focus since October 2010 and I love it. I did buy my teenage daughter an iPhone 4S and honestly I hated setting it up", David Cornelson writes. "I wouldn't trade my Windows Phone OS for anything and certainly not an iPhone. I have the Lumia 900 on pre-order too".

    Nokia announced the Lumia 900 Windows Phone in early January. The smartphone is expected to go on sale in March, and Microsoft started taking preorders about two weeks ago. Most readers responding to our poll plan to buy one.

    Carlo Mendoza is "not bored at all". I've had an HTC HD2, but have been running WP7 on it a little more than a year". He's "very excited to get Lumia 900. It's only going to get better with Apollo & Windows 8. I see it from the 'Data/Information first' perspective, which is really what the Metro user experience is about in my opinion".

    Frequent BetaNews commenter "woe" isn't giddy with enthusiasm and breaks from the largely favorable comments:

    The question should be: "Are you bored with Metro?" My answer is yes. When it came out on the Zune is was pretty cool. Microsoft moves as fast as a glacier, because here we are how many years later and its on everything they own finally.

    Metro is boring. It was different and new yes, but plain and boring. It is fast -- because its so simple. Simple colors on a simple single-color background. No 3d effects or raised effects, so it's fast. Smart move in terms of a smartphone, since you don't have to waste CPU/GPU cycles on the fancy GUI features -- but boring. In some places, like the calendar on Windows Phone Metro is boring and ugly.

    I have recently seen Windows 8 server screen shots, some of the NIC teaming dialog boxes and they were all Metro -- YUK!!!

    Okay, so only most of you say Windows Phone isn't boring. Will you have the same opinion about Windows 8? I'll ask the question again after you have spent some quality time with the Consumer Preview.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/21/Should_Microsoft_release_Office_for_iPad_'

    Should Microsoft release Office for iPad?

    Publié: février 21, 2012, 5:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's my question for you this Tuesday morning, following new rumors about Office for iPad and its imminent release. Over at The Daily, Matt Hickey insists Microsoft has nearly finished development and "the app will soon be submitted to Apple for approval". The software supposedly has capabilities from Excel, OneNote, PowerPoint and Word and inherits characteristics from Windows 8's Metro UI.

    Whoa, can this really be a good idea, Office on iPad?

    I'm unconvinced that Office for iPad is a good idea from a Windows platform perspective. Reports from numerous analyst firms -- Canalys, Gartner and IDC among them -- are clear: iPad hurts PC sales, which in turn impacts Windows. During fourth quarter (fiscal second for Microsoft), Windows and Windows Live division revenue declined by 6 percent year over year and profits even more; 11 percent. Microsoft blamed a hard drive shortage, but Mac sales rose to record numbers -- 5.2 million, up 26 percent year over year, while the broader PC market declined by 1.4 percent, according to Gartner). The reasons are more complex than Microsoft states, then, and iPad is high among them. So why in hell would Microsoft contribute to its own OS platform's decline?

    Most IT mangers tell me the same thing: They make OS platform decisions based on applications. By offering Office on iPad, Microsoft makes adopting iPad an easier decision for many corporations, which also happen to make up Microsoft's core market base. So why give them incentive to deploy iPads that might take away PC sales today and Windows on ARM sales in the future? There are reasons. Among them:

    1. Office as platform is another matter. Viewed from revenue and profit, the Business Division is more important to Microsoft than Windows and Windows Live. During calendar fourth quarter, Business division generated $6.28 billion revenue and $4.15 billion profit compared to Windows and Windows Live's $4.74 billion and $2.85 billion, respectively. That's a trend, not a one-off quarter. Office accounts for more than 90 percent of Business division revenues.

    Additionally, Office is front end to many back-end Microsoft server products and to cloud services. Trickle down sales are huge.

    2. Enterprises use Office and already are adopting iPad. According to a recent IDG Connect study, enterprise business or IT managers with iPads use their laptops less (54 percent) or have replaced notebooks with the tablets (16 percent). Office is the productivity app standard among corporate users, but software not available to them on iPad.

    From customer retention and service perspectives, Microsoft should make Office available wherever these customers want to use it. Then there is the additional revenue potential from selling these customers yet another version of Office. Why sell once what you can sell again and again?

    3. iPad doesn't really threaten Windows. That's a view common among BetaNews commenters and no doubt at Microsoft, too. The company offers Office for the Mac, which certainly helps Apple computer sales but hasn't (yet) caused Windows any real hurt.

    Importance of the first two reasons is greater as well. By the way, I do see iPad taking away Windows PC sales, but what Microsoft managers presumably think matters more.

    4. Office for Macintosh is hugely profitable and iPad can be, too. People often ask me why Microsoft offers Office on Mac, given Apple computers compete with Windows PCs. Simple answer: Microsoft makes money and could generate additional revenue on iPad. Apple shipped more than 15 million iPads in fourth quarter -- 55 million to date -- and none with Office, the most successful desktop productivity suite ever.

    Why let Apple take all that cash to the bank with iWork apps? Pages, which Apple sells for $9.99, is the third top-grossing iPad app. Do the math. What if Microsoft offers Office on iPad for $39.96 ($9.99 per app) and one-quarter of the iPad install base upgrades? That's nearly $550 million in sales. Too bad Microsoft has to share 30 percent with Apple, eh?

    5. Less is more. Microsoft has already announced plans to offer Office with Windows on ARM. Price is uncertain, and possibly free or cost invisible to the customer. Office on iPad would be good way to showcase what users can expect from Office for Windows on ARM -- and more. Surely Microsoft can offer more capabilities and different, if not better, user experience. Microsoft reaps revenue rewards today from iPad while preparing something similar but better for Windows later.

    Okay, I've made a case for why Office on iPad could make sense. There remains your answer to the question: Should Microsoft release Office for iPad?

    Photo Source: The Daily

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/20/You_knew_this_right__Apple_buyers_are_wealthier'

    You knew this right? Apple buyers are wealthier

    Publié: février 20, 2012, 8:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Most Apple products aren't exactly comparably low-priced, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that customers have higher incomes -- considerably more. Still, by how much is about as startling as the sticker shock a Dell Inspiron buyer gets when shopping MacBook Pros. I'm surprised Apple doesn't post a trauma team with security guards (unless perhaps Apple Store employees are registered EMTs) inside its retail shops; surely someone suffers cardiac arrest from the prices.

    For some reason NPD and Nielsen issued data within days of one another looking at device buyer demographics -- hence why I'm posting about price at all. Beyond the press release data, which you can read in a few paragraphs, I wondered about Macs and iPads, seeing as analyst firms Canalys and DisplaySearch insist that tablets are PCs. So I asked Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, about US demographics.

    "From an income perspective, about 44 percent of people who bought an Apple product -- that's iPads and MacBooks -- had over a $100,000 income vs 26 percent of the entire market", he says. Wowza. Selling prices are absolutely a factor. iPad starts at $499 and sells for as much as $829. By comparison, Amazon's Kindle Fire is $199. Then there are Mac laptops, which start at $999 and cost as much as $2,499.

    Among these same buyers, 24 percent are 55 or older versus 29 percent for non-Apple computers and tablets. "Apple buyers are definitely a little bit younger in that range", Baker observes. "The income is more telling, because younger people can have more money but older people can't be younger".

    But ages are closer when singling out tablets. "iPad owners are a little older -- by about a year", Baker says. That's a mean age of 50 vs 49. "Apple way over-indexes in older people. They're more willing to spend for that perceived extra cost of Apple. Everyone thinks that Apple is dominant among young people, and that's just not the case". The income gulf drops a little, with about 42 percent of iPad owners having incomes over $100,000 vs 26 percent for other tablet buyers.

    While NPD offers rich data on Apple devices, Nielsen looks at the broader US smartphone market -- without singling out iPhone. Among all age groups, "smartphone penetration" was highest among those making $100,000 or more. That's 75 percent to 80 percent for those ages 18 to 44, with the higher number among 25-to-34 year olds.

    Photo Credit: Katherine Welles/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/17/Windows_8_logo_is_a_disaster'

    Windows 8 logo is a disaster

    Publié: février 17, 2012, 11:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's something poetic about Microsoft changing Windows' logo during the centennial anniversary of Titanic's tragic sinking. Many people involved in the great streamliner's design and building -- and surely those buying into publicity about it -- regarded Titanic as unsinkable. There's similar pervasive view about Windows, that nothing can sink its market leadership. Uh-oh, someone only put the watertight doors as high as E deck.

    Microsoft's flagship operating system will sail on its maiden voyage, so to speak, with the Consumer Preview coming in less than two weeks (if not sooner). Windows 8 will take a northerly course through ice-infested waters as Microsoft "re-imagines" the platform in ways that will stress customers', developers' and other partners' commitments. Execution will be key, and every detail planning the course matters. That's right down to the logo, which significance is much bigger than Windows.

    Bland Branding

    Microsoft has no corporate logo. The name is the brand, but it's not brand enough. That's one reason why Microsoft long ago adopted the four-color Windows flag as major identifier and why prominent sub-brands -- Office most notably, even Microsoft Store -- use similar color motif. The new Windows logo washes away the familiar color scheme and any resemblance to earlier variations. It's a rectangle cut vertically and horizontally by two lines. The logo lacks dimension, depth or distinction.

    During group chat earlier this afternoon, I opined about the new logo: "From a branding perspective it's questionable" because "Microsoft has no corporate logo. Nothing to identify it with. Closest thing is that four color flag. Essentially, Microsoft has changed its core, corporate brand logo". It's a branding disaster.

    I'm not alone in that opinion. To our news story that posted later, Reader Orean Keels comments:

    Far too generic. To remove the four-color design from Windows is a really bad brand direction, and in my opinion, so is Metro. But just like always, Microsoft isn't going to listen to the loud voices complaining. They've already set this dud in motion. A year to year and a half from now, we'll be listening to Microsoft apologizing, just like they (indirectly) have with Vista, while Windows 9 will be the version that 8 should have been. They never learn.

    Course Correction

    The new logo is a mistake and one Microsoft could and should correct before Windows 8 ships in the autumn (well, presumably). Yes, Windows 8 may sell about as well as Vista (meaning not very). But that's to be expected. Microsoft is making major changes to the operating system and how applications are developed for it.

    One developer told me recently about hearing 40 percent of the code has changed since the Windows 8 Developer Preview released in September. I find that hard to fathom (or believe) but even 10 percent would be trouble enough for developers trying to nail down a software strategy for Metro.

    Timing is sensible for platform reinvention, given that most businesses (Microsoft's core customers) will have just completed or will soon finish Windows 7 deployments from XP about the time v8 ships. They won't be ready for Windows 8, so it's right time to hit them with changes now. Windows 8 is really about what comes next, when core customers are ready to buy again. The point: I wouldn't call Windows Vista-like sales necessarily a disaster.

    On the other hand, Microsoft needn't create obstacles where they are unnecessary. There are icebergs enough ahead. Logos are not insignificant. Many top brands are recognized by their logos, which significance increase in making flash impressions as people skip commercials on shows they recorded or breeze past banner ads or road-side billboards. Apple's logo is iconic, and the four-color Windows flag is as close as Microsoft will get. Microsoft's name as brand, unlike, say, Coca-Cola, simply isn't memorable or marketable enough.

    Willowed Windows

    I can understand some of the rationale behind changing the logo, which looks more like a tile -- the fundamental characteristic of the Metro UI. The new color scheme also matches one prominently used in the UI's tiles. Additionally, fresh logo could evoke fresh approach, something new -- and granted many people will find Windows 8 to be it. But the logo also isn't distinctive, and I don't see how it will stand out stickered to new PCs, tablets and other Windows 8-powered devices.

    The logo matters. Everything matters about Windows 8, because so much change comes with it. There's the risk. That unsinkable Windows is anything but. Who would have said in December 2004, when Firefox launched, that Internet Explorer's usage share would fall from more than 90 percent to 52.96 percent in January 2012 (according to Net Applications)? Or that Google would release Chrome in December 2008 and see its usage share rise to 19.11 percent three years later?

    IE's mighty fall foreshadows what can happen to Microsoft's OS. Windows PC sales dramatically declined during fourth quarter, while Mac sales rose. Windows and Windows Live revenue fell by 6 percent year over year and profits by 11 percent. Meanwhile, iPad has sapped Windows PC sales for several quarters. Given these circumstances, Microsoft should look to "re-imagine" Windows.

    Steering the right course is essential, however. Customers will be confused enough without brand changes. Microsoft, consider this post your iceberg warning. Will you sail ahead like Captain Smith did Titanic or slow down and go around the ice?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/16/Meet_Mountain_Lion__slideshow_'

    Meet Mountain Lion [slideshow]

    Publié: février 16, 2012, 10:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox
    Mountain Lion Synchronization is the glue binding together many of Mac OS X 10.8's top-line new features. Apple claims 100 million iCloud users, which is surprisingly small considering the iOS install base is about three times larger. As I've often said, sync is the killer app for the connected era, and it's something Apple is baking into all its operating systems.

    Synchronization is the glue binding together many of Mac OS X 10.8's top-line new features. Apple claims 100 million iCloud users, which is surprisingly small considering the iOS install base is about three times larger. As I've often said, sync is the killer app for the connected era, and it's something Apple is baking into all its operating systems.

    Gatekeeper may be Mountain Lion's most important and controversial new feature. Apple will take more of a walled-garden, locked down approach to security, by compelling developers to accept assigned IDs and to distribute their wares through Mac App Store. Users are assured signed, safer software but they and developers will give up some freedom for security.

    Gatekeeper may be Mountain Lion's most important and controversial new feature. Apple will take more of a walled-garden, locked down approach to security, by compelling developers to accept assigned IDs and to distribute their wares through Mac App Store. Users are assured signed, safer software but they and developers will give up some freedom for security.

    Messages brings to Mac OS X the client in iOS 5. The app is available now, in beta, ahead of Mountain Lion's release. Installation replaces Lion's iChat. The feature relies heavily on sync to keep the message thread going. Start a message on the Mac and resume it on iPad or iPhone. Delivery and read receipts also are available.

    Messages brings to Mac OS X the client in iOS 5. The app is available now, in beta, ahead of Mountain Lion's release. Installation replaces Lion's iChat. The feature relies heavily on sync to keep the message thread going. Start a message on the Mac and resume it on iPad or iPhone. Delivery and read receipts also are available.

    We love to share stuff. Human beings are naturally social. Apple will add share buttons throughout OS X 10.8, much like iOS 5 today. Share Sheets connect to other web services, so that users can send photos to Flickr or videos to Vimeo, for example.

    We love to share stuff. Human beings are naturally social. Apple will add share buttons throughout OS X 10.8, much like iOS 5 today. Share Sheets connect to other web services, so that users can send photos to Flickr or videos to Vimeo, for example.

    China. "Huh?" you ask. "China is a feature?" Apparently it is, so to speak, or important enough for Apple to call out. China is Apple's second-most important market (next to North America) and the company is ready to sync with popular Chinese services, such as Mail, Calendar and Contacts with 126, 163 and QQ. Share Sheets support video sharing from Youku and Tudou, and Baidu is search provider in Safari.

    China. "Huh?" you ask. "China is a feature?" Apparently it is, so to speak, or important enough for Apple to call out. China is Apple's second-most important market (next to North America) and the company is ready to sync with popular Chinese services, such as Mail, Calendar and Contacts with 126, 163 and QQ. Share Sheets support video sharing from Youku and Tudou, and Baidu is search provider in Safari.

    Notes' defining capability is sync. Apple focuses on content creation, bringing together text, photos, images, attachments and more, into one easy-to-create note. But the killer capability is iCloud sync among different devices.

    Notes' defining capability is sync. Apple focuses on content creation, bringing together text, photos, images, attachments and more, into one easy-to-create note. But the killer capability is iCloud sync among different devices.

    AirPlay Mirroring raises Apple TV's role as device for streaming content to big screens, whether that's watching video from the couch or making a presentation at the office.

    AirPlay Mirroring raises Apple TV's role as device for streaming content to big screens, whether that's watching video from the couch or making a presentation at the office.

    Tweet. Tweet. Mountain Lion joins iOS 5 with integrated Twitter, which third-party apps can tap into. The bird is fine, but what about Facebook?

    Tweet. Tweet. Mountain Lion joins iOS 5 with integrated Twitter, which third-party apps can tap into. The bird is fine, but what about Facebook?

    Reminders is another feature relying heavily on sync. Simply stated, this feature is a glorified to-do list.

    Reminders is another feature relying heavily on sync. Simply stated, this feature is a glorified to-do list.

    Game Center brings to Mac OS X capabilities already available to iOS 5 users. Everything hinges on the user's Apple ID, which lets other games know you're online and is identity for purchasing as well as playing games. Will this finally turn the Mac into a gaming platform? Call me skeptical.

    Game Center brings to Mac OS X capabilities already available to iOS 5 users. Everything hinges on the user's Apple ID, which lets other games know you're online and is identity for purchasing as well as playing games. Will this finally turn the Mac into a gaming platform? Call me skeptical.

    Notification Center brings to Mac OS X a feature Apple borrowed from Android for iOS 5. It's an essential capability for tying Macs to iOS devices as communications/social hubs. Next to Gatekeeper, Notifications Center is near the top of most-important new features. This utility will change how many users interact with the operating system.

    Notification Center brings to Mac OS X a feature Apple borrowed from Android for iOS 5. It's an essential capability for tying Macs to iOS devices as communications/social hubs. Next to Gatekeeper, Notifications Center is near the top of most-important new features. This utility will change how many users interact with the operating system.

    On February 16, Apple unexpectedly released the OS X 10.8 developer preview and announced the software's availability some time in "late summer". Apple highlights 10 new features in Mountain Lion, the majority of which inherit capabilities from iOS 5 on iPad: AirPlay Mirroring, Game Center, Gatekeeper, iCloud, Messages, Notes, Notification Center, Reminders, Share Sheets and Twitter.

    Apple also calls out support for cloud services in China, the company's second-most important market. Sync is among the most-important capabilities, which Apple will greatly extend in Mountain Lion. The company hasn't announced pricing, but Lion sold for $29.99. It's not unreasonable to expect similar pricing for Mountain Lion.

    Funny aside that makes me wonder about Apple nomenclature: Gatekeeper. In the surprisingly still technology relevant 1995 thriller "The Net", a program called "Gatekeeper" has a starring role. The security software meant to protect computers from hackers is really a Trojan Horse for letting them in.

    Founder of the software's developer, Gregg Microsystems, is really part of a diabolical group known as the Praetorians. The movie's climatic conclusion takes place during a computer show at the Moscone Center, which is where at bygone Macworld Expos Apple announced many new products.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/16/Apple_launches_OS_war_against_Microsoft'

    Apple launches OS war against Microsoft

    Publié: février 16, 2012, 6:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, without fanfare, prior notice or even a rumor on the InterWebs, Apple announced OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion's summer availability, released a developer preview and made available, as public beta, Messages, one of the new features. Suddenly, the year's schedule of software releases is a dramatic showdown between Mountain Lion and Windows 8 and Windows on ARM. Can you say cat fight?

    Microsoft plans to release Windows 8 Consumer Preview later this month, with an official event planned for February 29 during Mobile World Congress. Many Microsoft watchers presume the venue's choice foreshadows increased emphasis on mobile features, particularly as the Redmond, Wash.-based company seeks to recover momentum against iPad. Apple isn't waiting around, boasting about OS X 10.8 inheriting mobile features from iOS 5 (on iPad) and tightening ties to iCloud. Mountain Lion also will likely release ahead of either Windows 8 or Windows ARM, increasing pressure on Microsoft to ship this year.

    First-Strike Capability

    Based on its past operating system development, Microsoft likely won't release Windows 8 gold code until around the time Mountain Lion ships, giving Apple a two-month lead to market. Much depends on Apple's definition of "late summer". If that's September, OS X 10.8 and Windows 8 could ship within a month of one another, with Microsoft's RTM coming first.

    Apple also laid down another kind of challenge, which is directed as much at Google as Microsoft and brings desktop OS development more in line with mobile. "The developer preview of Mountain Lion comes just seven months after the incredibly successful release of Lion and sets a rapid pace of development for the world’s most advanced personal computer operating system", Phil Schiller, Apple's global marketing chief, says.

    Microsoft's Windows development cycle is much longer, now about every three years. Schiller signals a return to the more rapid pace Apple set during the early to mid Noughties and perhaps accelerated to match iOS and to keep pace with (or even jump ahead of) Google's Android and Chrome OS.

    Timing is crucial, if for no other reason than first-to-market and mindshare/marketing advantage. Some readers will ask: "So what? Windows has much more market share". True. But...

    • Most people buying new Macs are Windows users (based on install base), so Microsoft has more to lose.
    • If Apple can ship soon enough, OS X 10.8 will be ready for late back-to-school buying season, Windows 8 won't.
    • Mountain Lion will pull away media and potential customer attention from Windows 8, a major OS overhaul.
    • Windows PC sales were way down in fourth quarter and are expected to remain so for the first half of the year. Mac sales are way up. All that buzz and excitement, and new OS shipping sooner, can further boost Apple computer sales.

    Marching Mobile Infantry

    The challenge is greater. Microsoft is repositioning Windows for the post-PC era, touting touchscreen capabilities and redesigning the user interface for easier use on tablets. Apple goes the other way with Mountain Lion, touting features the OS will inherit from iPad. Synchronization is the key benefit shared among most of the new capabilities spotlighted today. Among them:

    iCloud. Apple touts sync capabilities coming in OS X 10.8. Based on the description I don't see anything not already available on current release Lion. That said, Apple rightly emphasizes the importance of sync and capitalizing on 100 million iCloud users.

    Messages. The beta replaces iChat, bringing the messaging client in line with iOS 5. The feature relies heavily on sync to keep the message thread going. Start a message on the Mac and resume it on iPad or iPhone. According to Apple's marketing material: "You can see when your message has been delivered and when someone’s typing a reply. Turn on read receipts, and they’ll see when you’ve read a message".

    Gatekeeper. Can you say copycat? One of Windows 8's hallmark new features is the new security architecture, bolstered by app distribution through Windows Store. Apple makes claims, too, giving users more control of app installations, leveraging Mac App Store to curate applications and boasting capability to remotely remove apps (should malware sneak through); Google uses similar remote removal capabilities in Android Market.

    China. "Huh?" you ask. "China is a feature?" Apparently it is, so to speak, or important enough for Apple to call out. China is Apple's second-most important market (next to North America).

    According to Apple's marketing material:

    OS X Mountain Lion brings all-new support for many popular Chinese services. And they’re easy to set up. Mail, Contacts, and Calendar work with QQ, 163, and 126. Baidu, the leading Chinese search provider, is a built-in option in Safari. The video-sharing websites Youku and Tudou are included in the new Share Sheets, so users in China can easily post videos to the web. They can also blog with Sina weibo, the popular microblogging service. And with improved text input, typing in Chinese is easier, faster and more accurate.

    Notification Center. Well, the feature borrowed from Android for iOS 5 makes its way to the Mac. It's an essential capability for tying Macs to iOS devices as communications/social hubs.

    Reminders. It's an enhanced, synced to-do list.

    Notes. Apple looks to make mincement out of Microsoft OneNote for iPad connected to SkyDrive. According to Apple's marketing material: "Notes in OS X Mountain Lion is designed for whatever’s on your mind. Think it up. Jot it down. Make it even more noteworthy with photos, images, and attachments...Notes works with iCloud, so when you create or edit a note on your Mac, it automatically updates on your iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch". That sound lots like OneNote to me, minus the one.

    Twitter. Like iOS 5, Mountain Lion users will be able to tweet across the OS and from apps tapping into the API. Oh yeah? What about Facebook?

    Share Sheets. We love to share stuff. Human beings are naturally social. Apple will add share buttons throughout OS X 10.8, much like iOS 5 today.

    AirPlay Mirroring. This feature extends Mac-to-Apple TV capabilities already available.

    Game Center. Is any explanation needed? This popular iOS feature comes to the Mac.

    Capturing New Territory

    Even Apple's marketing message is a challenge. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and Windows and Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky repeatedly have talked about "re-imagining" the operating system. Among Apple's marketing taglines for OS X 10.8: "Inspired by iPad. Re-imagined for the Mac". Make no mistake, this means war.

    Apple strikes at a time of unusual opportunity. Microsoft is making major changes to Windows architecture and to the user interface. Businesses are loathe to change IT infrastructure, but a time when they have to is opportunity to evaluate something else, and that could be Mountain Lion as, or more, than Windows 8. Something else: Enterprise already evaluating or deploying iPad suddenly have a safe haven in OS X 10.8.

    Today's Apple announcements show how effective is the secrecy machine when outsiders aren't involved. I remember a decade ago when Apple largely kept the lid on new products, something nearly impossible now with the number of bloggers or journalists looking for leaks and the many third-parties in the manufacturing chain -- that's on hardware. Apple is still fairly able to keep secret software news until it's ready.

    Something else about being ready: Today's sudden, unexpected announcement would have been a Steve Jobs showcase at an earlier time. Jobs characteristically basked in the limelight unveiling new products like this, a position he increasingly surrendered during the three years before his death four months ago.

    Photo Credit: Andre Blais/Shutterstock

    Product Shots: Apple

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/16/iPhone_saves_smartphone_market'

    iPhone saves smartphone market

    Publié: février 16, 2012, 12:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    "Smartphone volumes during the quarter rose due to record sales of Apple iPhones". That's a helluva statement -- from Gartner's press release on Q4 2011 handset sales today. Emphasis on sales, which is what the analyst firm measures, not shipments into the channel like its competitors. One hundred-forty nine million smartphones sold globally during the quarter, up 47.3 percent year over year, 35.46 million from Apple.

    Last month, Apple claimed 37.04 million iPhone sales, which, of course, really means shipments. Apple's stunning fourth quarter raised its ranking. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company passed LG to take third place in overall handset sales for all 2011 -- not just smartphones -- 5 percent to 4.9 percent share, respectively. In smartphones, Apple claimed top spot for the quarter and all 2011, with 23.8 percent and 19 percent market share, respectively. Apple sold 89.7 million handsets last year.

    "Western Europe and North America led most of the smartphone growth for Apple during the fourth quarter of 2011", Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst, says. "In Western Europe the spike in iPhone sales in the fourth quarter saved the overall smartphone market after two consecutive quarters of slow sales".

    Gartner expects strong first-quarter iPhone sales, but sequential decline, presuming pent-up demand for iPhone 4S is largely exhausted. Similarly, Gartner predicts that, as measured by smartphone operating system, iPhone will lose share over the next couple of quarters. This follows a Q4 surge that reversed Android's relentless share growth, with a sequential decline.

    Still, Android is unstoppable, reaching 50.9 percent global smartphone share, up from 30.5 percent a year earlier. By comparison, second-ranked iOS share rose to 23.8 percent from 15.8 percent.

    Samsung led Android's market share gains, selling 34 million smartphones. So I have to wonder about Gartner giving so much credit to iPhone.

    Apple and Samsung Q4 smartphone sales surges contributed to another disastrous quarter for Windows Phone, which share dropped to a pathetic 1.9 percent from 3.4 percent a year earlier. This despite launch of the first Nokia Windows Phone during Q4; sales volumes declined with market share, just 2.6 million, which was less than Samsung's Bada.

    More broadly, there were 476.5 million handsets sold globally during fourth quarter, up 5.4 percent year over year. For the year, sales topped 1.8 billion phones, up 11.1 percent.

    "Expectations for 2012 are for the overall market to grow by about 7 percent, while smartphone growth is expected to slow to around 39 percent", Annette Zimmermann, Gartner principal research analyst, says.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/15/Are_you_bored_with_Windows_Phone_'

    Are you bored with Windows Phone?

    Publié: février 15, 2012, 9:37pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I have to ask, because Microsoft is prepping Windows 8 Consumer Preview for release later this month and Windows on ARM for more limited testing. Both operating systems will, in Metro, use similar UI motif as that on Windows Phone. Is it really the best choice? Not having used Windows Phone, I have no answer. So I turn to you.

    "Boring" is a word I've seen used to describe Windows Phone, here in BetaNews comments and on some mobile device forums -- that user excitement, because of the tile-like user interface's fluidity and simplicity, diminishes over time. In that scenario, Microsoft's "glance-and-go" design philosophy takes on different meaning: People get off the phone because they can't stand using it, rather than being empowered to live life instead of on the device.

    In fairness, many BetaNews commenters have described iOS as boring, too, and there I agree. The motif is oh-so 2007, particularly compared to Ice Cream Sandwich or Samsung's TouchWiz UI skin. Android has more fluidity from better, fuller multitasking than iOS, but Apple's software runs smoother, lacking the hesitations and hiccups common to Google's mobile operating system. From that perspective, as a platform for apps, iOS is better choice than Android, IMHO.

    But the boring question is more potent for Microsoft than for Apple, because of Windows 8 and Windows on ARM. The last thing Microsoft and its partners should want is people tiring of using Windows. Related: User interface exhaustion would be detrimental because of how tiles present live information and applications; additionally, presumably, visual customization options will be limited compared to earlier Windows versions.

    Boring has several nuances:

    • The tile interface is too plain, lacking dimension. That's actually a somewhat fixable problem by adding more shadows and 3D-like elements that add pizazz. I'm expecting that the fluidity and motion of live content, including video, will make Metro feel lively. Stated differently: I'm hoping it's not boring, then.
    • Metro will be too limited on PCs without touchscreens. There UI exhaustion is more a problem of limited interaction, users not being able get the full bang from the experience. So they find the UI to be boring over time.

    In a month, I could ask the question differently: Are you bored with Windows 8? To my eyes, the operating system demos really well. But I have no experience using Windows 8, either, particularly on a tablet. That's coming, of course.

    I'll ask the question two ways then. Are you bored with Windows Phone? Why or why not? Are you bored with Windows 8 Developer Preview? Why or why not? If you're really excited about the user experience on either OS, or both, then why? Comments await your answers.

    Photo Credit: Vlue/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/15/Apple_patent_bullying_reaches_new_low'

    Apple patent bullying reaches new low

    Publié: février 15, 2012, 6:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    People whining about human rights violations at Apple manufacturing facilities in China should look at business behavior, too, for it reveals much. Companies tend to act fairly consistently, reflecting the personalities of the people running them. If Apple shows disregard for workers making its products, then so should insensitive behavior crop up elsewhere. I see it in the callous patent attacks, which reached a new low yesterday. The company wants to sue bankrupt Kodak.

    Apple's asking a bankruptcy court to sue for the patents is like demanding a judge turn over a portion of granddad's estate while he is still on life support. Kodak was the Apple of its day, bringing portable photography to the mass market in ways quite similar to iPod, iPhone and iPad today. Apple and Kodak are two of the greatest innovative American consumer technology companies of the last century, and they share similar attributes about creating compact, trendy and attractive products. On the design front, Apple owes much to Kodak and borrowed much from it. What a helluva way to show gratitude.

    Last week, Kodak stopped manufacturing digital cameras, which surely is an eventual death sentence. Digital is the future of photography. Film, once Kodak's high-margin lifeblood, is dead. The Rochester, N.Y.-based company lists assets of $5.1 billion but debt of $6.8 billion in its bankruptcy filing. What's left but the patents? Hey, they generated more than $2 billion in licensing fees over the past three years.

    Of course, Kodak's patents are hugely valuable. Perhaps Apple would like to get its grubby hands on them for next to nothing; through court proceedings interrupt their transfer or sale to another party; or obtain some kind of licensing agreement to use them -- potentially for a fraction of their value. Surely Apple can't hope to extract money from bankrupt Kodak. But given Kodak's pending patent claims against Apple, there is leverage.

    "Apple requests express authority from this court before it initiates the actions out of an abundance of caution", according to the filing, obtained by Bloomberg.

    Shared Legacy

    Already Apple borrowed much from Kodak, which is why I'd expect more homage than this. Apple's approach to product design reminds of young Kodak, as does research and development, emphasis on product functional simplicity, manufacturing and distribution operations, reaping high profit margins, commanding huge brand appeal and catering to consumers. Sure Kodak profited big from business sales, but consumers made the brand and kept the volume of high-margin film sales coming.

    I won't go into specifics here, for a whole paper could be written, but just say that Kodak is the historical case study for any company looking to sell portable consumer electronics to the mass-market.

    Kodak's design approach is the most visible example of what Apple borrowed -- and that's no criticism. Apple learned from its forebear, smartly applying lessons learned from history.

    For example: In 1927, Kodak commissioned Walter Dorwin Teague to design a new line of cameras. The company wanted to increase its cameras' appeal to women. Teague presented the diminutive Vest Pocket line in five distinct colors. Nearly 80 years later, Apple chief designer Jony Ive applied the same five-color concept to iPod Mini. Similarly, like Teague presented a smaller camera, Ive designed a smaller music player. Apple has since kept the colors coming, and they're important for broadening product appeal beyond stereotypical male gadget geeks to women and to younger buyers, especially teens.

    iPad 2 Smart Covers cleverly extend the approach, using color as a differentiator. The cases add dramatic color, and personality, to iPad 2, broadening its appeal, particularly to younger buyers. What I keep asking myself as iPad 3 rumors rise: Will the next Apple tablet come in five colors? There's too much profit in the covers methinks. But if Apple ever does release the rumored 8-inch iPad, expect colors there as differentiator. That would be consistent with Apple's approach with iPod, which started out white and added black then colors as the music player got smaller.

    Kodak deserves more dignity than Apple's patent request gives. One of the greatest American innovators will soon be laid to rest -- and an iconic brand with it. Has Apple no respect for the dying? And if no respect for the dying, then why have any for the living?

    My first three digital cameras were Kodaks. My last purchased is from Fuji, Kodak's archenemy during the height, and decline, of the film era. Perhaps my next camera will be some future iPhone. Must Kodak's blood be on it, too?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/15/If_only_Windows_Phone_was_this_popular_everywhere...'

    If only Windows Phone was this popular everywhere...

    Publié: février 15, 2012, 12:32am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I know that BetaNews readers aren't indicative of the general population. You made that clear when answering our October 2011 browser poll you came out big time for Chrome. Google's browser is most popular among you, but really ranks third in global usage share, according to Net Applications.

    Respondents to more recent poll "Microsoft Store is taking pre-orders for Nokia Lumia 900. Will you buy this Windows Phone?" answered resoundingly yes. If your responses were the measure of success, Microsoft and Nokia already would be kicking Android and iPhone butt down the hill.

    Among the 1,938 responses so far, only 17.54 percent answered no. That's right. Eight out of 10 respondents say they will buy the Lumia 900. Get this: 25.85 percent have already preordered or plan to. Meanwhile, 42.98 percent plan to buy within 3 months of release. That leaves 13.62 percent buying within 6 months or longer. Stated differently: 68.83 percent of respondents will get the phone within 3 months of release or sooner.

    Lumia 900 is Nokia's flagship handset running Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango". It's a handsome phone borrowing design characteristics from Symbian-based N8 and Meego-based N9 and features: 1.4GHz Qualcomm APQ8055 processor; 4.3-inch AMOLED display (yes, it's Corning Gorilla Glass), with 800 x 480 resolution; 512MB RAM; 16GB storage: 8-megapixel rear-facing camera with Carl Zeiss lens and dual-LED flash; 1MP front-facing camera; 720p video capture from rear camera and VGA from front camera; GSM 850/900/1800/1900 radio; WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100 radio; 4G LTE; Bluetooth 2.1+EDR; Stereo Bluetooth; WiFi; accelerometer; ambient and proximity sensors; gyroscope; 2 microphones; 1830 mAh battery; Internet Explorer 9 mobile; and Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" Commercial Release 2.

    This phone certainly excites many of you. Eric Raschka has used Windows Phone for 18 months:

    WP7 is by far the most stable, smoothest, and most intuitive touch interface of them all. Boost the apps, add more phones/carriers, and you will have a market leader. Just watch. It is a great OS, really fun to use, great Xbox integration, the Zune player kicks ass, easy multitasking, MS Office integration; email is much more robust that iOS, it is fast (doesn't need dual core)...and with the Lumia 900 I won't go back to either the Android Mess or the iPhone limitations. And I am far from a MS fanboy.

    "Just for anybody considering the Nokia Lumia 900, or Windows Phone in general, I would just like to say that Windows phone is simply amazing", Rodney Jones writes. "Ask yourself this: Does WP, and the Nokia Lumia, excite you? And, are you ready for the next big thing, or is settling for what everyone else has your thing? Windows Phone is special, and I hope that you think you are too".


    Microsoft Store is taking pre-orders for Nokia Lumia 900. Will you buy this Windows Phone?

    BetaNews reader milkdud32:

    I did order pre-order the Lumia 900, and the price made the case. I am a first time iPhone user, with a 32GB iphone 4. I love the phone, I love the simplicity, but the cost of replacing the same phone...with a iPhone 4s is ridiculous. I only have like 40 apps, and most of those are photo apps...I have AT&T and there is no 4G/LTE premium...I am good with my $30 unlimited plan, so I get the higher speeds at no extra cost...

    I'm not a Microsoft fanboy or an Apple Fanboy or an Androidista, I just want a good value for my dollar. Microsoft and Nokia wins this round as far as I am concerned.

    What struck me most reading comments was this: People who have lost faith in Microsoft, who want to believe in Lumia 900 and Windows Phone but can't. Stephen Ornelas answers: "No, but I really want to. I just can't bring myself to go back to windows...I really liked the feel, the look, the snappiness of this Lumia phone line; especially the Lumia 900. I want to buy this phone, I just can't, sigh, it's Windows".

    I've got a faith problem, too. I want to believe in the poll results -- that somehow Microsoft and Nokia can extract a miracle from Lumia 900 running Windows Phone 7.5 CR2. But my instinct is to disbelieve, given it is an unqualified poll, likely represents a specialized segment of users and suffers the fatal flaw of every buying poll: What people say they want isn't often what they actually buy.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/14/Would_you_buy_8_inch_iPad_'

    Would you buy 8-inch iPad?

    Publié: février 14, 2012, 6:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Wall Street Journal claims that Apple is testing a smaller tablet, around 8 inches. The question: Would you buy one, if available?

    Who knows, maybe your answer will help Apple, given how super-secretive is the company's product development. You can be the customer research Apple should seek before launching new products, particularly now that Steve Jobs -- master of good taste and guiding voice of one -- is gone. Please answer in comments and take our poll. But first read this perspective on what 8 inches could mean.

    Pricing Continuum

    Analysts have debated whether or not tablets are PCs. Canalys and DisplaySearch say yes, Gartner and IDC say no. But from Apple's perspective, the answer is meaningless. The company sells a continuum of mobile computing products available to consumers from free to $2,499:

    • iPhone: free, $99, $199, $299, $399
    • iPad: $499, $599, $629, $699, $729, $829
    • MacBook Air/Pro: $999, $1,199, $1,299, $1,499, $1,599, $1,799, $1,999, 2,499

    The only meaningful gaps are $1,399, $1,699 and $1,899 -- and up in that range, does it matter? No. At the low end, Apple has pricing covered, and that's ignoring any overlap from iPod nano and touch. Apple doesn't price to compete with other companies so much as to offer a full spectrum of its own stuff. The approach presumes the buyer already thinks "I want to buy Apple" and just needs something that fits his or her needs and budget.

    Pricing is an important consideration for anticipating any Apple product strategy because the company is master of the upsell, providing something just a little bit better -- different/additional benefits -- for a little more money. Related: Offering something a little bit less for lower price to attract new buyers. So immediately I ask: Where does 8-inch iPad fit in?

    Size Matters

    The question is important because Apple also maximizes margins like no other hardware manufacturer selling consumer products. Where would an 8-inch tablet add to overall sales without taking away from (presumably) higher-margin iPad 3? More importantly, does size matter that much as a differentiator?

    In the laptop space, Apple shows that size does matter, given the popularity of MacBook Air and Intel's push to get every OEM in the Windows camp to adopt ultrabook. Consumers (and many business users) want something lighter and thinner to carry around; heck, even iPad sales -- 55 million since launch -- is proof point. Additionally, Amazon's success selling 7-inch, $199 Kindle Fire shows there is a market for lower-cost, smaller tablets. The strategy proved most successful with iPod, where size was a huge sales differentiator.

    Taking the size conundrum before price, there's question: Does the buyer benefit more from an 8-inch iPad versus 9.7 inches, which is what Apple offers today? iPad 3 is the answer, if rumors about high-resolution display and other features are true.


    Apple is rumored to be developing a smaller tablet. Would you buy an 8-inch iPad?

    Apple typically doesn't lower prices like many of its competitors. Rather, the company introduces something else, with different features, for less money while adding more value to the product line already available for higher price. From that perspective, 8-inch iPad makes lots of sense. iPad 3 would sell for the same prices as today, while the smaller tablet would cost consumers less, maybe as low as $299 to start. iPad 3 would differentiate from its smaller sibling with extras like higher-resolution display, better camera (maybe none on the 8-incher) and Siri, for example.

    Where some readers will disagree: The reason. I don't see Apple responding to competition from Kindle Fire or other, smaller, cheaper tablets so much as conducting business as usual. Apple effectively used this kind of pricing strategy throughout iPod's rise. Lower prices on newer, smaller models -- like the original iPod nano seven years ago -- broadened the customer base of buyers. Same can be said of MacBook Air, which compelling features are size and price. If consumers want more graphics capabilities, larger screens or higher resolution, they pay more for MacBook Pro.

    iPhone is an interesting variation on the model. Rather than introduce new, lower-cost smartphones, Apple chose to keep older ones (with less storage capacity) in market selling for less money. The approach is possible because wireless carriers subsidize the phone's price, which keeps Apple's margins still fairly high. Nevertheless, people choosing free iPhone 3GS or $99 iPhone 4 get less than they would with 4S. Apple broadens the iPhone market after initial sales expansion to more buyers. But only after maximizing margins from smartphones selling for more money.

    Teach Me

    So what about iPad? Is there room in the continuum for a smaller, lower-priced tablet? Yes is the answer based on Apple's historical strategy. The question: Is it too soon, since iPad still sells so well starting at $499? Normally I would answer yes.

    But there is another consideration: electronic textbooks. Last month, Apple kicked off a major push into the e-textbook market with iBooks 2, iBooks Author and iTunes U. Seems to me that an 8-inch iPad would be much better suited to reading books than iPad 2 (or presumably its successor).

    However, just because Apple might be testing an 8-inch iPad doesn't mean we'll ever see it, or anytime soon. Apple is known for testing lots of products that either never come to market or do so much later as something else. For example, Apple was rumored to be testing a smartphone for years before Jobs announced one in January 2007.

    So I regard any rumors of smaller iPad as only being somewhat credible. However if Apple was to release a smaller iPad this year, back-to-school season would make sense, except it would be uncharacteristic for a model so different to release so soon after major update to a flagship product -- in this case the forthcoming iPad 3.

    So back to the question, if available, would you buy 8-inch iPad? Again, please answer in comments below and take the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/13/Googolora_receives_critical_regulatory_approval'

    Googolora receives critical regulatory approval

    Publié: février 13, 2012, 8:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Amid rumors the US Justice Department will approve Google's merger with Motorola Mobility this week, the European Union's Competition Commission acted first, clearing the deal.

    In a procedural move, the European Commission halted merger review in mid December, after requesting additional information. Today's approval puts Googolora (not any official name, of course) within view. Merger now seems all but inevitable.

    "We have approved the acquisition of Motorola Mobility by Google because, upon careful examination, this transaction does not itself raise competition issues", Joaquín Almunia, EC vice president, says. "Of course, the Commission will continue to keep a close eye on the behavior of all market players in the sector, particularly the increasingly strategic use of patents".

    In August, Google offered $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility, in Larry Page's first, big merger since returning as the search and information giant's CEO.

    "We’re happy that today the European Commission approved our proposed acquisition of Motorola Mobility", Don Harrison, Google deputy general counsel, says. "This is an important milestone in the approval process and it moves us closer to closing the deal. We are now just waiting for decisions from a few other jurisdictions before we can close this transaction".

    He emphasizes: "The combination of Google and Motorola Mobility will help supercharge Android", Harrison claims. "It will also enhance competition and offer consumers faster innovation, greater choice and wonderful user experiences".

    Those may not be idle boasts. Moto's huge patent portfolio -- 17,000, and another 7,000 in process -- could help defend Android from relentless Apple patent claims. Motorola's manufacturing and research and development operations should boost Google's ability to crank out reference designs benefiting all Android OEMs. However, channel conflict, stemming from competition with other Android licensees is a potentially big downside.

    Samsung, one of the largest Android licensees and the most successful competing with Apple, already is putting more weight behind homegrown Bada development.

    Update: Later on Monday, the Justice Department cleared the merger, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/13/How_far_Apple_has_come_to_reach__500'

    How far Apple has come to reach $500

    Publié: février 13, 2012, 7:48pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I don't own any stock (for conflict-of-interest reasons), but it's hard to ignore Apple pushing above $500 a share today. By three dollars and eighty-three cents. In midday trading shares are still a respectable $499.79. Apple opened at $499.74 today from Friday's close of $493.42.

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company has come a long ways to reach this point.

    When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in late 1996, the company was months from bankruptcy. But after assuming role of interim CEO, he pruned product lines and introduced the Bondi Blue iMac (in summer 1998), which led to a stunning revival in the brand and sales -- and to Apple's share price. Then disaster struck in the form of the trendy, translucent and tidily high-priced G4 Cube. The Mac sold poorly, in part because of the price but also because of timing. Recession suddenly and unexpectedly stalled global PC sales in autumn 2000, leading Apple, Dell and other manufacturers to issue profit warnings -- even Microsoft.

    Apple issued its profit warning in late September, and the share price immediately collapsed. Between Aug. 31 and Dec. 31, 2000, Apple shares plunged more than 75 percent. The fruit-logo company had more inventory on store shelves than it could sell. Following a second profit warning, in December 2000, Apple revealed the size of the problem: 11 weeks of Macs in the channel. Normal: four to six weeks.

    Shares remained moribund for years. On the eve of Macworld in January 2003, with Apple shares at $14.85, analyst Michael Hillmeyer reinstated Apple coverage with "sell." Hillmeyer wrote in a note to investors: "Although Apple makes great products, in our view the new product pipeline looks skimpy and we expect continued market share losses. A product differentiation strategy is difficult in a business increasingly commoditizing." Oh, the wicked, humbling perspective that hindsight brings.

    Apple shares started a slow, steady recovery that lasted until the next recession, which is the last one looking back from today. Shares topped $200 in late December 2007. But the stock market collapse of 2008, which coincidentally came eight years to the day of Apple's earlier share price plunge, hit all tech companies hard. Apple among them; shares closed at $105.26, down $22.98, or 17.92 percent, on Sept. 29, 2008. Apple's market cap plummeted from $158.84 billion on Aug. 15, 2008 to $88.68 billion on Oct. 2, 2008. However, Apple shares started falling ahead of the greater market collapse, closing at $175.74 on Aug. 15, 2008. Between that day and the end of that year, Apple fell nearly 51 percent.

    But Apple's stock recovered faster -- and profits grew higher -- than every other tech company. By the end of 2009, shares had climbed more than 132 percent from January 2 to $210.73.

    In late May 2010, Apple's market capitalization topped Microsoft's -- $222.12 billion to $219.18 billion. In August 2011, Apple briefly became the world's most valuable company, with valuation rising about Exxon Mobile -- $337.17 billion to $330.77 billion, respectively. Around 1 pm ET today, Apple's market cap was $464.79 billion and Exxon's $398.98 billion.

    But Apple's rising stock only tells part of the story. There's performance with it -- something Apple couldn't claim for much of the second Steve Jobs era, when hype lifted shares more. During fiscal first quarter 2012, Apple generated more revenue than all of fiscal 2009 ($46.33 billion to $42.91 billion). During the quarter, iPhone generated nearly as much revenue as all Apple did in fiscal 2007 ($24.42 billion to $24.58 billion).

    Photo Credit: Francesco Dazzi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/12/What_Windows_8_means_to_Microsoft_and_to_you'

    What Windows 8 means to Microsoft and to you

    Publié: février 12, 2012, 8:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The headline really should be "What Windows 8 and Windows on ARM mean to Microsoft and to you" but that didn't ring right to my ears. But it more aptly describes the train of this analysis.

    Simply stated: Windows 8 is the riskiest release ever. Microsoft execs say they are "re-imagining" Windows. Believe them. But it's much more: Reinvention. If successful, Microsoft will be a very different company in five years, and that's as much about the future stock price and company valuation as market position and products. All depends on the risks delivering rewards.

    Windows 8 and Windows on ARM are nothing short of re-architecting Microsoft's flagship operating system from kernel to desktop. The Redmond, Wash.-based company will ask much of customers, developers, OEMs and other partners during this difficult transition, and it will be hard on everyone. But the time is now, or never. If Microsoft fails to take the risks now, Windows' luminescence will diminish in a half decade (or even less).

    Microsoft needed to make these changes in the mid Noughties, and had it done so Apple likely would not be as successful with iOS devices. But Windows Vista and US antitrust oversight set back the timetable.

    Undoing Antitrust Travails

    Federal prosecutors, and their attorneys general partners, filed the US antitrust case in May 1998 to prevent Microsoft from stifling innovation in the tech industry. However, government oversight failed to quash the companies' twin monopolies -- Office and Windows. The case accomplished something else: Windows innovation stagnated during the last decade, as Microsoft backed off the so-called middleware categories covered by the consent decree/final judgement and withheld integrating new technologies into the operating system that should have kept the platform vital and created more opportunities for third-party developers.

    The Windows 8 and Windows on ARM risks simply would be impossible if Microsoft was still under US antitrust oversight. That ended in May 2011 and almost immediately the winds of change rushed from Washington State. Clearly the company had long planned to bundle more applications and services into Windows and to make demands of software developers and hardware partners realistically impossible before.

    For example, trustbusters claimed that Microsoft's efforts to offer a more unified Windows user experience across PCs was anticompetitive. As such, the company gave up control of the Windows start screen and desktop icons and hid access to some OS features, among other concessions. Repeated: Many of the risks Microsoft is taking with Windows 8 and Windows on ARM would be next to impossible under antitrust oversight.

    Take Windows Store, for example. For security reasons, among others, Microsoft will largely limit software sales and distribution to the built-in Windows Store. Microsoft competitors could have cried antitrust, anticompetitive foul to government officials a year ago. Now Microsoft is freer to offer a mechanism that eventually will benefit developers (easier sales distribution, less piracy) and better protect Windows users from malware.

    As Microsoft's future Windows strategy unfolds, it's hard to see where there wouldn't be trouble if antitrust oversight continued. Microsoft is dictating third-party software and hardware product design in ways not seen in more than a decade. But there's more to it: Microsoft is suddenly empowered to take competitive risks that could doom Windows if they fail.

    I can't emphasize how different things are now. Microsoft is itself undergoing a slow but steady process of re-imagining, of reinvention. The company long known for being risk adverse is today taking risks unfathomable five years ago. In December 2009, I called Microsoft's first decade of the new century one of "shattered dreams". A year ago, I highlighted how Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer finally had consolidated his leadership in the post-Bill Gates era. If given continued chance, Ballmer may yet redeem himself and Microsoft for this decade and the next.

    Redemption Tale

    One of the most prevalent themes in American cinema is redemption -- Jimmy to Stewart as George Bailey, Robert Redford as Roy Hobbs, Clint Eastwood as Frank Horrigan, Russell Crowe as James J. Braddock, Paul Newman as Frank Galvin and many, many more.

    We love our heroes fallen and restored.

    Steve Jobs' second coming at Apple is one of the best, real-life redemption tales of the computing age. Apple was months from bankruptcy when he returned to the company in late 1996 and became interim CEO in mid 1997. In the 2011 quarter Jobs died, Apple reported $13 billion in income, and the iPhone alone generated more revenue than all of Microsoft. It's a helluva a redemption story and one few writers could have scripted as fiction.

    Ballmer's redemption story, and that for Microsoft, unfolds right now. It's a story in progress that shares similarities to Apple's. In 2001, during economic crisis, Apple made four strategic investments that are core foundation of its current success -- in order: iTunes, Mac OS X, Apple Store and iPod. On the software side, everything depends on Mac OS X (from which iOS derives) and it was a tough transition executed at a seemingly bad time.

    Apple reinvented Mac OS in early 2001, with new architecture and user interface. Timing was hugely risky. Microsoft owned the PC operating system market and prepared to release Windows XP (in October). So just as the majority of developers prepped for the new Windows, Apple asked them to adopt new development tools, port older Mac OS apps and code native software. Apple couldn't get developers' attention, with major partners. Adobe and Quark among them, taking years to fully support OS X. Strangely, Microsoft supported Apple's new operating system first among the big Mac developers with new version of Office in autumn 2001.

    Microsoft's situation is strangely similar today. The PC era is waning, as smaller, more mobile computing devices increase in popularity. There Apple has had huge success with iOS devices, which are pulling away sales from Windows PCs. Just in the last quarter, Apple shipped 37 million iPhones (generating more than $24 billion in revenue) -- 55 million iPads since the tablet's launch nearly two years ago. During a critical transition, when non-PC devices slop up Windows sales, Microsoft is re-architecting the operating system.

    To support the new architecture, Microsoft will demand much from customers, developers and other partners -- particularly Windows on ARM. Microsoft's long-standing development priority has been this: Provide existing users backwards compatibility. Problem: The priority hampers new OS development and adoption of newer Windows editions. The company isn't fully abandoning this philosophy, but absolutely diminishing its role. Windows 8 will provide a lifeline to existing apps and the desktop motif, but the new Metro UI is priority, as are apps written for it, their distribution (through the Windows Store) and emphasis on developers writing for native code.

    Windows on ARM leaps ahead, leaving little legacy behind. System-on-a-chip fundamentally changes how everyone -- customers, developers and other partners -- relate to Windows. More significantly, Microsoft is taking control over the Windows development and user experiences in a way not seen before 2000, when US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the company's breakup (an order later overturned by an appellate court).

    Time is Now, or Never

    From the perspective of non-PC competition -- mobile devices connected to the cloud -- Microsoft's timing is seemingly disastrous. The company and its partners are sure to lose sales during the transition. However, from another perspective, timing couldn't be better. Businesses remain Microsoft's core market and most will have finished or be close to completing migrations from XP to Windows 7. So the majority of customers will have recently upgraded. If Microsoft is going to "re-imagine" Windows, a time when core customers are least likely to upgrade is opportune. Windows 8 and, more importantly, Windows on ARM are about preparing the ecosystem of customers, developers and others for Windows 9.

    If the strategy works -- and that includes unification of the user interface across devices (ideally the codebase, too) -- Windows will be a different, more flexible, more (cloud) connected operating system by the time v8's first service pack releases than it is today; and beyond. Like Apple laid a difficult new OS foundation with Mac OS X, Microsoft is on track to do something similar, actually much better, today. Because so far, Microsoft is executing the early phases much better than Apple did more than a decade ago.

    During his final Consumer Electronics Show keynote, Ballmer proclaimed: "There's nothing more important at Microsoft than Windows". Believe it, despite holiday quarter 2011 doldrums, when the division's revenue fell by 6 percent year of year and profits by 11 percent.

    If Microsoft's Windows re-imagining strategy works, in a few years the stock price, which has struggled to top $30 for about 12 years, could dramatically change. Apple is example again. (Disclosure: I do not invest in Apple, Microsoft or any other company -- to avoid conflict of interest.)

    On the eve of Macworld in January 2003, with Apple shares at $14.85, analyst Michael Hillmeyer reinstated Apple coverage with "sell." Hillmeyer wrote in a note to investors: "Although Apple makes great products, in our view the new product pipeline looks skimpy and we expect continued market share losses. A product differentiation strategy is difficult in a business increasingly commoditizing."

    In nine years, Apple's fortune dramatically changed. There is the aforementioned blow-away fourth quarter. Then there are the shares. Apple reached a new 52-week high on Friday, $497.62. It's not difficult math to see the difference from $14.85.

    There's no reason why if Microsoft's Windows risks deliver rewards, the share price can't dramatically rise by the Windows 9's release. But that's a redemption story not yet written. Is Ballmer now on the CEO's version of the "Hero's Journey"? We shall see.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/10/Why_will_Windows_on_ARM_devices_come_with_Office_15_'

    Why will Windows on ARM devices come with Office 15?

    Publié: février 10, 2012, 10:04pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Because Microsoft can do it. The software giant wouldn't have dared on x86 PCs.

    Steven Sinofsky's nearly 9,000-word Windows on ARM manifesto packs lots of surprises. Among the biggest: "WOA includes desktop versions of the new Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote". Say what? Now why is that? Four reasons stand out: Litigation, protection, competition and adoption.

    Before diving into those reasons, there still remains a tad uncertainty about how Office 15 will come with Windows on ARM PCs or devices. Sinofsky, president of Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live division, writes:

    Within the Windows desktop, WOA includes desktop versions of the new Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, codenamed 'Office 15'. WOA will be a no-compromise product for people who want to have the full benefits of familiar Office productivity software and compatibility, an industry-leading hardware-accelerated web browser, apps from Microsoft, and access to apps in the Windows Store.

    That statement could be interpreted to apply to the Windows on ARM preview, and possibly limited to the test build(s). However, "a low volume of test PCs specifically designed for WOA will be made available starting around the next Windows 8 milestone", Sinfosky explains. "These devices are for developers and hardware partners". The point: Seems to me he refers to shipping Windows-on-ARM devices, with respect to Office 15 inclusion.

    I asked Microsoft PR for clarification and got none. The response: "Unfortunately, we have nothing further to share beyond what’s included in the blog post". Well, hells bells. Mmmm, I should be grateful for any kind of response. Apple PR wouldn't even have done that much.

    No Monopoly Here

    The first reason supersedes any others. Microsoft's US antitrust case narrowly defined the Windows monopoly as "Intel-based" -- meaning x86 -- PCs. Windows on ARM will allow Microsoft to do all kinds of bundling, not just Office, that otherwise would be strictly or implicitly prohibited by the antitrust case.

    What scrutiny? Microsoft antitrust oversight ended last May, technically freeing the company from government scrutiny. However, Office was a sore topic during the trial's later stages. Prosecutors accused Microsoft of establishing, through the Office-Windows duopoly, the "applications barrier to entry" for competing products. It's why the US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's remedy, later overturned, was breakup of Microsoft into separate applications and operating systems companies.

    Microsoft is better off not testing the Office-bundling-on-x86-waters for antitrust sharks (the closest Microsoft ever came to those waters is Office 2010 Starter, with reduced-function, ad-supported Excel and Word). ARM is safe swimming, because there is no antitrust case to make. Windows on ARM is a new product and separate from its predecessors even though some code is shared with forthcoming v8. Office 15 is but one of the major Microsoft applications or services that will come with or be tightly bound to WOA.

    Mine, Not Yours

    Four Office 15 apps -- Excel, OneNote, PowerPoint and Word -- come with Windows on ARM and will run in the rather restricted Desktop mode. Microsoft will offer the only real value on the desktop, since legacy apps can't be installed or ported. Sinofsky is clear: "WOA does not support running, emulating, or porting existing x86/64 desktop apps. Code that uses only system or OS services from WinRT can be used within an app and distributed through the Windows Store for both WOA and x86/64".

    The restriction is part of Microsoft's approach to security. Windows on ARM is a walled garden, where no unauthorized code runs. Applications are distributed through the Windows Store. These apps must use native code and will be available via the Metro user interface. However, the desktop is Microsoft's sacred ground, where Office resides along with a few carry-over built-in Windows apps and pretty much nothing else.

    I expect Microsoft would be less likely to bundle Office if not for the end of antitrust oversight and Windows running on a chip architecture other than x86. The walled garden security approach doesn't depend on Office 15; it's the other way around.

    Rotten Apples

    Competition is another good reason for Microsoft to bundle Office 15 and other homegrown apps or services. Apple offers many of its own apps with iOS or Mac OS X, such as iLife. Apple has reaped the bundling harvest for years, while Microsoft wiled away sidelined by antitrust oversight.

    Apple's three main productivity apps -- Keynote, Numbers and Pages -- sell for $19.99 each from the Mac App Store. By comparison, Microsoft's cheapest Office version, Home and Student, retails for $149.99. So, even where Apple doesn't directly bundle, it has some benefits from the bundled Mac App Store and lower pricing. Apple also offers iOS versions of the productivity apps.

    Considering how well Macs are now selling and, by volume, iPad even better, Microsoft should want to leverage every advantage when making a particularly major OS architectural change. Windows on ARM will compete directly with iPad at least, and on the laptop-side Apple's MacBook Air and its successors. That's from a starting point of zero, rather than hundreds of millions of users. On ARM, Microsoft is David and Apple is Goliath.

    App Advantage

    Adoption is the final reason. Microsoft will ask lots of customers, particularly businesses, to make the Windows-on-ARM switch. Most IT managers tell me the same thing: They make PC and architecture decisions based on applications, not operating systems. It's one major reason why Linux is a corporate non-starter -- there's no Microsoft Office. WOA is DOA without Office, and presented in the manner many businesses and their employees are used to, via the desktop. Shipping Office with ARM assures potential business customers that they'll get the most important app.

    Something else: WOA's browser doesn't support plug-ins, for which there is some security justification. That makes Office all the more an important user interface for accessing back-end processes, applications or the cloud. Not that there's Outlook bundled, but mail is better suited to Metro anyway than the desktop, if you ask me. Still, even without plugins, a standards-based Internet Explorer supporting HTML should prove quite capable on the front-end.

    Sinofsky hasn't offered much clarity on what the Office 15 bundling practically means (and I got no clarification from my request). I raise this since some people will ask how Microsoft will make money giving Office 15 away. The company hasn't announced Office 15 SKUs yet. One option: Fold the productivity suite's cost into Windows on ARM pricing (which would be invisible to the buyer since the OS will come on new hardware only). Another: Offer higher-value SKUs that businesses or consumers pay for.

    Regardless, Windows on ARM is a new beast, and Microsoft needs to bring out the carrots to woo businesses to bite. None is sweeter and more appealing than Office.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/10/Windows_on_ARM_is_the_future'

    Windows on ARM is the future

    Publié: février 10, 2012, 6:30pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In September, about a month before Apple's cofounder died, I asserted that "Steven Sinofksy is the new Steve Jobs". Jobs' on-stage presentations, and the "reality distortion field" with them, are legendary. But chatter and buzz can fill the InterWebs, without seemingly magical Apple events. Sinofsky's blog post, "Building Windows for the ARM processor architecture", while hardly a compelling title, is Microsoft's manifesto for this decade. People are talking, chatting, buzzing -- and they should be.

    Microsoft is in the process of rebuilding Windows for the post-PC era, by stepping back from its core roots -- Intel processors -- and embracing ARM. Windows will still run on x86 processors, but there's now little doubt that, without major chip changes from AMD or Intel, Wintel is legacy and ARM is the future. The architectural change opens up mobile device categories, even Windows 8 on smartphones, that the OS can't effectively reach today. Essentially, Microsoft is betting the flagship operating system's future on ARM. Sinofsky made a big statement in a small way -- nothing more than one of the longest blog posts you'll read ever (It's more than 8,000 words, closer to 9,000 really, which is enough to publish as a Kindle Single).

    ARM-twisting x86

    "With Windows 8, we have reimagined Windows from the chipset to the experience -- and bringing this reimagined Windows to the ARM processor architecture is a significant part of this innovation", Sinofsky explains. "Expanding the view of the PC to cover a much wider range of form factors and designs than some think of today is an important part of these efforts".

    Sinofsky maintains Microsoft's commitment to x86: "We have had a deeper level of collaboration with Intel and AMD on the full breadth of PC offerings than in any past release". But the core context is about the PC, such as ultrabooks, and not the new category of mobile devices, which include media tablets, where ARM is so successful today and where Windows has little presence.

    As such, he concedes: "We created WOA to enable a new class of PC with unique capabilities and form factors, supported by a new set of partners that expand the ecosystem of which Windows is part". In other words: Beyond the PC as businesses and consumers think today. He repeatedly describes the new operating system as "reimagined Windows", which says much about Microsoft's vision.

    That vision means more choices, and likely more confusion with it, for customers, developers and other partners. Microsoft announced Windows support for ARM processors during Consumer Electronics Show 2011 and expanded on the vision during September's BUILD developer conference. All along it seemed like there would be one Windows for both processors, as Microsoft put so much emphasis on x86 backward compatibility. But Sinofsky, who is president of the Windows & Windows Live division clarifies: Windows on ARM is a separate edition. While not disclosing actual SKUs, Sinofsky is clear about WOA being its own product.

    Who Needs Windows 8?

    The reasons for this aren't just strategic or logistical. They're legal, too. US courts narrowly defined Microsoft's Windows monopoly as being on "Intel-based" PCs. ARM moves Windows out of the antitrust crosshairs and allows Microsoft to do some quite unexpected things (which I'll explain in my next post). It's another reason why ARM is the future of Windows -- or the beginning of it -- when, or perhaps soon after, v8 ships later this year.

    Unless, I misunderstand, the separation is finer still. Windows on ARM is not Windows 8. Sinofsky references them separately several times in his manifesto. For example, describing benefits of the new Metro UI over the desktop motif: "WOA (as with Windows 8) is designed so that customers focused on Metro-style apps don’t need to spend time in the desktop". Microsoft isn't doing away with the desktop, just diminishing its relevance.

    That's all part of prepping Windows for new device classes. It's vitally important to understand what this means, because Sinofsky waffles in his explanation -- perhaps to calm customers or partners clinging to the Windows, applications, processes and hardware they've got. But the undercurrent is clear, Windows on ARM changes everything for customers and partners that let it.

    For example, "One of the new aspects of WOA you will notice is that you don’t turn off a WOA PC", Sinofsky presents. "WOA PCs will not have the traditional hibernate and sleep options with which we are familiar. Instead, WOA PCs always operate in the newly designed Connected Standby power mode, similar to the way you use a mobile phone today". It's a brave new world, baby. Embrace it.

    Developers, Developers, Developers

    Suddenly the Windows 8 Developer Preview distributed in September takes on new significance looking at WOA and preparing for the renewed emphasis on native code. Sinofsky writes:

    WOA has all the WinRT capabilities present in the Windows Developer Preview, and all the tools and techniques that you can use to build new Metro style apps for x86/64 are available to developers to also target WOA. Developers can use our tools to create native C/C++ code for maximal performance and flexibility, in addition to the C#, XAML, VB, and HTML5 based tools, to target apps for WOA, so long as their code targets the WinRT API set.

    Additionally, developers with existing code, whether in C, C++, C#, Visual Basic, or JavaScript, are free to incorporate that code into their apps, so long as it targets the WinRT API set for Windows services. The Windows Store can carry, distribute, and service both the ARM and x86/64 implementations of apps (should there be native code in the app requiring two distributions).

    Additionally, Windows on ARM will demand much more of all Microsoft partners. Actually, the undertaking is enormous. Because of ARM architecture and strategic and logistical choices Microsoft makes, WOA devices will be more like integrated end-to-end hardware, software and services projects than are PCs today -- and that applies to computers as (and in some ways more) smaller devices.

    "Because of the necessarily tight connection between SoC [System on a Chip], peripherals, firmware, and the OS, WOA PCs should be thought of as joint engineering that goes well beyond industry partners merely collaborating", Sinofsky explains. "A WOA PC will feel like a consumer electronics device in terms of how it is used and managed".

    PC as CE

    The point: Windows on ARM will require tight integration along the hardware and software stack, something Apple succeeds at by controlling everything and something Microsoft hopes to achieve by working with partners. Android is model for success. Google controls the operating system, around which mobile manufacturers create smartphones and tablets running on ARM processors. They're CE devices, not PCs.

    However, Google works with partners experienced in producing consumer electronics or CE-like devices on ARM. This will be mostly new to Microsoft's core Windows PC partners. Can they adapt? Will new CE partners make ARM PCs? Those are questions to be answered in the future, and they will determine whether or not Windows on ARM tablets, for example, can make inroads against iPad.

    Keeping to the consumer electronics approach, "WOA will not be available as a software-only distribution", Sinofsky emphasizes. That's right, Windows on ARM will come on new devices and will not be separately sold in stores.

    There, Microsoft will imitate Apple. "WOA PCs will be serviced only through Windows or Microsoft Update, and consumer apps will only come from the Windows Store, so you never have to worry if a program will run because you are not downloading or installing from a DVD outside of the store experience", Sinofsky writes.

    Make no mistake, Windows on ARM opens up a different path for the PC and the devices that augment or replace it. For Microsoft, and eventually its customers and partners, Windows on ARM is the future.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/09/Apple_protesters_make_me_really_mad'

    Apple protesters make me really mad

    Publié: février 9, 2012, 6:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    About four months ago, thousands of people held vigil outside Apple stores, honoring deceased cofounder Steve Jobs and joining a sudden canonization -- deification, really -- process that raised him above mere mortals. Today, crowds return to those same shops in anger, protesting workers' treatment at Apple factories in China. Whoa, how brands, and emotions about them, suddenly change.

    I'm simply appalled, not by Apple, but by the protesters. This is no Arab Spring, people.

    Foxconn, the Chinese manufacturer producing iPhone and other Apple gadgets, is a hot topic following New York Times and "This American Life" exposés last month. Reporters found questionable working conditions -- by supposed American standards. People rushed to the InterWebs to criticize and defend Apple; I purposely wrote nothing, disgusted by bloggers and journalists looking to profit from the scandal -- riding the buzz to fame (in some cases infamy) and higher pageviews.

    Media Mayhem

    Many of these writers change positions depending which way opinions blow, while others are Apple apologist turncoats that are seemingly credible but really don't want to be on the wrong side of popular sentiment. Well, what they perceive it to be. Bloggers, journalists or anyone else looking to benefit from Apple's Foxconn problems are bad or worse, for they stand on the backs of the same Chinese workers they claim to defend. (I debated linking to some of these posts, but decided not to single out any writers.)

    If critics were sincere, rather than capitalizing on topic of the moment, they would have gone after Apple in early 2010, ahead of iPhone 4's launch, when a rash of suicides at Foxconn factories made big headlines -- and they would have kept up the public pressure, even after Apple publicly worked with Foxconn to make changes to improve working conditions. The Foxconn furor died down as iPhone 4-crazed hipsters, many of them seemingly the same people attacking Apple today, snatched up the smartphone -- and iPad, too.

    The recent furor really started in early January with "This American Life" segment "Mr. Daisey and the Apple Factory" and two Times stories: "How the US Lost Out on iPhone Work" and "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad". I applaud the reporters and their outstanding investigative work. It's the pundits and protesters who followed them that bug me -- the ones pretending Foxconn factory problems are suddenly new, that Apple has done nothing to improve working conditions or that products for other high-tech firms aren't produced there. All the blame is Apple's.

    Idiot Wind

    I can understand this position from the non-bloggers and non-journalists, meaning those not riding the wave of perceived popular sentiment. Apple hipsters who use little or no other vendors' tech might be blind to all others outsourcing manufacturing to Foxconn facilities. They might feel blood on their hands, too, for buying Apple products produced in China; their guilt relief is to accuse Apple. I say, look to yourself. You paid for the over-priced gadget. You empowered Apple manufacturing in China by your purchases.

    Something else: Apple is now the largest tech company -- actually biggest of all by market valuation -- and that makes it a target. I remember when during the 1990s, Microsoft's size and success brought all kinds of accusations with it. Apple was cuddly and lovable when the feisty upstart, but it no longer flies the pirate's flag (as it did during the first Steve Jobs era). Apple is the establishment -- the man! Who do people protest? Or hold most accountable?

    I'm not here to defend or criticize Apple's, or any other vendor's, responsibility to Chinese workers sweating over tech products. I will say this: For American protesters, there are plenty of injustices here at home to worry about. A parade of down-and-out or homeless folks go through our recycle and trash bins every day. We help who we can. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of homeless students here in the San Diego school system. Where's the humanity in that, and what are you willing to do about it? People can easily protest -- walk up to an Apple Store and hand in a petition -- when asked nothing more.

    Gutless Guilt

    Our family cat disappeared nearly a month ago, and we're now fairly confident that a coyote got him. But we go every other day to the San Diego animal shelter and the adjacent Humane Society. I was stunned to see the luxury the cats live in at the Human Society. Some rooms, where one cat waits for adoption, are larger than my bedroom. Meanwhile, people live on the streets -- and some of them with jobs -- while these animals are coddled. Who's protesting for the street people?

    I say this to Apple protesters: Shareholders have a right to make demands of Apple. You do not. They own the company. If you're a protester and not an Apple shareholder, you have no real right to tell Apple what to do. Exercise your real power. Show your support for Chinese workers with your wallet. Don't buy Apple products. By protesting, what you want from Apple is a guilt-free purchase -- to have your cake and eat it, too, as the saying goes. That's not justice or better working conditions in China, but really about you and your feelings about Apple and buying its products.

    As today's planned protests approached, several petitions appeared online, such as this one at Change.org, which has about 200,000 signatures. To Apple protesters, I say: It's easy to demand change when you don't have to make any. I would take more sincerely a petition where signers agreed to pay XX dollars more per iPad or iPhone -- hell, let's just say $50 -- to improve working conditions at the factories producing the tech. Now that is meaningful. Anything else is more about purging signers' guilt for buying Apple products than committing to substantive change.

    You're either part of the problem or the solution. If you buy Apple products and protest for change, you're not part of the solution. You're part of the problem.

    Photo Credit: 1000 Words / Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/08/What__You_think_Windows_8_Leap_Day_is_coincidence_'

    What? You think Windows 8 Leap Day is coincidence?

    Publié: février 8, 2012, 11:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Good marketing is all about subtly and communicating a complex message simply. But in the era of tech events, particularly Apple's during the second Steve Jobs era, their announcement is something of an artform. Microsoft's Windows 8 Consumer Preview event announcement is rich in subtly and foreshadowing, simply by a date. February 29.

    Leap Day comes once but every four years. It's a special day that seems to have been specially chosen: Microsoft will hold the Windows 8 event in Barcelona, Spain, during Mobile World Congress (Feb. 27 to March 1). Not on Day One or Two, which customarily are when vendors make their big announcements (as is Day 0), but on Day 3 -- and that's typically when people already bug out of the show. February 29 isn't random then.

    Windows 8 is a big product for Microsoft -- and its hardware, software and channel partners. Windows PC sales are way down, even as Mac sales soar and iPad chips away new computer purchases. Meanwhile, the new operating system marks Windows' support for ARM processors, re-emphasis on native code development, major user interface changes (Metro, Ribbon and even Kinect) and push to reclaim tablets from Android and iOS.

    Leap Day's subtle message is leap ahead -- that Microsoft plans to leap ahead with Windows 8. I see something else: Customers and partners (developers, particularly) making a leap of faith. Windows 8 will bring much change, which many customers will see as increased risk. Many don't want to leap anywhere. They want to stay where they are.

    But the date isn't the only subtle message here, veiled in foreshadowing. So is the name. Microsoft isn't calling the public test software "Beta" or "Beta 1" but "Windows 8 Consumer Preview". There's meaning to that choice. In January 2009, Microsoft made Windows 7 Beta publicly available, then skipped Beta 2 and went right to Release Candidate. The use of "Preview" foreshadows similar timeline, and as I explained last week, timing along such a path assures gold code release to manufacturing by August and so official launch by late October.

    There is other meaning behind the name. "Preview" is the new "beta". All of Microsoft's major, recent public testing releases -- what once would have been betas -- were previews. Look back, Preview was the darling of 2010 betas. What proceeded this month's big consumer test OS? Windows 8 Developer Preview. It's forebear and subset: Internet Explorer Platform Preview. Perhaps you remember Office 2010 Technical Preview, back in 2009, among many other like-named betas.

    Preview has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Beta is loaded with baggage connotations from a by-gone era. Preview's connotations are forward-looking, getting a sneak peak of something special. Developers got their sneak peak in September, consumers will get theirs, too.

    Preview also removes barriers to download. Beta's connotations are too much testing, which will put off some people. Preview entices more than does beta. Microsoft wants as many people as possible who are willing to download Windows 8's pre-release code. There are lots of changes to evaluate from usability and technical perspectives before RTM.

    Then there is the huge marketing potential, of widely distributing Windows 8 ahead of its launch (and likely converting many Previewers to buyers) and generating lots of ongoing buzz to drown out persistent clamoring about the next Apple thing. You know, that compact 9.7-inch iPad 4 with 4,000 ppi display that folds out into 110-inch flexible-screen TV and syncs content with iFridge, iCar and iBaby Stroller.

    Huh, and you thought Microsoft lacked subtly.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/08/Google_releases_Chrome_17____get_it_now_'

    Google releases Chrome 17 -- get it now!

    Publié: février 8, 2012, 9:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Chrome 17 entered the "stable" channel today, 33 days after going beta. Not coincidentally, the stable build follows Chrome for Android by one day. You'll want the one to get the full sync benefits of the other.

    Google promises security improvements with the new release and something else: Faster page loading, as you type and in some cases barely before you start typing the address. Chrome essentially pre-renders websites, extending the search page pre-rendering already available. The feature is disturbing in practice -- a little too prescient, like mind reading, when it works.

    On the security side, Google has long used a number of features, such as tab sandboxing, to diminish malware risks. Chrome 17 improves security by enhancing the Safe Browsing mechanism. Google's Niels Provos and Ian Fette explain last week:

    To provide better protection, Safe Browsing has two additional mechanisms that can detect phishing attacks and harmful downloads the system has never encountered before.

    Phishing attacks are often only active for a few short hours, so it’s especially important to detect new attacks as they happen. Chrome now analyzes properties of each page you visit to determine the likelihood of it being a phishing page. This is done locally on your computer, and doesn’t share the websites you visit with Google. Only if the page looks sufficiently suspicious will Chrome send the URL of that page back to Google for further analysis, and show a warning as appropriate.

    Malicious downloads are especially tricky to detect since they’re often posted on rapidly changing URLs and are even “re-packed” to fool anti-virus programs. Chrome helps counter this behavior by checking executable downloads against a list of known good files and publishers. If a file isn’t from a known source, Chrome sends the URL and IP of the host and other meta data, such as the file’s hash and binary size, to Google. The file is automatically classified using machine learning analysis and the reputation and trustworthiness of files previously seen from the same publisher and website. Google then sends the results back to Chrome, which warns you if you’re at risk.

    Google is taking an even more proactive approach to browser security than it already does. While I would never dissuade anyone from using anti-malware software, I do wonder if the changes -- added to existing capabilities -- diminish the value of security apps offering safe search capabilities.

    Many other changes are cosmetic, as Google continues to clear clutter from Chrome and give it a more modern, streamlined look. A full list of changes is available from the Google Chrome Releases blog.

    Something else: If you've got Ice Cream Sandwich running on Google Galaxy Nexus, Motorola XOOM, Samsung Nexus S or other smartphone or tablet and Chrome for Android, do get the new stable desktop build. For me, Chrome for Android wouldn't sync right with Chrome desktop until after I upgraded. Now it's smooth as silk syncing.

    Chrome 17 is available for Mac OS X, Windows and Linux. Follow the links to BetaNews FileForum to download.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/08/Would_you_pay__10_000_for_pizza_and_a_bride_'

    Would you pay $10,000 for pizza and a bride?

    Publié: février 8, 2012, 8:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I don't know what's stranger, Pizza Hut's Valentine's Day marketing gimmick or one of our editors finding it on Facebook. BetaNews FileForum managing editor Eddie Elmore consistently drops interesting links into group chat. The link to the Pizza Hut promo churned up so much discussion among the staff, I had to post.

    If you're willing to pay Pizza Hut $10,000 and another 10 bucks for a Dinner Box, the restauranteur will help you propose marriage. Besides the food, you get a ruby ring, limo service, flowers (hey, it's Valentine's Day), photographer, videographer and your own fireworks show. My question: What if he or she says no. You want to be damn sure of the answer beforehand.

    Pizza Hut has only 10 of these things to give away. There's an option to "buy" on the proposal promo page, which means right away online, I guess. In this era of Apple-loving, whole-grain hipsters, I can think of few things more juxtaposed than pizza and proposals. "Yes, let's start off our marriage right, with starch and tomato paste".

    What does this have to do with tech? Social media for one and the bride (or groom) to be, of course. C`mon geeks, wouldn't you feel better about the relationship's future if this was a $10,000 package from Best Buy or Fry's? Do you really want to skulk around and hide future gadget purchases from you know who?

    Now I got to ask: Are you proposing this Valentine's Day and by what creative means?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/08/You_can_lose_money_selling_iPhone__just_ask_Sprint'

    You can lose money selling iPhone, just ask Sprint

    Publié: février 8, 2012, 5:08pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it -- as the old adage goes. Sprint wanted iPhone and got it, and paid dearly during the first quarter of sales.

    This morning, before the opening bell, the nation's third-largest carrier announced holiday quarter results and another big operating loss. There, iPhone heavily contributed. The carrier reported a $1.3 billion loss, or 43 cents per diluted share, on revenue of $8.7 billion. Profit margins plummeted to 9.5 percent from 16 percent a year earlier, and iPhone largely accounted for the decline. Sprint loses would actually have been more, but the carrier gained fewer new subscribers than Wall Street expected.

    Sprint's cost of wireless equipment rose to $1.7 billion from $1.2 billion in fourth quarter 2010. The carrier paid out $2.6 billion, offset by $910 million in revenue from equipment sales.

    "The quarterly year-over-year and sequential increase in net subsidy is primarily due to the launch of the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, which on average carry a higher subsidy rate per handset as compared to other handsets", according to the company. In other words, Sprint finally got iPhone and paid more to get it.

    That $199 you pay for 16GB iPhone 4S, for example, isn't what carriers do. To get a sense of how much, either calculate the tax on your new mobile or look to Apple Store's unlocked price -- $649.

    Sprint sold 1.8 million iPhones during Q4 -- 40 percent of them to new customers. That pull can largely be attributed to what Sprint offers that AT&T and Verizon don't: unlimited data.

    "Our strong fourth quarter performance illustrates the power of matching iconic devices like the iPhone with our simple, unlimited plans and industry-leading customer experience", says Sprint CEO Dan Hess.

    Wall Street reacted poorly to the quarter's results, with shares down 6.5 percent in early trading to $2.29. Shares somewhat recovered by late morning -- down 2.86 percent around 11 am ET.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/08/OneNote_for_Android_is_here____get_it_now_or_live_with_regret'

    OneNote for Android is here -- get it now or live with regret

    Publié: février 8, 2012, 2:41am CET par Joe Wilcox

    For years, OneNote seemed like a promise without purpose. Microsoft developed a fresh, flexible application capable of pulling together content from many sources and in a way that made creative sense. Sure the Office family member imitated note-taking software already available for the Mac, but with surprising approachability for Microsoft-developed Windows software. But who really used OneNote?

    Then during the Office 2007 release cycle, Microsoft swapped out Outlook for OneNote in the low-cost consumer edition and millions of users discovered the promise. But not the purpose. Microsoft would later imbue that quality quite unexpectedly by connecting OneNote to SkyDrive. Sync is the software's killer capability -- that gives purpose to promise behind great usability and remarkable flexibility. Where OneNote and SkyDrive really, well, sync is on mobile devices. Windows Phone, then iPhone, iPad and, today, Android. Yeah, if you use OneNote on the PC and are a two-timing Android user, grab the phone. Microsoft has got a treat for you.

    From 50 to 500

    OneNote is available immediately for download from Android Market. Microsoft takes crap for lots of things, but distribution is something the company often gets right. OneNote is available in more than 50 countries:

    Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

    The app is free to use for creating up to 500 notes, then you're creativity ends without paying a one-time fee of $4.99. The price is reasonable, so is the free trial. Who let's you use an app essentially 500 times before paying for it? Microsoft calls the one version "free" and the other "unlimited".

    If you choose not to upgrade to the unlimited version, you can still view, sync, and delete any of your existing notes even after you've reached the 500 notes limit. However, you will no longer be able to edit your notes or create new ones on your Android phone. For unlimited use pricing outside of the United States, please visit the Android Market in your region (see below for a complete list of supported countries and markets).

    Reviewers' Remark

    What's that adage? Kids say the darndest things. Grups with new toys are like kids, and they, too, say the darndest things. Mark, a Galaxy S owner, writes in a brief review of OneNote for Android: "Glory hallelujah. Thank you Microsoft. I'm buying your stock now and selling Apple :) Five stars when we have more formatting and other capabilities!" He gives the app four stars.

    David, who has Galaxy Tab 10.1, writes:

    Almost perfect. Having tried MobileNoter with all of its limitations I was really surprised and pleased at how well integrated and functional this app is. Syncing is quick (both to and from SkyDrive) and I can edit and create new notes with numbered, bullet points and check-boxes.

    Finally I can ditch Evernote and go back to OneNote! My only complaint is that, yet again, this is not a tablet optimized app. Screen real estate and time is wasted by navigating between note books and pages when a nice tab/window on the left could have made much quicker. Fingers crossed for a tablet optimized version soon.

    I had forgotten about Evernote. It's a great app and companions like Skitch are damn fun. But OneNote is backed by Microsoft, the app is now available on all major mobile platforms and its real kick comes from SkyDrive. As I've often expressed: Sync is the killer app for the connected world.

    So, hey, Microsoft where's the rest of Office -- for Android and iOS -- with SkyDrive mopping Apple and Google off the floor?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/07/What_s_behind_Google_s_Charles_Dickens_doodle_'

    What's behind Google's Charles Dickens doodle?

    Publié: février 7, 2012, 10:35pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    One of England's most celebrated authors was born 200 years ago today. Google is commemorating Charles Dickens with a little (Oliver) Twist. There's a doodle, as would be expected, but behind it links to free ebooks from the search and information giant's own bookstore. Eh, what's up with that? Is it favoritism?

    That's a question I've heard often asked recently about Google, as the amount of cross-product, cross-service integration increases. The practice jumped quite dramatically after Larry Page returned as Google CEO in April 2011, and it's not abating. Favoritism should be a concern, given that impartiality -- and with it trust -- is crucial to Google's core product (search) and profit center (search ads and keywords). What the Dickens is going on here?

    Over at Search Engine Land, Jonathan Allen claims this is the "first time that [Google] has used their logo change to specifically promote a product or service". I dunno about that; seems to me a matter of definition. It's customary for Google doodles to link somewhere, providing more information about the topic, event or person represented. That's not new. Something else: Google isn't selling anything here, but offering easy access to books that are available in the public domain. That said, they are from Google Books.

    Is that favoritism? It's true that Google now has an ebookstore, but these links go to Google's older service of scanned, public domain print titles. The search service predates the recent rush, led by Amazon, to ebook sales and distribution. "Oliver Twist" is example. However, there is a link to get a free ebook of Dickens' titles. Google presents several options for obtaining the book. Clicking "EPUB" downloads "OLiver Twist" to your computer. Clicking "PDF" opens the ebook in Google Docs in Chrome and downloads it in other browsers.

    The other options are a Google affair, using the search provider's ebook service to make delivery -- not that distribution is restrictive, given the broad number of devices supported. Google also provides links to popular online stores, Amazon among them, for purchasing Dickens' titles in print.

    I don't see real favoritism here but Google doing what it's suppose to -- get information to people quickly and in a manner consistent with past presentation. The doodle-linked Google Books pages are similar to others, for example, Mark Twain's "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn".

    If anything, the Dickens links promote the openness of information and the spirit of public domain. You can buy Dickens' titles from Google's ebook service ("Oliver Twist" for $4.99 is example). But those titles aren't the ones highly promoted in the links page from the doodle. Free is the key word here.

    Unquestionably, Google Books receives some visible promotion from the doodle linkage. But the context is more about Google providing quick and easy access to useful information (its core service) and promoting the reading of one of the best Western writers of the last two centuries and one of the smartest men in recorded history (Dickens' IQ was 180-185, depending on source).

    That said, Google undeniably has dramatically increased cross-service integration, particularly since the Google+ limited launch last summer. Just look at how much the Google search page has changed -- the company's other services are far more visible. There is heated controversy about some of the integration, such as "Search Plus Your World". The question to ask, once again: Is it favoritism? Or is Google improving the quality of search and ancillary services by connecting them together? I see the answers more case by case and in this instance: "No". My reaction would be different if Google used the doodle to sell Dickens' novels from its own ebookstore.

    By the way, overnight, Ariel Levine, Google ebooks associate, explains how the doodle was created. It's a fun short-read for that train or bus ride home from the office.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/06/Will_you_buy_Nokia_Lumia_900_Windows_Phone___poll_'

    Will you buy Nokia Lumia 900 Windows Phone? [poll]

    Publié: février 6, 2012, 10:54pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Microsoft Store started taking pre-orders for the Lumia 900, Nokia's flagship Windows Phone. There's a $25 reservere for the handset, which, according to my local shop will be available some time in March. Microsoft Store had no official launch date to give.

    My question: Will you buy the Lumia 900? Nobody is saying how much the smartphone will cost. That $25 is blind faith the final price will be reasonable enough. Who knows? Given Microsoft's and its partners' marketing commitment, the faithful might see a serious discount for their leap to pre-order. Will you be among them? You can answer the question(s) and give your reasons why or why not in comments below and answer the poll below. Lumia 900 will be available in the United States on AT&T.

    What will you get for your 25 bucks plus additional unnamed amount: 1.4GHz Qualcomm APQ8055 processor; 4.3-inch AMOLED display (yes, it's Corning Gorilla Glass), with 800 x 480 resolution; 512MB RAM; 16GB storage: 8-megapixel rear-facing camera with Carl Zeiss lens and dual-LED flash; 1MP front-facing camera; 720p video capture from rear camera and VGA from front camera; GSM 850/900/1800/1900 radio; WCDMA 850/900/1900/2100 radio; 4G LTE; Bluetooth 2.1+EDR; Stereo Bluetooth; WiFi; accelerometer; ambient and proximity sensors; gyroscope; 2 microphones; 1830 mAh battery; Internet Explorer 9 mobile; and Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" Commercial Release 2.

    Any device only needs as much hardware as necessary for your needs and to give operating system and applications ample performance. I say that in qualification before observing how much more is available on many Androids and even iPhone 4S. The Androids are bitchin': All LTE phones currently available from AT&T or Verizon have dual-core processors, more RAM and typically better screen resolution or video capture than Nokia Lumia 900. What they don't have is Windows Phone 7.5 CR2.

    A suggestion to Microsoft and Nokia: As part of your launch promotion kitty, put aside some money to pay the carrier subsidy. In other words, make every person who wants Lumia 900 eligible to get one, regardless of where they are in their contract, during, say, the first 30 days of availability. Hey, it's just a suggestion.

    Is this the Windows Phone you have been waiting for? Scratch that. Is this the smartphone you've been waiting for?


    Microsoft Store is taking pre-orders for Nokia Lumia 900. Will you buy this Windows Phone?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/06/Windows_Phone_can_t_save_Nokia'

    Windows Phone can't save Nokia

    Publié: février 6, 2012, 10:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    All those analysts predicting Windows Phone as No. 2 smartphone OS in 2015, lifted by Nokia magic, need a reality check. Put away the crystal balls and peer into the present. Today, IDC released fourth-quarter smartphone shipment data, whoa, is the data chart scary.

    Shocker is Nokia's smartphone death spiral, which no Windows Phone has yet lifted. The once mighty Finnish handset maker ended the quarter with 12.4 percent market share, down from 27.6 percent, and plunging from first place a year earlier to fourth at end of 2011. This is the same quarter Nokia launched its first Windows Phones, the Lumia 710 and 800. Right now, looks like Windows Phone can't save Nokia, which cuts the other way, too: Nokia can't save Windows Phone.

    Apple and Samsung were the big beneficiaries of Nokia's nose dive. IDC's data affirms Strategy Analytics findings from late last month: Apple and Samsung ended fourth quarter in near smartphone shipments photo finish. iPhone did better -- 37 million units to Samsung's 36 million. Both vendors saw huge year-over-year gains.

    Samsung's shipments rose 275 percent year over year, going from fourth to second ranking -- market share rise from 9.4 percent to 22.8 percent. That's better than Apple, which was no slouch. Shipments grew 128.4 percent, with share rising to 23.5 percent from 15.9 percent. By comparison, Nokia's share fell 30.6 percent -- or nearly three times the other laggard. Research in Motion share fell 11 percent to 8.2 percent from 14.3 percent.

    Apple and Samsung largely split the smartphone market's largest portion, shipping 73 million of the quarter's 157.8 million units.

    "The launch of Apple's iPhone 4S played a key role in smartphone growth to capture pent-up demand, and smartphone launches from other vendors also provided a broad selection to meet varying preferences and budgets", Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, says. The majority of "launches from other vendors" were Androids.

    "So-called 'hero' devices, such as Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and Apple's iPhone 4S, garner the bulk of the attention heaped on the device type", Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, says. "But a growing number of sub-$250 device offerings, based on the Android operating system, have allowed Google's hardware partners to grow smartphone volumes and expand the market concurrently". No Android partner benefitted more than the aforementioned Samsung.

    Fourth-quarter smartphone shipments exceeded IDC's growth forecast of 40 percent, rising 54.7 percent year over year. "By the end of the quarter, one out of every three mobiles phones shipped worldwide was a smartphone", Llamas says.

    For all 2011, smartphone shipments rose 61.3 percent to 491.4 million units from 304.7 million than a year earlier. While growth exceeded IDC's forecast (54.7 percent), it fell below 2010's year-over-year growth (75.7 percent).

    While the smartphone market grows gangbusters, Nokia is the biggest loser -- and Windows Phone along with it. If Lumia's launch quarter is any indication, the road back, if there is one for manufacturer or operating system, will be long and arduous. One year ago this week, Microsoft and Nokia announced a sweeping distribution deal where Windows Phone replaces Symbian as primary operating system. So far, the Windows Phone transition is killing Nokia, not that it had a workable smartphone strategy before.

    Microsoft has committed $1 billion annually in payments to Nokia, as part of the agreement. The return on that investment is what? Coincidentally, today, Microsoft Store started taking pre-orders for the Nokia Lumia 900; there's a $25 reserve. That handset's success or failure may answer the question, or at least foreshadow it.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/06/Hangout_at_the_Google__developer_page'

    Hangout at the Google+ developer page

    Publié: février 6, 2012, 7:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Well, it took long enough. Google waited until passing 100 million G+ users before opening a platform developer page. What? You think only Facebook has a social network platform agenda? Google has ambitions, too.

    Perhaps the big thing will be the weekly Hangouts, where Google+ developers can get the lowdown. It's nothing on the scale of Microsoft's Channel 9 (Say didn't Vic Gundotra have a hand in both Nine and G+?). Channel 9 is more about broadcasting developer information, while Hangouts are live and more interactive.

    Hangouts are one of the best Google+ features -- video chat with a bunch of people, whether they're actively or passively participating. (If it's so good, why haven't I, ah Hungout? Got to fix that one.)

    "Our team will host regular Hangouts to talk about the +Platform, your experiences with it, and share tips and tricks with the community. Our weekly office hours hangouts take place every Wednesday at 11:30am - 12:15pm PDT, and can be accessed from our Google+ Developers page", Chris Chabot, Google+ developer relations team lead, explains. "The +Platform team will also share Google+ developer events, conferences and hackathons, as well as photos and videos of the events. In addition, we’ll announce and discuss our +Platform launches on our page".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/06/What_are_the_three_top_selling_US_smartphones__iPhone'

    What are the three top-selling US smartphones? iPhone

    Publié: février 6, 2012, 5:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In fourth quarter, that would be iPhone 4S, 4 and 3GS, in order from one to three, according to NPD. But before the Apple Fanclub does high-fives, Android share among first-time buyers outpaced iPhone, as measured by smartphone operating system, contradicting some other analyst data.

    "iPhone 4S outsold the iPhone 4 by 75 percent, and outsold the iPhone 3GS, available for free on AT&T, five to one", Ross Rubin, NPD executive director, says. Well, so much for my theory older, discounted iPhones was a brilliant Apple strategy. Which again raises questions about the power of brand, considering iPhone isn't LTE, while AT&T and Verizon offer real 4G smartphones -- all Androids.

    "Android has been criticized for offering a more complex user experience than its competitors, but the company’s wide carrier support and large app selection is appealing to new smartphone customers", Rubin says. "Android’s support of LTE at Verizon has also made it the exclusive choice for customers who want to take advantage of that carrier’s fastest network".

    So perhaps LTE matters after all, at least to new buyers -- 57 percent chose Androids and 34 percent iPhone. The math is scary, by the way. NPD didn't publicly release new buyer share for other platforms, but Bada, BlackBerry, Symbian and Windows Mobile split up just 9 percent share. Well, we know what Americans aren't buying.

    Additionally, iOS/iPhone closed the distance on Android, capturing 43 percent share to 48 percent share. The numbers are significant for another reason -- NPD tracks actual sales to end users rather than shipments into the channel.

    More broadly, smartphone sales considerably outpaced feature phones. Smartphones accounted for 68 percent of sales during fourth quarter, up 18 percent year over year.

    Now let me explain something about contradictory analyst reports. There are many out there right now, which makes them all suspect. Last week comScore reported dramatically different share numbers, putting Android way ahead of iOS/iPhone -- 47.3 percent to 29.6 percent, respectively. comScore measures US cellular subscribers ages 13 and above, which is different data methodology than NPD. The one uses a survey (of more than 30,000 Americans) and the other looks at sales.

    Then there is Nielsen, which data seemingly directly contradicts NPD's. Android share, as measured in smartphone operating systems among new purchasers, plummeted from 61.6 percent in October to 46.9 percent in December. Meanwhile, iPhone rose from 25.1 percent share to 44.5 percent.

    So whose data can you trust? No one's solely, nor any of the New York Post-style headlines trumpeting iPhone over Android, or visa versa. The clearest picture of US smartphone sales may come when Sprint announces holiday quarter earnings later this week. Assuming Sprint reveals iPhone sales, or activations, combined with AT&T and Verizon there will be clearer but not exact sense of what really occurred in the US market. I say "not exact" because iPhone activations don't necessarily mean on new handsets.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/01/How_fast_has_Facebook_grown_'

    How fast has Facebook grown?

    Publié: février 1, 2012, 8:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's a question many people will ask today following Facebook's IPO filing. In March 2007, less than a year after opening to the public, the social network had 30 million users. The number is more than 800 million today. But neither number truly reveals Facebook's global impact.

    Last summer, Pew Internet found that 92 percent of social network users are on Facebook -- just 17 percent on Twitter. Today, comScore released data on Facebook penetration across the globe, as measured as percentage of total Internet audience.

    "Globally, Facebook reached 12 percent of the internet audience in December 2007 and as of December 2011 the social network reached over half of the internet audience, 55 percent (43 percentage point rise)", according to comScore.

    Reach is greatest in Latin America (84.1 percent), followed by North America (82.9 percent). For more, see the chart above, which is fairly self explanatory.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/01/Google__tops_100_million_users'

    Google+ tops 100 million users

    Publié: février 1, 2012, 7:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That will be the number by end of today, according to FamilyLink founder and unofficial Google+ statistician Paul Allen. The number has grown from 90 million since Google CEO Larry Page's official statement just two weeks ago.

    Allen's announcement comes as rival Facebook announces its public offering, and quite possibly the largest one ever. Not since Netscape's IPO at the dawn of the World Wide Web era has a tech company generated so much interest going public. But Facebook has a new rival that's growing fast and leveraging hard existing Google assets. By year's end, Google+ could have half as many users as Facebook does today.

    "Google+ membership has grown more than 10 percent since January 19th when Larry Page announced 90 million users", Allen explains. "I have them at 100.8 million users by the end of the day".

    Allen puts growth at 750,000 new users per day since January 19. He analyzes different surnames to calculate number of users. "If that rate holds steady, Google+ will end the year with 345 million users. But as I have said before, Google has many dials and levers to use this year to increase signups and usage, including its Android 4.0 rollout. I stand by my prediction of at least 400 million users by the end of 2012".

    That's a big number likely to get a big boost just over the next few weeks. Last week, Google made two changes sure to open the floodgate of users: Allowing teens (rather than those 18 years or older) to join the service and permitting use of nicknames. Meanwhile, Google is connecting the social network to more of its services, including the new "Google Plus Your World".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/02/01/Google_kills_Chrome_usage_growth'

    Google kills Chrome usage growth

    Publié: février 1, 2012, 4:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Chrome's browser usage share fell in January, according to Net Applications, after 14 months of consecutive, solid growth. Competition didn't kill Chrome growth, Google did, with its decision to reduce the browser's search page rank. Which browser benefitted most? Internet Explorer, of course.

    It's a stunning turnabout for Chrome, which likely will see continued trend during February. On January 3, Google announced a temporary downgrading of Chrome's page rank -- how high it appears in searches -- following a minor scandal with a third-party ad agency. The marketer paid bloggers to write about Chrome, which violates Google policies on sponsored links. The search and information giant treated itself like other advertisers, perhaps more harshly, and lowered Chrome's search ranking for 60 days.

    Between November 2010 and December 2011, Chrome usage share rose from 9.57 percent to 19.11 percent. In January, share fell to 18.94 percent. Meanwhile, Internet Explore got a big boost, gaining 1.1 points month on month for 52.96 percent share. That's down from 60.35 percent in November 2010.

    Firefox is the more disturbing trend. Usage share fell nearly 1 point month on month to 20.88 percent. Firefox 10 desktop and mobile released yesterday. The question to ask (and please feel free to answer in comments): Is Mozilla's rapid-pace release schedule hurting Firefox adoption. The development cycle means a new browser version about every six weeks, which makes enterprise adoption harder. The current version might be obsolete even before being fully tested for deployment among larger businesses.

    Safari continued its downward trend also, falling to 4.9 percent usage share in January from 4.97 percent in December.

    Chrome's loss demonstrates the value of Google search and foreshadows benefits of connected services, like Google+ or Gmail. How Google benefits Chrome:

    • Leverage from search (Google share is tops in most geographies)
    • Web applications that run in the browser, from the cloud rather than desktop
    • Marketing -- Google is aggressively advertising Chrome, now in TV commercials
    • Rapid-fire development cycle delivering new features (Chrome 10-16 released last year)
    • Little legacy -- Google doesn't need worry about supporting business users or years of plugins

    Despite Chrome's decline, v16 held on to the usage share ranking of its predecessor. Chrome 16 was second to Internet Explorer 8 in January, with 15.9 percent to 27.45 percent usage share. IE9 was third, followed by Firefox 9, with 11.64 percent and 8.57 percent share, respectively.

    IE6 continues to live, despite fervent Microsoft efforts to kill it. The browser ranked fifth, with 7.93 percent usage share. I've got to ask. Do you still use Internet Explorer 6? Are you willing to admit it in comments?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/31/Got_Android__Get_Firefox_10'

    Got Android? Get Firefox 10

    Publié: janvier 31, 2012, 7:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Hey, Firefox fans, don't settle for just the desktop browser that popped up on Mozilla servers overnight. Firefox 10 mobile is also available at the Android Market. While the big browser offers significantly improved plug-in support, it's still DOA on the small one. That means no Adobe Flash for you, Bud.

    New features include anti-aliasing for WebGL and accelerated layer-support via OpenGL ES. Firefox 10 mobile improves sync and HTML5 capabilities, as well. Among the fixes: "Extremely rare case where the browser may become unable to load web pages or close tabs".

    The mobile browser requires Android 2.0 and above. I installed and ran it just fine on Verizon Galaxy Nexus with Ice Cream Sandwich. However, I find Firefox 10 mobile to stutter compared to Android's built-in browser and lacking Flash to be annoying. Even with the extra burden of Flash, Android's browser feels smoother.

    So if you're a big Firefox fan looking for Flash, plug-in support and smooth, fast mobile browsing, 10 isn't your lucky number.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/31/Hey__broadcasters__filmmakers__is_Final_Cut_Pro_X_finally_good_enough_'

    Hey, broadcasters, filmmakers, is Final Cut Pro X finally good enough?

    Publié: janvier 31, 2012, 6:08pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's the question, following big updates available today. How big? So big Apple even issued a press release. I ask the question because of professionals' negative reactions to the software soon after its late-June 2011 release. The uproar was loud enough that "Conan" did a skit about it. In September, responding to customer requests, Apple brought back older version Final Cut Studio 3 on a limited basis. That was then, this is now. Is Final Cut Pro X finally good enough for you?

    Many pros complained that Final Cut Pro X was too iMovie-like, while stripping away features they depend on for editing broadcast or film videos. Others complained Apple abandoned core customers to make Final Cut easier for non-pros to use. The software offered more to amateurs and less -- actually took features away -- for professionals. Today's update (v 10.0.3) adds some surprising pro features, and they're not the first. This is the third update since the software's launch.

    Among the new features:

    • Improved third-party plug-in support
    • Sync for up to 64 angles of video and photos
    • Layered PSD support without leaving Final Cut Pro X
    • Broadcast monitoring (in beta) via Thunderbolt ports

    Multicam support is by far the big new feature, by giving back a capability taken away with Final Cut Pro X and extending it with the 64 angles of view, improved time-stamping, photo support and ability to mix together stills and videos of virtually any resolution. The latter two capabilities finally embrace advanced dSLRs, like Canon's EOS 5D Mark II; micro four-thirds digicams, like my daughter's Olympus PEN E-P2; and cell phones, like Apple's iPhone (and maybe even lowly Androids). The point: Final Cut Pro X is now primed to use video (and photos) from just about any source. Can you say mashup?

    Update: Macworld offers a pro's look at the new features and why they matter.

    But are these new features and others good enough for you? Please answer in comments.

    Final Cut Pro X 10.0.3 is available from the Mac App Store for $299.99 -- that's for new users. Existing users get the update for free. Anyone else can download a 30-day free trial from Apple.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/27/Suddenly_37M_iPhones_isn_t_so_many'

    Suddenly 37M iPhones isn't so many

    Publié: janvier 27, 2012, 7:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    My reaction mirrored many others this week. Apple's big iPhone holiday quarter seemed simply unbelievable -- 37 million, up 128 percent year over year. But Samsung was close. Real close: 36.5 million smartphones, according to Strategy Analytics. Together, the two companies accounted for 47 percent of fourth-quarter smartphone shipments.

    The horse race between the companies sours Apple apologist arguments about iPhone vs Android. Staunch iPhone defenders blow off Android competition as one against many. But on the one-to-one comparison, Apple isn't so high and mighty. Samsung is keeping pace just fine. Apple was market leader for the quarter -- 23.9 percent share to the South Korean company's 23.5 percent. But Samsung took the year -- 19.9 percent share to its American rival's 19 percent. Both companies had exceptionally good fourth quarters.

    "With global smartphone shipments nearing half a billion units in 2011, Samsung is now well positioned alongside Apple in a two-horse race at the forefront of one of the world’s largest and most valuable consumer electronics markets", Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics executive director, says.

    "Smartphone specialist Apple shipped 93 million handsets worldwide in 2011, nearly doubling the previous year’s volumes", Tom Kang, Strategy Analytics director, says. "Apple is on track to ship well over 100 million units during 2012. China is becoming a key market for Apple this year, and we expect Apple’s share to grow rapidly in 2012".

    Last week, I asserted that Apple's fourth-quarter sales surge was more about distribution rather than iPhone 4S. Apple's handset is available more places and, importantly, $99 iPhone 4 and free 3GS open up sales to more people. Supporting that theory, Alex Spektor, Strategy Analytics associate director, attributes the surge to "distribution of the iPhone family expanded across numerous countries, dozens of operators and multiple price points". I remain convinced that the latter reason is most important.

    Samsung announced fourth-quarter earnings results today and unsurprisingly the telecommunications business outperformed other segments. Revenue rose to 17.82 trillion won from 11.75 trillion won a year earlier, with operating profit of 2.64 trillion won. The division's operating profit rose 90 percent in 2011 year over year.

    Samsung says that its smartphone shipments rose 30 percent quarter-on-quarter; Apple says iPhone shipments rose 117 percent between quarters. Unlike Apple, which has a single operating system with iOS, Samsung offers three: Android, Bada (its own product) and Windows Phone. Android overwhelmingly accounts for the majority of Samsung smartphone shipments.

    More broadly, manufacturers shipped 155 million smartphones during fourth quarter and 488.6 million for the year. Shipments for all handsets in 2011: 1.6 billion.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/27/Sync_multiple_Google_calendars_to_Windows_Phone_7.5'

    Sync multiple Google calendars to Windows Phone 7.5

    Publié: janvier 27, 2012, 3:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I don't really use Google Calendar and don't have Windows Phone (sigh, on the latter). If you do, here's a tip. Google has enabled multiple-calendar sync with Windows Phone 7.5. It's now possible to select among the calendars and sync up to 25 of them. Gasp, who has two dozen plus one?

    "Just navigate to m.google.com/sync on your phone’s browser and configure the calendars you would like to see", Li Yin, with the Google Sync Team, posts to Google+. "From that page, you can also configure which addresses you send mail as if you have custom addresses in Gmail. We’ve also improved search to look beyond the conversations that are stored locally on your device so that you are able to find more of your conversations, faster".

    As I have expressed many times over the last five years, synchronization is the killer app for the connected age. Its importance increases as businesses and consumers use more mobile devices connected to the cloud.

    Features available on Windows 7.5:

    With Google Sync enabled, you can do the following actions in Google Calendar using the Calendar app:

    • Create events and edit event details.
    • Respond to meeting requests and update your attendee status.
    • Change your Alert Reminder Time, e.g. "30 minutes before".
    • See your list of pending invitations.
    • When you’re invited to an event, it shows up with a dotted line on the left side of the event in your calendar. If you choose Accept or Maybe, it changes to solid, and if you Decline, the event is removed.
    • When viewing meeting invitations in your inbox, the calendar icon at the bottom lets you update your attendee status.

    Multiple-calendar sync is also available to Google Apps users.

    If you find Google's setup instructions to be lacking, Microsoft offers more.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/26/iPad_share_plunges_as_Android_tablets_make_dramatic_gains'

    iPad share plunges as Android tablets make dramatic gains

    Publié: janvier 26, 2012, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Do I have your attention yet? Apple fans needn't worry, iPad has considerable lead over Android tablets. iPad global market share, as measured by mobile operating system, fell to 57.6 percent in fourth quarter from 68.2 percent a year earlier, according to Strategy Analytics. Meanwhile, Android tablets rose to 39.1 percent from 29 percent. Something else: Windows climbed from zero to 1.5 percent, and that's without tablet-optimized Windows 8.

    Despite popular convention that people only want iPad, clearly somebody is buying Android. Strategy Analytics doesn't break down the numbers by vendor, but there's reason to ask about one. Amazon. For months there has been oft-asked question: Would $199 Kindle Fire cut into iPad sales? Last month, Amazon said that it sold over 4 million Kindles in December, but wouldn't specify how many were tablets. "Apple shrugged off the much-hyped threat from entry-level Android models this quarter", Peter King, Strategy Analytics director, says. Perhaps that's answer enough.

    "Global tablet shipments reached an all-time high of 26.8 million units in Q4 2011, surging 150 percent from 10.7 million in Q4 2010", King says. "Demand for tablets among consumer, business and education users remains strong". Apple shipped 15.4 million tablets, bringing the total since launch to 55 million.

    "Global Android tablet shipments tripled annually to 10.5 million units", Neil Mawston, Strategy Analytics executive director, says. "Dozens of Android models distributed across multiple countries by numerous brands such as Amazon, Samsung, Asus and others have been driving volumes".

    Androids got a boost from new models or discounts during fourth quarter. For example, Amazon started selling Kindle Fire near the start of holiday seasonal sales. Verizon cut Motorola XOOM LTE pricing to $199.99 over Black Friday weekend before introducing new XYBOARD models.

    "Android is so far proving relatively popular with tablet manufacturers despite nagging concerns about fragmentation of Android’s operating system, user-interface and app store ecosystem", Mawston says. To watch now: Whether Android 4.0 -- aka Ice Cream Sandwich -- churns up more Android tablet interest.

    For the year, manufacturers shipped 66.9 million tablets, up from 18.6 million -- a 260 percent increase. Strategy Analytics sees tablets cannibalizing netbook sales, and even low-cost notebooks.

    Important note: Like most of its competitors, Strategy Analytics track sales into the channel, rather than out to customers. Product shipped doesn't mean product sold.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/26/Investors_to_Netflix_CEO_Reed_Hastings___We_forgive_you__a_little'

    Investors to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings: 'We forgive you' a little

    Publié: janvier 26, 2012, 5:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    All is forgiven when there's money to be made. That's the message investors delivered Netflix CEO Reed Hastings today. Shares rallied after yesterday's earnings report, which partly validated summer's controversial streaming and DVD rental strategies that sent the stock plunging several times and led to calls for Hastings' removal or resignation. That was oh-so six months ago, which is a lifetime in the memory of an investor.

    Shares rose more than 23 percent in early trading -- to $117.12. Netflix closed at $95 yesterday and opened at $114. The price reached $118.78 soon after the opening bell. As I write, shares are bobbing -- now only up 22 percent. Shareholder forgiveness doesn't vanquish Hastings' sins, however. Netflix peaked at $304 on July 13, the day after notifying subscribers of price increases. There remains tremendous share value yet to recover, which is unlikely to come from today's rally.

    Following the price increases, Netflix stock started a steady plunge, exacerbated by several events, including the loss of Starz and failed attempt to split the company in two. Shares hit bottom, $62.37 the last day of November.

    Investors reacted to several key metrics from Netflix's earnings report. The video streaming and rental service gained more than 600,000 subscribers during the quarter for a total of 24.4 million. By comparison, Netlfix lost 800,000 subscribers during third quarter -- less than the expected 1 million -- related to price increases.

    Something else: Yesterday, Hastings made absolutely clear to investors the importance of streaming to Netflix's future: "We expect DVD subscribers to decline steadily for every quarter, forever". Given rising mailing and other costs associated with physical media, the statement encouraged investors about Netflix's future, or so it seems.

    But there is still much to forgive, given where Netflix shares were in mid summer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/26/AT_T_and_Verizon_account_for_nearly_one_third_of_iPhone_sales'

    AT&T and Verizon account for nearly one-third of iPhone sales

    Publié: janvier 26, 2012, 4:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This morning, before the opening bell, AT&T announced calendar fourth-quarter earnings and record iPhone sales -- 7.6 million. Combined with Verizon's number that works out to 32 percent of iPhones sold during the quarter. Sprint will announce earnings results on February 2, conceivably pushing the number close to 40 percent. Apple CEO Tim Cook has called China Apple's second-most important market. Want to guess which is first?

    For AT&T, iPhone was huge during fourth quarter. The carrier sold 9.4 million smartphones, and 80.5 percent of them were iPhones. The number was smaller, but still substantial, for Verizon: 54.4 percent. While Android sales paled by comparison, AT&T doubled them year over year -- not surprising with Samsung's aggressive marketing campaign for Galaxy S II and mid-quarter's introduction of LTE models HTC Vivid and Galaxy S II Skyrocket.

    Globally, Apple and its partners sold 37.04 million iPhones during fourth-quarter -- generating more than $24 billion in revenue, which is more than all Microsoft's $20.89 billion.

    Feature phones are out at AT&T, which reported smartphones accounting for 82 percent of post-paid sales. More than half -- 56.8 percent -- of 69.3 million postpaid subscribers own smartphones. At Verizon: 44 percent. The difference says something about AT&T exclusive US iPhone distribution deal with Apple -- from June 2007 to February 2011 -- and what smartphones Americans are buying. iPhone is in some ways an American icon, like iPod before it. Verizon offers some of the best Android smartphones available anywhere -- soon a dozen 4G LTE models -- yet iPhone stands tallest among them. Sprint, which only got iPhone in October, will answer how tall in its earnings report.

    Earlier this week, AT&T raised prices on its data plans, causing the usual uproar on forums, blogs and social networks. Many people asked why? My answer: Because it can. Among the nuggets from today's earnings report: 56 percent of all AT&T smartphone users have tiered data plans -- that's 22 percent -- and about 70 percent "have chosen the higher-tier plans". AT&T requires data plans for iPhones. Customers now pay $20 and $30 a month for data, with which AT&T raised data caps -- from 200MB to 300MB and 2GB to 3GB, respectively.

    By the way, the quarter is yet another rebuttal the wild and ridiculous predictions that Verizon getting iPhone would lead to massive AT&T customer defections (as much as half; cough, cough). Nearly a year later, that has been proven false every single quarter, with holiday 2011 being the most important litmus test. According to AT&T: "Despite record smartphone sales and the first holiday sales period since the loss of AT&T's iPhone exclusivity, postpaid churn was up only slightly at 1.21 percent, compared to 1.15 percent in both the year-ago fourth quarter and in the third quarter of 2011".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/26/Why_do_smartphone_owners_buy_tablets_'

    Why do smartphone owners buy tablets?

    Publié: janvier 26, 2012, 3:54am CET par Joe Wilcox

    For a company which business depends on collecting data, Google sure was slow tabulating its report on smartphone usage. The study is available today, but the data is already outdated given strong holiday e-book reader and tablet sales and global impact of 37 million iPhones sold during fourth quarter -- the startling number Apple released yesterday. Still there are some fascinating trends here that likely will prove true had Google collected data in December or January rather than September-October.

    What I find perplexing: 17 percent of US smartphone owners also have tablets -- 11 percent in Japan, 10 percent in United Kingdom and 8 percent each in France and Germany. Note: This data, as the rest, is for smartphones privately used. The percentages likely would be higher when including business use, and the trend is accelerating, says Google. My question, and this is really for you to answer: Why buy a tablet if you have a smartphone? Remember, Google isn't tracking PC owners who buy a tablet, but smartphones users who do.

    A tablet's functionally lies somewhere between a smartphone and small laptop, and much of it overlaps. Then there is cost to consider. Let's be honest. Apple's iPad is the overwhelming market leader, so we're really talking smartphone and iPad. That puts the starting price at $499 for WiFi-only and $629 when adding 3G (iPad doesn't pack a 4G LTE radio). Why pay for 3G twice on phone and tablet?

    There's sense to replacing or displacing a laptop for tablet, and this is a well-documented trend. The most startling recent report, from IDG Connect, shows the trend accelerating among business and IT decision makers -- it's no longer a consumer phenomenon. Sixteen percent have replaced their laptop with an iPad and 54 percent supplement it.

    Using myself as example, in December I bought Motorola XOOM LTE from Verizon; yes, I'm a smartphone owner. I bought the tablet not to replace the smartphone but my laptop on the go. Over Black Friday weekend, Verizon offered XOOM for $199.99, a shocking price for a 10.1-inch dual-core tablet with 32GB storage and LTE. Now I take XOOM on to go, when I need a bigger screen to work or play but don't want to lug around the laptop, which doesn't have LTE radio. Even then, only the tablet's low price justified taking on the second data plan. XOOM in no way replaces or displaces my smartphone.

    That's the no-relationship theory. The tablet buyer happens to own a smartphone and PC and is buying the tablet to supplement the computer. So the smartphone is then incidental to the tablet.

    Another reason to consider: Perhaps the smartphone isn't good enough. That's a point colleague Mark Wilson makes today in his mini-review of Kingsoft Office 4.3 -- there's inadequate screen space on a smartphone but room enough on a tablet. This could be particularly true for iPhone, with its 3.5-inch screen. So people wanting a portable connected device buy an iPad, too.

    Here's another: iOS envy. Jack or Jane consumer has an Android device and contractual commitment but wants iOS. Buy iPad, increase screen real estate, get access to different apps and join the Apple Fanclub.

    Nineteen percent of Americans owned a tablet at the end of December, according to Pew Internet. Google's smartphone data is nowhere near as fresh, but still trend worthy. The search and information giant compared data sets from January-February and September-October. Smartphone ownership in the United Kingdom soared from 30 percent to 45 percent -- 31 percent to 38 percent in the United States. By the way, Nielsen says that at the end of December, 46 percent of Americans had smartphones.

    Wrapping up, do you own a smartphone and tablet for personal use? Why?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/25/iPhone_generates_more_revenue_than_all_Microsoft'

    iPhone generates more revenue than all Microsoft

    Publié: janvier 25, 2012, 5:05am CET par Joe Wilcox

    In case you missed it, and I certainly would have if not for someone asking a question, Apple's fiscal 2012 first quarter earnings report has a jaw dropper. iPhone generated $24.42 billion revenue. During the same quarter, all of Microsoft: $20.89 billion. More broadly, Apple revenue ($46.33 billion) was more than twice Microsoft's, and net income nearly was ($13.06 billion versus $6.62 billion, respectively). But it's that iPhone figure that really stands out. One product's revenues against an entire company's. Microsoft's margins are better, but who wouldn't want more money in the bank?

    Nearly five years ago, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer dismissed iPhone, in a USA Today interview: "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60 percent or 70 percent or 80 percent of them, than I would to have 2 percent or 3 percent, which is what Apple might get". How's that for the mother of wrong predictions?

    Thing is, now Microsoft's software is down there in the low single-digit market share doldrums, while iPhone share rises. At end of fourth quarter, for example, Windows Phone share among US subscribers was 1.4 percent, according to Nielsen. iOS: 37 percent, up 7 points in two months. That's all while making "a lot of money". Ballmer's licensing strategy failed, with Android and iOS stealing share from Windows Mobile and Phone 7. Okay, so maybe Microsoft collects $30 a license -- hey, let's be generous and call it fifty -- compared to Apple's $600 bucks per phone -- and many more units. Which amount would your business rather take in?

    But it's not just iPhone. Apple did something remarkable during fourth quarter -- Mac sales grew during three months when PC shipments were their worst in a decade, according to IDC. Apple sold 5.2 million Macs, generating $6.6 billion -- or more revenue than any single Microsoft division. Closest: Office at $6.28 billion.

    In the United States, fourth-quarter PC shipments fell for every vendor in the top five but Apple, according to Gartner. HP shipments plummeted by more than 26 percent -- meanwhile Apple's grew by 20.7 percent. IDC put HP's decline at 25.3 percent and Apple's gain at 18 percent. The Mac maker solidified its No. 3 ranking, with market share rising to 11.6 percent from 9 percent year over year according to Gartner and to 10.92 percent from 8.63 percent by IDC's reckoning.

    Revenues for Microsoft's Windows division fell by 6 percent to $4.74 billion, while income plummeted 11 percent to $2.85 billion. For comparison, Apple portables generated $4.66 billion revenue, up 26 percent year over year, or nearly as much. Microsoft blamed slow PC sales on the hard drive shortage caused by flooding in Thailand. During today's earnings conference call, Apple CEO Tim Cook said the hard drive shortage had no "material impact" on Mac sales and he doesn't expect any for fiscal second quarter. However, Apple does expect to pay more for drives.

    These numbers were unheard of even just a few years ago. During fiscal quarter 2010 -- yeah, just two years ago -- Apple reported $15.68 billion revenue and net profits of $3.38 billion. Two years later, Apple nearly tripled revenue and almost quadrupled earnings. During the same quarter two years ago, Microsoft generated more revenue and net income than Apple -- $19.95 billion and $6.64 billion, respectively. My how fortunes change.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/24/Apple_Q1_2012_by_the_numbers___13B_profit__37M_iPhones_sold'

    Apple Q1 2012 by the numbers: $13B profit, 37M iPhones sold

    Publié: janvier 24, 2012, 10:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, after the closing bell, Apple answered the question analysts have asked for weeks: How many iPhones sold during the holiday quarter? The answer: A colossal number -- 37.04 million.

    Apple also shipped 5.2 million Macs and 15.43 million iPads during fiscal 2012 first quarter. Analyst consensus was around 5 million and 14 million, respectively, and 32.5 million iPhones. During today's earnings conference call, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer revealed 315 million cumulative iOS device sales. Apple's App Store has 550,000 applications -- 150,000 for iPad. Developers will have earned $4 billion cumulatively by the end of the month, he said.

    For fiscal Q1, Apple reported $46.33 billion revenue and net profits of $13.06 billion, or $13.87 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $26.74 billion and $6 billion net quarterly profit, or $6.43 per share.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast $37 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 first quarter, with earnings per share of $9.30. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $38.85 billion revenue and $10.08 earnings per share.

    "We’re thrilled with our outstanding results and record-breaking sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs", Tim Cook, Apple CEO, says. "Apple’s momentum is incredibly strong, and we have some amazing new products in the pipeline".

    Gross margin was 44.7 percent up from 38.5 percent a year earlier. Fifty-eight percent of revenues came from international sales.

    Looking ahead, Apple forecasts $32.5 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 second quarter, with earnings per share of $8.50.

    Q1 2012 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.94 billion, up 12 percent from $1.73 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $4.66 billion, up 26 percent from $3.7 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $2.53 billion, down 26 percent from $3.43 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $2.03 billion, up 42 percent from $1.43 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $24.42 billion, up 133 percent from $10.5 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $9.15 billion, up 99 percent from $4.6 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $766 million, up 29 percent from $593 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $844 million, up 7 percent from $786 million a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped 37.04 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal first quarter, up from 16.24 million iPhones a year earlier. That's a 128 percent increase, year over year. Wall Street analyst average estimate was about 32.5 million units. Apple counts shipments into the channel, typically making them several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales.

    iPhone 4S is available in 90 countries. "Demand there is staggering" Cook said of sales to China, during today's conference call. Apple ended the quarter with about 6 million iPhones in inventory, which is below the targeted 4 to 6 weeks.

    If US numbers are any indication, iPhone's quarter was exceptional. Android share, as measured in smartphone operating systems among new purchasers, plummeted from 61.6 percent in October to 46.9 percent in December, according to Nielsen. Meanwhile, iPhone rose from 25.1 percent share to 44.5 percent. By NPD's reckoning, in October to November, Android's US fell share from 60 percent to 47 percent, while iOS rose from 29 percent to 43 percent.

    Earlier today, Verizon released fourth calendar quarter results, with startling data: iPhone accounted for about 55 percent of smartphone sales and outsold 4G LTE models by 2 to 1. None of Apple's handsets support LTE.

    The strong quarter is more than about iPhone 4S, which launched in mid October. During November and December, 43 percent of recent purchasers chose iPhone 3GS or 4 -- that's US phone subscribers, according to Nielsen. Concurrent with iPhone 4S launch, Apple reduced its predecessor's price to $99 and 3Gs to free.

    Q1 2012 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.5 million units, up 21 percent from 1.23 million units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 3.72 million units, up 28 percent from 2.9 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 15.4 million units, down 21 percent from 19.44 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 37.04 million units, up 128 percent from 16.24 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 15.43 million units, up 111 percent from 7.33 million units a year earlier.

    iPad. Apple shipped 15.43 million iPads globally during the quarter -- that's up from 7.33 million -- a 111 percent -- a year earlier. Sell-through to customers outpaced sell-in to the channel by about 200,000; Apple ended the quarter with 4 to 6 weeks of inventory. Through the end of the quarter, Apple has sold 55 million iPads.

    Cook doesn't see lower-cost tablets, such as Amazon Kindle Fire, affecting iPad sales. He described iPad as a class unto itself and called 2011 "year of the iPad" despite predictions it would be year of the tablet. "People that want an iPad won't settle for a limited-function [tablet]".

    The media tablet is one of the most successful new products ever. Apple is a major player in the two most disruptive technologies affecting PCs today -- media tablets and smartphones. "By 2015, mobile application development projects targeting smartphones and tablets will outnumber PC projects by 4 to 1", Hung LeHong, Gartner research vice president, says. "The PC is no longer king". Gartner predicts that media tablet sales will reach 900 million by 2016.

    Consumers are no longer leading the push to iPad alone. According to an IDG Connect study released last week: "Fully 51 percent of IT and business decision-makers say they always use their iPad at work" -- and, of course, that's the number who actually own the tablet. Sixteen percent have replaced their laptop with an iPad and 54 percent supplement it. Remember, these numbers are for people responsible for corporate computing. As the wind shifts in their sails -- or should that be sales -- so does it eventually across the computing infrastructure. The data suggests that iPads are significantly starting to cannibalize PC sales -- and not just among consumers -- and it's consistent with recent global PC buying trends (see next section).

    Q1 2012 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $17.71 billion, up 92 percent from $9.22 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $11.3 billion, up 55 percent from $7.23 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $3.56 billion, down 148 percent from $1.43 billion a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $7.7 billion, up 54 percent from $4.99 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $6.12 billion, up 59 percent from $3.85 billion a year earlier.

    Computers. Mac shipments soared during fiscal Q1 quarter. Apple sold -- what company executives really mean by shipped -- 5.2 million Macs during the quarter, up from 4.13 million units during fiscal Q1 2011; growth was 26 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus was about 4.2 million units worldwide. Mac sales to Asia rose 58 percent year over year. Apple ended to quarter with 2 to 3 weeks of inventory.

    Two weeks ago, Gartner and IDC released calendar fourth quarter 2011 preliminary PC shipments. In the United States, fourth-quarter PC shipments fell for every vendor in the top five but Apple, according to Gartner. HP shipments plummeted by more than 26 percent, while Apple's grew by 20.7 percent. IDC put HP's decline at 25.3 percent and Apple's gain at 18 percent. The Mac maker solidified its No. 3 ranking, with market share rising to 11.6 percent from 9 percent year over year according to Gartner and to 10.92 percent from 8.63 percent by IDC's reckoning.

    IDC described the quarter as the worst since 2001, but really should have applied that to Windows PCs, given robust Mac shipments. During the same quarter, Microsoft reported a 6 percent decline in Windows division revenues and stunning 11 percent fall in profits.

    Gartner and IDC blamed some of the quarter's hardships to a short-term hard drive crisis, but that's only partial explanation. Consumers, in particular, bought other tech, with smartphones and tablets soaking dollars that might have been spent on PCs.

    "There will come a time, in units, when the tablet market will be bigger than the PC market", Cook said during today's earnings call.

    The Mac is big windfall benefactor of the PC shipment/sales crisis, because:

    • Apple's brand is sizzling hot right now.
    • Most people use Windows, which is old to them if upgrading, while the Mac is fresh.
    • iPad cannibalize Windows PC sales, as businesses and consumers buy the tablet as upgrade companion or even replacement.
    • Apple is more insulated from the hard drive shortage, in part because of how it sources components compared to most other computer makers.

    During today's conference call, Cook said the hard drive shortage had no "material impact" on Mac sales and he doesn't expect any for fiscal second quarter. However, Apple does expect to pay more for drives.

    Q1 2012 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.61 million units, up 19 percent from 1.36 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 1.5 million units, up 19 percent from 1.25 million units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 184,000 units, up 14 percent from 162,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 814,000 units, up 58 percent from 516,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 1.1 million units, up 30 percent from 851,000 units a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 15.4 million iPods during fiscal first quarter, down from 19.4 million a year earlier -- a 21 percent decline. The quarter ended with 4 to 6 weeks of inventory.

    iTunes Music Store generated $1.7 billion in revenue during the quarter.

    Retail. Revenue from Apple Store rose 59 percent year over year to $6.12 billion. Unit Mac sales increased 30 percent -- to 1.1 million from 851,00 a year earlier. Apple opened four new stores during the quarter. With an average 358 stores open for the quarter average revenue was $17.1 million, up 43 percent year over year from $12 million. Number of visitors rose 45 percent from 76 million to 110 million.

    Photo Credit: 1000 Words / Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/23/One_in_four_Americans_own_an_e_book_reader_or_tablet'

    One in four Americans own an e-book reader or tablet

    Publié: janvier 23, 2012, 8:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's a dramatic change from just a few months ago and, perhaps not coincidentally, before new Nooks and Kindles lowered price of entry for both categories. Between December and January, the number of Americans owning one of the devices rose to 29 percent from 18 percent. During the same time period, the number owning a tablet rose to 19 percent from 10 percent, which is the same rise for e-book readers.

    Pew Internet released the data earlier today, based on surveys conducted in mid December and early January. "These findings are striking because they come after a period from mid-2011 into the autumn in which there was not much change in the ownership of tablets and e-book readers", according to the report. "However, as the holiday gift-giving season approached, the marketplace for both devices dramatically shifted". As recently as August 9 percent of Americans owned e-book readers and 10 percent tablets.

    Pew noted the holiday impact of Amazon and Barnes & Noble e-reader price cuts to below $100. During the same time period, Amazon released Kindle Fire, a $199 7-inch tablet. However, tablets typically cost considerably more, such as the popular iPad 2 -- between $499 and $829. As such, households with greater incomes were most likely to buy the devices. According to Pew:

    The surge in ownership of tablet computers was especially notable among those with higher levels of education and those living in households earning more than $75,000. More than a third of those living in households earning more than $75,000 (36 percent) now own a tablet computer. And almost a third of those with college educations or higher (31 percent) own the devices. Additionally, those under age 50 saw a particularly significant leap in tablet ownership.

    By comparison, e-readers skewed lower, Pew says:

    The story with the growth in e-book readers was somewhat different from the story with tablet computers. Ownership of e-readers among women grew more than among men. Those with more education and higher incomes also lead the pack when it comes to e-book ownership, but the gap between them and others isn’t as dramatic. For instance, 19 percent of those in households earning $30,000-$50,000 have e-book readers. They are 12 percentage points behind those in households earning $75,000 or more in e-book reader ownership. The gap between those income levels on tablet ownership is 20 percentage points.

    Did you buy or receive an e-book reader or tablet during the holidays?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/23/RIM_s_co_CEOs_are_out__Thorsten_Heins_is_new_chief_executive'

    RIM's co-CEOs are out, Thorsten Heins is new chief executive

    Publié: janvier 23, 2012, 5:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    The phrase two heads are better than one didn't prove true for Research in Motion, which late today pushed aside its co-CEOs and replaced them with a single chief executive. It's a major shakeup that analysts called for more than a year ago. Out: Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie. In: Thorsten Heins, who assumes his new responsibilities starting tomorrow. RIM has scheduled an 8 am ET conference call.

    The question: Will the new leadership be a head-and-a-half? Lazaridis will serve as Vice Chair and lead RIM board's new Innovation Committee, working closely with Heins. Innovation was something surely missing from the BlackBerry maker under Lazaridis' co-leadership. Balsillie isn't completely out, as he will serve on RIM's board.

    "With BlackBerry 7 now out, PlayBook 2.0 shipping in February and BlackBerry 10 expected to ship later this year, the company is entering a new phase, and we felt it was time for a new leader to take it through that phase and beyond", Lazaridis says. "Jim, the Board and I all agreed that leader should be Thorsten Heins".

    "Mike created a whole new way of communicating and I look forward to continuing our close collaboration", says Heins, who joined RIM four years ago last month and has served as COO of Product and Sales since August.

    Heins expresses resound confidence in RIM's future, an opinion many outsiders don't share. "Mike and Jim took a bold step 18 months ago when RIM purchased QNX to shepherd the transformation of the BlackBerry platform for the next decade. We are more confident than ever that was the right path. It is Mike and Jim’s continued unwillingness to sacrifice long-term value for short-term gain which has made RIM the great company that it is today. I share that philosophy and am very excited about the company’s future".

    These so-called bold steps have led BlackBerry from market leadership to plummeting smartphone sales share and eroding brand equity. For example, BlackBerry share, as measured by smartphone OS among recent US handset purchasers, fell from 7.7 percent to 4.5 percent between October and December 2011, according to Nielsen. How the mighty has fallen. In June 2010, BlackBerry led Android and iOS, with 35 percent share among recent purchasers.

    In June 2011, RIM said it was evaluating the role of its co-CEOs. Meanwhile, investors have punished RIM, with September's sell-off being particularly nasty. Last month, RIM took another investor beating after taking a $485 million write-down for unsold PlayBooks. Earlier this month, in a seemingly bizarre pricing strategy, RIM reduced all PlayBooks to $299, regardless of capacity. So the 16GB and 64GB models sell for the same price.

    From that perspective, Heins' "I share that philosophy" may not generate investor confidence. We'll know more after tomorrow's conference call.

    The new CEO contends that RIM's fundamentals are sound: "We have a strong balance sheet with approximately $1.5 billion in cash at the end of the last quarter and negligible debt. We reported revenue of $5.2 billion in our last quarter, up 24 percent from the prior quarter, and a 35 percent year-to-year increase in the BlackBerry subscriber base, which is now over 75 million".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/22/Apple_s_iBooks_Author_EULA_is_more_and_less_evil_than_you_think'

    Apple's iBooks Author EULA is more and less evil than you think

    Publié: janvier 22, 2012, 8:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's a strange concept in marketing that no publicity is really bad. If people talk about you, it broadly raises brand awareness. People eventually forget the bad news but not the brand. Who remembers last year's furor over Apple's onerous publisher subscription terms? That's the eventual outcome from Apple's iBooks Author end-user license agreement, which has shocked many. Simply stated: If you publish ebooks using iBooks Author, no other publisher but Apple can profit. Distribution anywhere else must be for free. The Internet is outraged, even Apple apologists.

    For all the negative outpouring -- and there is plenty -- Apple's EULA isn't as outrageous as critics claim -- it's more and less. The licensing agreement enforces Apple proprietary e-publishing file formats. On the less side, Apple's approach isn't far removed from what print publishers do today, and US copyright law likely supersedes Apple's EULA (but not necessarily any separate agreement).

    Unprecedented Audacity

    Apple's software startles by offering several warnings about rights and distribution, which is best summed up in Section 2 of the EULA:

    B. Distribution of your Work. As a condition of this License and provided you are in compliance with its terms, your Work may be distributed as follows:

    (i) if your Work is provided for free (at no charge), you may distribute the Work by any available means;

    (ii) if your Work is provided for a fee (including as part of any subscription-based product or service), you may only distribute the Work through Apple and such distribution is subject to the following limitations and conditions: (a) you will be required to enter into a separate written agreement with Apple (or an Apple affiliate or subsidiary) before any commercial distribution of your Work may take place; and (b) Apple may determine for any reason and in its sole discretion not to select your Work for distribution.

    Software developer Dan Wineman set the Internet afire with January 19 post "Unprecedented Audacity of the iBooks Author EULA" and FAQ follow-up "Common Misconceptions about What I Wrote Yesterday". These are by far the current, authoritative looks at iBooks Author EULA and what they mean; do read them. He explains:

    This is a software EULA which for the first time attempts to restrict what I can do with the output of the app, rather than with the app itself. No consumer EULA I've ever seen goes this far. Would you be happy if Garage Band required you to sell your music through the iTunes Store, or if iPhoto had license terms that kept you from posting your own photos online? It’s a step backward for computing freedom and we should resist it...

    Restricting use is what EULAs have traditionally done. This one does something different: it restricts what you can do with the output of the software after the software is closed and put away. If you make a document using iBooks Author, you aren't allowed to sell that document except through Apple, ever, for the rest of your life.

    Like apps, Apple collects a 30-percent cut from ebooks. So authors outputting anything -- not just in the proprietary format -- would be prohibited from distributing the work anywhere else for a fee. Apple collects, and no other publisher.

    Apologists Answer

    My favorite responses about the EULA come from two diametrically opposed apologists -- Apple bully-pulpiteer John Gruber and Microsoft PR chief Frank Shaw.

    "This is Apple at its worst", Gruber writes. Wow, the EULA must be really bad for Apple apologist extraordinaire to use the "W" word, right? That's not what got me chuckling. Gruber goes on: "Let’s hope this is just the work of an overzealous lawyer, and not their actual intention". He still apologizes for Apple! John, John, John, what kind of Kool-Aid are you drinking to think that Apple top execs don't know what terms are in their licensing agreements? Apple is micro-management central, where no detail is overlooked.

    Shaw took to Twitter, showing just how effective that 140-character limit really can be. Three tweets:

    • "1. If you write a novel in Word, we promise not to take a 30% cut zd.net/zVXyuC"
    • "2. Likewise, if you deliver a speech in PowerPoint, we promise not to take 30% of your speaking fees bit.ly/ycGugt"
    • "3. If you manage your finances in Excel, we promise not to take 30% of your income bit.ly/yvAyay"

    I ask: Is this any worse than SOPA?

    More Evil

    Let's now get to the real evil behind the iBooks Author EULA: It seeks to enforce proprietary Apple e-publishing formats to a nascent market trying to standardize around EPUB.

    Daniel Glazman, co-chairman of the W3C CSS Working Group, took a look at the file formats produced by Apple's authoring software. He writes about the iBooks format: "It looks like an EPUB3 format. It smells like an EPUB3 format. But it's not at all an EPUB3 format".

    Proprietary extensions is one reason why. Apple's approach offers richer formatting, something Microsoft likewise does with Word authoring .docx documents. Microsoft claims open-standard format but true richness comes from using proprietary software. Difference: Microsoft provides zip utility for reading raw content in XML format.

    Glazman writes:

    Because of these extensions, editing or browsing the HTML documents with a regular WYSISYG editor (BlueGriffon or DreamWeaver for instance) or a browser (Firefox, Chrome or even Safari) shows a total mess on screen. It's not readable, it's not usable, it's not editable. Just forget it, Apple (re-)invented the Web totally incompatible with the Web. All in all, Apple has worked entirely behind the curtains here. If someone tells you that iBooks format is EPUB3, don't believe it. It's not EPUB3, it's only based on EPUB3...With iBooks Author, Apple is trying even more to lock their formats and the market.

    Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates understood the importance of controlling file formats. In the early 1980s, Gates put Charles Simonyi in charge of productivity applications development. Early work done by the father of Microsoft Office achieved two important goals by the mid 1990s:

    1. Established format standards that resolved problems sharing documents created by disparate products.

    2. Ensured that Microsoft file formats would become the adopted desktop productivity standards.

    Format lock-in helped drive Office sales throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s -- and Windows along with it. But even as Microsoft standards drove sales, a new standards threat had developed.

    In May 1995, Gates penned the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo that warned about the extended network's threats to Microsoft. In the memo, he specifically identified HTML, HTTP and TCP/IP. "Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats," Gates wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format "after 10 hours of browsing", but plenty of Apple QuickTime videos and Adobe PDF documents.

    Microsoft's visionary founder warned: "The Internet is the most important single development to come along since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. It is even more important than the arrival of the graphical user interface (GUI)".

    E-publishing is still a nascent and potentially hugely profitable market. Apple is in process of creating its own digital publishing platform, backed by proprietary file formats and force of legal agreements.

    Less Evil

    It's a stretch to call anything about the onerous licensing terms as less evil, but I see two things worth calling out:

    1. Apple applies to digital publishing semi-exclusivity already standard in the print world. If I write a book for (fictitious) publisher Crankpants Books, the company will ask me to sign an agreement that lets it exclusively publish my copyrighted work. This is standard publishing business today. The publisher also can restrict -- and many do -- electronic distribution rights, such as limiting the work to one reader's account rather than allowing terms for sharing. Digital Rights Management technology enforces this licensing distribution term.

    What publishers typically won't do: Allow authors to freely distribute their work, as Apple does. One could argue that Apple's terms are similar to print publishers and more generous. That said, digital distribution allows authors to self-publish using platforms like iBookstore or Amazon's Kindle Store. Apple's EULA restricts that behavior. Apple often is praised for innovation, for going places where others haven't. Here, the company truly innovates new ways to exclusively profit from others' works.

    2. The EULA may not be enforceable. Qualifying that I'm not a lawyer, I know a few things about copyrights, as someone who writes for a living and who has reported on software copyrights and EULAs for 18 years. For example, software sidesteps typical US copyright terms allowing copying by being licensed, not sold. Developers like Adobe and Microsoft would be helpless against people copying software for personal use if not for laws supporting licensing. You pay for the application, but the developer retains all rights; technically you didn't buy anything, and the developer can retract your use of the software at any time.

    Content produced by software like Word is typically sold, not licensed, which is one of many, many reasons why Microsoft couldn't restrict distribution of the writer's works like Apple tries to. It's also major reason why Wineman's calling the EULA "unprecedented" is gross understatement. Apple is trying to extend its rights over yours and doing so attempting to establish a dangerous precedent about which copyright supersedes the other -- yours as the content producer and Apple's as software developer and content distributor. I simplify complex copyright laws here, to make the point.

    What matters more is something I haven't yet seen: The secondary agreement Apple requires, which could be more akin to the contract authors sign with print publishers when giving them exclusive distribution rights. That could be enforceable, depending on terms and how voluntarily the author agrees to them. Apologies, for this report, I don't have an answer and wouldn't want to give it anyway. That's topic requiring input from copyright legal experts.

    For myself, I would never self-publish using Apple's software if for no other reason than principle. Apple's long-standing "our way or the highway" approach has really gotten out of control.

    Top Photo Credit: Fotonium/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/20/_We_just_got_Samsunged_'

    'We just got Samsunged'

    Publié: janvier 20, 2012, 8:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Since buying Galaxy Nexus last month, I haven't paid as much attention to Samsung's stunningly clever "The Next Big Thing is Already Here" advertising campaign that slaps around the iPhone hipster set. There's a new TV commercial that begins with a group of iPhone want-to-haves camped out, literally, by an Apple Store.

    "Ah that looks like last year's phone" is the killer line, says a guy rising from his sleeping bag to look at an unboxing video of, presumably, iPhone 4S. Samsung snark already has soured perceptions of iPhone and boosted those of Samsung brands, according to YouGov BrandIndex. The attack ads, which never specifically mention iPhone, marks one of the most iconic marketing campaigns since Apple's "Get a Mac".

    The evocative moment: When the Apple hipster rises from his sleeping bag, looks up at another guy holding Samsung Galaxy S II and grabs the bars of the street barrier. The subliminal message: Prison bars. He's imprisoned by his iPhone obsession, while the S2 owner is a free man.

    It's helluva entertaining marketing campaign, and I wish most movies were edited as well or communicated so much story (in so little time) as do these TV spots.

    Not that iPhone is hurting for sales. As measured in smartphone operating systems among new US purchasers, Android plummeted from 61.6 percent share in October to 46.9 percent in December, according to Nielsen. Meanwhile, iPhone rose from 25.1 percent share to 44.5 percent. Earlier in the week I asserted that broadened distribution, such as offering low-cost iPhone 4 and 3GS for free, as major factors driving iPhone's sales surge. According to Nielsen, these older handsets accounted 43 percent share among new purchasers.

    Another reason I've resisted raising, because of the over-sensitivity of the Apple mob crowd: Steve Jobs' death, which brought lots of attention to Apple just as iPhone 4S launched. If there is an afterglow from the publicity, it will show up within just a few months as the sales surge resides.

    For now, Samsung should keep the TV commercials coming. Whatever their sales value might or might not be, the ads are priceless cultural commentaries about stereotypical Apple hipsters.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/20/Anonymous_launches_SOPA_strike__takes_down_Justice_Dept.'

    Anonymous launches SOPA strike, takes down Justice Dept.

    Publié: janvier 20, 2012, 1:10am CET par Joe Wilcox

    "The Site is under maintenance. Please expect it to be back shortly". That's the message I found at Universal Music moments ago. The US Justice Department site isn't accessible at all. You can thank hacktavist group Anonymous, which claims responsibility for these and other SOPA blackouts today in response to the Feds shutting down Megaupload.

    There's a certain irony to this evening's attacks. Yesterday, tens of thousands of sites supported a voluntary blackout protesting two bills snaking through Congress -- Stop Online Piracy (SOPA) and PIPA (PROTECT IP Act). Anonymous' attacks, presumably denial-of-service, blacked out sites that either support the legislation or would be responsible for enforcing it. We've gone from voluntary blackout protests yesterday to involuntary ones today. As I write, Recording Industry Association of America is down, too.

    About two hours ago the Anonymous @YourAnonNews account tweeted: "Megaupload was taken down w/out SOPA being law. Now imagine what will happen if it passes. The Internet as we know it will end. FIGHT BACK"; after tweeting: "The government takes down #Megaupload? 15 minutes later #Anonymous takes down government & record label sites. #ExpectUs".

    Earlier, the Justice Department accused Megaupload.com of a conspiracy to traffic pirated movies, music, television programs, ebooks, and software -- for the last five years on massive, global scale and causing damages exceeding $500 million to copyright holders.

    The Feds couldn't have struck at a worse time, considering the negative response to SOPA and PIPA. Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much. (Review the bills: PIPA. SOPA.)

    Wired UK's "SOPA 101" guide is one of the best primers posted in recent days, if those bills are too long (and wordy) for you. Google offers excellent recap, too. Appropriate for today's blackouts is yet another primer of links from the @YourAnonNews Tumblr.

    @YourAnonNews tweeted around 7:20 pm ET: "You cannot censor the internet. You cannot subpoena a hashtag. You cannot arrest an idea. You CAN expect us #OpMegaupload".

    Anonymous' assault continues as I write updates to the post. Warner Music is now down (7:35 pm ET).

    About two hours ago, Anonymous tweeted: "Let's just say, for #SOPA supporters their #SOPAblackout is today. #Anonymous".

    The group claims to have taken out other sites, including the US Copyright Office and Motion Pictures Association of America. But the sites are loading fine for me, which doesn't mean they weren't down earlier.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/19/Microsoft_Q2_2012_by_the_numbers__Windows_revenue_falls_6%'

    Microsoft Q2 2012 by the numbers: Windows revenue falls 6%

    Publié: janvier 19, 2012, 10:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, Microsoft answered a question oft-asked by investors this month: What about Windows?   Near the end of his Consumer Electronics Show keynote last week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer boomed: "There's nothing more important at Microsoft than Windows".  But at the same event, Tami Reller, Windows & Windows Live  CFO,  warned that the division's fourth-quarter results could fall below analysts' estimates, because of weak PC sales. Today's fiscal second quarter 2012 earnings results answered by just how much.

    For Q2, ended December 31, Microsoft revenue was $20.89 billion, up 5 percent year over year. Operating income: $7.99 billion, a 2 percent decrease. Net income was $6.62 billion, or 78 cents a share. Both were flat year over year.

    Average analyst consensus was $20.93 billion revenue and 76 cents earnings per share, for the quarter. Revenue estimates ranged from $20.20 billion to $21.35 billion, with estimated year-over-year growth of 4.9 percent -- modest for a holiday quarter.

    "We delivered solid financial results, even as we prepare for a launch year that will accelerate many of our key products and services", Ballmer contends. "Coming out of the Consumer Electronics Show, we’re seeing very positive reviews for our new phones and PCs, and a strong response to our new Metro style design that will unify consumer experiences across our phones, PCs, tablets and television in 2012".

    Microsoft's PC Problem

    Because Windows is so important to Microsoft -- it's not just Ballmer boasting -- slowing PC sales's effects reach far beyond the operating system. But nowhere are they more apparent than the Windows & Windows Live division, which dragged down Microsoft operating and net profits. The division's revenue fell 6 percent year over year.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary calendar fourth-quarter and all-2011 PC shipments; growth was tepid globally and retracted in the United States. IDC called 2011 the "second worst year in history" for US PC shipments - with 2001 claiming the unwanted crown. Despite a global, temporary hard drive shortage, Gartner and IDC say the declines they observed -- 1.4 percent and 0.2 percent globally, respectively -- were in line with their forecasts. US declines were substantially greater, 5.9 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 6.71 percent by IDC's.

    Besides the hard drive shortage, several troubling trends have emerged. Simply put: Consumers aren't buying Windows PCs like they used to. Their spending goes to other stuff, with tablets -- and that really means iPad -- ripping away sales. We just finished the holiday quarter, one of the two seasons of typically strong sales (back to school is the other). "Continuously low consumer PC demand resulted in weak holiday PC shipments", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says.

    This consumer infection -- infatuation with iPad, some other tablets and smartphones -- is spreading. According to an IDG Connect study released this week, IT and business professionals are rapidly adopting iPads as partial or complement laptop replacements; remember these people make technology purchase decisions for entire corporations -- Microsoft's core market. Sixteen percent have replaced their laptop with an iPad and 54 percent supplement it. The data suggests that iPads are significantly starting to cannibalize PC sales -- and not just among consumers -- and it's consistent with recent global PC buying trends.

    Earth to Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofksy: You can't ship Windows 8 soon enough. The new operating system, which runs on ARM as well as x86 processors, is optimized for tablets as well as PCs. Microsoft can fill an important niche in the PC sales-cannibalizing tablet marketing -- offer a truly desktop operating system that runs the same applications and supports enterprise services as those on PCs. Windows 8 public beta is currently slated to be available late next month, which, based on previous versions, puts public availability around October.

    Q2 2012 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.74 billion, down 6 percent from $5.06 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $4.77 billion, up 11 percent from $4.29  billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $6.28 billion, up 3 percent from $6.11 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $784 million, up 10 percent from $713 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $4.24 billion, up 15 percent from $3.7 billion a year earlier.

    Q2 2012 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $2.85 billion, down 11 percent from $3.21 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.97 billion, up 17 percent from $1.7 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $4.15 billion, up 2 percent from $4.09 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $458 million, up 18 percent from $559 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $528 million, down 21 percent from $666 million a year earlier.

    Division Highlights

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Weaker than-expected PC demand hurt the division during fiscal second quarter. Revenue fell 6 percent year over year, which is simply stunning during the holiday quarter. Worse: Operating income declined by 11 percent.

    Microsoft estimates that global PC sales fell between 2 percent and 4 percent, greatly contributing to Windows revenue decline. Consumer PC sales fell by 6 percent, while those to businesses actually rose -- by 2 percent. Netbooks fell 2 percent.

    OEM revenue fell by 7 percent, which reflects weakness in PC shipments identified by Gartner and IDC. Three-quarters of Windows divisional revenues comes from OEM sales.

    To date, Microsoft has sold 525 million Windows 7 licenses. One-third of enterprise desktops run Windows 7, the company claims.

    Server & Tools. Revenue rose 11 percent year over year and operating income by 17 percent. The division is insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements.

    "Product revenue increased $328 million or 10%, driven primarily by growth in SQL Server, Windows Server, Enterprise CAL Suites, and System Center, reflecting continued adoption of Windows platform applications", according to the company.

    Business. The division was the quarter's big overall performer (again), but grew modestly, with revenue up 3 percent and income each up 2 percent year over year. However, adjusting for the tech-revenue guarantee a year earlier, related to the Office 2010 launch, revenue grew by 7 percent. Revenue topped a whopping $6.2 billion.

    Annuity licensing grew a stunning 12 percent. Lync revenue grew by 30 percent.  "Microsoft Office system. Business revenue increased $420 million or 9 percent, primarily reflecting growth in multi-year volume licensing revenue, licensing of the 2010 Microsoft Office system to transactional business customers, and an 11 percent increase in Microsoft Dynamics revenue", according to the company.

    Like Server & Tools, Business division is largely insulated against sluggish PC sales. Sixty percent of revenue comes from annuity licensing to businesses.

    Online Services Business. Online services revenue rose by 10 percent. Search and display ads drove up online advertising revenue by 13 percent -- $81 million to $713 million. "OSD operating loss decreased due primarily to higher revenue and lower sales and marketing expenses, offset in part by increased cost of revenue", according to Microsoft's financial release. The change: 18 percent.

    Entertainment & Devices.  Revenue rose by 15 percent, but losses increased by 21 percent year over year. Microsoft shipped 8.2 million Xboxes during the quarter. Xbox Live subscriptions rose 33 percent to 40 million. Kinect install base: 18 million.

    "Xbox 360 platform revenue grew $322 million or 9%, led by increased volumes of Xbox 360 consoles sold and higher Xbox Live revenue, offset in part by lower volumes of standalone Kinect sensors sold", according to the company.

    Microsoft now reports on Skype, which has 200 million active users globally.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/18/It_s_not_because_of_iPhone_4S'

    It's not because of iPhone 4S

    Publié: janvier 18, 2012, 8:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's again my reaction to startling US mobile numbers that Nielsen released today. Like comScore, Nielsen shows dramatic -- and I mean absolutely stunning -- changes in Android and iPhone adoption since the 4S shipped. Android share, as measured in smartphone operating systems among new purchasers, plummeted from 61.6 percent in October to 46.9 percent in December. Meanwhile, iPhone rose from 25.1 percent share to 44.5 percent. Distribution -- not release of iPhone 4S -- is reason, or so I say.

    Nielsen, naturally sees something else: "The high-profile launch of Apple’s iPhone 4S in the Fall had an enormous impact on the proportion of smartphone owners who chose an Apple iPhone" -- that would be for November and December. But that simplistic analysis overlooks mitigating factors. Among the most important -- 43 percent of new buyers chose older iPhones 4 or 3GS.

    More broadly, the influences:

    • iPhone 4 and 3GS price cuts -- to $99 and free, respectively.
    • Addition of new carrier partners, Sprint nationally and some regional (C Spire).
    • iPhone sells alongside Androids on all three major carriers, meaning there's competition from Apple.
    • iCloud is a hugely appealing service and, along with iOS 5, is available for all three iPhone versions -- 3GS, 4 and 4S.

    All these things dramatically broadened iPhone distribution in the United States. The new carriers opened up iPhone to subscribers who couldn't or wouldn't switch to get the handset. Lower pricing on older models broadened the number of people who wanted iPhone but couldn't or wouldn't pay $199 or more to get one. Lower pricing also lessened the appeal of cheap Androids these Americans might otherwise have purchased.

    The proof is in earlier comScore and Nielsen data, even without benefit of separated sales -- for iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S -- which would definitively answer who is buying what. According to comScore, the top three selling iPhones are 4S, 4 and 3GS in that order, which certainly says something. But Nielsen says more: "57 percent of new iPhone owners surveyed in December said they got an iPhone 4S". That means 43 percent bought one of the two older models; that's the sales power of lower pricing.

    The historical data tells an interesting story. Despite the hype, iPhone share among all subscribers or new purchasers did not perceptually change following the release of iPhone 4 on AT&T and later on Verizon. It was a big upgrade from iPhone 3GS, with new enclosure, dramatically better display and higher-resolution camera. By comparison, the 4S was a modest upgrade.

    For example, according to comScore, from August to November 2010, iPhone US subscriber share rose less than one point -- to 25 percent. This was during the post-iPhone 4 launch period. Over the next year, iPhone nudged up to about 27 percent average share, while Android soared, whether measured by install base or new purchasers.

    Then Verizon release iPhone 4 in February 2011, with wild predictions Apple handset's would make huge share gains. It didn't. Canalys was right a year ago, when it predicted that iPhone 4 on Verizon wouldn't slow Android growth. For example, Android share was 39 percent in June 2011 compared to 28 percent for iPhone, says Nielsen. Android share reached 40 percent in July, compared to 28 percent for iPhone. At end of third quarter, 43 percent for Android and 28 percent for iPhone. In August, 56 percent of new US smartphone purchasers chose Android and 28 percent iPhone, also according to Nielsen.

    The historical data contradicts earlier projections that both iPhone 4 launches would bring huge share gains. Meanwhile, 4S is, as previously mentioned, a modest upgrade. Different now: Distribution, particularly availability of lower-cost older models, to a new market of buyers. Unquestionably, Apple's handset is on a roll, at least here in the United States, but it's not because of iPhone 4S.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/18/iPad_invades_the_enterprise'

    iPad invades the enterprise

    Publié: janvier 18, 2012, 6:19pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last week I chimed: "Only Windows 8 can save the PC market now". Weak consumer computer sales forebode market shifts ahead, but so do those in the enterprise. An IDG Connect study reveals just how much: IT and business decision makers are augmenting or replacing PCs with iPads at an alarming rate.

    "Fully 51 percent of IT and business decision-makers say they always use their iPad at work", according to the report -- and, of course, that's the number who actually own the tablet. Sixteen percent have replaced their laptop with an iPad and 54 percent supplement it. Remember, these numbers are for people responsible for corporate computing. As the wind shifts in their sails -- or should that be sales -- so does it eventually across the computing infrastructure. The data suggests that iPads are significantly starting to cannibalize PC sales -- and not just among consumers -- and it's consistent with recent global PC buying trends.

    For PC vendors and Microsoft the most troubling data comes from some international markets, where Apple has done well recently, and emerging locales that still aren't PC sales saturated like the United States is. In the Middle East and Asia, 70 percent and 63 percent, respectively, of IT and business professionals have "partly replaced" their laptop with iPad. "In South America, 27 percent have 'completely replaced' their laptop with an iPad", according to the report. "In Europe, the figure is 23 percent".

    In Africa, 47 percent of iPads are purchased by employers -- 40 percent in Europe. In some global markets, then, consumerization of IT is much less a factor bringing iPad into the workplace. Businesses buy the tablets, and professionals use them for work, primarily for web browsing, reading and news consumption. Web browsing includes accessing work-related assets on local intranets.

    "These findings suggest that a substantial number of professionals regard their iPad as a viable business tool", according to the study.

    The implications for Microsoft are staggering. There is no Microsoft Office for iPad, yet IT decision-makers are supplementing or replacing their computers with Apple's tablet. However, work usage habits vary dramatically by region, which not surprisingly is in line with Microsoft core markets.

    According to the report, "North Americans use their iPads slightly more intensively than the global norm, with a strong emphasis on web-based functionality". If persistent rumors about Office coming to iPad aren't true, perhaps they should be. And if anyone is looking for reason why the rumors could be true, here it is.

    However, iPad's impact doesn't stop with the personal computer. It in some ways starts there. According to the report:

    "Our survey also suggests that tablet computing is transforming patterns of content consumption. iPad-owning IT and business professionals are rapidly migrating away from newspapers and printed books, toward digital alternatives. To a lesser extent, they are moving away from DVD-based audio-visual content towards wholly-digital alternatives. This transition is taking place with striking speed. As tablet computing emerges into the mainstream, both media owners and marketers who produce content will need to consider the implications carefully".

    That finding sheds some perspective on Apple's media event planned for January 19 that is rumored to be education related. What if education means something more than e-textbooks, as has been rumored?

    The more important question, if you have an iPad, has it displaced or even replaced your work PC?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/18/Wikipedia_goes_dark_for_24_hours'

    Wikipedia goes dark for 24 hours

    Publié: janvier 18, 2012, 4:21pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    SOPA blackout day has arrived, and Wikipedia is going farther than the planned 12-hour protest -- from 8 am to 8 pm. The community encyclopedia is going down for twice as long. Today, we'll all learn just how important Wikipedia is to the Internet community. I find it a valuable resource as a journalist. Will you miss it?

    Still, there is a nugget of information to be had from Wikipedia: About why the protest. Like many other sites today, the open encyclopedia stands against two pieces of legislation here in the United States: PROTECT IP Act (PIPA), introduced by senators in May, and October bill Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), introduced in the House. A delayed House vote, from December, was scheduled for today but postponed following last week's statement from the White House. SOPA is weakened but not done yet. SOPA Strike provides an excellent timeline for both bills. Senate vote is still scheduled for January 24.

    "Wikipedia is protesting against SOPA and PIPA by blacking out the English Wikipedia for 24 hours, beginning at midnight January 18, Eastern Time", according to the "SOPA and PIPA -- Learn more" page. "Readers who come to English Wikipedia during the blackout will not be able to read the encyclopedia. Instead, you will see messages intended to raise awareness about SOPA and PIPA, encouraging you to share your views with your representatives, and with each other on social media".

    Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much. (Review the bills: PIPA. SOPA.)

    Wired UK's "SOPA 101" guide is one of the best primers posted in recent days, if those bills are too long (and wordy) for you.

    Wikipedia's position:

    These bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Act and PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. GovTrack lets you follow both bills through the legislative process: SOPA on this page, and PIPA on this one. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to advocating for the public interest in the digital realm, has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.

    Wikipedia is by no means the only protester. SOPA Strike has compiled a long list of participants. But few sites are going as far as Wikipedia. For example, Google has blacked out its logo on the search page. Clicking the large rectangle leads to a "take action" page. Not surprisingly, Google opposes both bills. From its SOPA and PIPA info page:

    Law-abiding US Internet companies would have to monitor everything users link to or upload or face the risk of time-consuming litigation...To make matters worse, SOPA and PIPA won’t even work. The censorship regulations written into these bills won’t shut down pirate sites. These sites will just change their addresses and continue their criminal activities, while law-abiding companies will suffer high penalties for breaches they can’t possibly control.

    Imagine the impact -- the point to be made -- if Google went dark for even one hour to demonstrate how SOPA or PIPA could negatively affect businesses using the Internet. Of course, lawyers would line up to sue on behalf of lost business revenues. Eh? If Google went dark in protest.

    The White House's position is the most perplexing around SOPA and PIPA. "While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet", according to the statement, authored by Aneesh Chopra, US chief technology officer; Victoria Espinel, intellectual property enforcement coordinator; and Howard Schmidt, cybersecurity coordinator. There is stated position to "work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation" that stops piracy and preserves freedom of speech.

    As I stated yesterday, if the Obama Administration really opposes SOPA and PIPA, then prove it: Blackout Whitehouse.gov today. Show support for protecting Internet freedoms. Have a look, there's nothing supporting today's protest.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/17/Will_your_website_go_dark_to_protest_SOPA_'

    Will your website go dark to protest SOPA?

    Publié: janvier 17, 2012, 9:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Jan. 18, 2012 is designated SOPA blackout day, with prominent websites planning to go dark in protest of two bills working through Congress -- Stop Online Privacy Act and PROTECT IP Act (PIPA). If you've got a big school project due Thursday and plan on using Wikipedia, get your research done today. The community-based encyclopedia plans to go dark tomorrow, and it's not alone.

    The proposed legislation has generated gigabytes of negative responses, which included a Go Daddy boycott for supporting SOPA (since retracted) and culminates in tomorrow's blackout. Two months ago, I posed poll: "US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?" More than 3,500 responses later, 95 percent answered "No". You're not alone.

    To recap, Senators introduced PIPA in May and House representatives did likewise with SOPA in October. Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much. (Review the bills: PIPA. SOPA.)

    Wired UK's "SOPA 101" guide is one of the best primers posted in recent days, if those bills are too long (and wordy) for you.

    Last week, the White House finally took a position about SOPA and PIPA: "While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet".

    Tomorrow's blackout protest was scheduled to coincide with a House vote on SOPA, which has been postponed, leading to many cries of victory over the legislation. SOPA isn't dead, and last I checked the Senate still plans to vote on PIPA as scheduled. SOPA is on hold, not that the White House is really helping. The statement -- from Aneesh Chopra, US chief technology officer; Victoria Espinel, intellectual property enforcement coordinator; and Howard Schmidt, cybersecurity coordinator -- merely steps back from the proposed legislation.

    "Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation", they write. Meaning: They're backing off because of public pressure. More than 51,800 people signed petition: "VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information".

    If the Obama Administration really opposes SOPA and PIPA, then prove it: Blackout Whitehouse.gov tomorrow. Show support for protecting Internet freedoms.

    The Go Daddy boycott shows just how impassioned are SOPA and PIPA opponents. My question: How far well they -- you -- go? Will you boycott sites that don't support the blackout? Facebook, Google, Tumblr and WordPress.com, for example -- I've seen nothing yet indicating blackouts planned for tomorrow. Imagine the impact if Bing and Google went dark for 12 hours on January 18.

    Wikipedia will go dark, or so founder Jimmy Wales tweeted yesterday and then boasted: "This is going to be wow. I hope Wikipedia will melt phone systems in Washington on Wednesday. Tell everyone you know!" Wikipedia's official announcement released later. Reddit also will go dark, but not Twitter. Yesterday, CEO Dick Costolo made clear Twitter's blackout position in a couple of tweets: "Closing a global business in reaction to single-issue national politics is foolish" and "Not shutting down a service doesn't equal not taking the proper stance on an issue. We've been very clear about our stance".

    Twitter has vocally opposed both bills, but Costolo's tweets, in response to others, don't reflect that. He put it in business perspective, which is more in the spirit of content providers, such as those in Hollywood, supporting SOPA and PIPA. More sensible response: "Twitter is a tool of free speech. Blackout would suppress it". That fits in less than 140-characters. :)

    Will you take down your site to oppose SOPA? If you have a third-party hosted WordPress site, meaning not WordPress.com, there are many plug-ins available to automate the process. Please answer in comments. Before anyone asks, I will take down my personal website from 8 am to 8 pm EST tomorrow, but, sadly, don't think it matters much since I haven't posted there in months (I've been too busy at BetaNews).

    Photo Credit: sagasan/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/15/Mom_s_PC_is_Google_TV'

    Mom's PC is Google TV

    Publié: janvier 15, 2012, 7:47pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The weekend before Christmas, mom phoned, excited, to tell me about her new 46-inch TV. She lives on a tight budget, but received an unexpected $350 windfall from Social Security. That's lots of money to her, and she spent most of it on a Sylvania big-screen television. The purchase inspired her holiday present, which I hadn't yet decided on: Google TV.

    Mom will be 71 this year, and she's confined to a wheelchair because of diabetes, which also has diminished her eyesight. For my mum, the PC and TV are vitally important, particularly during long New England winters when she can't get out often. Much as the Google Cr-48 Chromebook meets most of her computing needs, the 12.1-inch screen is too small, particularly in context: Mom previously used a 17-inch iMac G5 (purchased in October 2005); the graphics chip failed last year. What mom really needs is something really big, and there Google TV offers the benefits of television and PC in one package.

    I wanted to send mom the Sony NSZ-GT1 Google TV and Blu-ray player. Sony is committed to Google TV. The other supporter at the time, Logitech, had given up on the platform after losing tens of millions of dollars on it. But for mom to use Google TV as her PC, Sony's tiny game-controller-like remote wouldn't do. Logitech Revue comes with wireless keyboard that makes more sense for typing and for using Google TV as a personal computer. Mom loves it. She's liberated by Revue.

    Mom isn't an obsessive TV watcher. The big benefit is getting PC capabilities on a screen she can actually read and use on the television services like Netflix streaming that are primary forms of entertainment on her personal computer. Google TV couldn't meet mom's needs, if not for Chrome. The browser opens up all the cloud and content applications she's used -- particularly since moving to Chromebook six months ago, she has lived in the cloud, and that's an experience easily transferred to Google TV. So now she surfs the web and checks and writes email on the big screen, for example. It's ideal for her needs.

    I wouldn't have been as inspired about sending her the Revue, if not for Google TV 2.0 software released in October and delivered to the Logitech set-top box last month. The user experience is greatly improved. Still, I'm dissatisfied with the update, for failing to truly transform Google TV. But it seems to be a work in progress that requires change of habits. The progress: Google adding more content partners, and some stuff not seen much anywhere else -- like Crunchyroll. The habits: To really appreciate Google TV, you've got to largely give up the cable or IPTV provider's program guide.

    For mom, Google TV is working out better than Chromebook for two other reasons that I would never have guessed: Apps and Android. Mom uses the Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Nexus S smartphone I got for free (with 2-year contract activation), during a Best Buy one-day special last summer. The Android phone experience makes Google TV easier for her to grasp than does Chrome OS, which surprised me; I reasoned that the browser would be the more familiar interface. Perhaps, but if you're looking for more out of any computing device, apps and customization matter more -- and these attributes make Google TV easier to use and more familiar to her.

    On the apps front, I'm quite interested in how the OEMs differ in their distributions. I updated Logitech Revue to Google TV 2.0 before sending it to mom but didn't use it. Unless my imagination has gone awry, there was an Amazon video-on-demand app installed with the Android update. Well, hell, I don't have one of those on my Sony Google TV. I have to use Chrome or go to Amazon Instant Videos from Google TV's movie search feature. Why Logitech and not Sony?

    Back to mom, she needed some assistance physically setting up Revue -- being mostly confined to the wheel chair. Mom's Comcast cable box is in another room, so uses WiFi and not wired connection. Software setup she handled, including cable box, channel guide and other basic capabilities. She's sometimes confused when using Google TV 2.0, but the Home bar provides a safety zone. The remote is dunsel. My mum uses the keyboard and Revue to navigate the Comcast box and program guide, but she is only just starting to understand the benefits of Google search to find content.

    "I like everything about the Google TV", mom says, and I couldn't get her to be more specific than that -- perhaps because it so simply suits her basic computing, communications, entertainment and informational needs.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/14/New_Samsung_Chromebook_is_a_cheap__plastic_MacBook'

    New Samsung Chromebook is a cheap, plastic MacBook

    Publié: janvier 14, 2012, 2:16am CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you missed the new Series 5 Chromebook at Consumer Electronics Show 2012, there's a reason. Samsung practically hid the thing, during an event of otherwise big, big announcements from the South Korean electronics giant. Disappointment is my reaction to the new offering, which, regrettably doesn't temp me back to using a Chromebook.

    I asked my colleague Tim Conneally, who got up close to the new Chromebook in this video, for his reaction. "My first impression: it looks like a plastic MacBook". Ah, yeah, hasn't Samsung been having problems with Apple, fending off accusations of imitating products. Judge for yourself, from the photo and link to Tim's video. Doesn't the new Series 5 Chromebook resemble MacBook but donned in plastic?

    But there's something more important than missing metal. My bigger concern is performance, to which Tim dismally responded: "The difference in handling is imperceptible". The specs are largely unchanged from the original. System memory is still 2GB and the processor is less crappy. Not good, just not as bad. Samsung is unleashing an unworthy successor and one that makes Chromebook less appealing than the original -- seeing as v1 isn't enough and the new one isn't much more than a new MacBook-like enclosure and speedier processor. Specs are otherwise the same, or seem to be based on the little info released by Samsung.

    A Real Under-performer

    For two months last summer, I used a Samsung Series 5 Chromebook as my primary PC in the first weeks and as my only one later on. I found the overall cloud experience to be refreshing, no liberating, but Chromebook grated on me the longer I used it. The problem: Performance. On the software side, Google continually updates Chrome OS, which got better with each of the many updates. But the hardware is steadfast. At the least, Chromebook needs 4GB of memory. But really the processor -- and, more importantly, the graphics chip -- simply aren't good enough.

    Living in the cloud doesn't free Chromebook from daily computing demands. If anything there are more, because so much activity is conducted online and so many services require Adobe Flash, which still seems wonky to me on Chrome OS -- that's without the demands placed on CPU, GPU and Net bandwidth.

    In early October, when writing about giving up Chromebook, I didn't fuss much over what was for me sluggish performance. I'm a power user and, presumably, atypical of the type of person most likely to use a system running Chrome OS. But after getting back to a real computer, my feelings about performance lag are more pronounced.

    Currently, I'm using the Lenovo ThinkPad T420s with: 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 processor (with 3MB L3 cache); 14-inch matte screen (with 1600 x 900 resolution); 160GB Intel sold-state drive; 4GB of DDR3 memory (1333MHz); DVD burner; WebCam; Ethernet; WiFi N, memory card reader; 3 USB ports, one each HDMI and VGA port; and Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. The original Chromebook -- and, sadly its successor -- isn't in the same league. Chrome OS changed my computing habits, so I still largely do everything in the browser, but there's real performance on ThinkPad T420s and none of the waiting common with the Samsung Series 5.

    My Chromebook config: 12.1-inch LED display with 1280 x 800 resolution and 16:10 aspect ratio; 1.66GHz Intel Atom N570 processor; 2GB DDR3 memory (not expandable); 16GB solid-state storage; integrated NM10 graphics; ALC272 integrated audio; stereo speakers (which in my tests deliver surprisingly rich sound for the class of machine); internal microphone; 1-megapixel webcam; WiFi N; Verizon 3G (on higher-end model); headphone/Mic jack; two USB ports; 4-in-1 memory card reader (SD / SDHC / SDXC / MMC); and 6-cell battery (with stated life of 8.5 hours).

    Specs are sketchy, but Samsung claims the new Chromebook has 3X performance from the dual-core Celeron processor, which granted is a step up from the single-core Atom processor on v1. But Tim's assessment isn't encouraging, since he has Samsung's original Chromebook and has experience enough for spot comparison.

    There's no Samsung press release I could find about the new Chromebook, nor does Samsung's Flickr account -- loaded with photos of everything else. There's plenty on Samsung's Series 9 ultrabook, which design and features are jaw-dropping. As for Series 5 Chromebook, it's a plastic MacBook with few of the benefits.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/12/Android_Design_tells_the_Ice_Cream_Sandwich_story'

    Android Design tells the Ice Cream Sandwich story

    Publié: janvier 12, 2012, 9:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you're writing apps for Android, or even thinking about it, Google has a new site for you: Android Design. Well, I think it's new. A blog post popped into my RSS feeds late this afternoon, but dated yesterday. So I can't say whence came Android Design.

    Christian Robertson, the guy behind the Roboto font family used in Ice Cream Sandwich -- you know, Android 4.0 -- calls the new site "the place to learn about principles, building blocks, and patterns for creating world-class Android user interfaces. Whether you’re a UI professional or a developer playing that role, these docs show you how to make good design decisions, big and small". Heck, even if you're just an Ice Cream Sandwich user (gimme Galaxy Nexus), Android Design is worth your time.

    Why end users? Because the site goes into vivid detail about the design principles behind Ice Cream Sandwich. It's essentially the operating systems' story -- and that will grow with the number of devices. Until this week's Consumer Electronics Show, Android 4.0 was available just on Galaxy Nexus or to those Nexus S smartphones having received the update (I'm still waiting for it). But several mobile device manufacturers upped their commitment during CES. For example, ASUS Eee Pad Transformer Prime will get ICS imminently and new Huawei MediaPads will ship with Android 4.0 later in the quarter.

    Ice Cream Sandwich is the future of Android, closing the fork between Gingerbread (for smartphones) and Honeycomb (for tablets). Whatever design principles Google applies here will carry forward to future versions. Perhaps there will be future integration, between Android and Chrome OS, down the road -- or Android could someday replace the browser-based operating system.

    Perhaps because of my profession, I glommed on to writing guidelines for developers' apps, which could apply to day-to-day communications for anyone:

    1. Keep it brief. Be concise, simple and precise. Start with a 30 character limit (including spaces), and don't use more unless absolutely necessary.

    2. Keep it simple. Pretend you're speaking to someone who's smart and competent, but doesn't know technical jargon and may not speak English very well. Use short words, active verbs, and common nouns.

    3. Be friendly. Use contractions. Talk directly to the reader using second person ("you"). If your text doesn't read the way you'd say it in casual conversation, it's probably not the way you should write it. Don't be abrupt or annoying and make the user feel safe, happy and energized.

    4. Put the most important thing first. The first two words (around 11 characters, including spaces) should include at least a taste of the most important information in the string. If they don't, start over.

    5. Describe only what's necessary, and no more. Don't try to explain subtle differences. They will be lost on most users.

    6. Avoid repetition. If a significant term gets repeated within a screen or block of text, find a way to use it just once.

    I agree with all but the last, for general writing (apps are different). In long-form writing, a little repetition helps to emphasize the point.

    As for Android Design, Robertson promises: "The Android User Experience Team is committed to helping you design amazing apps that people love, and this is just the beginning. In the coming months, we’ll expand Android Design with more in-depth contents".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/12/Microsoft_search_share_tops_Yahoo__and__whoa__that_s_not_a_good_thing'

    Microsoft search share tops Yahoo, and, whoa, that's not a good thing

    Publié: janvier 12, 2012, 8:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I told you so. In summer 2009, I asserted that the Microsoft-Yahoo search deal was "Google's Christmas-in-July present". Reasoning: By Yahoo outsourcing search to Microsoft, Bing would cannibalize share from its partner rather than lead to the combined entity gaining against Google. Last month, Bing US search share nudged ahead of Yahoo, according to comScore. It's a setback for Microsoft.

    Google remains the big winner in the search share wars with Microsoft. In June 2009, the month before the announced search outsourcing deal, Google share was 65 percent. Yahoo and Microsoft were 19.6 percent and 8.4 percent, respectively, or 28 percent combined. In December 2011, Google search share was 65.9 percent, Microsoft 15.1 percent and Yahoo 14.5 percent -- for combined 29.6 percent. That's lower than November when Microsoft-Yahoo share was 30.1 percent. The point: Little has changed since the search deal was announced, except that Microsoft has cannibalized share from Yahoo.

    Well, something else changed. Yahoo gave up its crown jewels to Microsoft, only to end up worse for wear in market share. Microsoft gives hundreds of millions of dollars to Yahoo, for search share that could have been gained organically and probably was -- as the software giant improved Bing and unleashed compelling advertising. Microsoft is in process of making Bing more of a development platform with Windows 8, where developers can easily tap the service into their products -- a move that can grow share irrespective of Yahoo.

    For Bing, the search share gains are impressive. One year earlier, December 2010, Microsoft share was 12 percent and Yahoo 16 percent, for combined 28 percent. Google was 66.6 percent. Oh? 666. Who says Google isn't evil? ;-)

    Of course, Microsoft should gain as much search share as possible. But the gains need to come from Google, not Yahoo. Looking over the historical data, there have been ups and downs for all three parties but one constant: Microsoft taking share from Yahoo and not Google.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/12/Only_Windows_8_can_save_the_PC_market_now'

    Only Windows 8 can save the PC market now

    Publié: janvier 12, 2012, 6:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Three days ago, near the end of his last Consumer Electronics Show keynote, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer boomed: "There's nothing more important at Microsoft than Windows". He better mean it, because the Windows PC is in big trouble. Fourth-quarter US personal computer sales were outright disastrous, while overall 2011 global growth was the worst since 2001. Recession that year devastated PC shipments, despite Windows XP's late-year launch.

    There is no single reason for weak shipments during fourth quarter, when holiday sales typically give PCs a boost: Economic crisis in Europe, hard drive shortages following flooding in Thailand and weak demand among consumers, among others. There is a convergence of factors -- a cascading effect that disproportionately affects Windows PCs compared to Macs. On the Windows side, only Lenovo has proved immune. Apple meanwhile continues to sell Macs hand over fist, as they say, while Windows is at risk.

    Worst Year Since 2001

    On Tuesday, Tami Reller, chief financial officer for Windows and Windows Live, warned that the division's fourth-quarter results could fall below analysts' estimates (That's her above from the Microsoft CES keynote). She largely blamed the natural disaster in Thailand and estimated that PC shipments fell about 1 percent year over year.

    Late yesterday afternoon, Gartner and IDC both released preliminary fourth quarter and full 2011 PC shipment data. Reller's statement indicated something unexpected, because of the stated reason. However, Gartner and IDC say the declines they observed -- 1.4 percent and 0.2 percent globally, respectively -- were in line with their forecasts. US declines were substantially greater, 5.9 percent by Gartner's reckoning and 6.71 percent by IDC's. The full year wasn't much better, with IDC calling 2011 the "second worst year in history" for US PC shipments.

    The hard drive shortage is a mitigating factor that obviously cannot be ignored, but Microsoft is wrong to principally lay blame there. It's not like retailers sold out of PCs during the holidays because they couldn't get enough stock on the shelves. Shipments into the channel were down, but sales to businesses or consumers weren't necessarily up -- that is for most vendors. Gartner calls the hard drive shortage's fourth-quarter impact "limited". The full force is still ahead, and it comes during a quarter of lower sales anyway. IDC says that first quarter is when "the full impact of the HDD shortage is felt". Gartner is a bit more dismal, warning "first half" of 2012.

    That, by the way, isn't necessarily bad for Microsoft and likely could have unforeseen benefits. The Redmond, Wash.-based company plans to release Windows 8 public beta in late February, which, based on past releases, likely will slow down current version license sales ahead of the new version's launch. Better there be a hard drive shortage now than in autumn, when, presumably, Windows 8 ships.

    Top 5 Vendors, Worldwide PC Shipments, Fourth Quarter 2011 (Preliminary) (Units Shipments are in thousands) 

    Rank

    		 Vendor

    4Q11

    Shipments

    Market

    Share

    4Q10

    Shipments

    Market

    Share

    4Q11/4Q10

    Growth

    1

    		 HP

    15,123

    16.31%

    17,989

    19.37%

    -15.93%

    2

    		 Lenovo

    13,012

    14.04%

    9,514

    10.25%

    36.77%

    3

    		 Dell

    11,970

    12.91%

    11,156

    12.01%

    7.30%

    4

    		 Acer Group

    9,790

    10.56%

    10,643

    11.46%

    -8.02%

    5

    		 ASUS

    6,243

    6.73%

    4,944

    5.32%

    26.29%
    Others

    36,564

    39.44%

    38,615

    41.58%

    -5.31%
    All Vendor

    92,702

    100.00%

    92,861

    100.00%

    -0.17%

    Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, January 11, 2012

    Focus on Fundamentals

    No one should let Microsoft, or even analysts, distract from fundamentals beyond short-term shortages of a key component. Simply put: Consumers aren't buying Windows PCs like they used to. Their spending goes to other stuff, with tablets -- and that really means iPad -- ripping away sales. We just finished the holiday quarter, one of the two seasons of typically strong sales (back to school is the other).

    "Continuously low consumer PC demand resulted in weak holiday PC shipments", Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, says. Not hard drive shortages, but weak consumer demand. "While economic uncertainty in Western Europe had an effect on consumer PC shipments, expectations of a healthier economic outlook in North America could not stimulate consumer PC demand in that region. The healthy professional PC market as well as growth in emerging markets could not compensate for the weaknesses in mature markets, with overall growth still negative".

    How negative? In the United States, fourth-quarter PC shipments fell for every vendor but Apple, according to Gartner. HP shipments plummeted by more than 26 percent, while Apple's grew by 20.7 percent. IDC put HP's decline at 25.3 percent and Apple's gain at 18 percent. The Mac maker solidified its No. 3 ranking, with market share rising to 11.6 percent from 9 percent year over year according to Gartner and to 10.92 percent from 8.63 percent by IDC's reckoning.

    Top 5 Vendors, United States PC Shipments, Fourth Quarter 2011 (Preliminary) (Units Shipments are in thousands) 

    Rank

    		 Vendor

    4Q11

    Shipments

    Market

    Share

    4Q10

    Shipments

    Market

    Share

    4Q11/4Q10

    Growth

    1

    		 HP

    4,274

    23.02%

    5,721

    28.74%

    -25.30%

    2

    		 Dell

    4,166

    22.44%

    4,372

    21.96%

    -4.70%

    3

    		 Apple

    2,028

    10.92%

    1,718

    8.63%

    18.00%

    4

    		 Toshiba

    1,925

    10.37%

    1,968

    9.89%

    -2.20%

    5

    		 Acer Group

    1,511

    8.14%

    1,765

    8.87%

    -14.37%
    Others

    4,666

    25.13%

    4,361

    21.91%

    6.98%
    All Vendors

    18,569

    100.00%

    19,906

    100.00%

    -6.71%

    Source: IDC Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker, January 11, 2012

    The Mac is big windfall benefactor of the PC shipment/sales crisis, because:

    • Apple's brand is sizzling hot right now.
    • Most people use Windows, which is old to them if upgrading, while the Mac is fresh.
    • iPad cannibalize Windows PC sales, as businesses and consumers buy the tablet as upgrade companion or even replacement.
    • Apple is more insulated from the hard drive shortage, in part because of how it sources components compared to most other computer makers.

    "The industry still needs to work through some key hurdles in 2012, including recovery of HDD supply, the launch of Windows 8, and successful evolution of PC design to become still more mobile", Loren Loverde, IDC vice president, says. He's optimistic long-term. "Despite the challenges, the industry appears to be on the right path, and will be poised for substantial double-digit growth after working through these issues in 2012".

    I've heard those predictions before, such as Gartner and IDC gangbuster forecasts for 2000 and 2001 or 2008 and 2009, before economic crisis crippled PC markets. Both analyst firms downgraded PC shipment projections throughout 2011, so don't bank on Loverde's enthusiasm. There remains lots of uncertainty and risk, as:

    • Economic uncertainty (particularly in Europe) remains
    • Major PC vendors place big bets on ultrabooks
    • Media tablets suck away PC sales
    • Windows 8 launches

    Product Refreshes to the Rescue?

    "In the United States, market saturation and the economic environment continue to weigh considerably on consumer demand. However, the market is awaiting new products and technologies, promising a new refresh cycle starting in 3Q12 and beyond with a return to positive growth in the mid-term", said David Daoud, IDC research director, says.

    Preliminary Worldwide PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 4Q11 (Units)

    Company

    4Q11 Shipments

    4Q11 Market Share (%)

    4Q10 Shipments

    4Q10 Market Share (%)

    4Q11-4Q10 Growth (%)
    HP 14,712,266 16.0 17,554,181 18.8 -16.2
    Lenovo 12,931,136 14.0 10,516,772 11.3 23.0
    Dell 11,633,880 12.6 10,796,317 11.6 7.8
    Acer Group 9,823,214 10.7 12,043,606 12.9 -18.4
    Asus 6,243,118 6.8 5,180,913 5.5 20.5
    Others 36,827,666 40.0 37,358,786 40.0 -1.4
    Total 92,171,280 100.0 93,450,575 100.0 -1.4

    Source: Gartner (January 2012)

    Ultrabook and Windows 8 are the two technologies that will matter most, but the former is off to a shaky start. "Ultrabooks were quietly introduced into the market during the 4Q11 holiday season", Kitagawa osbserves. "Ultrabooks didn’t seem to draw consumers' attention. Consumers had very little understanding and awareness of ultrabooks, and only a small group of consumers was willing to pay the price premium for such models. However, as has been seen this week at the International Consumer Electronics Show...2012 is a big debut stage for ultrabooks".

    Getting on stage is one thing. Finishing the performance, rather than being booed off, is another. Windows 8 will give ultrabooks their biggest appeal -- and a rash of forthcoming tablets, too. It's major reason Microsoft must get out Windows 8 public beta fast and build up interest among businesses and, more importantly consumers. Windows 8's Metro UI is fresh -- different from past versions and also Mac OS. New is good in markets like the United States, where most everyone likely to buy a Windows PC already has at least one.

    Preliminary United States PC Vendor Unit Shipment Estimates for 4Q11 (Units)

    Company

    4Q11 Shipments

    4Q11 Market Share (%)

    4Q10 Shipments

    4Q10 Market Share (%)

    4Q11-4Q10 Growth (%)
    HP 4,137,833 23.1 5,598,619 29.4 -26.1
    Dell 4,020,549 22.4 4,210,000 22.1 -4.5
    Apple 2,074,800 11.6 1,718,400 9.0 20.7
    Toshiba 1,925,100 10.7 1,968,091 10.3 -2.2
    Acer Group 1,756,838 9.8 1,982,477 10.4 -11.4
    Others 4,014,644 22.4 3,583,418 18.8 12.0
    Total 17,929,764 100.0 19,061,005 100.0 -5.9

    Source: Gartner (January 2012)

    Execution is the key, and Microsoft has challenges ahead -- starting with holiday quarter results. Apple is expected to report record Mac shipments (again) during a quarter when Windows stumbled. The Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists will go ape over the differences and gloat for months. Public releations-wise, Microsoft has at least a rough month ahead -- until Windows 8 beta releases and hopefully churns up buzz.

    Meanwhile, major PC vendors must contend with their own cockeyed planning. The majority chose to announce ultrabooks after the holidays. Who's buying PCs now? Yesterday, I picked on Dell for announcing its sexy XPS 13 ultrabook at CES but not shipping until the end of February. Perhaps I was unfair or short-sighted. End of February, around the same time as Windows 8 public beta, is actually brilliant timing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/11/Call_me_when_Nokia_Windows_Phones_connect'

    Call me when Nokia Windows Phones connect

    Publié: janvier 11, 2012, 9:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm a fan of Windows Phone and its glance-and-go concept, and Microsoft has made lots of noise at Consumer Electronics Show 2012 about the future. Say, how's that "Get smoked by Windows Phone" competition going, anyway?

    But somebody is blowing smoke about how grand will be Nokia Windows Phone sales this year. Thirty-seven million? Cough. Cough. iPhone may have reached that number during holiday quarter 2011. Besides, it's pitiful compared to the Nokia we all used to know.

    Morgan Stanley put out that 37 million figure -- 43 million, when including HTC -- and 64 million Nokia Windows Phones in 2013. Those numbers are a shadow of Nokia's former self, from the company that invented the smartphone category more than a decade-and-a-half ago. In 2008, Nokia sold 472 million cell phones, for 38.6 percent share, and handily led the smartphone market -- that despite shipment delays, according to Gartner. For example, in fourth quarter 2008, Nokia sold 15.6 million smartphones for 40.8 percent market share. For all 2009, 80.9 million phones with Symbian -- then Nokia's flagship OS -- sold worldwide, for 46.9 percent market share.

    It's all downhill from there. In third quarter 2011, Samsung snatched Nokia's smartphone crown. If Morgan Stanley's projections are right, Nokia will sell about half as many smartphones in 2012 as four years ago, when the market was considerably smaller. For example, smartphones accounted for 26 percent of global handset sales in third quarter 2011, according to Gartner. Three years later, smartphones accounted for 11.8 percent of global handset sales. IDC predicts that smartphone shipments, not actual sales, will reach 1 billion in 2015.

    I simply don't see much reason to coo about 37 million shipments when looking at Nokia's past and Androids' and iPhone's future. I sure would like to. Windows Phone stands apart from the rabble. The user interface is fresh and, honestly, refreshing.

    Nokia has announced three Windows Phones -- the Lumia 710, 800 and 900 -- but only two have shipped. T-Mobile started selling the Lumia 710, the first Nokia Windows Phone available from a US carrier, today for $49.99 with contract. Earlier at CES, Nokia announced the Lumia 900, which will come to AT&T later this year.

    I'm a long-time Nokia enthusiast, who would really like to see a comeback -- marriage of exceptional hardware and Microsoft software. Perhaps I'll be more excited when Lumia 900 ships. For now, the sales numbers will look paltry if iPhone achieves in one quarter what Nokia Windows Phones might do in a year.

    The photo above and infographic below are courtesy of Microsoft.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/11/Shazam_Player_launches_for_iOS__and_I_m_mad_about_it'

    Shazam Player launches for iOS, and I'm mad about it

    Publié: janvier 11, 2012, 7:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm whining about Galaxy Nexus this afternoon, not because of the phone, which is exceptional. It's an app wanna-have thing. Today, Shazam launched a cool new mobile app, but it's iOS-only, baby. Got Android? You're out of luck. Dunno `bout you, but Shazam is among my top-five most-used apps. The new one, Shazam Player, could be, too.

    The app combines music playback with the discovery tools, including the cool lyrics feature, available with Shazam. There's integration with iTunes for playback and music buying. Users can watch YouTube videos of fav artists and share the "soundtrack" of their day on Facebook or Twitter.

    "This is a momentous occasion for the company as it is the first separate app we’ve introduced since the launch of the Shazam App for iPhone in 2008", Andrew Fisher, Shazam CEO, says. "With the Shazam Player App we are staying true to our core music fans by enabling them to experience their own music libraries in a more engaging and social way".

    Mr. Fisher, you do know that people with Android phones listen to music, too, right?

    Among other Shazam Player features:

    • Arist bios
    • Tour dates
    • Static lyrics
    • Streaming lyrics as music plays
    • Access to iTunes playlists and create new ones

    Okay, I'm done whining. I'll just limp along with Shazam, the included LyricPlay feature and Spotify. And you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/11/Dell_gives_more_ultrabook_in_smaller_body'

    Dell gives more ultrabook in smaller body

    Publié: janvier 11, 2012, 6:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    As expected, Dell has joined the ultrabook foray, announcing the XPS 13 at Consumer Electronics Show 2012. Thin and lights aren't new for Dell, but joining the announce-now-and-ship-later CES crowd is disappointing. As a build-to-order maker, Dell is known for shipping right away. If you want an XPS 13, however, the Round Rock, Texas PC maker will make you wait until the "end of February".

    The XPS 13 inherits from its predecessors, like the XPS 14: The screen is edge-to-edge, allowing for a larger display in a smaller enclosure. Dell boasts a 13.3-inch screen in the size of an 11.6-inch portable, claiming the frameless display reduces XPS 13's footprint by 15 percent compared to comparable 13.3-inch laptops. Looking at the product photo, I don't see how the screen is any more frameless than Apple's MacBook Air.

    For comparison, 11.6-inch MacBook Air measures 0.11-0.68 inches thick by 11.8 inches wide by 7.56 inches deep. XPS 13: 0.24-0.71 by 12.4 by 8.1 inches deep, putting it midway between the smaller MacBook Air and the 13.3-inch model, which measures 0.11-0.68 by 12.8 by 8.94 inches.

    "From the edge-to-edge frameless display that packs more screen into a compact body, to the innovative carbon fiber base that is lightweight and cool to the touch, the XPS 13 exemplifies our commitment to offering industry-leading mobile solutions that deliver durability and performance without compromise", Jeff Clarke, Dell vice chairman, says.

    Specs, according to Dell:

    • Ultrathin laptop (0.24-0.71"/6-18mm) with Microsoft Genuine Windows 7 Home Premium; precision machined aluminum with a carbon fiber composite base
    • Intel Core i5 2467M and i7 2637M processor choices
    • 13.3” HD WLED, 300-nit (1366x768) 720p; edge-to-edge hardened Gorilla Glass
    • Intel HD 3000 video graphics
    • 4GB DDR3 SDRAM 1333Mhz memory
    • 128 GB SSD or 256GB SSD drive options
    • Full size, backlit chiclet keyboard; glass integrated button touchpad with multi-gesture support
    • Intel Centrino Advanced-N 6230 802.11 A/G/N and Bluetooth 3.0 wireless connectivity
    • High definition audio with Waves MaxxAudio 4
    • Built-in 47WHr 6-cell battery (Dell XPS 13 batteries are built into the laptop and are not replaceable by the customer) offering up to eight hours, fifty-three minutes of battery life[5]; 45W AC adaptor
    • USB 3.0 (1) + USB 2.0 with PowerShare (1), mini Display-Port, and headset jack (1)
    • Built-in 1.3MP webcam (H.264 enabled via Skype [4]) with dual array digital microphones
    • Dell ProSupport for business customers, Dell Configuration Services and Windows Trusted Platform Module options for commercial models
    • Dimensions: Height: 0.24-0.71" (6-18mm) / Width: 12.4" (316mm) / Depth 8.1" (205mm); Weight: starting at 2.99lbs (1.36 kg)

    XPS is Dell's premium brand, and it shows in the ultrabook's pricing, which starts at $999 with Core i5 processor, 128GB solid-state storage and 4GB RAM. That makes XPS 13 among the priciest ultrabooks announced at CES.

    The XPS brand "is now 20 percent of Dell’s total consumer laptop business" the company says. "Revenue for XPS laptops has increased 207 percent over last year when the company re-launched the brand".

    XPS 13 buyers will receive 100GB of cloud storage from Dell and 12-month Skype Premium subscription. The first 10,000 buyers also will receive a T-Mobile 4G Mobile Hotspot with 90-days free service.

    Photo courtesy of Dell

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/11/Tim_Cook_takes_iPhone_where_Steve_Jobs_couldn_t'

    Tim Cook takes iPhone where Steve Jobs couldn't

    Publié: janvier 11, 2012, 12:38am CET par Joe Wilcox

    In one Samsung iPhone-mocking "Next Big Thing" commercial, an Apple fan laments: "If it looks the same, how will people know I upgraded?" Maybe that's the point of iPhone 4S -- people aren't suppose to know whether you have the new or older model. If that's the intention, and not some dumb-luck circumstance, then Apple CEO Tim Cook deserves high praise for brilliant, strategic execution. Rather than fraking up by not releasing iPhone 5 last year, Apple may have in iPhone 4S achieved a marketing milestone worthy of industry recognition -- or at least some PhD candidate's dissertation.

    It's like this: Analyst data from several sources released this week shows surprising iPhone uptake, whether actual sales or simple consumer intentions to buy. The most compelling comes from NPD, which October/November US retail sales figures are nothing short of shocking. Year over year, Android smartphone OS sales share rose to 60 percent from 45 percent in third quarter 2011. During the same time frame, iOS went from 23 percent to 29 percent sales share. Both operating systems had dipped and rose during that year. But in just two months, October to November, Android fell share from 60 percent to 47 percent, while iOS rose from 29 percent to 43 percent. I see Apple's iPhone 4S strategy, not the new smartphone's actual sales, as the reason.

    The Loss-Leader Gamble

    In May 2011, I asked: "Can Apple stop the Android Army's advances?", then explained how -- by Apple "taking a dramatic risk to its handset margins: offer a $99 iPhone 4 available globally, following iPhone 5's release. Such an aggressive pricing strategy could be enough of what Apple needs to win the mobile platform wars".

    I reasoned that a redesigned iPhone with features like LTE would be compelling enough to drive new handset sales, while opening new markets with lower pricing -- get the people who wouldn't spend $199 or more or simply couldn't afford to. I wrote: "Apple should let iPhone 4 be the loss leader, allowing more people to buy into the platform rather than letting them go to Android".

    Apple's executive team chose such an approach but executed with greater confidence in their platform, while taking greater risk. They may have also done something simply brilliant by making iPhone 4 and 4S indistinguishable to the eye.

    Apple priced iPhone 4 at $99, but didn't retire the 3GS, which price went to zero. iPhone 3GS is free with two-year contract. That approach opens up substantially more of the low-end market, where Apple risked more sales losses to Androids otherwise. NPD's US retail sales data shows just how successful is the strategy. The top-three selling smartphones during October and November: iPhone 4S, 4 and 3GS. Samsung Galaxy S 4G and S2 rank fourth and fifth.

    There's a certain cool factor to Apple products, but also people wanting to fit in and be part of the "in-crowd". For $99, iPhone 4 looks just as good as any of the three iPhone 4S models -- 16GB, 32GB and 64GB. The cheaper iPhone 4 is 8GB. For everyone else, those looking for free, there is iPhone 3GS.

    Same `Ol, Same `Ol

    In early October, the day after Cook launched iPhone 4S, I called the strategy "sheer brilliance". I wrote:

    Apple has bet iPhone's future on sameness and demonstrated corporate arrogance that creates opportunity for other phone makers. For them, iPhone 4S is another kind of brilliance -- a shining light of opportunity. They may also see in Cook weakness, that the genius of logistics lacks the qualities that made Jobs a visionary leader and in process an uncharacteristic risk taker among CEOs...Which brilliance will outshine the other -- Cook's choosing the sameness and safety of iPhone 4 or the light of opportunity competitors see in last year's model? Perhaps the market will answer in 6 months or even a year.

    Well, so much for it taking six months to find out. If the sameness was part of a deliberate strategy, where iPhone 4 and 4S look alike but are priced for different markets, then Cook actually took considerable risk. It's counter-intuitive and contrary to predecessor Steve Jobs' approach of pushing on to the next big thing. The whole strategy -- three iPhones priced from zero to $399 and 4 and 4S look-a-likes -- aligns with the kind of logistical brilliance Cook has shown at Apple. I see now that iPhone 5 would have distracted buyers rather than open up the big sales spigot. Cook has made a big play to gain platform market share fast.

    You will read lots of Apple Fanclub posts this week about how well iPhone 4S is selling. But in the hard analysis, I expect iPhone 4 and 3GS sales matter more. Apple's fourth calendar quarter earnings call, on January 24, should reveal something. While Apple doesn't break out model sales, a decline in margins would indicate that the older models are selling well.

    To be clear: iPhone 3GS free to the consumer doesn't mean carriers pay nothing. Somebody still shells out hundreds of dollars. According to Apple Store, retail price for iPhone 3GS is $375 and $549 for iPhone 4. Sales tax of 7.75 percent (the rate here in San Diego) is calculated from that price, which is how to figure out what a phone really costs. Sales tax is based on what the carrier pays, not what you do.

    Apple has stopped revealing average selling prices, but dividing total revenue by unit sales, when revealed later this month, should give pretty good indication. A substantially lower number than previous quarters would give good sense just how well iPhone 4 and 3GS are selling.

    Sustainability now is the question. According to Changewave data released yesterday, 54 percent of North American consumers plan to buy an iPhone within 90 days -- that's from end of December, and it's an 11-point drop from October. The difference isn't necessarily negative, since many respondents may already have purchased an iPhone (or Android, for that matter).

    Something else: Apple launched iPhone 4S with new US national and regional carriers, with Sprint being particularly important. Apple's earnings results and future sales data and buying intentions surveys should reveal how much pent-up demand there affected sales in context of the other aforementioned factors.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/10/Apple_scares_TV_manufacturers_into_Google_s_open_arms'

    Apple scares TV manufacturers into Google's open arms

    Publié: janvier 10, 2012, 8:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's something strange happening at Consumer Electronics Show 2012 that many pundits -- and, of course, the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists -- pegged as impossible just six months ago. Even I asked "Who killed Google TV?" after Logitech, the first of two launch partners, lost its shirt, pants and shoes on Revue. The peripherals maker gave up on Google TV, leaving Sony to go it alone. In July 2011, I asserted: "There will be a second life for Google TV", but who could have guessed it would be this much?

    At CES, television-set makers are simply falling over one another to be a Google TV partner, as judged by the number of announcements so far. I've got to wonder: How much of that is because of Apple? For months, there have been persistent rumors Apple is working on a TV. Naturally, the ridiculous rumor mill has this unannounced consumer electronics gear as being trendsetting -- genre transforming -- all sight unseen. Hold on, someone needs to grab me before I fall over laughing. But fear of anything Apple these days is quite the motivator, particularly if the fruit-logo company might stomp into your entrenched business. Better to adopt Google TV fast than be Apple roadkill.

    Google TV's new supporters include LG, MediaTek, Samsung and Vizio -- and Sony has recommitted in a big way. For example, newcomer Vizio will offer the VBR430 3D Blu-ray player and VAP430 Stream Player, both with Google TV. LG is incorporating Google TV into its line of Smart TVs. Neither LG nor Vizio would specify launch dates or pricing.

    Google TV will play an intimate role in Sony's "connected products" strategy. The company will offer a new streaming box and successor to its Blu-ray player, both running Google TV. The CE giant also plans to incorporate Google TV into more of its BRAVIA televisions.

    Granted, CE devices are typically in development for a long time before going to market, so there's argument these partners were already on board. Except:

    • After Logitech's huge profit warning and Google TV device inventory glut half a year ago, the platform's future looked uncertain and surely unappealing to prospective partners.
    • Google TV 2.0 software only released in October, and the platform remains immature. In some ways I see v2 as a step backwards; it feels still very much a work in progress.
    • Companies often announce products at CES but do not launch them for many months later. From Apple TV rumors to those future release dates, there is plenty of development time.

    Something else: If you're a CE maker branching out into other devices, looking to offer, say, media players, smartphones, tablets and televisions what other unified-OS is there to chose from? Apple has got it with iOS, but you can't get it. Android is the next-best thing, particularly if the goal is to offer a reasonably unified user experience, with supporting content and games, across devices. Samsung and Sony already have established four-screen strategies (PC, smartphone, tablet and TV) and offer Android in some form across the range.

    So perhaps, despite Logitech Revue's Google TV death dance, the platform has eight lives remaining -- and there Apple television rumors give CE makers reason to run to Google.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/10/Adobe_posts_Photoshop_Lightroom_4_Beta_1____get_it_now_'

    Adobe posts Photoshop Lightroom 4 Beta 1 -- get it now!

    Publié: janvier 10, 2012, 5:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Say, photo buffs, if all these new, stinking cameras announced at the Consumer Electronics Show excite you, don't cool your jets yet. I just got spam mail from Adobe. Photoshop Lightroom 4.0 Beta 1 is now available. I downloaded the Windows 64-bit version right away and installed it on my Lenovo ThinkPad T420s.

    It's a hefty download, more than 410MB. Given this is CES Day 1, I don't have time for any kind of review. But I must say this: Norton Internet Security 2012 auto-protect sent up the red flag during install, regarding two DLLs -- "mc_enc_mpa.dll" and "qtp.parser.dll", which were quarantined. That's gotcha #1. The second surprised even more. LR 4 Beta 1 warned on opening that it couldn't open "Lightroom 3 Catalog" because "the Lighroom 4 Beta release does not support catalog upgrades". I created a new one, and, of course, it's empty. Hey, I'm really loving this software now.

    I took a quick look, nevertheless, and didn't see anything radically new in the user interface. I did see some location stuff that looked unfamiliar. Emphasis: Quick, who knows what's really changed UI-wise. Here's what Adobe says is new:

    • Highlight and shadow recovery brings out all the detail that your camera captures in dark shadows and bright highlights.
    • Photo book creation with easy-to-use elegant templates.
    • Location-based organization lets you find and group images by location, assign locations to images, and display data from GPS-enabled cameras.
    • White balance brush to refine and adjust white balance in specific areas of your images.
    • Additional local editing controls let you adjust noise reduction and remove moiré in targeted areas of your images.
    • Extended video support for organizing, viewing, and making adjustments and edits to video clips.
    • Easy video publishing lets you edit and share video clips on Facebook and Flickr®.
    • Soft proofing to preview how an image will look when printed with color-managed printers.
    • Email directly from Lightroom using the email account of your choice.

    If you dare, you can download the beta here: For Mac, 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. Software requires: Mac OS X v10.6.8 or 10.7; Windows Vista Service Pack 2 or Windows 7 Service Pack 1.

    Lightroom 4 Beta 1 expires on March 31.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/10/Steve_Ballmer_says_goodbye_to_CES'

    Steve Ballmer says goodbye to CES

    Publié: janvier 10, 2012, 3:59am CET par Joe Wilcox

    There are no more chances for Steve Ballmer. This is the end. His swansong. The final hurrah. Microsoft's CEO stepped onto the Consumer Electronics Show keynote stage for the last time tonight. If my count is right, a Microsoft chief executive has given 13 CES opening keynotes -- with this year's the 12th consecutively. Ballmer's last is his third.

    Ballmer was in good form as he donned the stage. Boisterous, cagey but not his usually caged manner -- he typically paces around like a penned up tiger, and he often yells like one growls. Ballmer was subdued tonight, as he took the stage with Ryan Seacrest, who seems to be everywhere these days (not just "American Idol"). Seacrest was an excellent choice for a fireside chat with Ballmer. Many people probably don't remember the TV-show host from his days at CNET. Yeah, CNET. Seacrest co-hosted a tech show.

    Ballmer took the stage with Seacrest, following an important day for one of Microsoft's most valued products, Windows Phone, which market share ails, by the way. Late this afternoon, Las Vegas time, Nokia unveiled the long-rumored Lumia 900 Windows Phone. The handset features LTE connectivity, like the HTC Titan II announced hours earlier.

    Both smartphones are crucial additions at a time when Androids and iPhone gobble up users like voracious Pac-Men. Neither Windows Phone will ship for months, and pricing wasn't announced. That bad form of shipping months after launching is typical of Nokia, much less so for HTC.

    Not surprisingly, Windows Phone was the first big topic between Ballmer and Seacrest and the long product demo that followed (and we've heard it all before). Then Ballmer started to get animated -- the tiger came out. He boasted about the Lumia 900 and its sibling 710, which goes on sale Wednesday from T-Mobile.

    Seacrest shifted the conversation to Windows 8. Ballmer returned to boast mode -- about there being 1.3 billion Windows PCs in use today. A Windows 8 demo followed, and by far Windows Store was the most impressive part. More than anything else Microsoft plans for the new OS, Windows Store promises to truly reinvigorate developer and customer interest in the platform. Microsoft will officially open the store in late February. It will launch globally, and eventually be available in more than 200 markets.

    Windows Store demos really well, and the new operating system's touch and gesture capabilities are part of the appeal. Seriously, Microsoft could be the comeback kid, pulling some of those Mac switchers back to Windows.

    Some of the connected features also appeal, such as sharing between apps but, of course people, too. Now if only Microsoft could cajole its partners to get new HTC and Nokia Windows Phones to market around the time Windows 8 goes public beta. You can look for that late next month.

    "Every Windows 7 PC will be ready for Windows 8 on Day One", Ballmer said following the demo. Then came a surprise -- The Tweet Choir, below. When was the last time you heard Twitter put to music?

    From the choir, the keynote moved on to Xbox.

    "Did you expect to go from Ground Zero to a household name?" Seacrest asked Ballmer, about where Xbox started a decade ago. Microsoft's CEO responded in part with some stats:

    • 66 million consoles sold
    • 40 million Xbox Live subscribers
    • 18 million Kinect sensors sold

    Perhaps the most interesting part of the demo was "two-way TV", where the young girl used Kinect to throw coconuts into the box on "Sesame Street". The feature comes to Xbox later this year".

    Ballmer said, "We're just getting started". Seacrest described it as "the magic of Kinect" -- available to industries outside entertainment.

    "I'm proud to announce Kinect is coming to Windows on February 1st -- just a couple weeks", Ballmer said. Microsoft announced the Kinect for Windows SDK last year.

    Ballmer finally found his tiger spirit, even seated, when Seacrest asked if what they had seen tonight was everything. "Not by a long shot, Ryan", Ballmer boomed.

    Seacrest wrapped up by asking "What's next?"

    "Windows 8 is what's next!" Ballmer roared. "There's nothing more important at Microsoft than Windows".

    Ballmer went on to talk about the Metro user interface expanding across all Microsoft platforms. "Metro will drive the new magic", he boasted. At Microsoft, using its new math, one plus one equals three.

    In a fall back to his much-caricatured "Developers! Developers! Developers!" Ballmer ended Microsoft's last CES keynote: "Metro! Metro! Metro! and, of course, "Windows! Windows! Windows!"

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/10/It_s_a_smartphone__no_it_s_a_tablet____Samsung_Galaxy_Note_comes_to_AT_T'

    It's a smartphone, no it's a tablet -- Samsung Galaxy Note comes to AT&T

    Publié: janvier 10, 2012, 3:33am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Before buying Galaxy Nexus last month from Verizon, I considered holding out for Galaxy Note, after hearing confident rumors about AT&T bringing it stateside. The idea of sketching and taking notes on a smartphone appealed. Samsung had created something of a hybrid -- a cross between a smartphone and tablet. Then I saw a Samsung media player on display at Best Buy, with a similar size screen -- 5.3 inches. Galaxy Note is too big for me. Is it for you?

    AT&T and Samsung officially announced Galaxy Note LTE -- the third big 4G phone announced today for the carrier, the others being Nokia Lumia 900 and HTC Titan II (technically there were a half-dozen LTEs); all done at Consumer Electronics Show 2012. Galaxy Note has something of an identity crisis, being a phone, mini-tablet and S-pen -- that's stylus to you, bud -- device. The hybrid is meant to be used for drawing as much as touch, and I see it designed for more of a niche market -- unless of course 5.3-inches, and that's just the screen, isn't too big for your pocket.

    Galaxy Note has been available internationally since autumn, and its announcement today isn't sure sign of a quick debut here stateside. I haven't seen pricing or availability yet. The smartphone-tablet features the aforementioned 5.3-inch Super AMOLED display (did I say it's big) with 1280 x 800 resolution, 1.5GHz dual-core processor, 8-megapixel rear-facing and 2MP front-facing cameras, 1080p video recording, 16GB internal storage expandable to 32GB with storage card, 2,500 mAH battery and more. The capacitive touchscreen device runs Android 2.3.6.

    I have to ask. Would you buy this Frankenstein device?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/09/Windows_Phone_beats_iPhone_to_4G_LTE'

    Windows Phone beats iPhone to 4G LTE

    Publié: janvier 9, 2012, 11:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Currently there are 11 4G LTE phones -- two from AT&T and 9 from Verizon -- available from major US Carriers, and they're all Androids. Even more are coming, some this month, and again they're all Androids. There is no LTE iPhone and until today's HTC Titan II announcement, nothing running a Microsoft operating system. Finally, prospective Windows Phone buyers can get super-fast cellular data. iPhone users are out of luck. Well, maybe. HTC says the LTE Windows Phone is coming to AT&T "in the coming months". Who knows, iPhone 5 LTE could come sooner.

    Like its predecessor, Titan II will be available from AT&T, which is good for HTC, Microsoft and Windows Phone. The brawny 4.7-inch-display smartphone will only compete with two other LTE handsets there -- HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket. Better to be one of three at AT&T than one of 10+ at Verizon. That's assuming AT&T adds no other LTE smarphones "in the coming months", before Titan II goes on sale. Last week I posted the "7 things I really don't want to see at CES". Among them: Products announced that don't ship for many months later.

    That's too bad, because Titan II packs some other exciting new features, such as a 16-megapixel rear-facing camera with dual-LED flash and physical shutter button. But strangely, the smartphone only captures 720p video, an oddity when 1080p is standard for smartphones of this class and Microsoft bought Skype last year. Shouldn't video be a much bigger priority?

    Other features include 1.5GHz Snapdragon S2 processor and 1730 mAh battery. That's a single-core processor in a dual- and quad-core world, by the way.

    "HTC's history of innovation in 4G technology includes delivering the first 4G-powered devices to each major carrier in the U.S., so it is exciting today to continue that leadership with our first 4G LTE Windows Phone, the HTC TITAN II", CEO Peter Chou says.

    Would you buy Titan II?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/08/Find_My_iPhone_works_'

    Find My iPhone works!

    Publié: janvier 8, 2012, 3:35am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Someone stole my daughter's iPhone 4S on Wednesday. We recovered it today, Saturday. The phone was a lost cause if not for Apple's cloud recovery service, which worked in an unexpected way overnight.

    The saga started in the school office, where my daughter works for one period every other day. She often has out her phone and feels comfortable leaving it at the table where she busies; the teens working there are all fairly honest. On this particular day, she stepped out for five minutes and returned to find the phone gone. Sitting where she had been: Another teen applying to attend the school, with her mom close by. My daughter used a friend's phone to call hers, but the sound was off. The iPhone 4S was gone.

    Fortunately, she had it lock coded.

    After school, my daughter called on another phone to tell me what had happened. I logged onto her MobileMe account, surprised. I was sure that I had migrated her to iCloud after buying iPhone 4S. Apparently not. I launched Find My iPhone and located her phone in an apartment building a few miles away. There it stayed for the 90 minutes or so until my daughter was ready to be picked up.

    I planned to go to the apartment building with her soon after. Unfortunately, the Find my iPhone doesn't give street addresses, and the building was off an alley. However, there is a satellite view that gave good enough view of the alley. Meanwhile, I sent a message to the phone, with my phone number, requesting its return. There was no response.

    Here's where I expected too much. I thought to bring my XOOM LTE, since it has cellular data, to locate the stolen iPhone 4S. But MobileMe wouldn't load in Google's browser or Firefox Mobile. So I grabbed my laptop -- the lovely Lenovo ThinkPad T420s -- thinking to tap a hotspot later on. As it turned out, this wasn't a neighborhood with Starbucks or other coffee shops, and the "checks cashed" stores on every other corner didn't have WiFi. We drove several miles away to a Starbucks, where I finally logged onto MobileMe, confirmed the smartphone's location and took a screenshot so we could locate the building.

    As dusk approached, we finally pulled up behind the apartment building. We asked kids playing nearby if they knew of any high school students. There were males, but no young woman, they could identify. So I called my wife and had her log into my daughter's account and send a signal to the iPhone 4S. It was an unusually warm night for January, and windows were open everywhere. But we heard nothing. So, at my request, my wife sent a message that we had tracked the phone, were in the parking lot and wanted the 4S returned.

    About the time my wife was sending the message, a woman came out to the trash bin. My daughter walked up and asked if she knew of any high school students living in the building. "Yes, my daughter". Then suddenly, there was recognition -- mother of the teen waiting in the school office! We explained the situation to her, but she didn't want to confront the daughter then and there. The teen would be out later, and the mom promised to search her stuff. She would call me. Call she did. Search she didn't, because the girl didn't leave the apartment.

    We returned home and tried to find the iPhone. But its location couldn't be found. I suspected that the girl saw us talking to her mom from the apartment window and had turned off the phone. But it's possible there wasn't signal enough for location. So I asked my daughter to send a lock code to the phone, which would succeed if the handset was on. It wasn't.

    Problem: The last location put the iPhone 4S a good block-and-a-half away outside a police station. We were no longer sure the teen had the device.

    Thursday, I texted the mom and demanded, politely, she confront her daughter by explaining we had tracked the phone to the apartment and was it possible she accidentally had picked up the 4S. Later the mom and I spoke for 30 minutes. The girl cried and expressed horror at the mom's distrust. There was a recent family tragedy I'll keep private that in context made the tears believable to the mother and why I didn't go to the police. Okay, there was another reason. When bicycles were stolen from our locked garage, the police wouldn't come out at all but took a report over the phone. If they wouldn't assist with a residential break-in, why bother with teen phone theft.

    The woman promised to search her daughter's stuff over the weekend. Friday dawned. The phone hadn't been turned on since Wednesday night. My daughter agreed to give the woman until Saturday. The phone was locked and hadn't been used. My daughter rightly worried that if we cancelled the SIM, her iPhone 4S would be lost for good. We couldn't track it.

    Then something unexpected occurred this morning. That lock code my daughter sent Wednesday was still out there in the Apple cloud. Someone turned on the iPhone 4S at 12:40 am today, and the lock code triggered and in process located the phone. In the same place! Now it was time to act. My daughter took a screenshot of the location and filled out a police report she got from school. We would go to that nearby police station, file a report and ask the cops to come a block and a half to the apartment. But when we arrived in the neighborhood, there was no police station. Apple's map was wrong!

    I called the mom and told her someone had turned on the phone and we had tracked it back to her building. I was confident that her daughter had the 4S and I wanted it back. If not, I would return with the police. I knew that was likely an idle threat; she didn't. There was a police station 10 blocks away, where we would go and file a theft report. But I expected no help for something trivial like a stolen phone.

    The woman asked for some time, which I gave her. Ten minutes later she phoned and began: "Well, you were right". About five minutes later, the teen brought out my daughter's iPhone 4S and apologized.

    The clincher here was something unexpected. I wrongly assumed the lock code was a one-time event. That it worked in real time, or not at all. But it hung out there in Apple's cloud, not just locking the phone (which wasn't necessary) when turned on but locating it, too. Once the location was reconfirmed, I was willing to confront the parent.

    My daughter is ecstatic and relieved -- as am I.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/06/25_resolutions_Google_should_make_for_2012__Galaxy_Nexus_contest_winner_'

    25 resolutions Google should make for 2012 [Galaxy Nexus contest winner]

    Publié: janvier 6, 2012, 10:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Finally, after a two-day delay, we have a winner for a shiny, new Galaxy Nexus smartphone. We asked you to offer 2012 New Year's resolutions for Google -- and you did, and some too late to qualify (you missed the deadline, sorry). Among the many on-time submissions, we chose 25 resolutions that Google should consider for the year ahead.

    The resolutions aren't as broad as we expected and perhaps the prize is reason. More of you offered suggestions about Android than anything else. In the list below, some submitters appear more than one time, but they were only considered once in the prize drawing. We randomly chose from among all submitters meeting the deadline. In the interest of time -- and preparation for next week's Consumer Electronics Show -- we didn't check to see if all submitters met the other qualifications. We qualified the winner only and would have drawn another name had he failed to meet them (The two absolutely required with the resolution submission: Tweet the post and follow BetaNews on Twitter).

    We assigned each contestant a number and used Random.org to randomly generate the winning number. We then confirmed the winner qualified, based on other tasks. To find the winner, scroll down and look for the name in green. We will contact him separately about the Galaxy Nexus, which we will buy based on his US carrier. Logistically, we may need a little time getting the smartphone to him, depending on where we must procure it.

    My apologies. We were supposed to announce the winner on January 4. My daughter's iPhone 4S was stolen that day (it's not yet recovered and may never be) and editorially Friday going into CES seemed like a better time to post the resolutions. With that introduction, please read the resolutions and see the winner in green below. We'll announce winners of the second HP TouchPad contest in a couple days.

    The Cloud

    Marty Barrett:

    "Improve Google Music so that it rivals Apple's iTunes".

    Christopher Grau:

    "Transform Google Docs into a good Dropbox competitor, and improve its Android app".

    Troy Janda:

    "Google should open Blogger to WordPress-type themes in 2012".

    Thomas Dromgoole:

    "My New Year's resolution for Google is to make the task in the calendar share-able just like the calendars are and make a Android app for the task system".

    Ben Riffer-Reinert:

    "Develop a collaborative web-based Visual Studio competitor (a "Google Docs" for programming) and integrate it with Google code".

    RCS_hkt:

    "Completely revamp Google Mail so that it has the same functionality and ease of use for organizing archived emails into folders/subfolders as programs like Thunderbird".

    Android

    aj43:

    "Kickstart the Android@Home initiative that was announced at Google IO. Currently, only DIY electronics geeks are using the ADK. Google needs to get the manufacturers of home appliances, lighting and cars using the ADK in products that they are selling to consumers".

    Atif Zuberi:

    "Get control of devices from manufacturers. If I own a phone I should be able to install a stock version of Ice Cream Sandwich on it, regardless. Even if companies like HTC and Samsung are offering customizations, I should be able to choose what runs on my device. I understand that as technology moves forward the hardware becomes more and more obsolete but instead of being up-to-date with the latest OS version with missing hardware dependent features why am I stuck with a phone that will not get any security updates etc".

    David Perry:

    "Google should press hardware manufacturers to strive for a breakthrough in battery life issues. Constantly having to look for a power source to insure that our phones continue to work gets a bit tiring".

    nfields03:

    "Come up with a hardware standard or at least rough standard so that multiple brands of Android phones can share accessories. The iPhone definitely has an edge in accessories, and they've done that by sticking with the same connector IN THE SAME SPOT for years. When the micro-USB port can't be guaranteed to be in the same spot on every phone, accessory manufacturers can't plan properly".

    Claude Dinkel:

    "Mandate that OEMs update handsets and tablets to the latest version of Android supported by the hardware within 6 months of any major Android version release".

    Michael Black:

    "Google should impose minimal product requirements for Android phone. A less than 4" screen size and slow CPU doesn't cut it when you want your product to be perceived as high end and to also steal badge snobs from competing companies like Apple".

    Neil T:

    "Add webOS-style multitasking to Android".

    Chen Ming Chen:

    "Do not buy RIM! Do not make the same mistake as HP".

    Chrome/Chrome OS

    j4m3z:

    "Create a pure Google Chrome tablet to take on the iPad".

    Daniel Gianstefani:

    "Get more manufacturers to include the Chrome OS in their products".

    aj43:

    "Integrate Chrome OS and Android. Android Applications and the Market would run on Chrome OS. Chrome browser and browser extensions/themes could be run on Android. Merge the desktop and mobile experience into one".

    nfields03:

    "Make the Group Policy Templates for Chrome official and support them. For IT pros like myself, being able to manage and secure the company web browsers is key to having them adopted internally. Chrome is winning among consumers, but if Google wants to pass IE in the enterprise, they're going to need to make a big deal of supporting company compliance and security".

    Apple

    Claude Dinkel:

    "Cut ties with manufacturers/OEMs involved in Apple's supply chain".

    Ty Foreman:

    "Utilize Motorola acquisition to develop unified intellectual property strategy amongst Android OEMs in fight against Redmond and Cupertino. The biggest winners in Android licensing can not continue to be your mobile OS competitors".

    Google+

    nfields03:

    Find a way to get my mother to move from Facebook to Google Plus. It's not that she likes Facebook that much more, it's that she's already got a lot of content invested in FB, and her friends and all us kids are on FB. The amount of inertia Facebook has is why Google Plus is stagnant right now.

    Ben Riffer-Reinert:

    "Make a service that allows people to purchase tickets to events like movies, concerts, fund raisers and other local events. Integrate it with Google+ and Google Checkout".

    Corporate Strategy

    Ivan92116:

    "Resolve to better market your products. Announcing ICS & Galaxy Nexus in Hong Kong and then waiting almost 2 months before Verizon actually released the phone was not good marketing. Only release products when they are ready for primetime (no more beta) and back it up with a big marketing push".

    Claude Dinkel:

    "Mandate that all Android and Chrome OEMs reduce their use [of] conflict minerals by 15 percent within 1 year, and phase out all conflict minerals within 5 years. Offer significant financial incentives to those who meet or exceed all goals at least 6 months ahead of schedule".

    Larry Ryan:

    "Sign Chuck Norris as a spokesperson".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/06/7_things_I_really_don_t_want_to_see_at_CES'

    7 things I really don't want to see at CES

    Publié: janvier 6, 2012, 5:54pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Next week, the biggest trade show of the year opens in Las Vegas. Tens of thousands of people will make the annual pilgrimage to Las Vegas for the Consumer Electronics Show. My inbox already bursts with press releases, and it can only get worse. I hate CES. Trade shows like this one are anachronisms. Microsoft is right to bow out after this year. There's too much noise and too many vendors trying to yell louder than the next one. Logistically, from a reporter's perspective, it's a nightmare to coordinate. There's too much to cover and not enough time.

    So in that spirit, I've come to spit on CES and offer a list that juxtaposes colleague Tim Conneally's. Earlier this week, he posted: "10 things I genuinely want to see at CES 2012". Tim offers an excellent list of want-to-sees. I'm taking a different tact: Things I don't want to see -- or hear about -- during CES 2012.

    1. Apple television. Geez Louise, Apple isn't even attending CES, but buzz is everywhere about the company releasing its own line of TVs. There's this cockeyed presumption that Apple will do better TV than everyone -- that it will somehow revolutionize the genre. Samsung, Sony and dozens of other manufacturers make some pretty damn impressive big-screens, and they've been doing so for much longer.

    The only thing Apple could revolutionize, if it makes a TV, is the experience for people plugged into its lifestyle. It's all rumor. All conjecture. All wasted-time and energy. And all a distraction from thousands of other products announced and actually shipping (arguably not often right away).

    2. Products shipping in six months or holiday 2012. Every year it's the same damn thing. Vendors line up to out-yell one another about stuff they won't ship anytime soon. What the frak? They generate excitement about the next, cool toy -- but you can't have it for six to 10 months. The excitement is long passed by the time many CES products ship, if they aren't already imitated first -- or changed to imitate others. On the latter, look how much Galaxy Tab 10.1 changed from its fabulous debut. Apple later launched iPad 2, and Samsung made dramatic alterations to Tab 10.1 specs. What it showed off isn't what shipped.

    3. Steve Ballmer's CES epitaph. Okay, so Microsoft is smartly giving up the opening keynote and largely leaving the show starting in 2013. Next week, Ballmer will give Microsoft's final CES keynote, after about 15 of them (counting the nearly dozen from Chairman Bill Gates). Good riddance and, please, dispense with the retrospectives. Microsoft should have left CES long ago. The show ill fits a company primarily selling to businesses. The audience was never right for Microsoft.

    4. 2012 is the year of... This is the year of ultrabooks. No, it's the year of iPhone -- or is that Android? It's the year when Apple revolutionizes TV. No, it's the year of Samsung smartphones. Quad-core tablets; any tablets; smart TV; flexible displays; e-readers; $200 tablets; Windows Phone; Windows 8; and so on and so on. For the record, it's the year of the dragon, according to the Chinese calendar. Everything else is pure poof.

    5. Product prototypes. This one extends from #2. If you're going to announce something new at CES, show it off. If, Mr. Vendor, all you've got is a protype, or worse, something to look at behind plexiglass, you shouldn't announce anything. Your product is vaporware, dude. Sure you'll suck up all the free press you can get. But the real service to customers, and to bloggers and journalists making time for you, is something real that can be handled and used. Pre-production models are okay, as long as they can be touched and seen up close. Everything else is PR BS.

    6. Anything about Steve Jobs. Now that Apple's cofounder has left this world and been canonized visionary extraordinaire, suddenly all things new are compared to what Jobs might have done instead. It's unfair to living innovators producing real products for this plane of existence. Get over Jobs. He left us -- taken too soon, perhaps -- but still gone. If you want to respect the dead, do so by also respecting the living. I'm talking to you, bloggers and journalists, and to the Apple Fanclub among you.

    7. Day 0 and Day 1 product pileups. CES 2011 was one of the worst for preannouncements. It's the problem of no one wanting to be missed and so everyone yelling about their products at once -- either before the show actually starts or all done Day 1. The pile up means that:

    • Even more products are lost in the noise
    • There is too much at once for bloggers and journalists to cover
    • Smaller, deserving vendors are missed, even with something really cool
    • People bug out of the show earlier, because all the news is over -- wasting antendees' time and money

    I'm a huge fan of smaller events hosted by tech companies, where there is more focus and clear message. CES is too big for most. If there is any real value to such a large venue, it's for buyers. Even then, I wonder.

    That's it, I decided to stop at seven, when originally planning on 10. If you've got something you don't want to see at CES 2012, please answer in comments. Surely someone will crassly say Joe Wilcox. I'll oblige you there.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/05/Whoa__Galaxy_Nexus_is_coming_to_Sprint'

    Whoa, Galaxy Nexus is coming to Sprint

    Publié: janvier 5, 2012, 11:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's the gist of an advertisement running at CNET right now. It's the "first 4G LTE phone from Sprint", according to the banner advert, on the carrier's, ah, coming-sometime-really-soon LTE network. I dunno if the ad spills a pending CES 2012 announcement or what. But leaks don't get much funnier than this.

    On the other hand, Sprint held a little event late this afternoon announcing big, splashy LTE network deployment. I suppose the carrier could offer Galaxy Nexus with LTE capability ahead of the bigger pipes. But the handsome smartphone may look a little old in the tooth when quad-core beauties start selling around the time Sprint offers LTE.

    Sprint will offer LTE first in Dallas, Atlanta, Houston and San Antonio sometime in the first half of the year, CEO Dan Hess said today. That's a hell of a big time target. The carrier also plans to improve 3G coverage.

    "Within the first half of 2012, Sprint customers should experience first-hand the wide-reaching improvements we have made in terms of boosting voice and data quality", Bob Azzi, Sprint senior vice president, says. "With advanced smartphones and sophisticated wireless modems, our customers are using more and more mobile data, and one of our top priorities is to provide the best technology possible to improve our customers' experience".

    I've got to wonder what good the "LTE" will be in Galaxy Nexus between now and then -- and just for a smidgin of subscribers at that. Today, AT&T expanded its LTE network by 11 cities, reaching 26 and 74 million Americans. Verizon's is bigger still, reaching 200 million people and supported by 9 LTE Androids.

    Galaxy Nexus already is available from Verizon (I have one), and the LTE performance hugely satisfies (as does the battery life).

    I see nothing in today's Sprint LTE announcement about Galaxy Nexus (yet), so I must assume that the CNET ad outs a planned CES announcement. Uh-oh.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/05/AT_T_lights_up_4G_LTE_service_in_11_more_cities_and_mine_is_one_of_them'

    AT&T lights up 4G LTE service in 11 more cities and mine is one of them

    Publié: janvier 5, 2012, 9:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    AT&T LTE is now available in San Diego, which means I'll soon conduct speed test comparisons around the city against Verizon's 4G network. It will be the Wilcox household network speed test face-off, the wife's Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket against my Galaxy Nexus.

    San Diego joins 10 other cities, which LTE service AT&T announced today. They are: Austin, Texas; Chapel Hill, N.C.; New York City metro area; Los Angeles; Oakland; Orlando, Phoenix; Raleigh, N.C.; San Diego; San Francisco; and San Jose. They join 15 others: Athens, Ga.; Atlanta; Baltimore; Boston; Charlotte, N.C.; Chicago; Dallas-Fort Worth; Houston; Indianapolis; Kansas City; Las Vegas; Oklahoma City; San Antonio; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and Washington, DC. AT&T claims its LTE network reaches 74 million people; Verizon, 200 million.

    "We’re building a 4G LTE network that’s blazing fast, and we offer dual layers of 4G technologies to provide customers with a more consistent speed experience" John Stankey, AT&T Business Solutions CEO, says. "Our network, together with our unsurpassed 4G device portfolio and innovative applications, will give our customers an industry-leading mobile broadband experience".

    AT&T's network expansion trails far behind Verizon's, and the nation's second-largest carrier doesn't expect to complete its LTE rollout until 2013. AT&T offers just two LTE phones, HTC Vivid and Skyrocket, while Verizon offers nine. All 11 are Androids.

    Days before Apple announced iPhone 4S, I asked: "What if iPhone 5 isn't LTE?" There is no true 4G iPhone, which apparently isn't stopping buyers. Yesterday Verizon -- the carrier with broadest LTE network and most number of supporting handsets -- revealed 4.2 million iPhones sold during fourth quarter.

    Circling back to LTE here in San Diego, last week I wrote about sudden battery problems with Skyrocket, apparently related to network acquisition problems. I suspected that the phone burns through the battery trying to connect to AT&T's cellular network. An AT&T technician confirmed an acquisition problem, but attributed it to the antenna. I wasn't convinced, particularly since AT&T will only swap the fairly new Skyrocket for a refurbished one.

    I discussed the situation with my wife and asked her to sit tight, thinking the problem might resolve itself. I had seen this before. In late Spring 2010, battery life went to hell on all our AT&T phones, and I determined it was a problem connecting to the local cellular towers. About 30 days later, battery life on all phones returned to normal and we stopped having dropped calls. AT&T had been updating the network in advance of iPhone 4's release.

    AT&T had indicated LTE would soon come to San Diego, and I wondered if a network upgrade could cause the problem. Three days ago, Skyrocket went from 8-10 hours battery life, even when idle, to more than 24. It's nowhere as good as when I bought the phone in early November but more than acceptable. My wife is out as I write, or I'd check to see if she's connected to LTE. But that's what I expect, and I am looking forward to speed comparisons. Best speed test so far on Verizon, about two blocks from my apartment: 27Mbps. Can AT&T do better? I actually expect it will. But, so far, Galaxy Nexus, which is always connected to LTE, has exceptional battery life. Galaxy S II Skyrocket won't easily compete.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/04/Steve_Ballmer_caption_contest_winner'

    Steve Ballmer caption contest winner

    Publié: janvier 4, 2012, 9:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last week, we asked you to put a caption to the photo above -- for a chance to win an HP TouchPad -- and, whoa, did you ever. We received about 300 responses in comments and by email. Many of the best caption contenders came by mail, while many others came too late to qualify; deadline was December 28, 2011 at 11:59:59 pm ET. Actually, among the late-comers there were some well-deserving contest considerations. :(

    We reduced the number of candidates to 15; originally we planned 10 but there were so many good entries. We used a polyhedral dice from my old Dungeons & Dragons game -- yes, there was role playing before the Internet and Xbox 360 -- to cut the contenders to 12, nine, six and three. Then one -- so the winner was randomly chosen from among the top 15.

    My favorite, had I been able to select, is the second in the list below. We present the contenders in alphabetical order. Read through or scroll to the end to see the winner.

    Bart Bedsole

    "With a boisterous 'big whooop', Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer balks at the idea there are no true innovators left, now that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are out of the picture".

    Ezee1

    "In my right hand a Windows Phone, in my left hand...its future".

    Gaius

    "So I told Andy Lees to get the %#@& out of my office, out of my Windows Phone division, and to skeedaddle his way his way 'sideways' to a 'time critical' opportunity in Demotionville!"

    Kelson64

    "Steve Ballmer rehearses the entire first act of the opera 'La Traviata' in preparation for Microsoft's First Annual Consumer Electronics Talent Show".

    Riel LaFontaine

    "Mr. Balmer took the reins and decided the time was right to bring out the Microsoft Home Prostate exam hardware/software that will be shipping with WIndows 8".

    Alexander H

    "And you thought my head was too big to fit in the Microsoft O!"

    Corey Mielke

    "I have exorcized the iPhone 5; this auditorium….is clear".

    Brian Nagel

    "Steve Ballmer stars in "Phantom of the Tablet', with guest appearances of Microsoft Kin, Zune Clippy , Bob and Microsoft XP Tablet Edition".

    psycros

    Steve Ballmer comes away a strong first round contender on American Idol with his stirring rendition of 'Memory'".

    Bilal Raja

    "Steve Ballmer 'Microsoft's Got Talent 2011' audition".

    Hugo Reyes

    "Steve Ballmer speechless reaction to the question from the audience about why Windows Phone can't fly".

    Russell

    "Steve's demonstration of Microsoft's new experimental auto-tie-tier-gadget goes horribly wrong as the device turns on its master".

    Brian Sheaffer

    "Putting on the Ritz!"

    smwright

    "...and I said to Bill, so what if we didn't create it, just slap our name on it and sell it, they'll never know!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA".

    tbruceus

    "Hey!! See my car?? it was paid for by Droid patents. Har Har Har".

    So who is our randomly-chosen winner of the HP TouchPad? Brian Sheaffer and "Putting on the Ritz!" Are you confused what that means? Perhaps the video below can help.

    We still have two other contests completed and waiting to award winners -- for another HP TouchPad and Galaxy Nexus. Check back often over the next day. The other winner announcements are coming.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/04/Google_reduces_Chrome_browser_search_PageRank_for_60_days'

    Google reduces Chrome browser search PageRank for 60 days

    Publié: janvier 4, 2012, 7:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft and Mozilla simply couldn't ask for a better situation. At a time when usage share for their respective browsers sinks, the world's No. 1 search engine has effectively stripped up-and-comer Chrome from meaningful search ranking. Google demoted Chrome, following a sponsored-link scandal that violates its own policies about paid links. If you Google "browsers" today, unlike yesterday, Chrome won't appear among top results and is buried pages below.

    From one perspective, Google did the right thing, treating itself and its own product like any of its search customers. Throughout 2011, Google was on a tear to purify search rankings of shenanigans like this one. But from another viewpoint, Google had no other choice. Its business is about trust, and the company can't be doing what it prohibits others from doing. Then there's that pesky antitrust investigation and allegations Google favors its own stuff in searches.

    The scandal is in some ways a worst-nightmare scenario for Google. Simply stated: Google hired company A to advertise Chrome on the web. Company A outsourced the work to Company B, which paid bloggers to write sponsored stories about the browser. Google responded by stripping Chrome's PageRank.

    Before telling the story, let me frame it like this. Three years ago, Matt Cutts, head of Google's webspam team, laid out his position on sponsored links: "Paid posts should not pass PageRank...We do take the subject of paid posts seriously and take action on them". In this instance, Google took action against itself.

    A Scandal Unfolds

    Aaron Wall broke the story two days ago at SEO Book, and Search Engine Land's Danny Sullivan relentlessly followed up, starting with "Google’s Jaw-Dropping Sponsored Post Campaign For Chrome". The reporters observed sponsored Chrome posts appearing in search results. Google had hired Essence Digital to conduct a Chrome ad campaign. ED outsourced the work to Unruly Media, which specializes in video marketing, and that's what Google wanted for the Chrome campaign. What the search and information giant apparently didn't sign up for was sponsored posts.

    Yesterday morning, Essence Digital exonerated Google in a G+ post:

    We want to be perfectly clear here: Google never approved a sponsored-post campaign. They only agreed to buy online video ads. Google have consistently avoided paid postings to promote their products, because in their view these kind of promotions are not transparent or in the best interests of users.

    In this case, Google were subjected to this activity through media that encouraged bloggers to create what appeared to be paid posts, were often of poor quality and out of line with Google standards. We apologize to Google who clearly didn’t authorize this.

    Still, Sullivan asked the right question on January 2:

    Will Google Ban Google Chrome? Paid links drew much attention last year, after Google penalized JC Penney, as well as Forbes and Overstock for using them. Google even banned BeatThatQuote, one of its own companies last year, BeatTheQuote, over the issue. In 2009, Google penalized Google Japan for its own search results for the same issue, not removing it but reducing its ability to rank for 11 months.

    Google Punishes Itself

    Last night, the vacationing Cutts responded in a Google+ post:

    I’ll give the short summary, then I’ll describe the webspam team’s response. Google was trying to buy video ads about Chrome, and these sponsored posts were an inadvertent result of that. If you investigated the two dozen or so sponsored posts (as the webspam team immediately did), the posts typically showed a Google Chrome video but didn’t actually link to Google Chrome. We double-checked, and the video players weren’t flowing PageRank to Google either.

    However, we did find one sponsored post that linked to www.google.com/chrome in a way that flowed PageRank. Even though the intent of the campaign was to get people to watch videos -- not link to Google -- and even though we only found a single sponsored post that actually linked to Google’s Chrome page and passed PageRank, that’s still a violation of our quality guidelines, which you can find at [support.google.com] .

    In response, the webspam team has taken manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome for at least 60 days. After that, someone on the Chrome side can submit a reconsideration request documenting their clean-up just like any other company would. During the 60 days, the PageRank of www.google.com/chrome will also be lowered to reflect the fact that we also won’t trust outgoing links from that page.

    What this essentially means -- and here's the wicked, sweet irony -- searches for Chrome rank higher in Microsoft's Bing than Google. At Bing, when searching for "browsers", Chrome is top result, followed by Internet Explorer. At Google, Firefox and Opera top the results. Chrome appears on page 6 of Google's results.

    So if you use Google today and want to search for Chrome, it's much harder than it was yesterday. Will Firefox or IE gain meaningful browser usage share because it? Probably not, but every little barrier helps. Then there's the delicious irony for them to feast on.

    That said, search for "Chrome" and wonder just how much Google really penalizes its browser. Top result isn' the shiny stuff, but, you guessed it, Chrome. So much for penalizing PageRank.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/04/Scott_Thompson_is_Yahoo_s_new_CEO'

    Scott Thompson is Yahoo's new CEO

    Publié: janvier 4, 2012, 5:03pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Four months after unceremoniously firing Carol Bartz over the phone, Yahoo's board today named PayPal president Scott Thompson as chief executive. Thompson will assume the new role on January 9, when he also joins Yahoo's board of directors.

    Thompson comes to Yahoo amid great turmoil. The company is undergoing something of an identity crisis as it struggles to reinvent itself. Right now, Yahoo's strongest asset is a commanding brand, but its identity is increasingly amorphous, and the company considers unloading web properties in markets where its products are best known, such as Asia. Many challenges face Thompson, none the least convincing shareholders he can bring focus back to the struggling Internet giant. Yahoo shares nudged down about 3 percent in early trading -- $15.84, off the $16.11 opening and $16.25 close yesterday.

    "Scott brings to Yahoo a proven record of building on a solid foundation of existing assets and resources to reignite innovation and drive growth, precisely the formula we need at Yahoo", Roy Bostock, Yahoo's Chairman of board, says. "His deep understanding of online businesses combined with his team building and operational capabilities will restore the energy, focus, and momentum necessary to grow the core business and deliver increased value for our shareholders. The search committee and the entire Board concluded that he is the right leader to return the core business to a path of robust growth and industry-leading innovation".

    The board also decided Bartz was the right fit, and she wasn't. In a scathing January 2009 commentary, I expressed strong misgivings about Bartz then becoming CEO, writing: "The media company is finished" and Bartz's "credentials are all wrong for Yahoo". Thompson's Internet creds are arguably better. He served as PayPal president since January 2008. Ebay shareholders took the news poorly. Stock is down more than 3.5 percent in early trading -- to $30.22, off $30.60 opening and $31.34 close yesterday.

    Bartz marked her tenure by cutting Yahoo fat -- and some muscle along with it. Thompson inherits a smaller Yahoo, but not necessarily a better one. The challenge: What to do with so many pieces that fit so oddly together?

    Thompson describes Yahoo as an "industry icon", asserting it "has a rich history and a solid foundation to build on, and its continued user engagement is one of the many reasons for my enthusiasm. With the ultimate goal of delivering the value our shareholders expect, my immediate focus will be on getting to know the entire team and hearing more from all Yahoos, working closely with the engineers and product teams, and diving deeply into our products and services to learn more about what our more than 700 million users find most engaging and useful".

    Bartz also took a meet-and-greet approach, before sacking the lot of them. Based on his time at PayPal, Thompson may be more builder than destroyer. That said, PayPal's business is more stable than struggling Yahoo.

    "I will also be working directly with our region leaders and sales teams globally to get a clearer understanding of the needs of our advertisers and publishers", Thompson says. "Clearly, speed is important but we will attack both the opportunity ahead and the competitive challenges with an appropriate balance of urgency and thoughtfulness. I cannot wait to get started".

    Yahoo put itself up for sale, when confirming Bartz's sacking four months ago and announcing search for her replacement. Microsoft, which failed in a $44.6 billion hostile takeover four years ago, has repeatedly come up as a suitor. That's really the first question for Thompson to answer: Is he there to rebuild or to tear apart -- either selling off chunks of Yahoo or the entire company. Yahoo already outsources search to Microsoft, which surely would be interested in buying that part of the business.

    "Scott's primary focus will be on the core business, and as CEO and director, he will work closely with the board as we continue the strategic review process to identify the best approaches for the company and its shareholders", Bostock says. "As part of this process, Yahoo is considering a wide range of opportunities for the company's business, as well as specific investments or dispositions of assets". In other words, nothing at Yahoo is sacred and sale of the whole company or pieces of it are still on the table.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/03/Microsoft_stomps_on_Internet_Explorer_6_s_grave'

    Microsoft stomps on Internet Explorer 6's grave

    Publié: janvier 3, 2012, 8:21pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Here's what you do at Microsoft when you can't boast about how high Internet Explorer usage share is: You trumpet about how low it is. In what has to be one of the strangest blog posts coming out of Microsoft in weeks, Roger Capriotti proclaims: "IE6 usage in the US has now officially dropped below 1 percent!" Well, it's nearly 8 percent globally, Bud, but what kind of cheerleading is this? Generally companies tout who uses their products, not who doesn't.

    But that's the strange state of Internet Explorer 6, which Microsoft can't seem to kill -- and not for want of trying. Days like this, I want to be an artist (sadly, capable stick figures exceed my drawing capabilities). It's so past time for someone to portray the browser that won't die as some kind of undead creature.

    I understand why Microsoft wants to destroy this relic of an older Internet age and reminder how letting IE development languish for so long allowed a new browser war to arise, leading to massive loss of usage share. Then there are the security concerns. But this death watch thing is really kind of weird. Is reminding people about IE6 really the best kind of marketing? I suppose when it's the one area where lost market share is welcome. But, please!

    I'm sympathetic. I jumped on the IE6 death train years ago, but also hoped (not necessarily believed) it would have reached its destination by now. In February 2010, when Google smartly snatched the initiative from Microsoft by banning IE6 on its websites first, I suggested 5 ways Microsoft could seize the day. A month earlier I asked (and answered): "Should you dump Internet Explorer NOW?"

    Lost IE6 share doesn't mean gains for IE8 or IE9. The newer browser doesn't run on Windows XP, which remains the most widely-used version of Microsoft's PC operating system. Those users could adopt IE7 (cough, cough) or instead get a modern browser in Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox, as both are available for Windows XP. So all this IE6 death tooting is potentially as good for Microsoft's browser competitors. So again, I wonder what the real marketing value is proclaiming Internet Explorer 6's death -- also when it's not yet expired.

    That brings me to the other strange counter-intuitive -- more likely, counter-marketing -- part of Microsoft's IE6 death campaign: The Internet Explorer 6 Countdown, which tracks the browser's demise. There's really something downright goolish, like watching grandpa on the breathing machine -- relatives keeping vigil over the geezer, waiting to collect their inheritance.

    "This website is dedicated to watching Internet Explorer 6 usage drop to less than 1 percent worldwide", according to the Countdown. That goal was achieved right here in the old US of A in December with 0.9 percent browser usage share. Those damn Canadians -- 1.4 percent! Mexico is 0.8 percent, by the way.

    IE6 usage is highest in China -- 25.2 percent -- and lowest in Norway and Denmark, 0.2 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively. Globally, IE6 usage was 7.7 percent in December.

    "IE6 has been the punch line of browser jokes for a while, and we’ve been as eager as anyone to see it go away", Capriotti writes. Roger, don't take any of this personally. Everyone at Microsoft already knows me to be a sorry SOB. But you guys should do this differently. Last week's blog post about IE9 share rising points the way. Let's have a countdown -- or should that be count up -- site for when IE9 share exceeds IE8. Something that truly praises and supports the modern browser rather than standing death watch over the relic.

    Let's face it, with all those Chinese IE6 users, the browser really is undead. But, hey, maybe there's some strange sci-fi movie script in all this. Or perhaps viral YouTube video, where IE9 vanquishes the Internet Explorer 6 undead. Okay, so I'm no screenwriter, but you get the point. Right?

    Photo Credit: Fer Gregory/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/03/10_resolutions_Microsoft_should_make_for_2012'

    10 resolutions Microsoft should make for 2012

    Publié: janvier 3, 2012, 3:07am CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's my annual ritual. Rather than make predictions for the new year, I arrogantly tell Companies X, Y or Z what they should do. This year, I asked colleague Ed Oswald to offer Apple resolutions, and Google's will come from you. I've got Microsoft, but, sadly, my list looks too much like last year's, and that's disturbing. If the world doesn't end for the rest of us in 2012, as Mayans predicted, it could for Microsoft, if CEO Steve Ballmer and top execs don't take the post-PC era more seriously.

    In mid December 2010, I warned that "2011 will be make or break" for Microsoft. Viewed from perception, the year was more "make", as Microsoft marketing, successful BUILD conference and Xbox Kinect helped lift a long sagging image. Last year I put forth: "Perception management is a good 2011 priority for Microsoft, with no new versions of its flagship products planned for the year. The company needs to give consumers, developers and IT Pros reasons to get excited again about Microsoft software and OEM products". There, Microsoft succeeded.

    Otherwise, 2011 was more "break", because Microsoft couldn't keep pace with competitors, particularly Apple, Amazon and Google, which are driving forces shifting informational and computing relevance to connected portable devices from PCs. Kinect was a winner, while Apple and Android partners served Windows Phone for dinner.

    For this year, several 2011 resolutions didn't make the cut:

    • "Open a unified applications store", which Microsoft is kind of doing (but not completely) with the Windows Store.
    • "Open 50 more stores or cafés"; Microsoft has committed to 75 stores within two or three years, which is good enough.
    • "Engage enthusiasts", something the company is doing much better at.

    With that introduction, I present 10 resolutions Microsoft should make for 2012, from least to most important. You may be surprised at No. 1, because it was last in 2011.

    10. Hold smaller, more-intimate product events. The best news coming out of Microsoft at end of 2011 surprised many people: The company is done with Consumer Electronics Show. Hot damn, it's about fraking time. These big tradeshows are anachronisms. They are total wastes of time.

    They're expensive, and value is questionable, because there is so much noise from other companies. Apple, Facebook and Google maximize buzz without investing in big events. Microsoft needs to hold even more intimate events than it does now for bloggers, customers, enthusiasts, news media or partners -- lots of them. I'm not talking about the ongoing marketing and sales roadshows Microsoft already does, but invitation-only gatherings, like Apple's. They will generate buzz, particularly if the target audience doesn't officially include bloggers or journalists (but they can get in with a little prodding).

    Intimacy is hugely important to any relationship. It's easy for anyone with a keyboard to write bad things about an amorphous, distant corporation. It's something else when those same people interact with real executives and product managers. Personal contact changes everything. Walmart is a good example. Those greeters at the door aren't just there to be friendly. Walmart has learned that people who identify the store with a real person, the greeter, are less likely to steal.

    9. Step up "value marketing." This one was No. 4 last year, and almost needn't be on the list. Microsoft successfully stepped up value marketing in 2011. For example, late-year Microsoft marketing campaign "It's a great time to be a family" is spot on. One of Microsoft's founding principles is value -- making computing affordable enough to put a PC on every desktop, in every home. Microsoft marketing had drifted from the value principle, but finally is company back in line. But nowhere near enough.

    Value isn't about low pricing but getting the most from what you spend. For families, there is the value products bring to them. The measure is often emotional. McDonalds succeeds for many reasons, but family values is among them. Happy Meals help make McDonalds an affordable place to bring the kids to eat. Later, as teenagers, they go there and shop the "value menu".

    For enterprises, isn't that what ROI (return on investment) and TCO (total cost of ownership) are all about? Perhaps one reason Apple focuses so little marketing efforts on enterprises is that it has so little value -- ROI and TCO -- to sell them.

    I see good Microsoft "value marketing" to consumers but nowhere near enough for enterprises. That's why this resolution remains on the list for 2012.

    8. Bring back Bill Gates -- to sell Microsoft products, vision. This one was No. 8 last year as well. Microsoft has an identity problem. It's too good at too many things, which makes products harder to sell. The company also isn't viewed as an innovator. Chairman Bill Gates is regarded as visionary and there is lots of goodwill given to him as a prominent philanthropist. Microsoft should bring him back as pitch man -- not to run the company as was repeatedly suggested in 2011.

    The technosphere is overly-obsessed with Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, even more so following his death. Jobs is now canonized as innovator extraordinaire. But the majority of people aren't like Jobs. They're more like Gates, whose stilted speaking and awkward manner is more like them. Sure Gates is smarter than most people, which makes him unlike most everyone else from another perspective. But he's also the American Dream, the self-made and shrewd billionaire whose products are used by most of the world's population. Success commands respect, as does his philanthropy.

    Even better, bring in the Gates family, talking about how they use Microsoft technology in their home or when traveling the globe. Imagine, for example, an ad campaign that follows the Gates from country to country, using Microsoft products and showing their value among people in many emerging markets.

    7. Make Bing a development platform. Microsoft already is heading in this direction, as seen during the BUILD conference and plans revealed for Windows 8. Bing as a platform developers plug into their software or services is smart way to drive usage and push up search share against Google.

    6. Ship Windows 8 by back-to-school buying season. I feel obligated to put something about the new operating system on the list, even though it's so damn obvious. Timing isn't. Everyone is thinking Windows 8 for the holidays, I say that's way too late. If Windows 8 tablets aren't selling for back to school 2012 (and they likely won't be with public beta expected in February), Microsoft already has fraked up. iPad is sapping PC sales among consumers -- and that's starting to bleed into the business market.

    Meanwhile, Apple is rapidly becoming the brand of choice among Millennials. Microsoft simply can't bring Windows 8 to market fast enough. Internet Explorer 10 comes with it, and competitively Chrome is doing too well against older IE versions (see #5). Microsoft's 2012 motto should be: Don't wait on Windows 8.

    5. Set shorter marketing and product development goals. This one was No. 10 last year (out of 11). Microsoft isn't keeping pace with Internet time and hasn't for some time. Meanwhile, Google sets a rapid pace -- in little more than three years going from nowhere to somewhere with Android (US smartphone OS leader in 2010 and 2011, according to NPD) and Chrome (in December No. 3 browser and closing on Firefox). Both products launched in autumn 2008. Then there is Facebook, which iterates with a vengeance. Pace of innovation keeps nimbler companies in the news, on the blogs, generating positive perceptions. Speaking of social networks, look at Google+, which grows at breakneck pace in little more than six months. Microsoft has what?

    Microsoft's long-standing strength -- executing on long-term plans, whereas many public company competitors set quarterly goals that change too often -- is now a liability. The Microsoft that released three versions of Internet Explorer in about 18 months during the late 1990s executed tactically while keeping long-term plans in place. Microsoft needs to return to this kind of approach.

    Speaking of IE, look at the pace at which Google innovates Chrome, and Mozilla follows suit with Firefox -- both keep to six-week development milestones. According to Net Applications, Internet Explorer usage share fell to 52.64 percent in December 2011, from 60.35 percent in November 2009 and more than 90 percent at the end of 2004, when Firefox shipped. Usage share for Safari, the other browser on slow development track, also is down. Meanwhile Chrome usage share was 19.11 percent in December, up from 18.18 percent in November, 17.62 percent in October and 9.5 percent in November 2010.

    Setting and achieving short-term goals can boost mindshare -- that Microsoft is truly innovating, if nothing else.

    4. Buy Nokia -- that is if Google gets regulatory approval for the Motorola Mobility merger. A year ago, I couldn't imagine making this recommendation. In February 2011, I called Microsoft's Windows Phone OS distribution deal with Nokia a "silent takeover" and affordable one at that. But much has changed in 11 months.

    For starters, Google will gobble up Motorola Mobility, putting it in the hardware-software-services business, that's as long as regulators grant approval. Galaxy Nexus, which Google co-designed with Samsung, is an exceptionally good smartphone, with hardware-software-services integration being the hallmark. Imagine what Google will eventually produce from its own company and something to truly take on iPhone/iOS. Microsoft can't rely on Windows Phone OS licensing alone to compete.

    Secondly, Microsoft bought Skype for $8.5 billion last year. The voice-over-IP service is primed for mobile and Microsoft needs an integrated platform to use it to transform personal communications. Skype should have been the next really big thing in mobile long ago. Microsoft could make it so and doing so put some luster into Windows Phone.

    Finally, Windows Phone is a failure, sadly, as I predicted it would be in February 2010. There is much to like about Windows Phone as an operating system, but Microsoft started too late behind upstarts Android and iOS. For example, Microsoft's US mobile OS subscriber share on smartphones was 5.2 percent at the end of November, according to data comScore released last week. That's for a three month share loss of half a point. Meanwhile, Android grew three points to 46.9 percent share and iOS to 28.7 percent from 27.3 percent.

    On December 12, Ballmer essentially sacked Windows Phone president Andy Lees, Japanese style, by stripping him of authority. That says much about the state of Windows Phone, which following is loyal but too small.

    Nokia has global reach and distribution channels. It's practically a takeover now anyway. Microsoft should finish the job and use Nokia to create branded smartphones -- and tablets, too.

    3. License Kinect to anyone and everyone -- cheaply. In November 2010, when Microsoft shipped the first Kinect game controller, it looked like nothing more than that. Today, Kinect is an emerging development platform and one that looks to transform how people interact with all kinds of products. Kinect is a transformative user interface that businesses already use for medical research and diagnosis and for education, among others. What's exciting about Kinect is the sheer potential. I've repeatedly asserted that the most natural user interface is you.

    Microsoft released the Kinect for Windows SDK beta in June and plans commercial release this year -- there could even be an announcement next week during CES. But Kinect won't connect without aggressive Microsoft support. Kinect could be a huge platform used in many different products, if Microsoft puts the kind of resources into Kinect it detects to, say, developers and partners supporting Windows.

    Technology like Kinect is the stuff of science fiction. If Microsoft and its partners do what's right with connect, you'll start reading and viewing more of the "i" associated with Microsoft. Not "i" as in iPad or iPhone but innovation.

    2. Empower internal "cloud" startups. This one was No. 1 last year. Many of Microsoft's best, mid- to-late-Noughties products or services came from incubation projects. Some are mainstream today, like Windows Live SkyDrive. But Microsoft killed off most internal startups following the September 2008 stock market crash.

    Microsoft must bring them back and focused on mobile and the cloud. Incubation groups should operate like mini-startups, free to develop unfettered by any requirement to connect any of their work to any other Microsoft product, particularly Office or Windows. Let them run free, run wild, wildly innovate. Reward innovation, with pay incentives and other goodies. Appoint a chief startup officer (see #1), to whom employees can submit their projects, getting them outside stifling bureaucracy and mid-managers' self-preserving priorities. Empowered employees will produce. Microsoft just needs to let them.

    1. Appoint a Chief Startup Officer. Post-September 2008 Microsoft is one of larger development silos, leveraged off the main product groups. There are now eight: Interactive Entertainment; Microsoft Business Solutions; Microsoft Office; Online Services; Server and Tools; Skype; Windows & Windows Live; and Windows Phone. The silo approach stifles real innovation. It's a great strategy for extending the Office-Windows-Windows Server app stack to the cloud -- essentially keeping the status quo relevant longer -- but not for innovating or inspiring employees to make exciting new stuff.

    Microsoft needs someone internally responsible for encouraging internal incubation projects and bringing them to market -- outside the normal management structure.

    There needs to be a fairly free-flowing process allowing employees to bring ideas to the CSO and get funding for proof of concepts, at the least. The CSO, answering to Ballmer, should have authority to spin-off new product groups as well. But more immediately he or she needs authority to create small product groups within Microsoft, focused on getting new innovations to market faster and without obligatory ties to core products like Office or Windows.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/01/Sony_slashes_S_Tablet_prices'

    Sony slashes S Tablet prices

    Publié: janvier 1, 2012, 7:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox


    Sony Electronics rang in 2012 with a surprising discount that may foreshadow much about the tablet market this year. Overnight I received email from a Sony spokeswoman saying the company "has permanently dropped the price of the Sony Tablet S by $100 starting today". This follows what seemed like a temporary $50 discount right before Christmas. If you paid $499.99 or $599.99 before Santa's sleigh ride, 16GB Sony S is now $399.99 and 32GB 499.99.

    SonyStyle Store doesn't yet list the new pricing as permanent, merely "save $100 instantly". "On top of these savings, Sony is also currently offering (for a limited time) a store credit and five free Video Unlimited movie rentals, five free PlayStation Store game downloads and 180 days of free Music Unlimited service with the purchase of a Tablet", the spokeswoman says.

    Sony's big S price cuts come days after Verizon nipped $50 from Motorola Droid XYBOARD tablets, which have been on sale for less than a month. On December 12 I asked: "Would you pay Verizon $530 - $730 for Motorola Droid XYBOARD?" Reader Ken Johnson sums up the sentiment prevalent among your responses: "Hell No! Does Verizon think I'm stupid!"

    Price cuts like these often come during product transitions, when companies hope to clear out old inventory for something newer. That's unlikely the case with either S Tablet or XYBOARD. Another reason: Excess inventory, particularly following a heavy sales period, like back to school or -- you know what's coming -- Christmas.

    Many tablets are caught in the middle, between value leader Amazon Kindle Fire and brand brandisher iPad 2. Amazon sold more than four million Kindles in December, although the retailer refused to reveal how many were $199 tablets (that kind of reticence is typical). Some analysts predicted Amazon would sell 5 million Kindle Fires during the holiday quarter. In mid-December, a Maritz Research survey found Kindle Fire to be the tablet of choice among cost-conscious buyers.

    The price is certainly right. According to a BetaNews tablet pricing survey, currently with 2,089 responses, $199 is the selling sweet spot (27 percent), with the majority looking to spend $199 or less (54 percent). Only 9.6 percent of respondents would pay $399 or more, which puts Sony S Tablet as way too high, even after the $100 discount.

    XYBOARD pricing is even more stratosphere, because of mandatory data contracts. "Motorola won't be selling many of these", bibleverse1 comments. "Haven't they learned no one will give you $600 for a tablet with a contract? When the price is 149.99 with a 2-year contract, they will fly off the shelves". I'd say $199.99 is enough. Over Black Friday weekend, Verizon cut Motorola XOOM LTE price to $199.99, with two-year contract. I snapped up one, as did many other people. XOOM sold out fast.

    By specs and brands -- Motorola, Sony and Verizon -- S and XYBOARD stand above the fray, of more than 100 tablets currently available. That's not enough. "By our calculation, over 100 tablets were introduced since the iPad. However, we defy even the most tech-savvy of you to name more than a few of them", writes Retrevo's Andrew Eisner. Meanwhile, small-and-medium businesses will spend an average of $21,482 on tablets this year, according to NPD, with the majority going to iPad.

    Many have called 2011 "the year of the tablet"; 2012 is shaping up to be year of tablet price cuts, as most Androids vie for market share not taken by Kindle Fire at $199 (and presumably below, sometime soon) and iPad at $499 and above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2012/01/01/Make_a_New_Year_s_resolution__win_Galaxy_Nexus'

    Make a New Year's resolution, win Galaxy Nexus

    Publié: janvier 1, 2012, 5:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    BetaNews reader-appreciation week continues with a third contest. We'd like to give one lucky reader the Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Galaxy Nexus. But you'll have to work for it, by, first, offering New Year's resolutions that Google should make in 2012. We're giving away a Google phone after all.

    Earlier today, Colleague Ed Oslwald offered resolutions for Apple, and I'm working on my annual list for Microsoft. Google will come from you, and we ask that you make serious resolutions -- things that could improve the core business, Google products and services and relationship to customers, among others. This is your chance to tell Google execs what you want from the company this year and possibly win Galaxy Nexus in the process.

    A year ago, I pronounced "2011: The year of Google", which has proved true in even ways I didn't foresee. But unquestionably, Google advanced tremendously during 2011. Larry Page successfully returned as CEO; Android evolved and expanded its market dominance; Google bought Motorola Mobility (still pending); Chrome closed the gap on Firefox and became the second-most popular browser on Windows; Google+ redefined social networking; and much more. The foundation for 2012 is laid. What should Google do with it? You tell me.

    The rules of this contest are simple:

    1. Like this post on Facebook.

    2. Tweet this post with #betanews hashtag.

    3. Follow @betanews on Twitter (if not already)

    4. In comments, offer your resolutions -- as many as you like -- for Google but in a single comment.

    You must be a BetaNews follower on Twitter, if not already to qualify, and perform the other three tasks above. If you offer several resolutions, only one will qualify to win -- but multiples will increase your chances to make the top 10.

    The lucky winner will get either the Verizon LTE or international HSPA+ Galaxy Nexus, depending upon what cellular carrier he or she has now. In the United States, the HSPA+ model supports AT&T and T-Mobile networks. Sprint subscribers are out of luck. The contest is for the phone only, not cellular service.

    The contest closes at 11:59:59 pm ET on Jan. 2, 2012. We will announce winners no later than end of day January 4, so that your resolutions are still relevant when posted. We will publish the 10 best and choose a winner randomly from among them.

    Unlike our HP TouchPad caption contest that was all fun, this one is serious. Please offer actionable resolutions, not humorous or sarcastic ones. Good luck!

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/31/Galaxy_Nexus_shames_iPhone_4S_Siri'

    Galaxy Nexus shames iPhone 4S Siri

    Publié: décembre 31, 2011, 5:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    So much for Apple's voice command/response technology Siri.

    Among this year's holiday presents, our family received a gift card for Italian eatery Buca di Beppo, which my daughter gladly used to go out to dinner with a friend. So last night, they're ready to drive but no one knows to where. She pulls out her iPhone 4S and speaks "directions to Buca di Beppo", which Siri can't understand and repeatedly gives meaningless results when she tries again.

    Oh, this is too good an opportunity to pass up -- Android vs iPhone in the Wilcox household. I grab Galaxy Nexus, which my daughter sees and changes tactics: "Italian restaurants, downtown San Diego". There are zillions, because of Little Italy. I speak, just one time: "Directions to Buca di Beppo", wondering if I'll get no better response. Text "directions to Buca di Beppo" pops up as confirmation and then Google Map showing the way from our apartment to the restaurant.

    Apple's Siri marketing may be better, but Androids have had voice search capabilities for much longer and it shows -- see my earlier test about that. Google leverages search, too, something that even Siri asset Wolfram|Alpha can't match. But there's more: In my early use of Galaxy Nexus -- hey, I've only had it 16 days -- voice capabilities are better than on other Androids. It's not just Android 4.0 but the whole package. Galaxy Nexus doesn't feel like an OEM product. There's tight integration everywhere and on the software side closely with existing Google services.

    Days before Galaxy Nexus' US release, Android and Me dropped a juicy rumor -- that Google is working on a Siri-like product codename "Majel". Trekkers will know that Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry's wife, Majel Barrett, was the computer voice in the original series, spin-offs and movies. What really differentiates Siri from Google's already great voice capability is the interface -- that female voice responding to the user.

    Before writing here, earlier this morning I posted a shorter version on Google+, where Eli Fennell responds: "People were already using Google Voice all over the Apple products, and for Apple, that's not good. If Google Voice is already better, or at least an equal who may not have natural language support but is damned good at understanding what you said and converting it into a search string to be processed by their epic algorithms, then how badly will Majel embarass Siri when it arrives?"

    The Apple fans among you will call my "Buca di Beppo" face-off as unfair, since one test isn't representative of anything. Actually, it means everything. Because this is exactly the kind of voice search many people will do when out and about. Also, I've done this kind of testing before, where search on Galaxy S II Skyrocket (running Android 2.3.6) handily bested my daughter's iPhone 4S Siri.

    If Santa missed your house this year, take a look back at his Apple Siri commercial -- the one with the clever 3.7 billion appointments, out of, oh my, 7 billion people. Perhaps next year St. Nick will use a Google phone instead, as surely the elves do today, and you'll get a lump of coal, if not something better. ;-)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/30/Tweet__betanews__win_HP_TouchPad'

    Tweet #betanews, win HP TouchPad

    Publié: décembre 30, 2011, 6:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's another day, and another giveaway. Actually, it's a day late. We received so many submissions to the HP TouchPad caption contest, featuring Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, that we delayed the followup contest by a day.

    This new contest ends at 11:59:59 am ET on Saturday December 31, 2011. We'll announce winners some time next week. I'm being iffy on when because we'd rather announce caption contest winners first. But given the number of really good submissions, from which one winner will be randomly chosen, we don't want to rush that one too fast. To qualify for the new contest, you must follow BetaNews on Twitter.

    The rules to our next New Years giveaway are simple:

    1. Like this post on Facebook.

    2. Tweet this post with #betanews hashtag.

    3. Follow @betanews on Twitter (if not already)

    4. In comments, tell us what you'd like to win next (optionally link to your tweet there).

    The very next giveaway -- and you should really watch for it this weekend -- will be a Galaxy Nexus. You'll have to think hard and write brilliantly to get it -- more on what that means when I formally announce the contest.

    We'd like to give away one more thing, but we're divided. There have been suggestions of iPad 2, Transformer Prime or Pica projector. Transformer Prime availability (as in not yet) is stickler.

    Tell us what you would like to win and in comments "Like" the suggested prizes you would want most to win. Number of Likes will influence but not guarantee choice. For example, I'm sure many of you would Like a flight into space on Virgin Galactic; so would we. That's not happening unless Sir Richard Branson gifts one.

    The winner will be randomly chosen from all qualified submissions.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/30/New_dictionary_definition__iPad_equals_tablet'

    New dictionary definition: iPad equals tablet

    Publié: décembre 30, 2011, 2:07am CET par Joe Wilcox

    The most successful brands define their category/function, like Xerox for "print". According to research NPD released today, for many business decision makers "tablet" means "iPad".

    "The iPad, just as it is in the consumer market, is synonymous for 'tablet' in the business market, leaving Apple poised to take advantage of the increased spending intentions of these SMBs", says Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. Those spending intentions are on the rise, with 73 percent of businesses with fewer than 1,000 employees planning to buy tablets -- eh, iPads -- during the next 12 months. That's up from 68 percent in second quarter.

    "Businesses of all sizes appear to be determined to capitalize on the tablet phenomenon", Baker says. "NPD’s research shows that iPad purchase preference is higher among larger firms than smaller ones, which is an important indicator that Apple is gaining traction far outside its typical consumer space".

    Average planned spend is $21,482 -- the least among businesses with fewer than 50 employees ($1,912) and, unsurprisingly, more ($38,749) from larger operations (501-999 employees). Assuming $600 per device, including tax and accessories, that's 3 tablets for a small business and 64.5 for the largest medium business, on average.

    One reasonable question to ask: What does this mean for SMB PC sales? "This by no means equates to the death of the PC market", Baker says. "The combination, however, of the length of time since the Windows 7 launch, the need to spend on higher cost infrastructure, and the increased spending on tablets has clearly put a crimp on PC spending intentions, especially among the largest firms".

    Microsoft has sold over 500 million Windows 7 licenses, the majority to businesses, and many are completing or have completed major upgrade deployments from Windows XP. The tablet, eh iPad, surge comes at a time when more SMBs are free to spend on something else. "Only 23 percent of the largest firms (501-999 employees) anticipated spending additional sums" on PCs, Baker says. "The expected spend over the coming year was almost $75,000, which would equate to replacing around 10-15 percent of the company’s installed base"; "for the smallest company, their $3,400 would also fund an upgrade for about 10-15 percent of the firms PCs".

    Looked at differently, businesses with fewer than 50 employees have budgeted for tablets about 56 percent of what they could spend on PCs. For those with 501-999 employees about 52 percent. There's no saying definitively these SMBs would spend on PCs what they allocate to tablets. But there is only so much money to go around.

    Baker regards the numbers a little differently than I do, but he also has access to a full range of data not at my disposal:

    While the market speculation spins about the decline in the PC market it remains apparent that someone forgot to tell the customers. Spending continues on PCs, and on tablets, and few companies, even the smallest ones, are significantly reallocating their spending away from the personal computing needs of their employees. As we head into 2012 the SMB market continues to provide an important source of volume and dollars to PC market.

    I have two questions for you. When I say tablet, do you think iPad? If an IT manager, will you displace some PC spending on tablets this year? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/30/New_dictionary_definition____iPad_equals_tablet'

    New dictionary definition -- iPad equals tablet

    Publié: décembre 30, 2011, 2:07am CET par Joe Wilcox

    The most successful brands define their category/function, like Xerox for "print". According to research NPD released today, for many business decision makers "tablet" means "iPad".

    "The iPad, just as it is in the consumer market, is synonymous for 'tablet' in the business market, leaving Apple poised to take advantage of the increased spending intentions of these SMBs", says Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. Those spending intentions are on the rise, with 73 percent of businesses with fewer than 1,000 employees planning to buy tablets -- eh, iPads -- during the next 12 months. That's up from 68 percent in second quarter.

    "Businesses of all sizes appear to be determined to capitalize on the tablet phenomenon", Baker says. "NPD’s research shows that iPad purchase preference is higher among larger firms than smaller ones, which is an important indicator that Apple is gaining traction far outside its typical consumer space".

    Average planned spend is $21,482 -- the least among businesses with fewer than 50 employees ($1,912) and, unsurprisingly, more ($38,749) from larger operations (501-999 employees). Assuming $600 per device, including tax and accessories, that's 3 tablets for a small business and 64.5 for the largest medium business, on average.

    One reasonable question to ask: What does this mean for SMB PC sales? "This by no means equates to the death of the PC market", Baker says. "The combination, however, of the length of time since the Windows 7 launch, the need to spend on higher cost infrastructure, and the increased spending on tablets has clearly put a crimp on PC spending intentions, especially among the largest firms".

    Microsoft has sold over 500 million Windows 7 licenses, the majority to businesses, and many are completing or have completed major upgrade deployments from Windows XP. The tablet, eh iPad, surge comes at a time when more SMBs are free to spend on something else. "Only 23 percent of the largest firms (501-999 employees) anticipated spending additional sums" on PCs, Baker says. "The expected spend over the coming year was almost $75,000, which would equate to replacing around 10-15 percent of the company’s installed base"; "for the smallest company, their $3,400 would also fund an upgrade for about 10-15 percent of the firms PCs".

    Looked at differently, businesses with fewer than 50 employees have budgeted for tablets about 56 percent of what they could spend on PCs. For those with 501-999 employees about 52 percent. There's no saying definitively these SMBs would spend on PCs what they allocate to tablets. But there is only so much money to go around.

    Baker regards the numbers a little differently than I do, but he also has access to a full range of data not at my disposal:

    While the market speculation spins about the decline in the PC market it remains apparent that someone forgot to tell the customers. Spending continues on PCs, and on tablets, and few companies, even the smallest ones, are significantly reallocating their spending away from the personal computing needs of their employees. As we head into 2012 the SMB market continues to provide an important source of volume and dollars to PC market.

    I have two questions for you. When I say tablet, do you think iPad? If an IT manager, will you displace some PC spending on tablets this year? Please answer in comments.

    Editor's Note: Do to a technical error, commenting system wouldn't load on this story until Dec. 30, 2011, 4:55 pm ET.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/29/I_jumped_on_the__Dump_Go_Daddy_Day__bandwagon'

    I jumped on the 'Dump Go Daddy Day' bandwagon

    Publié: décembre 29, 2011, 9:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today is unofficially "Dump Go Daddy Day", as people across the Internet express their outrage at the registrar's open support (retracted six days ago) for proposed legislation Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA. I still contend there's hysteria here, by singling out Go Daddy and ignoring other SOPA supporters. But the registrar is easy target, in part because people can so easily protest SOPA by moving their domains, and there is founder Bob Parsons' lingering public image problems -- if for no other reason than the "elephant incident".

    My decision has little to do with the anti-Go Daddy mob but several considerations, SOPA being just one. While Go Daddy customer service has been good, I never liked the idea of moving my domains there. The garish website and other attributes about the business bothered me. But Go Daddy offered cheap domains compared to Network Solutions. Then came Parsons' elephant hunting video in March, and that really bugged me. SOPA support added to my displeasure. Finally, after calling NSI yesterday, I got an acceptable transfer deal that makes good economic sense right now.

    What Irony

    I want to address something before telling my domain transfer story: There's a strange irony to Go Daddy's SOPA support -- or perhaps not. The registrar is fighting off several copyright infringement lawsuits, including one from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Infringement would make Go Daddy liable to all kinds of nastiness if SOPA became law.

    House representatives introduced SOPA in late October, following Senate bill PROTECT IP ACT, or PIPA, introduced in May (Review the bills for yourself: PROTECT IP. SOPA.). Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much.

    Go Daddy is a potentially big infringement target, since it registers and hosts domains. Perhaps executives hoped to mitigate problems with entertainment industry infringement lawsuits or to influence SOPA's refinement, potentially limiting liability should it, or PIPA, become law. Whatever the motivation, Go Daddy stopped supporting SOPA on December 23.

    Be Gone Daddy

    I initiated transfer of 25 domains, from Go Daddy to Network Solutions, late yesterday afternoon. I had forgotten Tucows is a registrar and would have contacted them otherwise. Melbourne IT ranked high on my list of choices, but from past experience the time difference between Australia and the United States is a problem when support is needed. I have 34 domains with Go Daddy, the majority transferred there from NSI over the last two years. The nine left behind mostly represent those ineligible for the deal offered (.tv, for example) and a few domains I don't care about keeping. Network Solutions charged me $6.99 per domain and $6 per private registration. Other registrars offer better deals, but I wanted to go back to NSI. The transfer keeps existing time I have for each of the domains and adds 12 months to it. Private registration is for 12 months only.

    My budget is tight after Christmas, but my father-in-law generously gave cash, which, coincidentally, just covers the cost of the domain transfers. By the way, domain name prices go up in mid January everywhere. I got 12 months more for each of mine, with private registration, at a bargain price -- well compared to what Go Daddy and Network Solutions typically charge -- and locked in before price increases. From that perspective, the economics made enough sense for me to spend now.

    I often make decisions based on intuition. I had felt antsy about Go Daddy for a long time, well before this SOPA business started. Transferring back to NSI felt good, despite the $350-plus spent doing so. I acted yesterday because, coincidentally, two domains expire today.

    Transferring domains isn't difficult, certainly nothing like when I got my first in August 1995. I called Network Solutions to begin the process over the phone, while unlocking them in the Go Daddy control panel at the same time. If you don't unlock the domains, and they should be locked otherwise, the transfer will be denied. Later I went through each of the domains in Go Daddy's control panel requesting activation code for each; these were emailed. Then I waited on NSI to send me email for accepting terms and service for each domain, after which I went to "Transfer Status" in the domain manager to enter the codes sent by Go Daddy. This process begins the official transfer request.

    Overnight, Go Daddy denied all 25.

    Turns out Go Daddy requires that private registration be removed from all domains before transfer. I've never seen this before. Certainly I didn't need to turn off private registration when moving domains from NSI to Go Daddy. It's a little spite -- kick in the ass -- as you go out Go Daddy's door and defeats the purpose of having private registration in the first place.

    If you have a domain and don't use private registration, you really should. Otherwise your information goes into the public WHOIS database. For me, it's not a privacy issue. I like the concept of an open database of domains. But spammers like the concept even more. Spammers mine WHOIS for personal information. Within four months after I first used private registration, the volume of spam going to the primary email address declined by over 95 percent. So I'm pissed at Go Daddy compelling me to put the info into the clear.

    Go Daddy uses a separate operation to manage private registration, but I couldn't log in. So I called support for assistance (and reset the password). I really, really, really felt sorry for the guy on the other end of the line. Typically when I've called Go Daddy in the past, service reps were friendly and jovial. This guy was polite but clearly haggard. He understood that I must be turning off private registration to transfer domains. He asked if I knew that Go Daddy had changed its stance on SOPA. I panged with guilt, realizing it can't be a good time to be working for Go Daddy, at least in his role. I then called Network Solutions, to make sure the transfer requests had been re-initiated. They're now pending ICANN registry approval.

    Viewpoints

    Yesterday I asked: "Who's dumping Go Daddy to protest SOPA?" Dora Smith is "dumping Go Daddy! I don't want to do business with any company in that much of a hurry to empower the government to dump my website, with no due process and no recourse, should I become the target of a copyright dispute, which are commonplace on the Internet. Copyright law is often misunderstood and often abused. It was meant to be civil law and needs to stay that way".

    Johnny91:

    Go Daddy no longer supports SOPA or PIP or any of the things the crowd doesnt want them to support. But the crowd is leaving anyway. Good message to send the rest of the SOPA supporters. Back down and we will still boycott your company. Might as well stick with SOPA because changing your stance doesnt matter to the boycotters. The boycotters are like bad blackmailers. They blackmail someone and the person pays. Then they release the blackmail material anyway.

    Yeti McMellenstein: "The migration away from GoDaddy is still ongoing but should be complete for all of the domains I manage by tomorrow. For me, Go Daddy's support for SOPA (now tacit if not explicit support) is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. Initially attracted to them by price, I have been increasingly put off by their escalating sexist marketing, unconscionable video of elephant slaughter, just to name a few issues".

    "I don't care about 'the principle'", sapphir8 comments. "I am happy with their service and if they decide to backtrack and support another SOPA thing, oh well. Doesn't bother me".

    Photo Credit: Rikke/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/29/My_Android_nightmare'

    My Android nightmare

    Publié: décembre 29, 2011, 6:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's only fair. When iPhone 4S customers complained about poor battery life, I raked Apple for ongoing design problems. Now that I'm having problems with Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket and AT&T, the Android camp deserves its due. Perhaps with different AT&T customer service you wouldn't see this post at all.

    There's a problem with the Skyrocket I purchased on November 8 from AT&T. Battery life sucks. But it wasn't always that way. During the first 3.5 weeks, battery life was exceptional -- on par with what I had with iPhone 4. Then something dramatically changed, quite suddenly, like someone cutting the electric lights and replacing them with candles. My experience went from bright to dim, and I don't like living in the darkened room.

    I posted to Google+ on December 12:

    Say do you have Galaxy S II Skyrocket? How's your battery life? Mine dramatically changed about a week ago -- from 24 -40 hours between charges to, ugh, much less. I'm 9 hours and 50 min on current charge. Battery is 14 percent, after setting idle overnight.

    It's likely local issue. Cell reception sucks in my apartment building and could be sucking dry the battery. But this is iPhone 4S-like drainage on a handset with stellar battery life just a week ago. So, while troubleshooting before writing about it, I'd like to see how anyone else is doing with their Skyrocket.

    Looks like I was right about the antenna sucking the battery dry, just wrong about the reason. But I didn't know that until last night.

    Troubled Troubleshooting

    Occam's Razor suggested software problem, which I investigated. I hadn't installed anything new in the days before battery life started draining fast -- most shockingly just setting idle. For example, the phone had 71 percent charge went I crawled into bed about Midnight last night. At 4 am PT, Skyrocket woke me with the chime for low charge. It was dead when I got up 90 minutes later; it's charging now.

    That's not just bad, it's terrible. Worse, my wife uses Skyrocket now. This battery thing isn't good for the relationship. I may have to move her back to Google Nexus S. She inherited the S2 phone after I purchased Google Galaxy Nexus 14 days ago from Verizon. We waited until Christmas week, when I ordered her a new phone case, before switching handsets. In process, I restored Skyrocket to factory settings, assuming still some errant app was cause. Nothing changed; charge still drained fast.

    I moved next to the battery. Galaxy Nexus and Galaxy S II Skyrocket use the same 1850 mAh battery. I bought a charger and spare from Amazon and swapped in the new battery. Nothing changed, and that really surprised me. I was so sure bum battery had to be the problem. This had become a matter to take up with AT&T. I've been busy here at BetaNews and couldn't get to the AT&T corporate store until last night, where, like troubleshooting the Samsung smartphone, things didn't go as I expected.

    AT&T Disappoints

    Perhaps Apple customer service spoiled me. Apple Store has always stood by its products, at least with me, with amazing tenacity. Most recent example: In March, my 11.6-inch MacBook Air failed. This is a computer I purchased in November 2010, so the hardware failed after about four months. How did the Apple Store resolve this problem? I walked out with a brand new MacBook Air. Now that's customer service! Surely AT&T would replace my smartphone, which I purchased less than 2 months earlier.

    Fat chance of that. A store rep, and later the manager, told me there is no replacement after 30 days -- that is at their store. AT&T has a service center, which conveniently is located about half-a-mile away, that could swap phones. The rep called to make sure the service shop was open (this was around 7:15 pm before 8 pm closing) and whether there was a Skyrocket replacement on hand. Open, yes; replacement, no. I would have to get one by mail order. "Say, what?"

    So I asked to speak to the manager about getting in-store replacement after the service center determined the Samsung smartphone was in fact defective. Absolutely not, he said. I scolded him: "You make me regret not buying iPhone. Apple would have replaced it already".

    Busted Antenna

    I trucked off to the AT&T Service Center, where Skyrocket was examined. But first, while waiting my turn, I noticed something really, really odd. LTE occasionally showed up under the 4G in the upper right-hand screen. LTE!!! San Diego isn't supposed to have the service yet. So I installed SpeedTest.net app and readied for mind-blowing results, which I got but at the wrong end of the scale. Cough. Cough. 678kbps.

    My turn came. The tech did some quick diagnostics and then we talked about the troubleshooting I had already done. He honed on the antenna. The signal indicator danced around dramatically, something I hadn't paid much attention to before. He also noticed LTE lighting up, and told me the going from one to five bars to LTE and variations in-between was abnormal and indicated that something was wrong with the antenna. Before he explained further, I understood. The phone gobbles up heap loads of charge as it constantly looks for a signal across the networks, 3G, HSPA+ and LTE. He said that being a LTE phone that's the network Skyrocket would look for first.

    The phone needs to be replaced. Wrinkle: I would have to take a remanufactured (e.g., refurbished) Skyrocket, sent by mail, the tech told me. Like hell! I have a practically new phone that has been properly cared for -- never dropped or otherwise mishandled. The problem started suddenly, within 30 days of purchase. But that's failure I must take responsibility for, not rushing down to the AT&T store.

    I took the phone home. The tech made notes in the account, and I will call AT&T customer service later today in a last ditch effort to get a new phone. I had expected more from AT&T and perhaps too much, having been spoiled by Apple.

    The AT&T employees were friendly and helpful, but their corporate procedures left this customer dissatisfied. When Apple replaced my MacBook Air after four months, I wrote about it here at BetaNews, as I likely would have done about getting a new Skyrocket. Instead, it's a story the Apple Fanclub and those folks hating AT&T will delight in. The point: Customer satisfaction should be the only goal to any transaction. It's one reason Apple's brand is so popular -- satisfied customers leaving the Genius Bar. AT&T needs to raise its customer service IQ. Perhaps I'll have to settle for less, but I won't forget when it comes time to renew cellular contracts.

    Update: I contacted AT&T customer service, and spent 45 minutes on the phone. The initial rep kicked me up to a "customer retention" specialist after I asked what the termination fee would be for my existing lines. He attempted to assist but claimed AT&T's system wouldn't allow any other option but remanufactured phone under warranty.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/28/The_New_York_Times_wasn_t_hacked'

    The New York Times wasn't hacked

    Publié: décembre 28, 2011, 11:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Since so many blogs and news outlets today reported the Grey Lady's email system had been infiltrated by hackers, a story correcting the record is appropriate (since you won't likely read it as a headline at many of the sites misreporting the incident).

    The reported hacking also is another sign that news gathering has gone all to hell in this era of posting first and checking facts later on. What people will remember is the headline about the New York Times being hacked. Hence, I decided to go with opposite headline for that reason. What I find funny: Many of the headlines I originally saw that read something like or exactly "The New York Times was hacked" now have question marks. Another is "[Updated]" and adds "possibly". Unless the Times is lying, which I doubt, there was no hack.

    At 1:07 pm ET today, I received a strange email from the New York Times:

    Dear Home Delivery Subscriber,

    Our records indicate that you recently requested to cancel your home delivery subscription. Please keep in mind when your delivery service ends, you will no longer have unlimited access to NYTimes.com and our NYTimes apps.

    We do hope you’ll reconsider.

    As a valued Times reader we invite you to continue your current subscription at an exclusive rate of 50% off for 16 weeks. This is a limited-time offer and will no longer be valid once your current subscription ends.

    Continue your subscription and you’ll keep your free, unlimited digital access, a benefit available only for our home delivery subscribers. You’ll receive unlimited access to NYTimes.com on any device, full access to our smartphone and iPad® apps, plus you can now share your unlimited access with a family member.

    To continue your subscription call 1-877-698-0025 and mention code 38H9H (Monday–Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.; Saturday, 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. E.D.T.).

    I hadn't recently called to cancel the Sunday Times, but whenever I do, the customer service rep offers half price for six months. We've been doing this little song and dance for years. So the half-price offer was believable to me.

    About 90 minutes ago, I checked Feedly and started seeing the "hacked" headlines. If turned around, perhaps they should read something like "Bloggers and reporters are hacks", something many news media haters would relish.

    But in defense of my peers, The Times made the hack theory plausible by tweeting: "If you received an email today about canceling your NYT subscription, ignore it. It's not from us". Well, if "it's not from us", it must be from someone else, right? What's juicer than a hacked story on a slow news week, hence the frenzy started. Once a few places reported the hacking, the piranhas circled, chewed up the facts and pooped out the hacked stories.

    At 4:17 pm ET came followup email from the Grey Lady:

    Dear New York Times Reader,

    You may have received an email today from The New York Times with the subject line 'Important information regarding your subscription'.

    This email was sent by us in error. Please disregard the message. We apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

    Sincerely,

    The New York Times

    Eleven minutes later, Amy Chozick updated The Times' own Media Decoder blog, which also had some, ah, misleading information now lost in the update (or so it looks to me):

    The New York Times said it accidentally sent emails on Wednesday to more than eight million people who had shared their information with the company, erroneously informing them they had canceled home delivery of the newspaper.

    The Times Company, which initially mischaracterized the mishap as spam, apologized for sending the emails. The 8.6 million readers who received the emails represent a wide cross-section of readers who had given their emails to the newspaper in the past, said a Times Company spokeswoman, Eileen Murphy.

    Whew, there's no hack -- not that I'm left with any confidence that IT staff knows what the hell is going on with their email system. Spam? Pleaseeee! That's reason I guess to excuse -- in part, anyway -- all the misreporting since The Times didn't exactly give out the best information.

    Now 8.6 million subscribers know The Times' dirty, little secret. If they cancel home delivery, they can keep the paper for half price. Now that's something to write about.

    Photo Credit: Archipoch/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/28/Who_s_dumping_Go_Daddy_to_protest_SOPA_'

    Who's dumping Go Daddy to protest SOPA?

    Publié: décembre 28, 2011, 6:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Tomorrow is "Dump Go Daddy Day", not that many of you waited, based on your comments. For those considering to show their outrage at the registrar for active SOPA support (since withdrawn), it might be helpful to see what others are doing, where they're taking domains and exact reasoning for kicking Go Daddy down the hill.

    But first, I must say that negative response to yesterday's Go Daddy/SOPA post surprised me. My some of you really are outraged. What I don't understand: Why focus all that anger on Go Daddy, or any other SOPA supporter, when legislators in the House and Senate who proposed the Stop Online Piracy Act, and sibling PROTECT IP ACT (PIPA), have the power to pass a bill into law? Wouldn't boycotting them make more sense? Or letting President Obama know how you would feel about him signing rather than vetoing the legislation? We are entering a big election year in just a few days, after all.

    BetaNews reader Mark Haus shares similar sentiment: "Moving from GoDaddy won't change whether the legislation passes. It seems to me our energy could be better used fighting sopa itself. Registrar changes can be made anytime. Focus, people". Jeremy Brownstein disagrees: "The all mighty dollar on ether side of the road has more of an impact than any vote or the current democratic system".

    I can't speak for BetaNews, but I personally oppose both PROTECT IP and SOPA, based on reading the proposed legislation. (Review the bills for yourself: PROTECT IP. SOPA.) By the way, Go Daddy is not BetaNews's registrar, something I should have checked for yesterday's story.

    Recap, before looking at the Go Daddy dumpers: House representatives introduced SOPA in late October, following Senate bill PROTECT IP introduced in May. Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much.

    Go Daddy came out supporting SOPA, almost immediately. I pulled the updated statement on December 23, hours before Go Daddy removed it (you can read it here). That same day, the registrar retracted its support for SOPA, which, as many people have observed, isn't the same as opposing it. I've said the same all along, that I don't support SOPA. That's not the same as saying I oppose it, which is why I deliberately affirm so today. To be clear.

    One more thing, before looking at the dump Go Daddy SOPA protesters: Kaspersky Lab came out against the legislation relatively early on, by ending its membership with Business Software Alliance, a big SOPA supporter. BSA members include Adobe, Apple and Microsoft. Three weeks ago, in a commentary for BetaNews, Eugene Kaspersky gave his reasons for opposing SOPA and dumping BSA.

    Dumping Go Daddy

    "I'll move my domains on the 29th unequivocally", Eric Gillette writes. "I never hosted with them in the first place, since their hosting platform is weak in comparison to what's available, but now that I've found out about their actual support of SOPA (that's nuts), I'm done. Whether they re-canted or not, the damage is done". Yeti McMellenstein: "I own about 20 domains, most with Go Daddy. I manage about 300 others for clients. I am in the process of switching them all now".

    "GoDaddy is looking out for Hollywood's inerest and is giving its customers the big F U", Ray Lloyd asserts. "There are other other host providers who arte looking out for our interest. I will move my solitary domain to someone else who chooses to fight that which hurt us rather than stay with someone who embraces the enemy".

    Susan Jones: "If GD isn't supportive of it's clients I see no reason why we should continue to support them. In the process of transferring a bunch of domain names to namecheap.com. Picked them because of an article that listed the top 5 registrars -- Namecheap was at the top of the list. Fingers crossed the transition goes smoothly!"

    Namecheap consistently appears in BetaNews comments as registrar of choice moving from Go Daddy. The company aggressively promotes December 29 as "Move Your Domain Day -- exercise your right and unite against SOPA and their supporters". That reads like shameless commercial exploitation to me.

    Starry Gordon:

    I am probably not going to move my accounts from GoDaddy on the 29th, but if they continue to support the likes of SOPA and PIPA I will when renewal time comes around. The problems with SOPA and PIPA are not in the controversy of IP rights, but in the complete surrender of the Internet to corporate power and greed. Even if the insane expansion of copyright of recent years were defensible, the arbitrary punishment of the accused and anyone standing around in the vicinity without any sort of due process is unacceptable -- and unconstitutional.

    "There are 3 possible positions here: Support, Neutral (neither support nor oppose), Oppose", Alejandro Rodriguez comments. "I am moving my 30+ domains away from GoDaddy precise because Go Daddy does not oppose SOPA.

    Ryan Gart Gartrell: "I pulled my websites off of Godaddy because of the stance they took in the beginning. Just because they publicly say they now are neutral on the issue does not mean that is how the executives really feel. If they did really feel neutral they would have been that way the whole time".

    Viewpoints

    "GoDaddy deserves their boycott, but it needs to step up to a new level", symbolset comments. "GoDaddy is one of Google's registrar partners. I'm a big fan of Google, but this is not OK. I would like to hear from Google what they're doing about this". Yes, what about Google, which strongly opposes SOPA, and its registrar for Blogger domains?

    Reuben Rova:

    Market pressure like this is important. It sends a positive message to the business community. That message is we are not going to buy their services if they are going to use the profits to pass bad legislation. Or go on big game killing sprees in Africa for that matter. Stop wasting your money and move your domains to a registrar that doesn't believe in trashing our rights and killing elephants in Africa. I am web design student and when I choose a registrar I do some searching of news articles and websites for pertinent information. I considered Go Daddy but searches revealed the CEO's penchant for killing elephants and I very wisely did business elsewhere.

    "So we have a bunch of dishonorable people who pirate all sorts of intellectual property and are complaining when the rightful owners are asserting their rights. Copyright infringement is a criminal act", Bob Kelly comments. "I can't see anything wrong with SOPA and Godaddy's support. I have no dog in this fight, but I don’t steal and I want people who do steal to be stopped and punished. This is just good for society".

    Chris Carmichael: "Controlling piracy is an understandable goal, but the lawmakers need to understand technology better before pushing something through that far surpasses the original intent due to special interest group funding and a lack of techie knowledge".

    Joshsisk:

    I co-own a hosting company and domain name registration service -- a small one. Part of the reason Go Daddy supports SOPA is that it reduces the safe harbor we have been operating under related to content. This means companies in my field will have to have employees monitoring our customers content. Big companies like Go Daddy can afford to do this, but us small fish? Less so. Many small companies will go under, or be forced to raise prices. Which will be good for Go Daddy. That's why they support this, in my opinion.

    Will you or have you moved your domains? If so, where? For how much? Other readers will want to know.

    Photo Credit: Dirk Ercken/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/28/Write_a_caption__win_an_HP_TouchPad'

    Write a caption, win an HP TouchPad

    Publié: décembre 28, 2011, 3:54pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Do you remember in September, when HP practically gave away TouchPads, for 99 bucks? We tried to get two, and thought we failed, but they eventually came. We saved them up for one of several end-of-year contests. It's our way of saying thanks to you for being a part of the BetaNews community.

    Today we start out with the first of the two TouchPads. We'll give away the other tomorrow and two other gadgets -- that many of you will like loads more -- through New Years Day. Your challenge is simple: Write a caption to this photo of Steve Ballmer. Microsoft's CEO will deliver his last Consumer Electronics Show keynote in about a dozen days. We'll pick the best and let chance choose the winner. You have until 11:59:59 pm ET today -- that's December 28, 2011 -- to submit your caption, either in comments or by emailing joe at betanews dot com.

    The Ballmer pic is not from CES, but is a keynote, nevertheless. It matches a set Microsoft has posted from CeBIT 2008, but I can't definitively say who shot it. If SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act, was law, we might be in trouble. Given the amount of debate about SOPA right now, I purposely chose a photo with uncertain origins. BetaNews' normal policy is to credit photos or at least use uncredited ones for which we have rights or they are in public domain.

    With that introduction, make us laugh!

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/27/Stop_the_dump_Go_Daddy_madness'

    Stop the dump Go Daddy madness

    Publié: décembre 27, 2011, 6:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's a strange irony to the sudden, seemingly grassroots campaign against Go Daddy. The domain registrar supported SOPA, Stop Online Piracy Act, that many people say will curtail free speech on the Internet. Now there's mass call for a Go Daddy boycott, but it has taken on mass peer-pressure hysteria -- that by association you are somehow evil if you don't transfer domains from Go Daddy. Stated differently, Go Daddy protesters block peoples' right to choose, too, by pressuring them to leave the registrar. They're guilty now of what they accuse the government would do in the future -- suppressing freedom on the Internet.

    The full force of realization hit this morning while scanning my newsfeed. I use Feedly on my Motorola XOOM LTE to check Google Reader, where I saw a TechCrunch post missed yesterday about site ByeDaddy. You can go there and see what domains use Go Daddy. Something like this exists for one reason, to extend the Go Daddy boycott to others -- to force them to give up the registrar. But there is plenty of pressure to switch elsewhere, as December 29, "Dump Go Daddy Day", approaches.

    I have decided not to move my domains, 34 of them, from Go Daddy back to Network Solutions (or to another registrar). I do so in protest of Go Daddy protesters. Two of my domains coincidentally expire on December 29. I may move those solely for keeping Go Daddy honest about its stated position to stop supporting SOPA. But I won't move my domains because of the Internet mob. Others won't easily feel so free. If you do business on the Internet, where your brand is everything, what can you do? Stand up to the anti-Go Daddy rabble when word spreads across the InterWebs about which registrar you use? When your competitor switches and boasts about it, for positive brand image gain, will you just sit aside and watch?

    Then there are circles of association, when your friends start rallying against Go Daddy. Will you stand against them or stand with them, so as not to be ostracized by the crowd? I would stand apart, but I've never cared much about what others think of me. If you do, standing with the mob is easier than being socially crushed by it.

    Mob rules Wikipedia

    The worst offenders here are businesses or organizations that use situations like this for public image gain. Others might be doing this and bowing before the anti-Go Daddy mob. I'm talking Wikipedia, which depends on the goodwill of volunteers to edit entries and generosity of donators to survive. Wikipedia is currently conducting a fundraising campaign. Perception that the organization supports Go Daddy, despite already taking a strong position against SOPA, could hurt Wikipedia at a crucial time. So it's no surprise, perhaps, Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales tweeted last week that the organization would leave Go Daddy.

    Four days ago, reddit user benbread posted: "Wikipedia.org is with Go Daddy -- Jimmy if you're listening please transfer wikimedia domains away from Go Daddy to show you're serious about opposing SOPA". User neilk responded:

    Hi guys. Wikimedia Foundation software engineer here. Our staff is tiny, so this means I sit in the same room as the people who can deal with this. I'm not speaking for that team, but I'm going to suggest you all be patient.

    We have a rule to never make big changes to the website on Friday unless it's an emergency. This probably goes double for DNS changes, which as any techie will tell you, often go wrong. And this is the Christmas weekend, so already much of the tech staff is traveling or taking a vacation day.

    That said, I know that a number of Wikimedia Foundation people moved some personal domains from Go Daddy the other day, including myself. The Foundation has already publicly stated that SOPA will hurt the free web and Wikipedia, and the English Wikipedia community is seriously considering a form of sitewide blackout as protest, sometime in January.

    The answer is defensive and shows the power peer pressure has over Wikipedia. On December 23, Wales tweeted: "I am proud to announce that the Wikipedia domain names will move away from GoDaddy. Their position on #sopa is unacceptable to us".

    What position is that, Jimmy? Go Daddy withdrew its support for SOPA around the time of your announcement: "Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' currently working its way through US Congress". The registrar has changed its position, so why pull the domains in protest for something that no longer needs protesting -- except perhaps for Wikipedia's image, for perception reasons, and for the influence the anti-Go Daddy mob wields right now.

    Go Daddy's SOPA support goes back to at least October, when the bill was introduced in Congress. The registrar's original position can be found in this PDF" of information I pulled from its site hours before Go Daddy removed it on December 23. My question for Jimmy Wales: Are you responding to the mob or Go Daddy, seeing as the registrar's support for SOPA goes back two months and warranted response long before talk of boycott? The announcement's timing instead comes after call for boycott and during crucial Wikipedia fundraising effort when negative public perceptions -- guilt by Go Daddy association -- could close purses and wallets.

    By the way, according to ByeDaddy, Wikipedia is still with Go Daddy.

    Give Go Daddy Day

    Continued customer outrage can keep Go Daddy honest. That's reason for profile organizations like Wikipedia to stay. The future threat of leaving, and highly publicized, can do more good than any mass exodus now. The earlier call for boycott, before Go Daddy backed off SOPA, accomplished its goal. So why continue a campaign of mass-boycott?

    Imagine the good people could do with the money they would spend transferring domains, by giving it elsewhere. To the homeless, to charities like the Red Cross or even to Wikipedia. Rather than "Dump Go Daddy Day" why not celebrate Internet freedom with "Give Go Daddy Day"? Celebrate the boycott's success and take some of the money you would have used moving domains from Go Daddy and putting it to some charitable use.

    If I were to move my domains, my original registrar Network Solutions would be first choice. It would cost me about $30, including private registration, to move one domain. That's money I pledge to give away December 29. Maybe I'll even make a donation to Wikipedia, whether or not it switches from Go Daddy. What about you? Will you dump Go Daddy in two days time or give that money to someone who needs it more than a domain registrar?

    Photo Credit: Christopher Jones/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/26/You_got_a_new_smartphone_or_tablet_for_Christmas__what_about_a_case_'

    You got a new smartphone or tablet for Christmas, what about a case?

    Publié: décembre 26, 2011, 11:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I don't understand why so many people buy gel cases and similarly-designed others for their smartphones. Why would you want to protect the back when the screen is more vulnerable (perhaps with exception of iPhone 4 and 4S, which are glass front and back)? Yes, these cases help protect against shattered glass when the phone is dropped sideways. But surely something better than your bum should protect the screen, assuming the smartphone is in your pants pocket and not backpack or bag -- there it's scratch-station central, baby.

    Just because Apple Store, Best Buy, cellular phone shops or mall kiosks overwhelmingly sell cases that wrap round the smartphone's back doesn't mean there aren't alternatives -- and ones that will protect the whole device not just the already well-insulated back. Styling is more traditional, and leather, too (If you're Mr. or Ms. Vegan, this post probably isn't for you). Many of these same manufacturers produce cases for tablets, so I'll briefly discuss them, too.

    PDAir: Broadest Selection

    I started seriously exploring phone case alternatives -- stuff outside the US mainstream -- before Apple released the first iPhone (June 2007). In April 2007, I got an Asian version of the Nokia N95, which is one of my favorite all-time handsets. The phone wouldn't go on sale stateside for another six months, and it's not like I could run down to the local cell mart for a case. Pretty much any time pre-iPhone is the dark ages of smartphone cases. There is breadth of selection today unimaginable four years ago.

    I discovered Hong Kong-based PDAir, which makes cases for hundreds of handsets. In 2007, it was novelty to order a case from Hong Kong. Today, PDAir is a bigger operation, and some of its cases are even available on Amazon here in the United States.

    I've since purchased PDAir cases for Nokia N96, Nokia N97, Google Nexus One, Google Nexus S and Samsung Galaxy S II. I expect to receive one for the Verizon Galaxy Nexus sometime this week. Besides the Nexus S case ordered for myself, I purchased for my wife, too. She likes a truly protective case, as seen from the red Nexus S case above.

    PDAir offers a variety of stylings, including book, flip and pouch types among others. Pouch-type with belt clip is my preferred styling. They all are clearly designed with each manufacturer's handset in mind, so that headphone jack, camera and controls are duly exposed. Most PDAir phone cases sell for $29.99. Shipping is free.

    Sena Cases: The Elegant Choice

    Closer to home, Sena Cases is a fine choice for truly stand-out styling at reasonable prices (okay, some choices are budget busters). I bought my first Sena Case, the Laterale, about two years ago for iPhone 3GS. The company describes the case as a "simple Scandinavian rounded lateral design", which is apt. It's an understated design that suites iPhone -- also available for 4 and 4S -- and, more recently Androids. For example, Sena Cases now offers Laterale for Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket; photo below. However, the design needs refinement for non-iPhones. I find the case covers Skyrocket's headphone jack, for example.

    Until second-half 2011, I found Sena Cases offered too many designs for iPhone and not enough for competing handsets, particularly Androids. But that has dramatically changed over the last few months. For example, cases are available for five different Galaxy S II variants and in breadth of styling. My wife used Sena's Magnet Flipper case, on the Google Nexus One, for more than a year. Last week, she inherited my Skyrocket. If Sena Cases offered the Magnet Flipper for the handset, she would own one now. We instead ordered, first time, from Fortte -- the dual-design case for the Rogers Galaxy S2, which styling is nearly identical to Skyrocket. The case arrives this week.

    Sena has many more cases to choose from than either Fortte or PDAir, and its designs are exceptionally attractive for iPhone 4 and 4S. Apple Store started carrying Sena's cases after iPad went on sale about 18 months ago. But best selection is manufacturer direct. Prices vary depending on styling. For example, Magnet Flipper is $49.99, Laterale $39.99 and the new Sarach Flip for iPhone 4S $69.99. I'd own the Laterale today if available for Galaxy Nexus -- it's my favorite smartphone case.

    Many of the leather designs from PDAir and Sena are slip-out cases. Some people will worry about dropping their phones. But if you're using a Bluetooth headset anyway, what does it matter for phone calls? Data is another matter, since you hold the phone and tap the screen. My thinking: What's the point of buying a beautiful handset like iPhone 4S if it's constantly half-encased and the screen is left unprotected all the time?

    What About Tablets?

    There are many case choices for tablets that look good and truly protect the screen -- that is if you own iPad or iPad 2. Options are skimpier for Androids.

    I bought the original iPad in June 2010 (and sold it right before Christmas last year) and ordered Sena's ZipBook for $99.99 and later came to regret it. The enclosure is beautiful, but I found removing the tablet, which snuggly fits inside, to be troulesome. Sena sells other cases, such as the Executive Sleeve for iPad 2, which costs the same, offers plenty of protection and allows for easy tablet removal. If I owned an iPad today, my case would probably be from Sena.

    But I own Motorola XOOM LTE. I spent more than a week searching online and in stores for a case. Nothing satisfied. In the end I compromised for Sena's Ultraslim, which is pricey at $59.99 for what you seemingly get. Sena describes Ultraslim as the "thinnest leather case ever designed for any mobile device. It is perfect for those who prefer zero bulk". That's seemingly zero protection, the case is so thin. The case fits super snuggly and I worried it wouldn't protect the screen, say, as well as Samsung's leather pouch for Galaxy Tab 10.1. In the end, I'm satisfied with Ultraslim's value but I'd prefer something that better protects the tablet. PDAir offers some good options -- for $100 or more -- but none really wowed me.

    My daughter is reviewing Sena's Borsetta for iPad 2, a purse case for the chick set (in red). It's pricey at $149.99, but small yet roomy. There's a second compartment for makeup, money and credit cards and strap to wear the case like a designer purse. I was put off by the big zipper, but it's in-style, so who am I to judge.

    Belkin, Case Logic, Incase, Otterbox and Speck, among many others, manufacture plenty of cases for smartphones and tablets -- and designer brands like Michael Kors or Kate Spade are available for Apple devices. I couldn't cover them all and decided not to try. Perhaps in the future, I'll do a broader roundup. It's worth noting that a number of Michael Kors cases are clutches or pouches that protect the whole phone, or at least the screen. But I still don't see enough of these type in stores. Do you?

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/26/December_29_is__Dump_Go_Daddy_Day_'

    December 29 is 'Dump Go Daddy Day'

    Publié: décembre 26, 2011, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    My idiots of the year award almost certainly will go to Netflix and Go Daddy, which tarnished their brands through nothing more than sheer stupidity (there are still five days in the month for your organization to royally screw up and claim the honor). Both companies tried to step back from the brink, only to watch tens of thousands of customers fly over the edge into the "frak you" abyss. I can't decide which company's actions is stupider; Go Daddy's idiocy is more recent, and the damage still unfolds.

    In midsummer, Netflix raised prices and later proposed splitting into two companies. Following customer outrage, which included thousands of departures, Netflix nixed the split but not the price hike. Go Daddy's situation is potentially much worse. The registrar supported the Stop Online Piracy Act, only to change position on December 23, a day after updating reasons for standing behind the proposed legislation. SOPA support is over, but customer outrage -- and defection -- is not. December 29 has been dubbed "Dump Go Daddy Day", not that many of its customers are waiting that long.

    Atlantic Wire reports that reddit user selfprodigy proposed December 29; selfprodigy is "moving my small businesses 51 domains away from them, as well as my personal domains...I'm suggesting Dec 29th as move your domain away from Go Daddy day because of their support of SOPA. Who's with me?"

    Unless I'm mistaken, domaincontrol.com is Go Daddy's primary domain server, with more than 32,000,000. Recent activity is heavy. Early this afternoon, domaincontrol.com is among the three most active, with 22,542 domains transferred out just today and just 30,090 new ones or transfers in. That's according to DomainTools Daily Changes. But is that unusual? I looked back randomly ("in" refers to new or transfers in):

    • October 26: 54,773 in, 16,407 out
    • November 26: 41,100 in, 9,738 out
    • December 1: 60,966 in, 15,899 out
    • December 15: 95,828 in, 12,909 out
    • December 23: 53,477 in, 15,093 out

    Unquestionably, the number of transfers out is up but it's not more than a nick -- customers have yet to even open a vein. It's one thing to say, "Hell, yeah, frak Go Daddy" and go elsewhere. It's another thing to do it. I've got 34 domains (mostly variants of just a few) with Go Daddy and, ironically, two expire on December 29. Changing registrars means spending money I can't afford. Surely, many other people have similar situation.

    The question shouldn't be how many but whom? Go Daddy is domains on the cheap -- well compared to, say, Network Solutions, which for me, many Net longtimers, was my first registrar (back in the days when known as InterNic; I secured my first domain in August 1995). Is it the average Joe like me or people who might be affected by SOPA -- or perhaps both?

    House representatives introduced SOPA in October, following Senate bill PROTECT IP introduced in May. (Review the bills: PROTECT IP. SOPA.) Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much.

    Go Daddy had worked with Congress on the bill, last week suddenly doing a turnabout -- and like Netflix in response to customer outrage. "Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' currently working its way through US Congress", according to a December 23 press release. That's quite a bit different from "Go Daddy's position on SOPA", which posted to the registrar's support site a day earlier but was later replaced with: "We’ve listened to our customers. Go Daddy is no longer supporting the SOPA legislation". I saved the December 22 page as PDF for your review.

    Go Daddy's turnabout doesn't satisfy some customers, as the proposed boycott shows. My question for you: Will you move your domain -- or take other business, such as web hosting -- from Go Daddy because of SOPA or PROTECT IP support? Please answer in comments and, please, give your reasons.

    Based on the transfers-out data I see, Go Daddy's problem is more one of perception than meaningful customer losses. That said, domain prices go up everywhere next month. So time is right for a surge in new domain registrations or transfers, and that could work against Go Daddy. Perhaps there will be more to this story on December 30, eh?

    Don Purcell/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/26/Win_CyberLink_PowerDirector_10'

    Win CyberLink PowerDirector 10

    Publié: décembre 26, 2011, 4:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Heck, you might score something even better.

    Earlier this month, CyberLink unveiled the "I Am a PowerDirector" community site and contest to promote it. BetaNews readers get special consideration. In addition to the regular prizes, CyberLink will hold a special drawing giving away 10 copies of PowerDirector 10 to our readers who enter the contest. We told you so 24 days ago and want to remind you before it's too late to participate.

    CyberLink's contest differs slightly from the one including you. "Submit your written testimony and photo, or use video to tell us why you are a Power Director", according to CyberLink. "If the work is approved, you will be rewarded with a PowerDirector cap. You will also have a chance to join a lucky draw for amazing prizes". Videos must be 30 seconds to 2 minutes long and uploaded to YouTube before filmmakers (that's you) enter the contest. CyberLink recommends 720p video. Submission period ends Jan. 15, 2012, with drawing for prize winners two days later. See complete rules for more information.

    The deadline for BetaNews readers is sooner for anyone wanting to participate in the separate drawing for one of 10 copies of PowerDirector 10. CyberLink asks to receive these entries by end of the year, with drawing planned during the first few days of January; your deadline is December 31. BetaNews submissions must be videos only, no written testimonies. Please mention that you saw the promotion at BetaNews or are one of our readers when making your submission. Additionally, CyberLink asks you to email us (joe at betanews dot com) as backup. No one wants any BetaNews readers to get overlooked in the fray.

    This way you get two chances to win (but only one prize). PowerDVD 11 and Olympus XZ-1 digital camera are among the prizes available in the broader contest.

    As I've oft-said, enthusiasts are any company's best evangelists. CyberLink's goal here is to churn up more interest in its video production software, while certifying new evangelists. Contest participants who receive 100 or more Facebook Likes for their submissions will be certified "PowerDirector Evangelist". This kind of engagement isn't new to CyberLink, which also hosts the DirectorZone community site.

    Please do not submit entries here. After uploading to YouTube, please use CyberLink's official entry form.

    As for what you might win, please read our October review of CyberLink Power Director 10.

    Editor's Note: This story was originally posted on Dec. 2, 2011 at 1:59 pm ET

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/23/_I_remember_when_the_Internet_was_free___video_'

    'I remember when the Internet was free' [video]

    Publié: décembre 23, 2011, 10:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, is churning up increasing debate as the holidays approach. There's irony here. The very public response about SOPA is freedom the bill, or its Senate sibling PROTECT IP, could take away. Dan Bull's "SOPA Cabana" YouTube music video is example of the grassroots response to the proposed legislation. YouTube is one of the services SOPA would target, likely diminishing freedom of expression like Bull's. The headline to this post comes from his video.

    To recap, Senators introduced PROTECT IP in May and House representatives did likewise with SOPA in October. Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much. (Review the bills: PROTECT IP. SOPA.)

    BetaNews poll "US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?" makes your position clear. Ninety-five percent of the 3,400-plus respondents answer "No". Less than 3 percent support the bills.

    Today's strangest SOPA news comes from registrar Go Daddy. I had been pondering moving all my domains off Go Daddy for its support of SOPA and writing a commentary about it (Stop Using Go Daddy Act, SUGA). But the company reversed course today, which I must assume is more about controlling PR damage than anything else.

    The press release is clear enough, beginning: "Go Daddy is no longer supporting SOPA, the 'Stop Online Piracy Act' currently working its way through US Congress". That's quite a bit different from "Go Daddy's position on SOPA", which posted to the registrar's support site yesterday. But, whoops, the text has vanished being replaced by: "We’ve listened to our customers. Go Daddy is no longer supporting the SOPA legislation". By chance, I hadn't closed the browser tab opened earlier with the original statement. I saved it as PDF for your review.

    If I could afford moving my domains to another registrar, I might still. But that's not a budgetary option.

    Circling back, enjoy the video. If you've created something opposing, or even supporting, SOPA please link in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/23/It_s_Christmas__you_can_t_find_your_smartphone__where_did_you_leave_it_'

    It's Christmas, you can't find your smartphone, where did you leave it?

    Publié: décembre 23, 2011, 9:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    "Why did you lose it?" is the first question to ask.

    Last week AVG sent a tickler email about its newest "Lost in Transit" survey looking at what people were doing when they lost their mobiles. I waited until closer to Christmas -- time when likelihood of loss increases -- to post some of the results. AVG provided additional data not disclosed in its blog post or infographic (below).

    The holidays aren't just a time for losing valuable tech, but increased security risk. Some of the most damaging hacks or malware releases occurred during the holidays. As such, some companies are extra vigilant. For example, Microsoft's Security Response Center has staff on duty in the event of cyberattack (typically through malware) against its Windows customers.

    Smartphones typically contain lots of personal data that cybercriminals could use to steal your identity, or worse breach your employer's network. If you're like most people, you commingle personal and work data and log-ins on your smartphone. Your lost device could compromise the corporate network when IT staff is on holiday. That makes the mobile you casually leave for a few seconds a valuable commodity to cybercriminals.

    "With roughly half of owners admitting their devices contain sensitive data (42 percent of smartphone users and 53 percent of laptop owners), losing a mobile device can mean more than simply losing a prized possession," says AVG's Tony Anscombe.

    Your lost device could contain a ticking time bomb waiting for a hacker to set it off. Two nights ago, I shopped at Fashion Valley mall here in San Diego. Near the Nordstrom I passed three people looking over a smartphone. The man said to one of the two women: "My password is 'password'. That's simply outrageous, but too common practice. In June, hacktivist group LulzSec released 62,000 account combinations -- with hundreds of instances of "123456" and "password" as password.

    US CERT offers advice on choosing passwords that you should take.

    Many people travel during the holidays, which increases chances they'll simply leave their mobile device behind somewhere -- "41 percent of owners have them left them behind on a plane, taxi, car or train", Anscombe explains.

    Keeping with the holiday security spirit, US CERT issued this alert four days ago:

    As the winter holiday travel season begins, US-CERT would like to remind users to be mindful of the security risks associated with portable devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops.

    US-CERT would like to encourage users to review the following US-CERT Cyber Security Tips. Following the security practices suggested in each tip will help to keep your portable devices secure during the holiday season and throughout the year.

    • Cyber Security Tip ST11-001: Holiday Traveling with Personal Internet-Enabled Devices
    • Cyber Security Tip ST05-017: Cybersecurity for Electronic Devices
    • Cyber Security Tip ST04-017: Protecting Portable Devices: Physical Security

    Sudden surge in tablet sales, mostly iPads, adds to the security risk -- it's another device to be lost, left behind or stolen.

    Circling back to the AVG survey, some interesting findings:

    • 42 percent of smartphone users don't password protect their devices.
    • Britons are most likely to lose a smartphone during a holiday/Christmas party (13 percent) followed by Aussies and Germans (12 percent).
    • Eleven percent of Americans lost a smartphone during a holiday/Christmas party.
    • Only 15 percent of the more than 5,000 survey respondents were "aware" they had lost their smartphone, when it happened.
    • Canadians, Frenchmen (and women) and Italians were most aware when losing their smartphones (20 percent).
    • Canadians are most likely to lose their mobiles when "loaded full of shopping" (17 percent) -- Germans least (4 percent).
    • Germans and Spaniards are more likely to lose smartphones when distracted or busy -- 45 percent and 44 percent, respectively -- followed by Americans (43 percent).
    • Britons are most likely to be intoxicated, and presumably at the pub, too (14 percent), followed by Kiwis (11 percent) and Aussies (10 percent).
    • The French are least likely to be intoxicated when losing a smartphone (4 percent) -- or perhaps least likely to admit being so.

    Have you lost a smartphone during the holidays? Please share your tragic tale in comments.

    Photo Credit: Nate Bolt

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/22/Your_next_camera_is_a_smartphone__if_it_isn_t_already_'

    Your next camera is a smartphone (if it isn't already)

    Publié: décembre 22, 2011, 9:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Earlier this week I sold my Fujifilm FinePix X100, one of the best digital cameras I've owned, since buying my first in 1997. I gave up the delightful X100 for two reasons: I needed cash to pay for the Verizon Galaxy Nexus and because the Google phone is digicam enough for me. I'm not alone, based on survey data NPD released today.

    NPD reports a 10 point increase in photos taken with smartphones and nearly corresponding number taken with digital cameras -- that 17 percent to 27 percent and from 52 percent to 44 percent, respectively, year over year. The data is for the United States. What about the nearly 30 percent remaining? Is film still that popular? I asked NPD. Nope. Camcorders and dumb phones account for the remainder. Well, tell that to Lomography!

    "There is no doubt that the smartphone is becoming 'good enough' much of the time; but thanks to mobile phones, more pictures are being taken than ever before", Liz Cutting, NPD executive director, says. "Consumers who use their mobile phones to take pictures and video were more likely to do so instead of their camera when capturing spontaneous moments".

    Photo above, Santa filling his plate at Hometown Buffet, is one of those "spontaneous moments". I took it December 11, 2010, using iPhone 4. As I've oft said, the camera with you is better than none at all. The smartphone camera is more likely to be with me than any other.

    Cutting brings up "good enough", a term analysts like to throw around when comparing products -- and rightly so. Often the measure of successful products, particularly when replacing something else, isn't better or best but good enough. It cuts both ways, when Product B replaces Product A or when Product B meets most peoples' needs such that they don't want Product C or D.

    Good example of the first scenario: MP3s are inferior to music CDs, because of bitrate and compression. But audio fidelity reached a point where it was good enough for most people and the convenience of downloading right away, instead of going to the store, or choosing singles over full albums made MP3s better in some ways.

    That's where I am today with smartphone versus digital camera. The images produced are good enough, or better, in most situations and other capabilities are better, such as location tagging, ability to set focus by dragging finger across touchscreen and instant upload to photo-sharing or social-networking sites. Photos can be edited on the smartphone, too, making it a portable digital studio. Galaxy Nexus offers instant-shutter response. True, there is no telephoto, large CMOS sensor or advanced features. But I don't need them most of the time. Probably you don't either.

    Not surprisingly, smartphones are chewing away the low-end of the digital imaging market. Retail unit sales of point-and-shoot cameras fell 17 percent, while revenue sank 18 percent -- that's during the first 11 months of the year. Meanwhile, pocket camcorder sales fell 13 percent in units and 27 percent in revenue. Flash camcorders declined 8 percent and 10 percent, in units and revenue, respectively.

    As tidy a size the X00 is, I'm not likely to take it everywhere, while Galaxy Nexus is with most of the time. So I've given up digital cameras for now. The smartphone is good enough and surely will get better. It's the way of innovation. Chris Consumer can produce photos using a camera or smartphone automatically that only pros could do a decade ago. The software processing is that good.

    That said, good enough doesn't mean always enough. "For important events, single-purpose cameras or camcorders are still largely the device of choice", Cutting says. Sales of cameras with detachable lenses -- mirrorless models like Sony's NEX series or micro-four thirds cameras made by Olympus and Panasonic; or dSLRs like Nikon D90 -- rose 12 percent in units and 11 percent in revenue, from January to November. Average selling price: $863. Meanwhile, sales of pocket cameras with long zoom ranges -- 10X or more -- rose by 16 percent; 10 percent in revenue. ASP: $247.

    Is your smartphone camera good enough most of the time? Please link to your best photo taken with a smartphone. If I get enough of them, we'll put them together into a slideshow. Linking the photo here assumes your permission to use the image solely for the slideshow, if there is one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/21/It_s_the_Google_Microsoft_snow_ball_fight_'

    It's the Google-Microsoft snow ball fight!

    Publié: décembre 21, 2011, 10:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This holiday, Google has delighted searchers with Easter Egg "let it snow", which spread virally across blogs and social networks over the weekend. Type "let it snow" into a Google search box and watch the flakes fall. It's a wonderful HTML5 demo.

    Snow ball fight! Microsoft couldn't let Google's demo go unanswered, offering its own, which is best for the minority of people running Windows 8 Developer Preview on a PC with touchscreen display. Rob Mauceri, Internet Explorer group product manager explains in post "Let it snow.. faster!" Say, Google, are you going to let Microsoft throw more snow?

    Microsoft's response is timely and capitalizes on Google's viral success with "let it snow". Internet Explorer usage share is a falling rock, while Chrome keeps gobbling it up like Pac-Man. Internet Explorer usage share was 52.64 percent in November, according to NetApplications, down from 60.35 percent two years earlier and more than 90 percent when Firefox launched in December 2004. Meanwhile Chrome continues its relentless gains: 18.18 percent in November, up from 17.62 a month earlier and 9.5 percent in November 2010. Chrome 1.0 launched three years ago this month. That's reason enough for Microsoft to try and show up its rival.

    Mauceri beats the PC-hardware acceleration drum: "Get ready for a GPU-powered snow storm", he writes. "This experience brings together hardware-accelerated HTML5 canvas, SVG, CSS, and more". I visited Microsoft's "Let It Snow" test site, where flakes fell fast and furious -- 60 per second at the default setting. It was a white-out, particularly at maximum 4,000. By comparison, flakes floated in Chrome 16. Uh-oh, 7 per second at the default setting.

    Chrome does offer hardware acceleration, if you dare. I enabled "GPU compositing on all pages" and "GPU Accelerated Canvas 2D" by typing "about:flags" in the address bar. This leads to page titled: "Careful, these experiments may bite". I relaunched Chrome and returned to Microsoft's test site, where snow slowly fell still. I disabled the features and relaunched Chrome yet again.

    I can't say if Microsoft's snow site is rigged or not, but IE looks pretty good to me. Something else, and I'll let the real browser experts get down and dirty in comments: Surely 64-bit matters somehow. Firefox and IE both are 64-bit. But not Chrome. Eh, so much for Google's modern browser. There's leaded gas in my unleaded tank.

    Hey, what about Firefox 9? Generous snowfall, 60 flakes per second at the default setting. But, song "Let it Snow" didn't play, like the other two browsers.

    I gotta admit that Google's snow demo looks pathetic compared to Microsoft's. But I couldn't test the good stuff, not having a touchscreen PC running Windows 8.

    "On Windows Developer Preview with support for multi-touch in IE10, you can reach out and brush the snow off the sign and reveal a holiday message -- or just use your mouse", Mauceri writes.

    That's okay, I bought "A Charlie Brown Christmas" for my Android tablet, Motorola XOOM LTE, and can get my touch-the-snow fix there. Hey, I live in Southern California now. That's about the best winter-like experience I'm going to get here.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/21/Hark_the_Herald_Androids_Sing'

    Hark the Herald Androids Sing

    Publié: décembre 21, 2011, 8:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    So-o-o-o-o, I'm trying to get into the holiday spirit here at BetaNews, which explains posting the Team CoCo video mocking Amazon Kindle Fire. That's one for all you iPad lovers and Apple fans. Retrevo has redone two classic Christmas carols, and, it only seems fair after giving iPad idolaters a present the Android army should get one, too.

    Sing along for Android "our newfound king". Given Android's recent market share rise against iOS, that's no idle claim.

    Lyrics:

    Glory to our new found king
    Mobile users, far and wide
    iPhones now, have been defiled

    Joyful all ye Androids rise
    Join the triumph of the skies
    Samsung’s here, for me and you,
    Galaxy, Though art, S Two
    Hark the herald, Androids sing
    Glory to our new found king

    There's also "I'm Dreaming of a New iPad", but it just didn't grab me as much.

    I promise not to post too much of this fluff stuff, but, hey, let's spread some holiday cheer!

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/21/Amazon_apologies_for_Kindle_Fire__comedic_video_'

    Amazon apologies for Kindle Fire (comedic video)

    Publié: décembre 21, 2011, 6:48pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you ever wondered what tablet comedian Conan O'Brien uses, perhaps this video about Amazon Kindle Fire will tell you. One commenter to the comedic segment asked: "I wonder how much Apple paid TBS for this one?" I wouldn't go that far.

    You will laugh. Surely iPad fans will chuckle most.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/21/Google_activates_486_Androids_per_minute'

    Google activates 486 Androids per minute

    Publié: décembre 21, 2011, 5:46pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's 700,000 a day, 21 million a month or 63 million per quarter. What about iOS? Apple won't likely reveal numbers until January, when announcing holiday quarter results. Don't expect them to be anywhere near as high, but not trailing way far behind, either. Android activations are lopsided, mostly from smartphones, while iOS sees traction on handsets and media tablets.

    Android head honcho Andy Rubin revealed the activations last night in a Google+ post: "There are now over 700,000 Android devices activated every day". He later qualified, and this is important: "For those wondering, we count each device only once (ie, we don't count re-sold devices), and 'activations' means you go into a store, buy a device, put it on the network by subscribing to a wireless service".

    My immediate reaction: "Say what? Subscribing to a wireless service, not first sign-in with a Google account? If so, the 700,000 per day number could understate real world sales by, for example, not counting WiFi tablets and other devices, such as Google TV. Other people reading Rubin's posts wondered the same thing. "So this means you don't count wi-fi only devices?" John Nichols asked. Rubins hasn't answered.

    At the least, Rubin's qualification means that Google isn't overstating the numbers and that activations more closely reflect actual sales.

    So what about Apple? I've seen several financial analysts modeling 30 million iPhones for the holiday quarter, and there Apple appears to be getting a big boost at the low end from older models: iPhone 3GS for free and 4 for 99 bucks. Then last week, based on weeks-old survey data, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty raised her estimates to 31 million to 36 million unit shipments. That's into the channel and not necessarily units sold, but still a big number. She estimates 190 million next year.

    Then there is iPad, for which I've seen 13 million to 14 million units. Being generous to Apple, and looking at the upper-end estimate, that's 50 million iPhones and iPads -- and ignores iPod touch. I don't see any way iOS can match Android during the quarter, but it won't be light years behind either. Assuming only 50 million, that's more than 555,555 per day or 385 per minute. That's no shabby number. Again, those figures ignore iPod touch and represent shipments, which assumes some number in inventory. Android activations presumably represent sales.

    Platform Wars

    As I wrote on June 30: "Android is unstoppable", which in part explains Apple's patent bullying major Android competitors HTC and Samsung. Apple sunk to new patent troll lows this week, by going after Samsung smartphone and tablet cases -- not legal ones but the skins you put your devices in. The company is trying to win through legal intimidation what it loses in the market place.

    Android versus iOS is a platform war -- plain, pure and simple. It's one Google and its partners largely engage by competition but where Apple uses competition, intimidation and litigation. True HTC and Samsung are fighting back with their own patent claims, but Apple started the patent war. Surely Apple top brass see what's at stake. Markets like the United States are rapidly saturating -- there aren't many more big smartphone sales cycles left. Emerging markets like China will belong to whomever gains share fastest and builds out a supporting ecosystem.

    I don't often quote other journalists, saving that distinction for analysts and others, but Mat Honan's Gizmodo post "If Apple wins, we all lose" caught my attention, in part because it's the kind of headline I would write. Honan opines:

    I don't think it's so clear that it would ultimately be good for Apple to kill Android in the courts. And it certainly won't help consumers...I'm all for seeing Apple defend its intellectual property. But Android is a healthy force in the marketplace. If Apple can destroy it there, more power to Tim Cook and company. But if Apple beats Android in the courts rather than the marketplace -- if it out-segs Google instead of out-innovating it—that may be great for Apple, but it will be bad for society, bad for technology, and ultimately bad for Apple.

    And of course, the great irony is that so much of the amazing innovation that Apple pulled off over the past three decades can be traced back to its willingness to swipe ideas from Xerox. Steve jobs was fond of quoting Picasso, saying 'good artists copy, great artists steal'. If Apple does succeed in crushing Android in the courts, where will it get its next great idea? My guess is that it won't come from a lawyer.

    From early 1999 until this summer, I primarily was an Apple user. I switched to Android and Windows for three main reasons. Disgust at Apple patent bullying was one of them. I hope Android and iOS both succeed. There's plenty of room for 1 million activations/sales per day of both, and we should all benefit from innovation that competition spurs.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/20/Apple_is_a_patent_troll_now'

    Apple is a patent troll now

    Publié: décembre 20, 2011, 10:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In August, I called Apple a "patent bully". Whoa, was I wrong. Apple is a patent troll of the worst kind, if reports from Australia are true. Apple is filing a claim alleging that Samsung violates 10 patents for smartphone and tablet cases. Right, not legal cases but the skins you wrap your devices in.

    Have you seen Samsung's device cases? It's one thing to assert Galaxy Tab looks like iPad 2, but Samsung device cases are petty generic, and I've got pictures to prove it. Wow, what amazing innovations are Apple trying to protect? Has Apple invented some new stitching technique? Developed leather that won't offend vegans? Wrapped iPhone in Bumpers that diminish an antenna design flaw? (It's yes to the last one.)

    Apple's renewed Samsung attack comes after an appeals court overturned a preliminary injunction barring sales Of Galaxy Tab 10.1. There's something seemingly spiteful, if not desperate, about a case against cases. There was an incident this past summer about an iPad 2 Apple Smart Cover knock-off made for Tab 10.1. But Samsung didn't produce the case and says it never authorized it. From a July statement:

    As a general practice, Samsung Electronics reviews and approves all accessories produced by partners before they are given the "Designed for Samsung Mobile" mark. In this case, approval was not given to Anymode for the accessory to feature this official designation. We are working with Anymode to address this oversight and the product has already been removed from the Anymode sales website. The product has not been sold.

    So that leaves the cases Samsung actually sells. For Galaxy Tab 10.1 there are but two, a book cover case and pouch. Neither looks anything like Smart Cover, which is the only Apple-branded case currently for sale. Samsung sells 23 smartphone cases or shells, all but one for older generation Galaxy S phones. There is a pouch for Galaxy Nexus, which looks nothing like Apple Bumper.

    Suing over generic device cases like Samsung's is simply laughable. Apple CEO Tim Cook should be embarrassed by his lawyers Down Under, and here in the States. Eleven days ago, Jason Kincaid, writing for TechCrunch revealed: "Apple Made A Deal With The Devil (No, Worse: A Patent Troll)". TechCrunch caught Apple transferring patents, through a third party, to Digital Innovations, presumably to sue other companies. That way, Digital Innovations does the dirty legal work, thus protecting Apple's image. Virginia-based DI has been called a patent troll by many.

    Which is? "Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who buys and enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered by the target or observers as unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention", according to Wikipedia, and it's a good description. Digital Innovations' business is about collecting patents, presumably to sue and not to invent anything.

    What about Apple? The Cupertino, Calif.-based company makes lots of things. Device cases haven't been a high priority -- that's gravy for third-party partners. Where Apple has made cases, they look nothing like the generic stuff Samsung sells. From the alleged infringing products to the extent of innovations (hey, we're not talking A5 chips here but leather and lace) to the timing (after Apple's butt whacking down under) to the likelihood Apple will ever produce generic black, leather cases for its products, the company meets the definition of patent troll.

    You tell me, do the Samsung cases below look any different from thousands offered by other vendors or anything like so-called Apple innovations? Comments await your answers.

    Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 book cover case

     

    Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 pouch

     

    Galaxy Nexus pouch

    Art Credit: Memo Angeles/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/20/Google_Nexus_tablet_in_six_months_is_a_year_too_late'

    Google Nexus tablet in six months is a year too late

    Publié: décembre 20, 2011, 12:46am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has told an Italian newspaper that the company would release a Nexus tablet within six months. Google's sudden turnabout on releasing a signature Android tablet may reflect his confidence that regulators will approve the Motorola acquisition and concern about Amazon coming to dominate the Android tablet market.

    Six months is way late in a market overrun by tablets -- more than 100 -- but with just a handful pulling meaningful sales. Apple's iPad 2 is the market leader by huge margin, according to IDC. In second quarter, iPad media tablet share, based on shipments, was 61.5 percent. Second-ranked Samsung: 5.6 percent. There's no question Google should have released a tablet -- that's past tense -- as in six months ago instead of six months from now. Year ago would have been even better.

    During Consumer Electronics Show 2011, I opined: "The most important tablet is missing from CES, and it's not iPad 2". I referred to a Google tablet that would do what then two, and now three, smartphones have done for Android developers and hardware manufacturers.

    During CES 2010, Google released the Nexus One. The search and information giant designed the HTC-manufactured smartphone, which ran the then newest Android version -- 2.1. Many bloggers and journalists wrongly wrote that Google charted new retail waters by selling direct. I repeatedly corrected this claim. For example, Nokia has sold phones direct for years, Many blog or news posts about the N1 also missed the point: Google wasn't going into retail sales but establishing a reference design for manufacturers and developers. From that perspective, Google executed brilliantly with N1 and continued with December release of the Samsung-made Nexus S.

    Google and Samsung announced the smartphone in late October, and the HSPA+ model went on sale internationally in mid November. Verizon started selling the smartphone in the United States last week. Galaxy Nexus is more than just a reference design -- it's the mass-market Google phone.

    Google should do for Android tablets what it did with smartphones: Release a branded device that is reference design for manufacturers and always has the lastest Android software for developers. Otherwise, Android tablets have little to no chance competing with iPad. The market of Android competitors is simply too fragmented.

    That said, Amazon shows how one competitor can shake up the Android tablet market. But Amazon's objectives are contrary to Google's, since the online retailer, like Apple, wants to deliver a curated user experience. For example, if I type the web address to Google's Android Market into the Silk browser on my wife's Kindle Fire, Amazon's Android app store opens instead. On other Android tablets, Google's marketplace is default but there is option to sideload from other stores, like Amazon's. The retailer offers a curated experience -- apps, ebooks, music, movies and online physical goods sales -- and that's sensible for its business model.

    Google needed to take leadership over the Android tablet market a year ago. Amazon is filling the vacuum, culling Android and supporting apps to its own benefit. That's good for the retailer, not necessarily for the broader Android tablet market and certainly not for Google cloud services. Google's absolute leadership failure is Amazon's opportunity.

    That Schmidt finally is talking about doing something also reflects something else: Assuming that Google isn't outsourcing Nexus tablet to HTC or Samsung, Motorola likely will produce the device and is prepping now for when the merger finally goes through. Actually, Moto-built, Google-codesigned Nexus tablet would be helluva way to kickstart the new operation.

    But the market can't wait six months, something that will be absolutely clear when a bazillion new tablets launch at CES next month and Apple launches record holiday iPad sales.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/19/The_best_two_tech_ads_this_holiday_are_from_Apple_and_Google'

    The best two tech ads this holiday are from Apple and Google

    Publié: décembre 19, 2011, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Unsurprisingly, they promote smartphones -- iPhone 4S and Google Nexus.

    Yeah, I know, this is a bit fluffy stuff, but I'm flu-stricken today and barely able to sit up to type. Besides, these are both really great ads that stand out for creativity and how well they demonstrate product benefits. Good marketing is often about great storytelling and, with smartphones like these, communicating a single benefit watchers will remember. You'll remember both these commercials, surely.

    Apple TV spots are bland, as of late. There's no creative juice. They all look the same. But the Santa commercial is standout, and the kind of clever, memorable marketing Apple is known for. It's also timely. Santa's ride is Saturday, after all. He uses Siri to navigate across the globe. See, even Saint Nick is high tech. The ad is memorable in so many ways, with iconic Santa being first among them and Siri punchline at the end being another.

    Thanks to Mike Elgan, who posted a link to Santa Siri at Google+ yesterday. I might have missed it otherwise. Elgan writes: "Cute ad. The truth is that old Saint Nick would probably be met with, 'I'm sorry, Chris. I can't access the network right now'". I include this so BetaNews commenter woe will have another reason to call me anti-Apple. :)

    The other TV commercial is as good, but dramatically different. It's not holiday themed, either. Last week, Galaxy Nexus finally went on sale here in the United States. Google and Verizon are both running ads, but the search and information giant's Bohemian commercial is stand out.

    With no technical mumbo jumbo, the commercial communicates clear benefits using Google+ Hangouts. I described Hangouts to my teenage daughter yesterrday, and she immediately asked: "Why would you video chat with nine friends at once? Here's the answer.

    The Google ad uses an iconic song -- that and the girls singing it are memorable. Okay, "Wayne's World" is more so and part of the cultural lexicon.

    By the way, I posted my Verizon Galaxy Nexus first-impressions review, yesterday.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/18/Verizon_Galaxy_Nexus_first_impressions_review'

    Verizon Galaxy Nexus first impressions review

    Publié: décembre 18, 2011, 10:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This is the droid you've been looking for.

    There's saying "three times is a charm" and proven axiom about one of Google's biggest rivals: Microsoft gets products right the third time. Galaxy Nexus, running Android 4.0 (aka Ice Cream Sandwich), is the third Google phone, following the Nexus One (January 2010) and Nexus S (December 2010). If you're an Android user looking for something much better or iOS user/wannabe disappointed there is no iPhone 5 LTE, Galaxy Nexus is for you. Verizon released the long-anticipated US 4G LTE model on December 15. Galaxy Nexus is fast, furious and fun. If not for the 5-megapixel camera, which delivers better photos than I expected, the Android smartphone would be perfect, and it's certainly leaps and bounds above every other handset currently available in the United States.

    Living Google

    Galaxy Nexus is best for anyone living the Google lifestyle. Ice Cream Sandwich is delicious, and Google has topped the operating system with lots of tasty hooks into its existing services. I'll only highlight some of these touchpoints in this first-impressions review. For example, Gmail is better on this phone -- little things like seeing photo next to the sender, if he or she has Google profile, is nice touch.

    Opening voice search/commands for first time prompts for a video tutorial, which Android 4.0 pulls down from YouTube.

    Then there is the People app -- essentially a socially-aware address book -- that plays best with Google+, but nice enough with other social networks. Speaking of Google+, there's a nifty widget for keeping up real-time from the homescreen -- well one of them.

    I've repeatedly asserted that sync is the killer application for the connected age. I owned two Nexus Ones and was surprised when all the Android Market apps synced on the second one -- they magically appeared. But on Nexus S, Galaxy S II and Skyrocket, only apps I purchased synced back to the device. So I was surprised to find that all my apps synced to Galaxy Nexus. There were no settings, they were just there, over 4G LTE in the hour I spent at the mall between activating the phone at Verizon Store and going home. Once there, Galaxy Nexus automatically connected to my home WiFi network, having synced the settings (a feature that worked on other Androids).

    Chrome sync is another welcome feature for those people living Google. Finally, bookmarks on your PC come to the Google browser on your phone. Easily.

    Obligatory iPhone 4S Comparison

    Apple's smartphone is the leading handset in the United States, according to comScore, Nielsen and NPD. No Galaxy spec rundown would be complete without comparison to iPhone.

    iPhone 4S: 3.5-inch multitouch display with 960 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); 800MHz dual-core processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; GSM/HSPA; 8MP rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth; WiFi. Measurements: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm, 140 grams.

    Galaxy Nexus: 4.65-inch multitouch display with 1280 x 720 resolution (100,000:1 contrast ratio); 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 32GB storage; CDMA/4G LTE; 5MP rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Near-Field Communication (NFC); Bluetooth; WiFi. Measurements: 135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams.

    Galaxy Nexus leading advantages over iPhone: larger screen size, higher-resolution display, higher-clock speed processor, double the memory, faster camera shutter, NFC and barometer.

    Too Long Delayed

    Verizon should be scolded for taking so long to launch, which should have come sooner than 10 days before Christmas -- like Black Friday latest. Google and Samsung announced the smartphone in late October, and the HSPA+ model went on sale internationally in mid November. There is tremendous pent-up demand for Galaxy Nexus, among the Android Army anyway. My local Verizon Store started launch day with 90 phones and at 7 pm had but two left. That's not a big number by iPhone standards, but the real measure here is other Androids. I have to wonder how many more Verizon could have sold if Galaxy Nexus launched a month earlier.

    I suspect that the delay was in part deliberate. Verizon has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the Droid brand. The nation's largest carrier launched Motorola Droid Razr on December 11. My local Verizon Store is loaded up with Droid Razr accessories and signage. It's clear which brand matters more, and Verizon was right to put some distance between the two smartphone launches.

    Google should have chosen a better launch partner, or like Nexus S made its successor available unlocked through Best Buy. The HSPA+ model available internationally supports AT&T and T-Mobile data networks. Verizon defies Google's value-oriented philosophy (typically free). For example, AT&T offers free mobile-to-mobile calling -- that's to any carrier's phone -- on its family plans, and unused minutes roll over and are available for 12 months. Something else: Verizon charges extra for basics AT&T and T-Mobile offer standard, with Visual Voicemail good example. It's an extra $2.99 per month from Verizon -- that's strange since there are free alternatives. On the other hand, Verizon's limited-time 4GB data for the price of 2GB ($30 per month) promotion applies to Galaxy Nexus. AT&T won't give you as much.

    Still, Verizon made the right choice skipping Samsung Galaxy S II and offering Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Galaxy Nexus instead. My S2 Skyrocket is an exceptionally appealing phone. Galaxy Nexus is wonderfully better. My wife will inherit the Skyrocket. Lucky me, Verizon's LTE smartphone uses same battery as the Skyrocket, so we can swap the spare I have. The HSPA+ model's battery is different size, and slightly less powerful 1700 mAh vs 1800 mAh).

    Wow, What Battery Life

    Galaxy Nexus lasted more than 33 hours on its first full charge, and that was using the phone more heavily than usual. Saturday before Christmas, I talked for several hours to family and friends -- and I used data and other features more rigorously while testing the phone. I kept waiting for the battery to run down, but Galaxy Nexus kept going and going and going.

    I skimmed some reviews that warn battery life disappoints. Oh, yeah, give me 24 hours-plus pain like that any day. I used Galaxy Nexus with default screen settings and LTE and WiFi on. I can't say that such battery life is sustainable long term, or yet attest to the impact of using, say, Bluetooth, Google Maps or gaming. I haven't yet set up widgets or started social networking with Google+, activities that are likely to sap the battery. Nevertheless, I'm impressed. I can say that for the first charge, from 100 percent to zero, LTE did not overly consume the battery.

    Galaxy Nexus' industrial design doesn't wow me, and I had similar reaction to Nexus One. It's a handsome phone, but a bit too grey corporate for my tastes. Design nicety: GN brings back the notification light that made G1 so useful when resting. If you get new email or text message, for example, the home button will pulse white. There are no physical buttons, by the way.

    My nitpicking tastes aside, the phone delivers beauty where it matters most: The screen is exceptionally appealing, and not just for its size -- 4.65 inches. This is a 720p display -- 1280 x 720 Super AMOLED. By comparison, the Galaxy S II series is Super AMOLED Plus, and that plus matters. For example, Skyrocket's screen pops -- bright and vivid colors -- more than Galaxy Nexus. That said, I easily use the pure Google phone in bright San Diego sunlight more easily than either the standard S2 or Skyrocket.

    Galaxy Nexus' 720p display outclasses iPhone 4/4S in most every conceivable way, and there gets help from Ice Cream Sandwich's Roboto font, which is clear and crisp. Size matters: 4.65 inches vs 3.7 inches for iPhone 4/4S; that greater screen real estate is better with the high-res display. Something else, and I can't say why: I find texting to be much easier on Galaxy Nexus than any other smartphone touchscreen. Hell, I'm suddenly a speed demon. Oh, and the texting app is gorgeous.

    How Does It Feel?

    Size is a subjective preference, and I worried Galaxy Nexus would be too damn big, even moving up from Galaxy S II Skyrocket, which has 4.5-inch display. To my surprise, Galaxy Nexus fits comfortably in my modestly-sized hands, and the phone has terrific balance. It feels good. While some other reviewers complain about the plastic back panel, I find its texture creates good friction for holding the phone securely. Other people will prefer a smaller smartphone, but they might think differently after experiencing the stunning display.

    Performance is excellent. Operations are fast and fluid. Ice Cream Sandwich feels more alive than does Gingerbread (Android 2.3.x), Honeycomb (Android 3.x) or iOS 5. Apple's mobile operating system looks dead by comparison. However, Windows Phone 7.5 is faster and more fluid -- and that's on single-core processor. I find Android 4.0's dark, murky appearance -- by default anyway -- to be appealing. Others might want something more cheerful, brighter.

    Verizon 4G LTE performance satisfies, but it's not as good here in San Diego as subscribers in other cities get. In September, Anshel Sag did comprehensive Verizon LTE speed testing around San Diego and "attained an average speed of 16.84 Mbps down and 8.14 Mbps up with an average ping of 66.6". My best result using the SpeedTest app five times was 13.4Mbps downstream and 14.2Mbps up. That's plenty respectable. In a December 15 comment to one of my Google+ posts, Mike Dunham writes about Verizon LTE speed test: "One I have from today was 43.64 down and 17.52 up". So mileage varies.

    By the way, Galaxy Nexus makes nine 4G LTE smartphones, all Androids, offered by Verizon.

    A Little Bit More

    American geeks who paid $700-plus for the international, HSPA+ model may be disappointed to learn that Verizon Galaxy Nexus has twice the storage -- 32GB -- which, like iPhone 4/4S but unlike Galaxy S2, isn't expanadable. There's no microSD card for you.

    The camera is better than expected, in part because of how well it works. True to Google promises, there is no shutter lag and focus is damn fast. In the 5 megapixels vs 8 megapixels debate (S2 and 4S have the latter), more isn't necessarily better. For example, moving from 3MP to 12MP only doubles the resolution. For many smaller sensors, 5MP is optimum for delivering the most clarity with least artifacts or distortion. I haven't had time to test Galaxy Nexus' camera against my daughter's iPhone 4S or my wife's (soon to be) Skyrocket. Sensor size and software capabilities will matter more than megapixels.

    Phone calling is exceptionally good, and Google has reduced the number of steps needed to place calls. There were simply too many period, even without comparing to iPhone, which does better. Then there is the aforementioned People app, which I haven't fully synced with my social networks. Phone audio quality is superb, by the way.

    Obviously, there is much more I could and should write about Galaxy Nexus. But I've topped 1,800 words for a first-impressions review. On a Sunday. When I have the flu. I will follow up and get more into Ice Cream Sandwich, which probably deserves its own look.

    Do consider Galaxy Nexus. Verizon will sell you the phone for $299.99 plus tax. Amazon Wireless has best deal I've seen. For new Verizon individual or family plan subscribers, price is unbelievable $149.99 -- but you'll wait. The smartphone is backordered. Existing individual plan members pay $199.99, and it's $249.99 for anyone else.

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/16/Did_you_buy_Kindle_Fire_instead_of_iPad_2_'

    Did you buy Kindle Fire instead of iPad 2?

    Publié: décembre 16, 2011, 10:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Media tablet shipments missed IDC's third-quarter shipment projections. Meanwhile iPad lost market share; IDC forecasts greater declines for Q4. The culprit: Amazon Kindle Fire (with a little help from Barnes & Noble Nook). In the battle of price, and vertically-integrated content platforms, Amazon is ready to take a bite out of Apple. That brings me to the question of the day: Did you or do you plan to buy Kindle Fire, or even Nook, when previously considering iPad 2 this holiday? Please answer in comments as well as taking our buying poll.

    Kindle Fire's big advantage is price -- $300 less than the cheapest iPad 2, at $199. Amazon and Apple compete head-to-head in ebooks, music and movies and curated applications stores. Both command hugely popular brands. Kindle Fire is smaller and doesn't pack a camera, but less also means lower price -- and single one at that. iPads range from $499 to $829.

    Apple apologists argue the two tablets aren't comparable, which is a ridiculous assertion. Tablets are tablets, the way TVs are TVs. You can say that a 24-inch LCD isn't comparable to a 56-inch model that also connects to the Internet. But to shoppers evaluating by lots of criteria -- price being among the most important -- they absolutely are. Cost is often first consideration for most people, but not always most important, of course. Don't you typically buy the most you can afford?

    Andrew Eisner, Retrevo's director of community and content, sees a potential "two-horse race between Apple and Amazon" next year in the tablet market. Price absolutely is a factor. Seventy-nine percent of respondents to a recent Retrevo survey said they "would consider buying an Android tablet with similar features over a base model $499 iPad" selling for $250 or less.

    BetaNews' tablet buying poll, with more than 2,000 respondents, is revealing. I included a screen shot of the graph, because it looks like a giant middle finger coming out of $199. There's meaning to that and message to Apple and others selling tablets for more. Forty-four percent of respondents would pay $199 or less for a tablet -- 73 percent $299 or less.

    "Amazon and Barnes & Noble are shaking up the media tablet market, and their success helps prove that there is an appetite for media tablets beyond Apple's iPad", Tom Mainelli, IDC research director, says. IDC expects a dramatic change in Android market share during fourth quarter, largely from Kindle Fire -- 40.3 percent, up from 32.4 percent in Q3.

    The Big Picture

    Media tablet shipments fell 5.8 percent below IDC's forecast, but the company affirms "strong demand" in fourth quarter, raising its forecast to 63.3 million units from 62.5 million. As for iPad, which market share fell to 61.5 percent from 63.3 percent quarter-on-quarter, IDC still expects exceptional performance. But the future is darkening somewhat.

    "Apple's larger portfolio of tablet-specific apps, upcoming iPad versions, and growing physical store presence in key emerging markets like Asia/Pacific will help maintain its global leadership", Jennifer Song, IDC research analyst, says. "However, an improving Android OS experience and lower competitor pricing in an environment with worldwide economic concerns should help Android to increase its market share".

    Top five tablet vendors, based on shipments during Q3:

    • Apple -- 61.5 percent
    • Samsung -- 5.6 percent
    • HP -- 5 percent
    • Barnes & Noble -- 4.5 percent
    • ASUS -- 4 percent


    How has Amazon Kindle Fire affected your tablet buying plans this holiday?

    Amazon didn't ship any tablets in third quarter and HP got a one-time boost from the big TouchPad sell-off. Last week, HP announced the release of WebOS to open source, but "IDC does not believe the operating system will reappear in the media tablet market in any meaningful way going forward".

    So circling back to where the post started, did you buy Kindle Fire instead of iPad 2? Also: If you've got an iPad already and chose to get Kindle Fire as the next tablet, please share why.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/16/Does_your_phone_have_Carrier_IQ__Now_you_can_know'

    Does your phone have Carrier IQ? Now you can know

    Publié: décembre 16, 2011, 7:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I offer a hat tip to Gizmodo, which has put together a list of smartphones that have Carrier IQ. The company disclosed the information as part of a US Senate inquiry. Sprint subscribers are the most likely to have the spyware installed -- 26 million, or nearly half of them. Verizon: None. The information is also available in a statement from Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), just not as quickly scannable.

    But not all phones where Carrier IQ is installed have it active. Android developer Trevor Eckhart uncovered Carrier IQ last month, offering detailed explanation how the rootkit-like software works. I followed his instructions to see if the software was active on my Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket, and it appeared not to be. Days later I installed Carrier IQ detectors from BitDefender and LookOut Labs, which found the software but didn't indicate its status. Apparently, Skyrocket is one of the phones where Carrier IQ is installed but not active. Same is true of HTC Vivid, AT&T's other LTE phone.

    The problem with Carrier IQ: The tracking software that behaves every bit like a keylogger -- installed at a low-level like a rootkit would be. Carriers and Carrier IQ receive data without end user's explicit consent and, like a rootkit, is nearly impossible to remove without harming the operating system. Phone manufacturers install the software before cellular carriers receive the handsets. Carrier IQ claims it only collects information that carriers need to improve network performance and customer service.

    "I'm still very troubled by what's going on", Franken says. "People have a fundamental right to control their private information. After reading the companies' responses, I'm still concerned that this right is not being respected. The average user of any device equipped with Carrier IQ software has no way of knowing that this software is running, what information it is getting, and who it is giving it to-and that's a problem".

    Carrier IQ has been on the defensive since Eckhart's investigation revealed apparent keylogger, activity the company only indirectly denied. The material submitted as part of Franken's Senate investigations renews concerns keystrokes are captured and transmitted to somebody.

    "It appears that Carrier IQ has been receiving the contents of a number of text messages -- even though they had told the public that they did not", Franken says. AT&T confirms this behavior, which includes SMS messages, in its letter to Franken.

    "I'm also bothered by the software's ability to capture the contents of our online searches-even when users wish to encrypt them," the Minnesota senator chides. "So there are still many questions to be answered here and things that need to be fixed".

    Apparently, this tracking has gone on for some time. Samsung says it has installed Carrier IQ on its phones since November 2007. The chart below lists model numbers (the Giz story gives product names; we want to praise their good work rather than aggregate or re-report it -- Jesus Diaz deserves your click through).

    Other manufacturers haven't installed the software for as long as Samsung. From HTC's letter to Franken:

    The Carrier IQ software was first integrated on the Hero, which became available to customers through Sprint on October 2009. Other HTC devices that use the integrated Carrier IQ software and the date of their availability in the U.S. market are listed below:

    • Snap (Sprint) ± June 2009
    • Touch Pro 2 (Sprint) ± September 2009
    • Hero (Sprint) ± October 2009
    • Evo 4G (Sprint) ± June 2010
    • Evo Shift 4G (Sprint)± January 2011
    • Evo 3D (Sprint) ± June 2011
    • Evo Design (Sprint) ± October 2011
    • Amaze 4G (T-Mobile) ± October 2011
    • Vivid (AT&T) ± November 2011

    Installed doesn't mean active, as aforementioned for the Vivid. HTC says Carrier IQ is active on 6.3 million of its handsets. Samsung has distributed 25 million phones with the software in the United States but didn't explicitly indicate whether or not it's active.

    This drama isn't over by a long shot.

    Photo Credit: fredredhat/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/15/What_Windows_Phone__glance_and_go__means_to_you__contest_winner_'

    What Windows Phone 'glance and go' means to you [contest winner]

    Publié: décembre 15, 2011, 9:30pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    A month ago today at Midnight, we ended our Windows Phone contest. Finally, after too many delays, it's time to announce the lucky winner. Why did we take so long? The entries were just too good. We argued like X-Factor judges about how best to choose the winner. In the end, we left it to chance among the top contenders.

    We requested: "Please tell us why glance and go appeals to you and how you would benefit from it". "Glance and go" is Microsoft's design and marketing philosophy for Windows Phone. Conceptually, Windows Phone enables people to live better rather than spend their lives tap, tap, tapping on the touchscreen. That concept, and the task-oriented user interface behind it, makes Windows Phone remarkably different from either Android or iOS.

    Our panel of arguing judges narrowed the entries down to a dozen. We used a polyhedral dice from my old Dungeons & Dragons game -- yes, there was role playing before the Internet and Xbox 360 -- to cut the contenders to nine, six and three. The process infuriated some judges, who saw what they considered to be winning entries cast aside. If I had my way, we would have picked our favorites and done rock, paper, scissors. I was overruled, but it wouldn't be the first time.

    Among the final three, we have a lucky winner: Petra O'Sullivan, whom I'll email to get her mailing address soon as I post.

    This is where I stop to thank Microsoft for providing the Windows Phone, Samsung Focus Flash, which will be sent overnight to Petra as soon as I get her address. Yes, Petra, there is a Santa Claus and Windows Phone under your Christmas Tree -- if you're quick responding.

    Below are 11 of the 12 entries that contended for the Samsung Focus Flash. We will separately post the submission from Travis Brown, which is quite long and provocative. I want to thank everyone who participated, particularly the 12 contenders, and if I had a dozen phones to give away you'd all be winners.

    Bradley Jones

    Dear @Betanews Joe,
    Can you please send me some 'glance and go'?

    Please make my icons become I can's,
    As the live-tiles show me my day's plans

    The tiles are fresh and innovating,
    the Mango's ripe, I'm salivating!

    Sure, many entries have their reasons,
    but for me my plea is all about the seasons.

    I have been a WebOS apologist and user,
    But as it turns out, my platform is the loser.

    So maybe I just like the little guy,
    Or maybe I'm just not ready for Apple-pie.

    Oh, please Joe, send me a WinPho!
    And Steve will owe you one...for one more user!

    Chris Dorrell

    The design philosophy of  "glance and go" is a logical one. Nine times out of ten when we wake up our phone we don’t need much info: what’s the time, when is my next appointment/event, should I ignore the email that just arrived? etc. Presenting as much of that data as possible without requiring interaction is a good goal.

    This brings to mind Glance Armstrong. The man won the Tour de France seven consecutive times by taking quick peeks at his competitors and then going (fast). He rode a bike rather than a Windows Phone, but I suspect that was simply for personal comfort.

    Johnny Kamel

    Top 5 reasons of why glance and go is an amazing and beneficial concept:

    1. When going to college I have to be extremely careful about the people driving around me since they're too busy unlocking their home screens, searching for apps, opening the app and then  -- oh, wait, did they just crash into someone else also using their phone?

    2. It is rude enough to use your smartphone when having dinner, so if one wants to be annoying on the table let them be annoying for a shorter amount of time reduced by the glance-and-go way.

    3. It is amazing how much first impressions matter and a lot of people are so consumed by their phones that they miss out on meeting new people just because they were too busy navigating through their phones to show something to someone they see every day.

    4. Time is money -- enough said.

    5- Well there is no such thing as top 4 reasons -- 5 sounded better. So I'm just going to use this one to say that I have always been a Microsoft fan and think that the smartphone market is looking good for them just like when they first emerged with their xbox in the gaming market.

    lissack

    Glance and go is the only safe way to consult your phone while driving. It's much quicker than using your voice. I am a realtor. I am driving constantly. I have been using glance and go since the moment i could get it, and I will never look back. Safe driving friends.

    Kevin Mars

    The premise behind Microsoft's touch and go Windows Phone interface may just be what I need to save my life and my marriage. Currently as far as my wife is concerned I'm having an affair with my phone as it's getting more attention from me than she is. And she's giving me a hard time about not noticing when my kids are demanding my attention because I'm captivated by this small device that has got me hooked like a schedule-1 substance.

    I'm a very information-hungry individual. I spend a lot of time reading random things online -- whether it be world news, social news, video game news, tech journal,s etc. Back when I was using Windows Mobile 5 & 6 I was fairly limited in what I could pull down and much of it was text based so I could get the information I desired in a quick, albeit boring, format but it didn't consume so much of my time. With the iPhone I would spend too much time jumping between apps or looking for alternate sites that were more Safari friendly to get the information I desired. I hated the fact that it didn't really bring the information to me unless I looked for it.

    My Samsung Fascinate does a much better job letting me setup widgets to pull down some of this info for me but it's still not quite ideal (plus all these things drain my battery and the device demands I pull the battery every so often like my work BlackBerry devices do) and it doesn't do a great job of linking the info together (especially social info) so I spend quite a bit of time jumping between items to consume the info I desire, not to mention jumping between the Android Browser, Opera and sometimes Firefox depending on the site, since I can't seem to get a consistent desirable browsing experience with any of them.

    Microsoft's hubs seem to be on the right direction for what I desire. I would relish the opportunity to give it a spin and see if their device can help me get back to living and giving my family the attention they deserve. I am a mobile deviceaholic and I'm looking for a better way. Short of getting a neural-link to the 'Net, I'm very interested to see if Windows Phone can satisfy my hunger in a more efficient manner. What I've seen so far looks promising.

    Chris Papadopoulos

    Inner peace derives from easy data access and fast response to any given command, since all mobile devices put your temper to the limits! That will hopefully be the case with the Windows Phone and if I am uber-lucky I will be posting the awesomeness to the crowd.

    PC_Tool

    Benefits of "Glance & Go":

    The stop-sign/stop-light quick check no longer pisses off all of the drivers behind you -- as you unlock, tap, scroll and slide to get to what you want to check. Less Road Rage saves lives.

    All the info is right in front of you. Your screen stays cleaner (less swiping) and you lower your risk of carpal_thumb_syndrome. (Is that a syndrome yet? It should be.)

    Shorter meetings. Instead of staring at their phones, they are staring at the presenter, and it's gonna freak him out. The faster he gets done, the faster they all stop looking at him.

    And seriously? The major benefit is for those folks who use their phones mainly as a social-media content aggregator. Instead of going from app to app (launching, closing, with a trip to the home-screen/app drawer in between), it's just there. Right in front of you. No clicking, swiping, scrolling and mostly, no waiting. Well, at least, that's the idea. ;)

    ShoutBits

    I live in a downtown neighborhood with eight Starbucks shops within a few blocks of each other. With my clumsy Android phone, sooner or later I am going to crash into someone on the sidewalk and spill $4 worth of coffee. Maybe Glance and Go can save me and my neighbors from this.

    Petra O'Sullivan

    I'm the mother of a toddler. Glance and go is all I have time for in my life!

    tiburoncito_2000

    I promise to give up my iPhone addiction.

    Jason Ward

    The glance-and-go concept appeals to me because life itself is fluid. Though we often think of things in our lives in terms of origin and destination (i.e. leaving home; getting to work, going to college;getting a good job; meet Mr. or Mrs. Right; get married) the time spent between these events or destinations is also where life flows. Life doesn't start and stop in distinct iterations of events -- it flows.

    Windows Phone's glance and go concept is designed to allow people -- us -- to use the Windows Phone as a tool while we continue to flow through life. Using a Windows Phone as a tool in our lives does not halt us -- forcing us into the world of the phone, but as a natural tool the glance-andgo concept fits into our world and flows with us.

    In addition to this the actual fluidity of the OS  -- how the words and pages of the Hubs and applications flow smoothly and effortlessly across the screen responsively instigated by the slight and natural swipes of the user -- is a visual manifestation of the continuity of the design of the Window Phone system to flow with our lives. Glance and go -- live and flow.

    I believe that the Window Phone OS is the most natural mobile OS offering the most synergistic addition to our lives.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/15/Google_Galaxy_Nexus_is_finally_here__will_you_buy_'

    Google Galaxy Nexus is finally here, will you buy?

    Publié: décembre 15, 2011, 4:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's the question I'm asking myself, so I pose it you. After countless launch day rumors, Verizon Wireless is finally offering the Google-branded Galaxy Nexus, the first Ice Cream Sandwich Android, to us poor dodos here in the United States. Seemingly everybody else in the world got it first, like Samsung Galaxy S II before it.

    Related is another question: Will you pay more now or pay less and wait? Verizon has Galaxy Nexus available right now for $299.99 -- a penny more than the comparable iPhone 4S, which is HSPA and not 4G LTE; you can walk into a store and get Galaxy Nexus into your greedy grubby hands right away. Fry's Electonics will sell you the smartphone for $219.99 online, with a 2-to-3 day wait, which just might make Christmas; I assume it's in stores today, for West Coasters seeking immediate gratification. AmazonWireless has the best price I've seen so far, $199 -- and that's with no tax. I went through the ordering process, but didn't buy, and got December 29 delivery date -- that's no Christmas for you, bud. Better pricing means waiting longer, and Verizon made you wait so long already.

    There's also option of waiting even longer for the Android 4.0 smartphone to pop up on another carrier. But there might not be LTE. Verizon turned on its LTE network in more cities today, with coverage now reaching 200 million Americans. AT&T offers LTE in 15 cities, promising to reach 70 million people by end of this month. My buddies back in Washington, DC see 20Mbps downstream or more on AT&T LTE. Some BetaNews readers report speeds approaching 40Mbps. I tested Verizon's network on XOOM LTE here in San Diego last night, consistently getting close to 18Mbps downstream. Waiting might get you faster bandwidth -- or you could pay $700 or more for an international unlocked phone (I wouldn't), which supports AT&T and T-Mobile HSPA+ networks.

    One question GSM phone geeks are sure to ask: "Can you do data and talk at the same time?" Since Verizon's CDMA network can't do it. I called a couple Verizon Wireless stores this morning asking that question. One customer rep answered: "For the 4G network, correct".

    For people considering iPhone 4S or Galaxy Nexus, some specs:

    iPhone 4S: 3.5-inch multitouch display with 960 x 640 resolution (800:1 contrast ratio); 800MHz dual-core processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB storage; GSM/HSPA; 8MP rear-facing and VGA front-facing cameras; LED flash; image stabilization; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth; WiFi. Measurements: 115.2 x 58.6 x 9.3 mm, 140 grams.

    Galaxy Nexus: 4.65-inch multitouch display with 1280 x 720 resolution (100,000:1 contrast ratio); 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 1GB RAM; 32GB storage; CDMA/4G LTE; 5MP rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; LED flash; zero shutter-lag; 1080p video recording; accelerometer; ambient-light sensor; barometer; gyroscope; GPS; proximity sensor; digital compass; Near-Field Communication (NFC); Bluetooth; WiFi. Measurements: 135.5 x 67.94 x 8.94 mm, 135 grams.

    Too Many Delays

    Someone at Verizon should be fired -- and perhaps at Google, too -- for the late launch. The earliest rumors had the phone going on sale a month ago, which makes lots more sense because of iPhone 4S, Verizon skipping Galaxy S II and Christmas holidays. Somebody gave up weeks of sales on arguably one of the best, if not the very best, handsets available this holiday season.

    Three days ago I asked: "Are you tired of waiting for Galaxy Nexus?", wondering who among BetaNews readers had given up waiting.

    "I couldn't wait and just got my iPhone yesterday, motta writes two days ago. "They dropped the ball on this one if you ask me. By the way the iPhone is ten times better than I thought it was going to be. Facetime rocks!"

    "I was planning to switch to Verizon for this phone", EWilliams1914 writes. "However, after the revelation of bloatware (even if it can be disabled), the Google wallet debacle, and the ridiculous wait, I finally just ordered one from the UK".

    DatBoyK: "Its gotten to the point where I've lost all my excitement for it. If I do get it it will be because there is just nothing else I wanted at the time. What a piss poor job they have done with this phone".

    The wait is over. Will you buy? Or have you already? Please answer in comments, and if you got Galaxy Nexus please share your first impressions, which will matter to other prospective buyers.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/15/One_password_to_bring_them_all_and_on_Windows_8_bind_them'

    One password to bring them all and on Windows 8 bind them

    Publié: décembre 15, 2011, 12:49am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft has long looked lovingly at identity, and providing the "one" that binds consumers and businesses to Windows. Users benefit by being freed from managing multiple identities and passwords across the web and, presumably, by improved privacy and security as a result. Microsoft gains by controlling a master identity system that keeps some of its core technologies relevant.

    But Microsoft couldn't bring a single-identity system to market during the last decade. Privacy groups filed complaints about Passport, leading to a Federal Trade Commission investigation and later a settlement. Soon after, Microsoft settled its US antitrust case, agreeing to five years government oversight that instead went on for nearly 10. But Federal and state watchdogs left in September, and as I explained then Microsoft is freer to integrate stuff into Windows. Today, Dustin Ingalls, Windows Security & Identity, explains exactly how Windows 8 will tackle the identity problem.

    Luckily for Microsoft, during its lost decade of government oversight, no single ID system emerged. OpenID isn't it, as many open-source supporters had hoped. But Apple and Google are leading candidates -- the one leveraging from iTunes/iCloud IDs and the other Gmail profiles connected to dozens of services, respectively. So Microsoft can't move fast enough to take its leading asset, Windows Live ID, and bind it to the operating system in a compelling and useful way. Ingallis rightly lays it out -- using Windows 8 and Live IDs to reduce the burden of managing identities and passwords and improving privacy and security in the process.

    "Our research has shown us that the average person using a PC in the United States typically has about 25 online accounts", he explains. "That's a lot to keep track of. In fact, the data also shows that the number of unique passwords across those 25 accounts is only about six. For folks who spend time thinking about security, that's a worrisome finding".

    Some of these services are really frustrating. Several I use limit passwords to eight characters and prohibit security-enhancing special characters, like % or #. My typical password, and they all vary in length, is minimum a dozen characters, unless restricted by the service provider.

    "Password reuse is very useful to hackers", Ingallis rightly observes. "They know that if they can learn your password for one site, it’s highly likely that you use the same password on other sites. Even worse, an attacker can often use your sign-in information to reset the password for other accounts where the password actually is different".

    He then goes to state all the different reasons why the existing password-model is deficient. Then explains:

    Windows 8 simplifies the task of managing unique and complex passwords in two important ways. The first is by providing a way to automatically store and retrieve multiple account names and passwords for all the websites and applications you use, and do so in a protected manner. Internet Explorer 10 uses the credentials that we store to remember names and passwords for websites you visit (if you choose). In addition, anyone building a Metro style app can use a direct API to securely store and retrieve credentials for that app. (It is important to note that IE respects instructions from websites about saving your credentials – some websites specifically request that passwords not be saved.)...

    One of the great things you get when you sign in to Windows with your Windows Live ID is the ability to sync the credentials you’ve stored to all of the Windows 8 PCs that you register as your 'Trusted PCs'. When you store credentials in conjunction with signing in to Windows with your Windows Live ID, Windows enables you to set your password for each account to something that is both complex and unique; since Windows 8 will automatically submit the credential on your behalf, you’ll never need to remember it yourself. If you need to see the actual password at some point later, you can view it in the credential manager shown here, from any of your Trusted PCs.

    Google offers an optional two-factor authentication that I would use if it worked right. But Google's mechanism isn't automatic for all its services and requires special setup for applications. Simply stated: It's a pain in the ass. From that perspective, among others, I see sense in Microsoft making authentication a core part of the operating system.

    That's not really new, in a sense, as Windows Vista, 7 and Server 2008 support TPM -- Trusted Platform Module -- which requires supporting hardware to dynamically create encryption keys. Microsoft plans to improve Windows 8 TPM support in a variety of ways that will benefit businesses, particularly. Like Windows Live ID, there is unique benefit for developers creating Metro-style apps, which, Ingallis says, "have APIs that make it easy to automatically enroll and manage keys on your behalf".

    Microsoft will take a very OS-centric approach to identity when Windows 8 ships. But as more business-to-business, business-to-consumer, business-to-employee and consumer-to-consumer transactions take place, there's reason to ask whether Windows, or any other PC operating system, really is the best identity hub. After all, more of us use cloud-connected mobile devices every day.

    Photo Credit: Gunnar Pippel/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/14/Verizon_4G_LTE_reaches_200_million_Americans'

    Verizon 4G LTE reaches 200 million Americans

    Publié: décembre 14, 2011, 10:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Verizon Wireless says that network expansion planned for tomorrow will bring 4G LTE to 200 million Americans. That's not the news we were waiting for. Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Galaxy Nexus, a LTE phone, is rumored to be launching tomorrow. How about a peep or two about that, Verizon? Wassup with these delays?

    On December 15, Verizon will flip the LTE switch in Dover, Del.; Lafayette, Ind.; Fitchburg/Leominster, Mass.; Duluth, Rochester area and St. Cloud, Minn.; Manchester/Nashua, NH; Poughkeepsie, NY; Findlay/Tiffin and Youngstown/Warren, Ohio; and Indiana, Pa. Coverage will expand here on the West Coast in San Diego and San Francisco and Eastward in Savannah, Ga.; Chicagoland, Ill.; Baltimore and Hagerstown, Md.; and Washington, DC.

    "Introducing the 4G LTE network has been the fastest rollout of any next-generation network in our history. In one year and 10 days, we have brought 4G LTE to more than 200 million people", David Small, Verizon Wireless CTO, says. "That’s more than twice as fast as our 3G network rollout". In the coverage map above, the yellow-green circles denote where Verizon offers LTE service.

    LTE is hugely important to the country's largest carrier, which offers eight LTE handsets, all Androids. Galaxy Nexus would make nine. Verizon also offers a handful of LTE tablets: Motorola Droid XYBOARD 8.2 and 10.1; Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1; and Moto XOOM (which is currently out of stock).

    By comparison, AT&T offers just two LTE phones, the recently launched HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket. The nation's second-largest carrier reaches 15 cities with its 4G service. However, AT&T promises considerably faster data throughput -- up to 70Mbps downstream compared to maximum 12Mbps for Verizon LTE.

    I tested 4G speed on my recently-purchased XOOM LTE last night. My apartment gets terrible cellular and data service from AT&T. Verizon delivered 5.83Mbps downstream and 5.78Mbps upstream. I'll test tomorrow, when Verizon expands coverage here in San Diego.

    LTE matters to Verizon, which assumes it matters to you. But does it? Right now, 4G LTE is only available on Androids. AT&T doesn't yet offer LTE in San Diego, but I bought the Skyrocket as investment protection when the service is available. What about you? Have you recently purchased a LTE phone or plan to buy one in the next three months? Stated differently, is 4G a must-have feature for your next smartphone? You know where to answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/14/Samsung_snark_sours_iPhone_perceptions'

    Samsung snark sours iPhone perceptions

    Publié: décembre 14, 2011, 8:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The shoe is on the other foot. I hope Apple wears it well, because I expect it's a tight fit.

    Samsung is doing to Apple what the "Get a Mac" marketing campaign did to Windows a half-decade ago: Change perceptions, for the negative. Apple's ad campaign is one of the best conceived for tech products, using two actors to represent a Mac and Windows PC and convey simply complex concepts about why one is better than the other. That campaign crushed the Windows brand at a time when Microsoft delayed Windows XP's successor, which thumped on the market in late 2006 like someone flying fast and far from a trampoline. Samsung's "The Next Big Thing is Here" campaign -- squarely slamming iPhone and its idolaters -- similarly succeeds.

    So says YouGov BrandIndex, which measures consumer perceptions about products like iPhone. "Samsung has just edged past the iPhone in consumer perception in the US (adults 18+), likely powered by their new set of ads bashing the Apple fanboys who camp out for hours to buy the new iPhone," Ted Marzilli, BrandIndex managing director, says.

    I wrote about the first commercial the day after it aired (November 22), describing it as "among the best tech ads I've seen in years". I wrote about another in the "Next Big Thing" series on December 2; BrandIndex says it aired the day before.

    "The two snarky ads, which promote the Galaxy S II, appear to be affecting the iPhone’s consumer perception, sending it into decline around the time the first ad appeared and continuing now," Marzilli says. "At the same time, Samsung’s perception has crept up gradually and just surpassed iPhone last week. The ads were released around November 22nd and December 1st".

    He explains about the chart above: "iPhone’s buzz score began sinking around November 28, with a buzz score of 33 -- the current score is 25. Samsung, whose buzz score was 19 compared to the iPhone’s 29 on October 3rd, is now at 26".

    As I've oft said, in business perception is everything. In branding, perception is even more. Until Samsung's snarky TV commercials, only Verizon's "Droid Does" campaign offered any real challenge to iPhone, or perceptions about it. But Verizon didn't attack iPhone, which Samsung does with the kind of oft-hand cleverness that reminds of "Get a Mac". That's all without ever mentioning Apple or iPhone, even though the fake Apple-store look-alike and iPhone geeks waiting "30 hours" in line are unmistakable.

    The commercials are effective for lots of reasons. These are mine; Marzilli doesn't give anyway:

    1. The TV spots are immediately familiar. iPhone fans waiting in line hours on end outside Apple Store is part of the cultural lexicon. It's a stereotype.

    2. Casting is exceptional. These actors are believable iPhone idolaters. They are the stereotype.

    3. Like "Get a Mac" there is delicious putdown -- many viewers will delight seeing obsessed, Apple hipsters made to look foolish.

    4. Editing is exceptional, particularly the way jump cuts take the viewer down the line of people and interactions between them.

    5. Samsung airs many different TV spots, and they're 15, 30 and 60 seconds long.

    6. These ads get heavy rotation in prime time, like those for iPhone.

    7. Each commercial, even the 15-sec spots, tell a story. There is a clearly communicated concept -- comparison between Galaxy S II and iPhone.

    8. Samsung effectively communicates Galaxy S2 benefits over iPhone, while also emphasizing competitor's deficits.

    9. The iPhone line waiters mainly are the ones saying the corporate brand name -- "Samsung", in an exasperated, stunned way that is more memorable than if a voice-over had done so.

    10. The TV spots make you laugh -- the jokes are good.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/14/Find_independent_music_with_Last.fm_Discover'

    Find independent music with Last.fm Discover

    Publié: décembre 14, 2011, 5:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I must make an embarrassing confession. This morning I logged into my Last.fm account for the first time since June 2008. Has it been that long? Gads! I've really got to start using the service again. Is it a question of Last.fm irrelevance? Nah. Blame iTunes, which I gave up using a few months ago, and hassles with tagging songs. When I last used Last.fm Scrobbler for the Mac -- granted years ago -- there were, ah, issues. I'm on Windows now, where Last.fm and Microsoft are hug-a-beasts.

    Last.fm emailed me today about a new service, which is what got me looking around again after being so long absent. Last.fm Discover is supposed to help you better discover independent music. Hey, I'm all for that. I was a deejay in my youth, back before the Federal Communications Commission deregulated radio and jocks had to pass a test to get one of three "Class" licenses.

    "Our team has grappled over the years on how to best overcome the barriers of discovering new music, whether it be finding new artists from around the globe, downloading tracks or sharing with friends. Last.fm Discover solves this problem", Matthew Hawn, Last.fm veep, says. "By working with the Microsoft innovation team we’re able to bring a huge library of independent music to new audiences. We want people to discover, listen and share new music and Last.fm Discover gives a new and engaging way of doing just that".

    Working with Microsoft? Yeah. Just hop on over to Last.fm Discover using another browser but Internet Explorer 9, and you'll be prompted to download it.

    "We're always looking for new and outstanding ways to bring fantastic HTML5 experiences to Internet Explorer 9 users, and this new site from Last.fm will not disappoint", Gabby Hegerty, UK IE lead, says. The site didn't disappoint in Chrome 16 either. The site is clean and fluid.

    So what exactly can you discover? That perhaps depends on your definition of "independent". I tried searching for Black Keys, which has a new album, rising single ("Lonely Boy"), but isn't a top-of-charter. Last.fm Discover discovered nothing, presenting message: "You've reached the end of the Internet". My God! It's not infinite, like the universe, after all? Next up: Silversun pickups. Success! And a surprise.

    Call me an idiot -- well, many BetaNews commenters already do that -- because when I hit "play" Last.fm didn't serve up Silversun Pickups but like-genre independents. First up: "Two Constellations" by And Their Sons, which, hotdamn, I liked. Now that's music discovery. The service presents options "More like this" and "Something different", for finding more good stuff.

    Next up, I searched for "Oasis", now finally understanding what the service is about. I listened to seasonal "Noel on The Moon (Song of Christmas Future)" by Tiny Tide, which didn't appeal to me. Next pick from the many Oasis-like bands: "Turn & Run" by We Do Not Negotiate With Terrorists, which appealed much more. Next up, the even better "I Owe It All To You", by Rory Robinson, who I am familiar with, and "Thinking out Loud" by Modern Alarms.

    What surprised me: Last.fm Discover presents no obvious way to buy the music. Beneath the tags for tracks is "More info", which links to the Last.fm band page and option to buy a ringtone -- for the five bands I checked. Shouldn't the point be to sell independent music?

    I cut my teeth on independents back when Virgin Records was just a few years old and signed the Sex Pistols. Ah, yes, the late 70s, when Baby Boomer siblings rebelled against their Disco dancing brothers and sisters and when punk was a lifestyle and not the day's fashion (look at Green Day!). Can Last.fm Discover help keep the service relevant in the Spotify era? You tell me.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/14/What_is_Microsoft_s_problem_with_Android_apps_'

    What is Microsoft's problem with Android apps?

    Publié: décembre 14, 2011, 12:36am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Suddenly, Microsoft is a major developer for iOS. The software giant better known for Windows dropped three iOS apps or updates in just two days, and there are rumors of more coming (e.g. Office). But what about Android? "What about Android?" you ask, surprised. "Why should Microsoft give a hoot's fart app about Android? Google and open source are reasons enough why not Android". Yes, but Microsoft makes heaps of money from Android. Nothing from iOS.

    Shouldn't Microsoft support the platform that is more personally profitable? The Redmond, Wash.-based company now has convinced most major Android developers to pay licensing fees, presumably because the open-source OS violates Microsoft patents. Perhaps threat of lawsuit is enough. It's serious money, too, $10 or more per device -- if rumors are to be believed. "Patent trolling with Microsoft" I called it in July. Microsoft makes what from iOS? Diddly.

    The numbers speak for themselves. In September, Microsoft signed Samsung onto the "pay us so we don't sue you" Android licensing program. This week, the South Korean company boasted about selling 300 million handsets this year -- a big number that closes on sales numbers expected from global leader Nokia. Let's do some quick, easy math by assuming only one-third (and two-thirds wouldn't surprise me) of Samsung phones have Android and that rumors of $10 licensing fee are true. So you've got 100 million devices at 10 bucks apiece. That's a billion dollars, baby. Even if Microsoft collected just $1, it's still $100 million more than iOS generates. That's just from one Android licensee.

    By my reckoning, based on IDC projections for 2015 smartphone shipments (1 billion) and Android and Windows Phone combined market share (640 million), Microsoft could conceivably generate $6 billion in licensing fees, $4 billion-plus from Android, four years from now. So I must ask again: Shouldn't Microsoft support the platform that is more personally profitable? That's Android. To hell with iOS.

    Right now, Microsoft's strategy is more give-it-away than charge for apps. If Android and iOS were equally profitless, I'd say, sure, develop for iPad and iPhone. Apple is more Microsoft's friend than Google; Microsoft is a long-time, loyal Mac developer; and demographics of the buyers (age or income) are right, putting Microsoft's brand and apps in front of the right people. Then there's Apple's currently strong brand affinity, which Microsoft should want to attach to.

    But the platforms aren't equally profitless. Microsoft benefits from increased Android device sales, and it's a proven axiom the platforms with the right apps succeed. There aren't many Microsoft apps on Android -- that I could find. New version of Skype released today, but that's from a company Microsoft recently acquired. Bing and Halo Waypoint are the only substantive Microsoft apps I could find on Android Market, and both are quite appealing.

    It's a different world over at Apple's App Store. Yesterday, Microsoft updated OneNote to support iPad -- that for an app available on iPhone for most of 2011. Today, Microsoft released two new iOS apps -- Kinectimals and SkyDrive. There's more. I count 14 apps for iPhone. Among the others:

    • Halo Waypoint, released December 10
    • My Xbox Live, released December 7
    • Microsoft Tag, updated December 6
    • Windows Live Messenger, updated December 6
    • Photosynth, updated October 11

    The other apps -- odd ones like MSN Around the World and MSN Onit -- also are available for Android. We're 12 days into December, and Microsoft has released four new apps for iOS. Whoa.

    Android could really use a few compelling Microsoft apps, particularly for lifting it into the enterprise. How about some support for Office, Lync, SharePoint and SkyDrive? Today, Nielsen released lists of top-15 Android apps for three age groups: 18-24, 25-34 and 35-44 year olds. QuickOffice makes all three demographics' lists -- No. 7 for the older group, eighth for the middle one. Shouldn't that be an Office app instead?

    I know Microsoft wants to favor its own mobile platform with Mobile Office -- but, hey, there are license fees to collect whether Android or Windows Phone. iOS is a money pit.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/13/Skype_for_Android_adds_photo_and_video_sending'

    Skype for Android adds photo and video sending

    Publié: décembre 13, 2011, 9:53pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Why keep those special moments to yourself, when you can share them with the people that matter most? There's Facebook, or even Google+, but what good is that when you're Skyping Claire Beauvoir in Brussels and you're in Washington, DC? Today, Skype 2.6 posted to Android Market, and its big new feature is sending photos and videos. Share and share alike. The new capability works over cellular data networks as well as WiFi.

    "We've also improved battery life and video quality with Skype 2.6 for Android on devices using Nvidia's Tegra 2 chipset, which include amongst others; the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Motorola XOOM and Acer Iconia Tablet. Now you can take full advantage of the big screen with better video quality than ever before", says Dan Chastney, Skype senior product manager.

    Over Black Friday weekend, I bought the XOOOM LTE from Verizon for $199.99. Perhaps in the future I'll report on just how improved that video quality really is. But I'm short a writer today here at BetaNews, and the stories are stacked up. Or you can now in comments.

    Skype 2.6 for Android also improves battery life and voicemail. It's available now from Android Market.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/13/Is_2012_year_of_the_cloud_'

    Is 2012 year of the cloud?

    Publié: décembre 13, 2011, 4:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Forrester analyst Holger Kisker seems to think it is. Today he blogs: "2012 is the year the cloud becomes mature". It's also the year we're all supposed to die, if you believe ancient Mayan predictions. But December is that time when analysts peer (should that be leer?) into their crystal balls and prognosticate about the year ahead.

    Kisker offers 10 reasons, but doesn't serve meat and potatoes until No. 6: "The total cloud market (including private, virtual private, and public cloud markets) will reach about $61 billion by the end of 2012. By far, the largest individual cloud market continues to be the public SaaS market, which will hit $33 billion by the end of 2012". Those are big numbers.

    If Kisker is that optimistic, perhaps he should be more so. Gartner describes public cloud as one of the "hottest topics in IT". Spending on public cloud services is growing four times faster than overall IT spending, says the firm, which forecasts $89 billion spent this year and $177 billion by 2015.

    The Forrester analyst isn't alone looking to 2012. Last week, at Discover 2011 in Vienna, Austria, HP announced a series of additions to its cloud portfolio that integrate public and private cloud solutions into a single, more controlled package.

    I won't recap Kisker's top-10 list. You can read it yourself. But a couple more demand calling out. Enterprises have been cloud laggards, he observes.

    Microsoft's Office 365 demonstrates just how much. Two weeks ago, Kurt DelBene, president of the Office division, says that Microsoft sees "great traction with small businesses, with more than 90 percent of our early Office 365 customers coming from small businesses". If 90 percent of customers are small businesses -- with fewer than 50 employees -- only 1 in 10 is a mid-size or large business, which represent the core Office market.

    The data jives with cloud adoption trends seen by Forrester. "Large enterprises spent 2011 mostly catching up, and by 2012, they will be leading in cloud adoption rates in every cloud segment compared with SMBs", Kisker says.

    Something else worth highlighting: Changing virtualization trends. Cloud computing and virtualization rank near the top of hot IT trends. The year 2012 is when they finally give up cohabiting and actually marry. "A virtualized data center is not (yet) a private cloud, Kisker says. "With an increasing understanding of cloud computing, companies will shift their focus from technical virtualization projects to focus on the change management aspects required for flexible business models between IT and the line of business".

    Read Kisker's list and assess his predictions as they apply to your IT organization.

    Photo Credit: Alexander Kirch/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/13/Android_users_love_Facebook__Google__not_so_much'

    Android users love Facebook, Google+ not so much

    Publié: décembre 13, 2011, 4:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This week, Nielsen listed the most popular Android apps by age group -- 18-24; 25-34; 35-44. Well, well, talk about age discrimination. Perhaps people 45 or older are considered to be iPhone users? For shame! The data is interesting not for what is there but what's not. Facebook tops all three age groups, when looking at actual apps. Android Market ranks higher. Google+ -- and Twitter, for the matter -- is nowhere in sight.

    For all the buzz about Google+, and I am a big fan, it's not among the top-15 apps for each age group. That's no small thing. Mobile phones are by and far the most personal devices everyone uses. They're where people connect to other people and things that are important to them. Facebook clearly matters, Google+ and Twitter do not -- as measured by most-popular apps. I suppose some people could use browsers to access the services, but why would they?

    The data, for September 2011, is another proof point that perhaps a dedicated Facebook phone makes sense. I'm skeptical there will be one soon, if ever, but it's good time to speculate again, since January's Consumer Electronics Show would be excellent launch venue.

    Nielsen's study shows social's importance elsewhere -- just not G+ or Twitter. "A preference for media apps with a social dimension (e.g. Words with Friends) among the 18-24 set is also reinforced by their sizable usage of music and video apps (e.g. Pandora) compared to older demographics", according to Nielsen.

    There is some good news for Google: YouTube's popularity. "Google’s YouTube app gets heavy usage from Android smartphone owners 18-24: 64 percent have used it in the past 30 days, compared to 56 percent and 51 percent of 25-34 and 35-44 year olds", according to Nielsen. YouTube ranks fourth behind Facebook in all three demographic groups.

    Additionally, Google Search, which is baked into Android, ranks highly -- 77 percent among 18-24 year-olds, right behind Facebook.

    So let me ask: Do you use Google+ on your Android? How often? What do you or don't you like about it? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/13/Did_Steve_Ballmer_just_promote_or_demote_Windows_Phone_chief_'

    Did Steve Ballmer just promote or demote Windows Phone chief?

    Publié: décembre 13, 2011, 2:42am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm scratching my head wondering. You want to answer that one? If you work for Microsoft, I'd love your anonymous response.

    This afternoon, in an email sent to Microsoft employees, CEO Steve Ballmer announced that Terry Myerson would take over the Windows Phone division, replacing Andy Lees, who only assumed position of "president" 14 months ago. Lees is the second divisional leader moved out by Ballmer in about 11 months. The other: Former Server and Tools president Bob Muglia.

    Lees' move sideways, into an unspecified role, could be read one of two ways -- perhaps both: He's being sidelined Japanese management-style to that position of uselessness following Windows Phone's colossal market failure; or he gained success against insurmountable odds and is being called on to take a new role vital to the future of Windows, Windows Phone and Xbox -- three pillars of Microsoft's three-screen strategy. If the latter, Lees' future Windows Phone role may be secure while on a sort-of sabbatical reporting directly to Ballmer.

    Ballmer's Email

    Before continuing, the text of Ballmer's email, which Microsoft publicly released:

    To: All Microsoft Employees
    From: Steve Ballmer
    Subj: Leadership Next Steps – Windows Phone
    Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011

    We are driving toward the end of the year with a lot of momentum and buzz, especially in the consumer arena. The new Xbox dashboard is being well received, Kinect and Xbox consoles set a record for Black Friday weekend sales, the Windows Store news from last week delighted developers and partners, Windows Phone 7.5 continues to win reviews, and the Nokia Lumia series has grabbed a ton of attention in Europe, creating anticipation for availability in other geographies next year.

    As I look at where we are, what we’ve done, and what we must do in the year ahead, I’m making two leadership changes to ensure we build on our momentum. First, I have asked Andy Lees to move to a new role working for me on a time-critical opportunity focused on driving maximum impact in 2012 with Windows Phone and Windows 8. We have tremendous potential with Windows Phone and Windows 8, and this move sets us up to really deliver against that potential.

    Second, as Andy takes on these new challenges for the company, Terry Myerson will assume Andy’s existing responsibilities for leading the Windows Phone Division. As many of you know, Terry played a key and highly successful role working with Andy by leading the engineering work on Windows Phone 7 and 7.5. Terry will now be responsible for Windows Phone development, marketing, and other business functions. Because Terry has been so integrally involved in our Windows Phone work already, I’m confident that he can make a seamless transition to this new and broader leadership responsibility.

    Both these changes take place immediately.

    I want to personally thank Andy for his contributions to the phone team. In the three years Andy has been leading the phone group, we’ve come a long way – we reset our strategy, built a strong team that delivered WP7 and WP7.5 and created critical new partnerships and ecosystem around Windows Phone. That is a ton of progress in a brief period of time, and I’m excited for Terry and team to keep driving forward and for Andy to dig into a new challenge.

    It is amazing to pause and look back at what we’ve accomplished as a company this year, from our incredible product momentum to the formation of several powerful partnerships and the overall strength of our leadership team. And you know I’m a look-forward kind of person, so when I look forward to 2012, I see even more opportunity and potential in what we have planned.

    Steve

    I could interpret the email two ways. Ballmer says: "I fired his ass, but he's too high level to just show the door". Or: "I need him to help the magical to occur -- bring Windows desktop, embedded and mobile to a single code base when Windows 8 launches". Or: "He's going to help get this Nokia partnership really going, cause it ain't right now going fast enough". Or -- take your pick of whatever skunk-works project that might be "time critical".

    Failure Scenario

    First up, the Ballmer has moved Lees, short of sacking him scenario. In January post "Steve Ballmer finally shows who's in charge", I explained how he had ushered in a new era of accountability at Microsoft -- something long lacking at a company where jobs seemed guaranteed for life. Suddenly performance mattered where it hadn't enough before: Among Microsoft's top brass. In 2010, Ballmer sent Robbie Bach (another division president -- Entertainment and Devices) packing, along with Steve Jobs wannabe J Allard.

    From a strictly execution perspective, Windows Phone 7.5's launch went well. Microsoft got updates to existing customers pretty quickly and new WP smartphones are impressive -- there has been some clever marketing, too. Microsoft has released a compelling operating system that is remarkably different from Android and iOS. Problem: Windows Phone bleeds market share, while Android and iOS suck it up like vampires. For example, at end of third quarter, in the United States, Windows Phone had 1.2 percent share among US smartphone subscribers, according to Nielsen. Hell, that's less than Symbian! By comparison, Android and iOS had 42.8 percent and 28.3 percent share, respectively. That's the measure of failure, in a really big way.

    On second thought, I'm convincing myself that Lees is sidelined and as a leader, forgive me, castrated. Hell, he is no longer a Microsoft president -- and over one of the company's most strategically important product groups. As I got to writing the paragraph above, I remembered to check the AllThingsD story that others say broke the news. The first comment, from Christopher Budd, fits with my thinking -- and he should know better than me:

    Having worked there 10+ years I can say this is probably the first sign that Windows Phone is failing. They never just fire someone outright at that level and on a product that is that strategically important. Read between the lines and you'll see that Lees is losing his title and (most importantly) his power: he reports directly to Balmer as an individual contributor (IC) it seems.

    I wouldn't call it the "first sign that Windows Phone is failing". There are plenty of others. But it's likely the Lees era is over at the Windows Phone division. Microsoft has fallen too far behind and can't get up. In February 2010 I called Windows Phone a "lost cause", and that looks more true today than ever.

    The only hope I see is a unified OS strategy, based on ARM, for PCs, tablets and mobile handsets. There Microsoft could leverage the existing Windows ecosystem and perhaps play catch up with Nokia assistance. But Samsung is destined to be the new Nokia -- in no more than two quarters, I predict -- meaning the South Korean manufacturer sells more mobiles in more places than its Finnish rival. Year today, Samsung has sold 300 million handsets, putting his run rate close to Nokia's.

    If Lees is working on something like a unified OS strategy, good luck to him. Microsoft's relevance in the post-PC era may depend on such a project's success.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/12/Cellular_data_contracts_doom_Android_tablets'

    Cellular data contracts doom Android tablets

    Publié: décembre 12, 2011, 11:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    New data from NPD confirms something I claimed in February: "The real reason Android tablets don't stand a chance against iPad -- onerous monthly data fees". American consumers simply aren't opting for 3G/4G, preferring WiFi for tablets instead. That's good news for Amazon Kindle Fire and Apple's iPad, particularly, but doom and gloom for Motorola Droid XYBOARD and other tablets requiring onerous, two-year data contracts from cellular carriers.

    In April, NPD surveyed tablet owners about their wireless connectivity. Sixty percent said WiFi-only but 5 percent planned to add cellular broadband within six months. Fast forward to December and 65 percent are WiFi-only. So much for buying/adoption intentions.

    NPD's data is a cautionary tale about something else -- surveys from ChangeWave and others measuring buying intentions. The Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists are giddy writing about these, because so many people say they'll buy iPad or iPhone. What people say they will do often reflects what they'd like to but not often what they do. NPD's survey data is excellent example of this. Cellular connectivity is an appealing benefit, until tablet buyers look at the real-world monthly costs and two-year commitments and weigh them against their behavior (how much the tablet will go out and about) and WiFi availability (free in coffee shops and malls).

    "There are multiple reasons for greater Wi-Fi reliance", NPD's Eddie Hold says. "Concern over the high cost of cellular data plans is certainly an issue, but more consumers are finding that WiFi is available in the majority of locations where they use their tablets, providing them 'good enough' connectivity. In addition, the vast majority of tablet users already own a smartphone, which fulfills the 'must have' connectivity need".

    The difference also reflects changing marketplace, moving from early adopters to the mainstream. "There is a relatively low mobile connection rate for tablet users today in light of the fact that these were early adopters, and therefore less price conscious than the mainstream", Hold says. "If there is not an ongoing need for these early adopters to be always-on, then the carriers clearly face challenges with the larger consumer audience moving forward".

    Hold's analysis jives with what I asserted in February, without supporting data. I posted partly in response to uberblogger Robert's assertion: "The only thing that matters is the apps". He's wrong -- then and now. "What matters more is the price -- how much more people pay for one product compared to the other", which is the context I put extra-cost data commitments: "Apple sells iPad with or without cellular network radios. Buyers can choose WiFi only. Even if they buy a 3G model, the data plan is optional and there is no contractual or time commitments. That Verizon can sell iPad without 3G (since the radios are for AT&T), shows there is demand for the right tablet that offers just WiFi".

    That said, last week, I received Motorola XOOM LTE from Verizon, putting me in the camp willing to pay monthly data fees. But an unbelievable Black Friday sale made the math work for me. I paid $199.99 for the tablet before taxes. The comparable Apple tablet, with 32GB storage, sells for $729. XOOM LTE then has, comparably, a $529.99 credit to apply against data service -- 17 months against the 24-month contractual commitment. That's by comparison.

    The math works against XOOM's successor, the Droid XYBOARD, which Verizon announced days after my tablet arrived. Prices for the 10.1-inch model range from $529.99 to $729.99 -- or about $100 less each for comparable iPad 2s. However, data plan is optional for Apple's tablet, but mandatory for Moto's, putting the two-year cost for the model comparable to my XOOM at $1,449.99. Is cellular connectivity really worth that much more, when WiFi is so readily available? For many people, the answer is no.

    On Saturday, I asked readers if they would spend $530 to $730 for Droid XYBOARD. Many readers' responses jive with NPD's findings. Alex Right: "Too much for a tablet, I think".

    "Motorola wont be selling many of these. Havent they learned no one will give you $600 for a tablet with a contract", writes bibleverse1. "When the price is $149.99 with a 2 year contract they will fly off the shelves". I'd say $199.99, since that worked for me.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/12/Are_you_tired_of_waiting_for_Galaxy_Nexus_'

    Are you tired of waiting for Galaxy Nexus?

    Publié: décembre 12, 2011, 7:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I sure am, and it's not even on my shopping list. Every day there's a new rumor about the US launch date. We all expected December 8 -- even Verizon Wireless stores (I spoke with a rep last night, who confirmed the date). Perhaps I should ask a different question: Could Google have bungled Galaxy Nexus launch even more?

    C`mon, it's the biggest shopping period of the season. Galaxy Nexus is the first Android 4.0 smartphone, and supports fast data (Verizon 4G LTE, baby). It's a no-brainer purchase for the phone geek you love (we won't talk about self-love, but you know) who doesn't give two tits bit about iPhone 4S. Galaxy Nexus should have been ready for sale, on multiple US carriers, by Black Friday.

    Many people who might have bought Galaxy Nexus surely snapped up another smartphone by now -- and why not? There have been some hot deals so far. For anyone wanting real 4G, Verizon offers eight other 4G phones -- all Androids -- and AT&T has two (but nowhere near the coverage area). Are you among them? Were you planning to buy Galaxy Nexus and chose something else instead?

    Google has done better in some international markets, where Galaxy Nexus has been available for weeks. But the United States is one of the two hottest smartphone markets (China is the other), and it's simply marketing suicide not to have Galaxy Nexus on sale, with only 12 days to Christmas Eve. Tomorrow is too late. Hell, yesterday was too late.

    Then there is the Google Wallet fiasco, with widespread reports Verizon won't support it. But this won't be the first time Verizon has wonked some handset's feature to meet its own ends. Google should have known better when considering its US launch partners.

    Google has done much worse than Microsoft, which did the absolute inconceivable when Windows Vista shipped a month after Holiday 2006. How the hell do you miss Christmas? At least Microsoft gave everyone about nine months notice that coal would be in the Christmas stocking. Google tantalizes with lots of marketing. Have you seen the bazillion banner ads here at BetaNews? Then there is the clever and compelling TV commercial. You ogle the Google phone, tense with anticipation only to meet disappointment when trying to buy it. Yeah, that's a helluva way to make people feel good about a product.

    So, I'll ask again: Are you tired of waiting for Galaxy Nexus? Will you hold out for that Christmas miracle? Or have Google and Verizon killed your faith in Father Christmas -- and you bought something else? Comments wait your responses.

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/12/Mac_App_Store_100M_downloads__Windows_Store__0'

    Mac App Store:100M downloads, Windows Store: 0

    Publié: décembre 12, 2011, 4:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Seven years have passed since I first strongly suggested to Microsoft product managers that they should add a software applications store to Windows. The idea didn't go over too well. Today, Apple showed Microsoft why an app store makes loads of sense inside the operating system and why Windows Store's February launch is way too late.

    Apple made Mac App Store an add-on to OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard in January, and shipped it as part of successor Lion in July. Today, the company claimed 100 million downloads. Caveat, and this is where marketing mumbo jumbo needs closer look: The company doesn't say "unique downloads". I paid for Lion once and installed it on three Macs, as licensing terms permit. That's three downloads from one purchase. Redownloads jack up the numbers.

    Unique matters, as does the number of free versus paid apps, which also ignores. The Mac Fanclub of bloggers and journalists can't have it both ways. Whenever Google struts out Android Market download numbers they rebutt: There are many more paid apps at Apple's mobile App Store, which is true. Paid vs free is legitimate question to ask here, too, particularly since Apple touts the 70 percent cut developers take.

    "With more than 100 million downloads in less than a year, the Mac App Store is the largest and fastest growing PC software store in the world", Phil Schiller, Apple's senior vice president of Worldwide Marketing, claims. See, Macs are PCs, oh yea Apple Fanclubbers. :) Say, CNET, do you want to answer whether or not Schiller's statement is factual? How does Download.com compare?

    Certainly Schiller's statement is true for app stores built into PC operating systems. There, Microsoft has got nothing but promises, and the Apple Fanclub rightly can gloat. While Microsoft last week demoed the Windows Store coming in February, Apple offers real download numbers -- and that means cash developers can put into the bank -- today. Say, developers, which matters more to you? Cash and carry now or promises of the future?

    Schiller also claims that "the Mac App Store is changing the traditional PC software industry". Oh? Exactly how? See my January 6 post "Apple's Mac App Store fundamentally changes PC software usage rights" for one answer; it's too long to recap here. More broadly, key benefits:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices -- Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.

    2. Developers can now scale their applications across devices.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they are paid; the app store deters piracy.

    4. Rights protection is built in so that customers aren't exposed to onerous piracy-deterring activation mechanisms.

    5. The store makes applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    Operating systems thrive on applications, and perhaps it's no coincidence the same year Apple launches its app store, Mac sales are way up.

    By the way, where's the Federal Trade Commission when you need it? Isn't the agency supposed to slap around companies that make false claims about their products? Or perhaps press releases don't count like advertising does. From the PR: "Apple designs Macs, the best personal computers in the world, along with OS X, iLife, iWork and professional software". The best? Say, HP, Lenovo and Sony, are you going to let that dog lie on your front porch? Apple, by what measure are Macs the best?

    Commenters, since Apple likely won't respond, please give your answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/10/Would_you_pay_Verizon__530____730_for_Motorola_Droid_XYBOARD_'

    Would you pay Verizon $530 - $730 for Motorola Droid XYBOARD?

    Publié: décembre 10, 2011, 8:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I wouldn't, and I'm probably wasting time bothering to ask. Many of you won't either. But, please, do tell. Your reasons why or why not are valuable, and you can offer them up in comments.

    Droid XYBOARD replaces the XOOM, and it's unclear whether the predecessor's brand disappears (I assume not) or if XYBOARD is a Verizon-exclusive brand like Droid (I assume yes). Whichever, the new tablet is all about rebranding, rather than being a worthy successor to XOOM. By the specs, there nary is anything to tell the tablets apart -- other than price, a little Battlestar Galactica-like trim to the corners and introduction of a smaller model. Now there's an 8.2-inch Moto tablet to compliment the 10.1-incher.

    Over Black Friday weekend, Verizon offered an unbelievable deal on XOOM LTE -- $199.99 with two-year activation. I bought one, and it arrived this week. Looks like Verizon cleared out excess inventory in preparation for XYBOARD. Here's how they compare:

    XOOM LTE: 1GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable to 64GB with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; WiFi N; Bluetooth; 4G LTE; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; 3250mAh Li-Ion battery; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb).

    Droid XYBOARD 10.1: 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 5-megapixel back-facing and 1.3-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; WiFi N; Bluetooth; 4G LTE; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; 7,000 mAh Li–Ion battery; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb). Storage: 16GB, 32GB or 64GB -- $529.99, $629.99 and $729.99, respectively.

    These prices are $100 each less than comparable iPad 2s, which have slower 3G and not faster 4G radios, but don't require data plan. Verizon requires two-year data commitment with XYBOARD purchase.

    Regular price on XOOM -- still heavily discounted from its release -- is $299.99, but new tablets are out of stock. Strangely, Verizon will sell you a refurb for $100 more. How fraked is that? What might really distinguish the tablets is battery -- 3250mAh for XOOM vs 7000mAh for XYBOARD, but strangely Verizon puts usage time higher for the older tablet, that's 540 minutes vs 480 minutes. Something else: There's no MicroSD port, so memory isn't expandable like it is on XOOM.

    That's the apples to apples comparison -- now for some Apple to XYBOARD comparison:

    iPad 2: 1GHz dual-core processor; 9.7 inch display with 1024 x 768 resolution; 512MB of RAM; 32GB internal storage (non-expandable); front-and-rear cameras; 720p video playback; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; and iOS 5.

    By the specs and price, I'd take XYBOARD over iPad 2. Commenters can debate Android vs iOS platform and applications benefits. But there's another option to consider:

    Droid XYBOARD 8.2: 1.2GHz dual-core processor; 8.2-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 5-megapixel back-facing and 1.3-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; WiFi N; Bluetooth; 4G LTE; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; 3,960 mAh Li–Ion battery; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb). Storage: 16GB or 32GB -- $429.99 and $529.99 respectively.

    Amazon Kindle is $199, and offers most of the same benefits -- sans camera, 4G and swapping Gingerbread for Honeycomb, for operating system.


    What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?

    I've got three problems with XYBOARD:

    • Selling prices
    • Two-year data commitment (for selling price)
    • Not worthy upgrade for XOOM, which packs extras XYBOARD takes away

    What the hell are Motorola and Verizon product managers thinking? Surely Verizon execs see 4G LTE as differentiator enough. I'm not sure it is -- hence the pricing question this post's headline asks.

    Based on BetaNews' tablet pricing poll, most of you don't want to pay even what the lowest-priced XYBOARDs sell for -- $429.99 and $529.99. Among the 1,353 respondents so far, only 5.46 percent would spend $399 or more for a tablet. The majority -- 58.98 percent: $199 or less. By that measure, XOOM was priced to sell over Black Friday weekend and XYBOARD is overpriced. The config looks pretty outdated looking at, for example, ASUS Eee Pad Transformer Prime, which packs quad-core processor.

    Verizon is currently taking preorders for XYBOARD, which will be in stores December 12. So the question remains: Would you pay $530 to $730 for the 10.1-inch model, or $430 to $530 for the 8.2-inch XYBOARD. You know where to answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/09/Who_gets_what_at_Android_Market___infographic_'

    Who gets what at Android Market? [infographic]

    Publié: décembre 9, 2011, 8:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Earlier this week, Google proclaimed an important milestone for Android Market: 10 billion downloads. That's still something like 8 billion behind Apple's App Store. The questions: who, what, when and where? There are answers in a handy infographic posted by Eric Chu, Android Developer Ecosystem, yesterday.

    Asia rules, based on per-capita downloads -- four of the top-five are from the Pacific Rim. South Korea leads, while the United States nudges past Singapore to capture the fourth spot. European nations claim four of the next five spots, with Israel pushing between Sweden and Denmark for sixth place. Apparently, by the per-capita measure, the Americas aren't so hot for Android Market.

    Downloads are greatest 9 pm Sunday. Is that local time where you live or Pacific Time, which would be about 2 pm Monday in South Korea? What is it about Sunday nights? I download apps whenever learning of new ones. What about you, do you Android Market once a week or more frequently?

    "Which app was lucky number 10 billion?" Chu asks. "Photobucket Mobile. They’ll be getting a great prize package, including tickets to next year’s Google I/O developer conference".

    Games are the most downloaded apps, which makes some sense of the wonky Google TV redesign. There Google puts more emphasis on apps, and clearly games are a priority. Sure, Xbox competition could be a factor, but that's like comparing cassette tapes to vinyl records. They both play music but not the same way or purpose. Apps emphasis on Google TV is more about leveraging what Android's got rather than competing with something else. That said, all of the most-popular categories compete with arcade games available from Xbox Live.

    Shazam is among my most-used third-party apps. Google says singer Adele has been Shazam'd 1,789,955 times. I won't give away the whole inforgraphic, and will stop there. Look for yourself, below.

    Regarding mobile app stores and platforms, some reader comments to my December 7 "Android Market is unstoppable" story fit nicely with data in the infogaphic. Kenneth Berger claims:

    All you have to do is walk down the street to see that despite the numbers Google talks about you still see 10 iPhones for every Android phone..I was at a company that upgraded all 30 users from a mix of Androids and Blackberries to iPhone 4S' in the past few weeks. I do have two friends who love their Android and have no plans to change, but the[y] are clearly the exception. You simply do not hear of people upgrading to an Android phone. In the US the primary market for Android has been people on non ATT who wanted an iPhone and could not get one, or afford one. The Android wave peaked about 3 months ago in the US.

    Ádám Körmendi responds:

    Actually, you should really try to think globally. It is maybe the case in your neighborhood, but these are global numbers. If I look around here in Eastern Europe the situation is quite the opposite. In my family there are 5 phones: four of them have Android, the fifth has Bada, no iPhone. Among my colleagues: many feature phone, a few Android phone, and no iPhone at all.

    If the salaries are lower, yet the phones costs more (mostly the high-end phones and especially iPhone) than in the States, then many will appreciate the cheaper, yet 'smart' phones. I'm not sure what would happen if one day the salaries somehow miraculously rise, but surely until then, those numbers will be true -- globally.

    My question to you, if an Android user: What apps do you most use and what were the last three you downloaded? You know where to respond.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/08/Microsoft_chucks_our_reviewer_from_Xbox_Live_Update_Preview_program'

    Microsoft chucks our reviewer from Xbox Live Update Preview program

    Publié: décembre 8, 2011, 11:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Steve Ballmer won't get a Christmas card from me this year. Or next.

    Microsoft's assault on BetaNews' Xbox 360 dashboard review continues. I awoke to find a take-down notice waiting in Gmail, for photos posted with the review. A few hours ago, our reviewer, a BetaNews reader, informed me that Microsoft had kicked him out of the Preview program for violating the NDA. But did he?

    Here's the email he received late this morning:

    As an Xbox Live Update Preview participant, you agreed to a Program Participation Agreement that included an obligation to keep the program confidential.

    Unfortunately, it has come to our attention that you have directly violated this agreement by posting pictures, information and/or talking with the press about the program and its contents. As a result, the following actions will be taking place:

    You have been removed from the Xbox Live Update Preview Program.

    The console(s) you registered as part of the program will not be able to connect to Xbox Live until the official dashboard release date later this year. You will not be eligible for future Xbox Live Update programs.

    We share your excitement about new content, but it is unfortunate you chose to not abide by the terms of the agreement and have been removed from the Xbox Live Update Preview Program. Xbox Live Team.

    I take non-disclosure agreements quite seriously. You don't break them. It violates trust established with the vendor. But reality is this: Embargoes and NDAs are violated all the time. I can't even count the number of times someone working for another publication broke an embargo and got a jump on me and other competitors. The excuse is always the same: "It was a mistake!" "We screwed up time zones" or "An editor hit post to soon". Pick any other excuse you like. Does Microsoft cut off the publications? Bar them from future embargoes? I'd love to hear of an instance, because I don't know of any.

    That's not meant as justification but background and to raise questions about who and who doesn't get cut slack for mistakes and whether or not Microsoft should treat our reviewer so harshly. Earlier today I wrote: "I will take it as a personal affront should Microsoft choose to ban our reader from participating in future beta programs". This is much worse. He's kicked out right now and for the future.

    I deliberately do not name the review's writer, even though his name is quite visible when linking to the story. Search engines give the Internet longer memory than an elephant. I still hope to resolve this situation with our reader's wrists slapped rather than legs broken.

    Series of Events

    Here's the timeline as I've reconstructed it so far:

    • On December 5, Microsoft made a big splashy announcement -- with press release, blog post and other marketing material -- about the dashboard update coming the next day. That after Major Nelson reminding about it weeks before. Microsoft wasn't exactly keeping secrets.
    • The same day, I asked for readers to review the autumn 2011 Xbox 360 and Live updates. (Microsoft's PR agency had rejected my request for game console and Kinect loaner.) Our reader responded in comments -- that he would do it.
    • On December 6, Microsoft made yet another splashy announcement about three autumn 2011 updates, coming that day to an Xbox 360 near you.
    • Our reader sent the review and photos during early business hours on the same day. He shot the photos that morning.
    • I initially ignored the review -- to finish up a news analysis about the Xbox news, which posted at 12:22 pm ET.
    • After completing other responsibilities, I edited and posted the Xbox 360 dashboard review -- at 3:12 pm ET. It was clear that our reviewer participated in the Preview program, but Microsoft supposedly had released the update -- that's what the fanfare was about.
    • However, unknown to me then, Major Nelson tweeted: "Sorry for the dash launch delay. Good news: first set of customers will be getting the Xbox LIVE update within the next few hours". I assume the 3:46 pm tweet was Pacific Time.
    • That means our review went up before the Dashboard release, but after the announcement. Something else: The rejection letter our reader received today gives different timing: "official dashboard release date later this year".
    • Lastly today's aforementioned events: Take-down notice and reviewer rebuked by Microsoft.

    While my first inclination is to support a BetaNews reader, I would be more understanding of Microsoft's position if the updates had been kept secret. Just the opposite, the company couldn't contain corporate enthusiasm about them. The date and content was public knowledge.

    An Honest Mistake

    Our reviewer takes full responsibility for not being more careful about the NDA, which I asked to see but he can't access having been booted from the Preview program. He doesn't want to make a big deal out of the situation and would prefer to let it subside. I understand the sentiment. But I also think there's honest mistake here regarding this damn NDA. He most certainly never meant to violate anything. He expressed his enthusiasm for Xbox 360 and Live in a review that is extremely positive and so well-written.

    I won't recap all reader comments (from this morning's story), but there is some good insight regarding why this happened. Another reader informed me that the NDA doesn't expire until the end of the year. That makes sense since Microsoft plans more content updates for the new dashboard. But unless I missed something, our reviewer stuck to what's available. So what? The NDA bars him from discussing stuff already publicly revealed by Microsoft or available to other Xbox users? That other reader writes, and I've chosen not to name him (for obvious reasons):

    I would have done the same thing he did because it wasn't until I checked the Preview program site (the day of the release) that I realized MS's message to us that we were still under NDA until the end of the year because we would be testing upcoming apps.

    The problem with all of this is that MS did not make it abundantly clear to us that we were still in the program. I wasted a ton of time wondering why I never got a message saying, 'You have an update!' It wasn't until I went to the Preview program site that I realized, I had been updated days ago and that I would continue in the program until year end.

    He should not have been kicked out. He made an honest mistake.

    BetaNews' take-down notice remains an unresolved matter. I responded to Microsoft's request asking for more clarification on how the photos violate our reviewer's NDA. I won't do anything until Microsoft responds. However, BetaNews' reader reviewer shot new photos this morning before getting booted from the Preview program. It's pointless to replace existing photos without Microsoft clarification, since the company might view the new ones to be in violation, too.

    We will act appropriately and responsibly once Microsoft responds.

    Photo Credit: Steve Arnold

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/08/What_the_hell_is_SOPA___infographic_'

    What the hell is SOPA? [infographic]

    Publié: décembre 8, 2011, 8:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    All kinds of unsolicited mail pours into my inbox, and I ignore about half the stuff that probably matters -- that's if the Junk Mail filter doesn't grab it first. I'm particularly leery of messages promoting an infographic made by some organization that might have vested interest in the topic. But this one, from BusinessInsuranceQuotes, depicts such an emotionally-heated topic, I figured: "Oh, what the hell, just post the damn thing".

    Feast your eyes on this little ditty about SOPA -- the Stop Online Piracy Act -- that I repeatedly mistype as "privacy", subconscious response meaning to invade it, perhaps. The infographic really lacks the drama SOPA would create if enacted as law. Little things like empowering the government to take down your site or seize your domain based on the presumption of guilt. That's the painless part. You go to jail if convicted. Perhaps Federal prisons aren't as overcrowded as California jails.

    "What're you in for, bitch?" "My website linked to Lady Gaga's new album; it was pirated".

    SOPA is picking up some surprising opponents -- and, yes, many of you are among them. What a strange juxtaposition, too. SOPA should, in theory, curb software piracy, so you would think major developers would back it. Some are so against the proposed legislation they've taken drastic action. This week, Kaspersky Lab ended its membership in Business Software Alliance -- the industry's anti-piracy trade group -- over SOPA. CEO Eugene Kaspersky faults BSA, which has "blindly supported SOPA while ignoring any other point of view. We had to withdraw from this association because we disagree with its decision. And this is why". He continues:

    If we accept this law, hundreds of thousands of lawyers will suddenly appear out of the woodwork because almost any website can be accused of copyright infringement! This law will lead to major legalized extortion. The Internet business faces hard times -- look at those who do not want to join SOPA: eBay, Facebook, AOL, Google, LinkedIn, Mozilla, Yahoo, Wikimedia, etc...

    My position can be summed up as follows:

    1. SOPA should be tossed onto the fire
    2. The dinosaurs should be pensioned off
    3. Content should be distributed in new ways, e.g.:

    • Low quality content is free. You can take as much as you can eat (for advertising, for example)
    • Medium quality content should be quick and cheap
    • High (professional) quality – expensive
    • There has already been movement towards the last point, for example, iTunes. Some studios are also practicing free distribution of low quality content for promotional purposes.

    So far, 3,377 people have responded to BetaNews poll: "US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?" Nintey-five percent answer "No".

    BetaNews commenter partypop: "This will stop privacy not piracy. Most hosted servers will simply relocate outside the juristiction of the US. This bill will only give more power to government to shutdown sites it doesn't like, i.e. WikiLeaks. k1jello: "Piracy laws are already in place in the USA, this is an attempt to gag and persecute people...Freedom of speech and privacy is at stake".

    With that introduction, here's the infographic:

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/08/Microsoft_issues_take_down_notice_for_our_Xbox_360_dashboard_review'

    Microsoft issues take-down notice for our Xbox 360 dashboard review

    Publié: décembre 8, 2011, 4:46pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Here's something I don't wake up to everyday -- actually never. At 7:35 am ET, BetaNews received an email demanding that we remove photos from the excellent Xbox 360 review penned by one of our readers: "Microsoft requests that you remove the photos, but not the text, of this story, because the images are copyrighted and were released in violation of an NDA".

    BetaNews is investigating the matter, and I will appropriately respond. BetaNews respects copyrights and non-disclosure agreements. It's one reason you see so few rumor stories and supporting photos here. We assume that the writer took the photos and that he participated in the Xbox 360 dashboard preview program. Reviewers take photos all the time while under NDA or embargo and publish them after the restriction lifts. BetaNews posted the review (and accompanying photos) after Microsoft publicly announced and released the autumn 2011 Xbox 360 updates. We assume for now that this is a misunderstanding.

    If it turns out that the writer didn't take the photos (I'm awaiting his reply to email), BetaNews will remove them, of course, or obtain rights to use them (if possible). The reviewer took the photos the day the Dashboard updated, and he has offered a fresh set taken today. Microsoft's take-down notice cites NDA violation, which perplexes me, since the review and photos posted after Microsoft started distributing the Xbox 360/Live updates.

    To be clear, I deliberately do not name the review's writer, even though his name is quite visible when linking to the story. Search engines give the Internet longer memory than an elephant. Particularly since I assume this is all a misunderstanding, his name shouldn't be forever linked to this take-down request.

    BetaNews stands by its readers, which is another reason you're reading a public response to Microsoft's request. I will take it as a personal affront should Microsoft choose to ban our reader from participating in future beta programs. He responded to my call for reader reviews, after Microsoft ignored repeated requests for Xbox 360 and Kinect loaner so that I could test the dashboard, Kinect and entertainment updates and write a review. In a way, I'm glad, since our reader did such exceptional work.

    I've got some advice for Microsoft: Learn who your friends are. Enthusiasts are your best evangelists. We posted a 3,200-word review from an enthusiast who gave high praise to the autumn 2011 updates. He should receive gracious response from the Xbox 360/Live team rather than our getting a take-down notice for the photos.

    That's friendly advice. My ultimate goal is to resolve this situation amicably.

    Text of the take-down notice, with email address of the sender redacted:

    Dear Sir/Madam,

    We are writing to you in relation to [betanews.com]

    Microsoft requests that you remove the photos, but not the text, of this story, because the images are copyrighted and were released in violation of an NDA.

    The images in question are:

    [betanews.com]

    [betanews.com]

    [betanews.com]

    [betanews.com]

    [betanews.com]

    Posting of Microsoft’s confidential information as described above is not authorized by Microsoft, any of its agents, or by law.  We request that you immediately take steps to remove this material from your website.

    We appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Please advise us regarding what actions you take.

    Yours sincerely,

    James Young

    Internet Investigator
    on behalf of Microsoft Corporation
    One Microsoft Way
    Redmond, WA 98052
    United States of America

    I emailed this response before posting:

    Good Day, James,

    We currently are investigating this matter and request some additional information. What exactly about the photos violate a NDA? We posted the photos, which we assume the reviewer took (I'm awaiting email confirmation), after Microsoft publicly announced and released the autumn 2011 update.

    BetaNews fully respects NDAs, but we're confused how these photos violate any non-disclosure agreement that presumably has lifted. Could you explain further, please? So that we might act appropriately and responsibly.

    Appreciated,

    Joe

    I'll update you once Microsoft responds.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/06/Microsoft_to_Apple_and_Google___Bring_out_your_dead__'

    Microsoft to Apple and Google: 'Bring out your dead!'

    Publié: décembre 6, 2011, 6:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Classic comedy "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" opens with a body collector calling: "bring out your dead!" "Here's one", replies a man carrying a geezer, who pipes in: "I'm not dead". Major Microsoft competitors -- Apple, Google and their supporters, for example -- have repeatedly tried to give up Microsoft for dead. But today's major Xbox updates clearly proclaim Microsoft isn't dead, or even dying. The Redmond, Wash.-based giant has repositioned the console and supporting cloud services as a whole entertainment package -- more than just about gaming.

    If any dead deserve to be brought out, they are Apple and Google. Xbox 360 and Live trailblaze where rumor whores claim Apple TV and Google TV will go. It's pathetic that bloggers and journalists spread rumors about Apple's future TV plans -- the newest about a television coming in three sizes -- a year from now! How the frak could anyone possibly know? Instead of what might be, how about writers focus on what is? Some commenters accuse me of linkbaiting. Apple future product rumors are real prime examples. You won't read them from me.

    Microsoft leverages some of its best assets with today's updates -- developer and content provider relationships, its existing cloud services, Kinect, voice commands (derived from TellMe), Bing and Mediaroom. The latter is hugely important to turning Xbox into a TV set-top box.

    Apple and Google software power cheap streaming shells. Mediaroom lights up major IPTV services. It's no coincidence that in the United States, AT&T and Verizon, which use Microsoft software, are Xbox entertainment partners. Apple and Google TV have got what? I can't even use Hulu Plus on my Sony Google TV. Xbox has got it -- since May. AT&T U-verse offers more content via Xbox Live. I've got U-verse (since February 2008) but not Xbox 360/Live.

    "Today, we have more than 57 million Xbox 360 consoles in homes across the world, and more than 35 million of those are connected to Xbox Live, a service which sees its members log cumulatively 2.1 billion hours a month", Marc Whitten, Xbox Live corporate veep, observes. From that install base, Microsoft will court not just game developers but those creating apps, too -- the latter a strategy underway but planned to accelerate.

    The Xbox updates rolling out today come in two major forms: Redesigned console dashboard, which includes natural-user interface enhancements to go with Kinect, and new Xbox Live entertainment content and services.

    Highlights:

    Metro. The new dashboard takes on attributes of the tile-like, task-oriented user interface on Windows Phone and coming to Windows 8. For years, Microsoft has talked, but not delivered, on a three screen -- smartphone, PC, TV -- strategy. User interface unification across the three screens is hugely important to achieving Microsoft's broader software-and-services goal. Whether or not the motif actual works on a big screen is to be answered by you and any other Xbox 360 users. I'm skeptical but haven't had opportunity to try out.

    Gaming to go. Xbox Live leverages Microsoft cloud services to save games, making them portable. Play at home or save and play at a friend's house.

    Bing. As I learned from using Google TV, search transforms the viewing experience. Microsoft has copied Google a little, but it's a natural evolution.

    NUI. Voice search is one of many NUI capabilities coming with today's updates, which Microsoft says are the start of many entertainment-oriented ones. Kinect gets new capabilities, controlling content services among them. U-verse has been available on Xbox since holiday 2010. Kinect becomes part of the experience with the new updates.

    "Enabling U-verse TV customers to use voice and gesture controls to manage their TV experience will unleash a new wave of interaction with our service", Jeff Weber, AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets vice president, says. "Xbox is a key part of AT&T's multi-screen strategy for TV entertainment, and our work with Microsoft to take full advantage of Kinect in the living room will bring more personalization, more control, and an even better TV experience to homes across the country".

    Beacons. Xbox/Live will notify gamers when their friends are ready to play. It's kind of a copy-cat feature. A Nintendo Wii light flashes when there are messages from friends, like being online and ready to play.

    On-demand TV. What really distinguishes Xbox 360/Live from Apple TV or Google TV: New content streaming partners, which are global. Among those available today include, according to Microsoft: EPIX, ESPN and Sky Go (in Germany). Coming later this month:

    • 4 on Demand (C4). United Kingdom
    • ABC iView (Australian Broadcasting Corp.). Australia
    • AlloCiné. France (AlloCiné), Germany (Filmstarts), Spain (Sensacine), United Kingdom (Screenrush)
    • Astral Media’s Disney XD (Astral Media). Canada
    • blinkbox (Blinkbox). United Kingdom
    • Crackle (Sony Pictures). Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States
    • Dailymotion. Available in 32 countries globally
    • Demand 5 (Five). United Kingdom
    • DIGI+ (CANAL+). Spain
    • GolTV (Mediapro). Spain
    • iHeartRadio (Clear Channel). United States
    • Mediathek/ZDF (ZDF). Germany
    • MSN. Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Mexico, United Kingdom
    • MSNBC.com. United States
    • MUZU.TV. Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom
    • ninemsn. Australia
    • Real Sports (Maple Leaf Sports). Canada
    • Rogers On Demand Online (Rogers Media). Canada
    • SBS ON DEMAND.Australia
    • Sky Go (SkyDE). Austria
    • TMZ (Warner Bros.). Canada, United States
    • TVE (RTVE.es). Spain
    • UFC on Xbox LIVE (UFC). Canada, United States
    • Verizon FiOS TV. United States
    • VEVO. Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, United States
    • Vudu (Wal-Mart). United States

    Apple TV and Google TV have got what? Microsoft today made its strongest push to turn Xbox into the most important entertainment console in the living room. Even if Microsoft fails at that lofty goal, Apple and Google have got nothing that competes for breadth of content or entertainment capabilities. Android, iOS, "bring out your dead!"

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/05/Don_t_delay__get_Exchange_Server_2010_SP2'

    Don't delay, get Exchange Server 2010 SP2

    Publié: décembre 5, 2011, 10:35pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you've got Exchange Server 2010, Microsoft has Service Pack 2 fresh up on the download servers. The update is more than just bug fixes. Microsoft reaches into its goody bag and pulls out some new features.

    For employees on the go, there is "mini version of Outlook Web App". Say, Microsoft, what happened to your usual acronyms -- in this case MVOOWA, which reads very Native American to me (my great-great grandma was MicMac indian). I'd prefer Outlook Mini-App or Mobile-App nomenclature, but that's just me. The browser-based service offers much of the same functionality -- calendar, contacts, email, etc. -- users expect from sibling Outlook Web Access (or is it called App now?) but tidied up for mobile devices.

    Enterprises that use more than one global address list can use the new address book policies for easier setup and management. Caveat, according to Microsoft: "ABPs aren't available in Office 365. As a result, if you’re in a hybrid deployment, the entire address book will be visible to your users with cloud-based mailboxes".

    For mail administrators, Microsoft "What's New?" doc reports: With Exchange 2010 SP2, you can enable a silent redirection when a Client Access server receives a client request that is better serviced by a Client Access server located in another Active Directory site. This silent redirection can also provide a single sign-on experience when forms-based authentication is enabled on each Client Access server. For more information, see Understanding Proxying and Redirection".

    Before installing SP2, make sure your Exchange Server 2010 meets these prerequisites:

    • Make sure that the functional level of your forest is at least Windows Server 2003, and that the schema master is running Windows Server 2003 with Service Pack 1 (SP1) or later. For more information about the Windows functional level, see Managing Domains and Forests.
    • The full installation option of Windows Server 2008 with SP2 or later or Windows Server 2008 R2 must be used for all servers running Exchange 2010 server roles or management tools.
    • For all server roles other than the Edge Transport server role, you must first join the computer to the appropriate internal Active Directory forest and domain.

    Additionally, Microsoft provides system requirements.

    Exchange Server 2010 SP2 is available from Microsoft's Download Center.

    Photo Credit: gualtiero boffi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/05/Microsoft_s__future_of_TV__isn_t_in_my_house'

    Microsoft's 'future of TV' isn't in my house

    Publié: décembre 5, 2011, 7:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I need your help. For weeks, I've asked Microsoft and its PR agency for Xbox 360 and Kinect loaner for review. BetaNews never reviewed Kinect, and I surely wanted to report on the big, splashy Xbox updates coming this week. Xbox 360 and Live are getting major entertainment makeovers, and I wanted to give BetaNews readers all the juicy details. New game console isn't in my budget, and I certainly wouldn't buy one just to review an update, no matter how big.

    I ask the BetaNews community to chip in and offer reaction -- even to review -- the new Xbox 360 dashboard and exciting Xbox Live services -- and companion app for Windows Phone. Even if Microsoft suddenly shipped Xbox 360 and Kinect, I would still start from behind in the review process. The dashboard update comes tomorrow. Your participation is vital to getting out information to other readers, who might be debating whether to buy Xbox 360 or another console during the holidays. Please share your experiences in comments, or email joe at betanews dot com. If you'd like to write a review, email only, please.

    There are several important nuances to the December 6 updates, with voice control -- even more than what Microsoft offers now -- being top of the list from a platform perspective. Microsoft is making a big push into natural user interfaces, with Kinect being front and center. But voice control also is important and comes not long after Apple captivated some iPhone 4S owners with Siri. If you've got iPhone and Xbox 360, your reaction to both would be invaluable.

    I held off reviewing Google TV 2, thinking a comparison with new Xbox television features would be better. Bonus: I'm a subscriber to AT&T U-verse, which uses Microsoft's Media Room software. Google and Microsoft are both vying for the living room, as is Apple, and then there's incumbent Sony, which distributes GTV. If you've got Apple TV or Google TV and Xbox 360/Live, please offer comparative impressions -- ideally as full review rather than something in comments.

    Microsoft has amassed many TV and other entertainment partners for updates rolling out this week and beyond. The United States isn't the center of the planet, which might surprise many Americans. If you live internationally, please offer review/reaction, too. Australian Broadcasting Corp., GolTV, Mediathek/ZDF and Rogers on Demand are among the content partners coming later this month to Xbox 360 and Live.

    Best recap of what's coming is the letter Marc Whitten, Xbox Live corporate veep, sent to the console community and infographic prepared by Microsoft. Whitten writes:

    Dear Xbox Live Members,

    Today, we’re launching a new Xbox 360 experience that connects you with your favorite entertainment and games like never before and makes finding and enjoying entertainment as simple as it should be.

    It’s a vision we shared at E3 and I’d like to thank you for all of your valuable feedback along this incredible ride and share a little more about what we have in store this holiday – from Beacons, cloud storage and Facebook sharing, to our latest entertainment offerings.

    Building upon our great lineup of partners, we’ve teamed up with nearly 40 of the world’s leading TV & entertainment providers to bring you an array of live and on-demand TV, movies, games, sports and music experiences. The first wave of new partners rolls out today with experiences like EPIX and TODAY (MSNBC) in the US, LOVEFiLM in the UK, Sky Go in Germany, Premium Play by (MediaSet) in Italy and Telefonica España – Movistar Imagenio in Spain. And we’ll continue to roll out more entertainment content to Xbox Live in the coming months.

    Beyond entertainment, you’ll find a number of features designed to make your Xbox experience more personal, social and effortless. The dashboard has an entirely new look and feel and a completely reimagined interface that makes your entertainment accessible through simple voice commands. Now, using voice search with Bing on Xbox, you can find and play the programming you want across multiple entertainment providers without having to search for a remote control. In the mood for ‘The Office?’ Just say “Xbox, Bing, ‘The Office’”, and Xbox will display all episodes available from various entertainment apps across the console.

    We’re also bringing you Beacons and Facebook sharing, further integrating social into your Xbox experience. Before jumping into an episode of ‘The Office,’ you can activate a Beacon to let your friends know that you want to play, say, “Gears of War 3”. Then, sit back and relax with the Dunder Mifflin crew. The Beacon will let you know when a Live friend is available for a round of Horde in Gears. After the game, use Facebook Sharing to tout your achievements and showcase your in-game accomplishments through direct posts.

    While we’re proud of our capability to connect you remotely to the global community of more than 35 million Xbox Live members, sometimes there’s nothing like being with your friends and family. And so we’ve added cloud storage so you can access game saves and your Live profile, including achievements, from your friends’ consoles as well.

    Lastly, with the ever-expanding library of content available, we realize Xbox is enjoyed by all members of the family. Rest assured that our parental controls have improved in parallel with this new content. Parents can manage their child’s console activity, sharing on social networking sites as well as regulate access to games, movies, television, and music. Additionally, the update brings enhanced navigation to Xbox 360 Family Settings to better integrate with Kinect.

    We strive to continually innovate and bring meaningful experiences to each and every member of the Xbox Livecommunity. Currently, our community is already enjoying 2.1 billion hours of entertainment each month. We imagine this number will only continue to grow as you discover enhanced entertainment on Xbox this holiday that is instantly searchable, easily discoverable and enjoyable in extraordinary new ways. We hope you enjoy this new chapter in the evolution of Xbox and continue to push us to write the next.

    If you're an Xbox fan and would like to let everyone know what you like (or even not) about the big dashboard and services updates, once again, please comment below or email joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/05/BlackBerry__Windows_Phone_can_t_catch_a_break'

    BlackBerry, Windows Phone can't catch a break

    Publié: décembre 5, 2011, 5:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Another three-month handset report is available from comScore, and BlackBerry and Windows Phone continue their relentless declines. However, new Windows Phone 7.5 handsets shipped after the analyst firm's reporting period. True test will be the next round of data.

    BlackBerry is literally in free fall, with it's share of US smartphone subscribers falling 4.5 points to 17.2 percent from the three months ending in June to the same period closing in October. That's right. Three months! A year earlier, BlackBerry share was 35.8 percent. So since October 2010, the smartphone OS cut its subscriber share in half. Quick, grab some O-negative blood, BlackBerry opened an artery!

    Windows Phone's share decline is more ebb than raging rapids, losing just 0.3 points during the same three-month period, ending with 5.4 percent share. However, predecessor Windows Mobile had 9.7 percent share a year earlier and 11.8 percent in July 2010. Microsoft plugged the artery but blood loss continues.

    Meanwhile, Android gains are still torrential. During the three months, share rose 4.4 points to 46.3 percent. At this pace, one half of American's smartphones will run Android by end of January. A year ago, Android share was 23.5 percent and 17 percent in July 2010.

    For all the buzz about iPhone 4S, Apple smartphone share continues its slow share gains. From July to October, iPhone rose 1 point to 28.1 percent share. Still that's a healthy gain -- 3.5 points -- from a year earlier. Apple released 4S during the recording period and dropped iPhone 4 to $99 and 3GS to free (a penny some places).

    Still, iPhone's modest gains don't necessarily mean equally modest sales. The number of US cellular subscribers with smartphones rose by 10 percent to 90 million during the three months. The base expands rapidly. A year earlier the number was 60.7 million.

    More broadly, looking at the entire US cellular handset market, Samsung maintained its leadership position, with 25.5 percent subscriber share, but flat growth. A year earlier: 24.2 percent. So despite the popular Galaxy S II product line, Samsung's growth appears to have topped out. By comparison, fourth-ranked Apple gained 1.3 points from July to October, with 10.8 percent share. Second- and third-place LG and Motorola lost share -- 0.3 and 0.5 points, respectively, to 20.6 percent and 13.6 percent.

    At the end of October 234 million Americans age 13 or older owned cell phones -- unchanged from October 2010. That's a hugely important data point. The US cellular market is saturated. Rather than adding new subscribers the base converts feature phones to smartphones.

    Apple and Android fanboys can debate all they want about which is superior -- iPhone being No. 1 smartphone and generating more revenue per handset, for example. But by the subscriber numbers, there will come a point where smartphone sales dramatically slow. The platform with larger install base wins the platform wars. Unless iPhone makes hugely dramatic share gains during the holidays and over the next 6 to 8 months, Android will eclipse iOS as smartphone development platform of choice, confirming my October 2009 analysis: "iPhone can't win the smartphone wars".

     

    Photo Credit: olly/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/05/Siri_humbled_my_Android'

    Siri humbled my Android

    Publié: décembre 5, 2011, 2:04am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I chuckle whenever someone in comments calls me anti-Apple. Much of what I write here derives from experience. Sometimes that works for Apple, or whatever other vendor, sometimes against it. Today, I've got a wet, smoochy kiss for iOS 5 and iPhone 4S and kick aside the head for Android and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket.

    Yesterday, my daughter met up with a friend for the Toyland Parade in the North Park community of San Diego. She's a live-in-the-moment, never-think-ahead teen. (Who isn't?) So, of course, when we got in the car and I expected my girl knew the way to the meetup, she didn't. After I chided her, out came the white iPhone 4S, and she spoke: "Direction to Claire de Lune". I knew where this was going, thinking: "There's no way Siri is going to get this right".

    Wrong. Within seconds, Siri's weird female robotic voice repeated the search query and Google Maps app launched showing where we were and how to get where we needed to be. I gulped, sheepishly, wondering if my Android, the aforementioned Skyrocket, could do at least as well. So, later, after dropping off my daughter and returning home, I experimented. It's really sad commentary on just how little my phone's voice-control features get used. Asking for directions brought up a Google search page with strange variations of Claire de Lune and one linking to Google Maps and another to the coffee shop website.

    I repeated the experiment three times with worsening search results. Apple's Siri didn't just humble my Android's voice search capability. The natural UI technology humiliated Android. "Humiliated" is too many syllables for a headline, unfortunately. Hence, "humbled".

    But the the strangest thing happened today. I repeated the exercise so I could capture a screenshot to illustrate this post. I got out the phone, tapped the microphone icon and spoke "directions to Claire de Lune". The text flashed back at me green on black (or dark grey). I tapped and got a Google Map with directions. It worked! Android got off the mat before the count reached 10 and delivered a sudden blow to Siri. Maybe, just maybe, Android voice capabilities could take on Siri.

    So I asked: "What time is it in Moscow?" Google search page opened and across the top: "3:57 am Monday (MSK) - Time in Moscow, Russia". I next asked: "Where is the best price for Xbox 360?" That brought up another map and a banner ad. Map: Best Buy in Mission Valley community of San Diego. Ad: Microsoft Store, which is perhaps a kilometer farther, if that. If you count refurbished items, Best Buy has better prices than Microsoft Store. But could Android have simply picked up on "best" in the name -- and that's why I got Best Buy? So I tried: "Best price on macaroni and cheese?" That brought up a search page, where the first entry led to a mac & cheese "compare prices" page from Nextag. Cough, cough -- $70 from Neiman Marcus. Wow, everything really does cost more there.

    Okay, how about: "How old is William Shatner". That popped up web page with text across top: "William Shatner age - 80 years (March 22, 1931). "What was Mark Twain's IQ?" brought up another search page with wiki.answers giving 135-140. "What was Charles Dickens' IQ?" brought up a strange selection of search results but answer nevertheless: 180. Damn, I knew he was smart. Whoa, Copernicus was only 160.

    The story would be incomplete without Siri's answers. They surprised me. Firstly, I give kudos to Apple for offering the better user interface response, the robotic voice and text on screen. My daughter asked the questions. Siri spoke the correct time in Moscow but totally blew "Where is the best price for Xbox 360?" Answer: "I found 13 toy stores, 7 of them are fairly close to you. I've sorted them by rating". I skipped mac & cheese. William Shatner's age? Better than Android: "80 years 8 months 12 days".

    Uh-oh. For "What was Mark Twain's IQ?" Siri brought up a comparison of movies "Mark Twain" and "IQ". Get the frak. The information filled several screens, too."IQ" released in 1994 and generated box office receipts of $26.3 million -- not exactly a blockbuster. "Mark Twain" is a 2002 film and was much longer -- 212 minutes to the other's 100 minutes.

    So in the end, Android wasn't so humiliated after all. Android did at least as well, so I have to withdraw the offer for a wet, smoochy Siri kiss. But, hey, I already had written the first four graphs of the story before doing additional testing, and the headline reads so well.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/04/Carrier_IQ_s_response_answers_nothing'

    Carrier IQ's response answers nothing

    Publié: décembre 4, 2011, 7:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    We have some division here at BetaNews regarding Carrier IQ and reporting about its tracking software. On one side there's the "me-too" defense -- that software stealthy hidden on smartphones sending information back to Carrier IQ or cellular carriers is no worse than what other companies do. That it's irresponsible to report keylogging behavior based on researcher Trevor Eckhart's blog post and YouTube video. That early reporting was "sloppy" and Eckhart is suddenly "quiet". Dog poop.

    Over the last couple days, Carrier IQ finally responded to the maelstrom of controversy. But the response falls short. Carrier IQ fails to address the most troubling aspect about Eckhart's demonstration: Capturing data from keystrokes, nor does it answer why so much information is collected. Carrier IQ's defense is something like: "We don't look at the naked person. Not us". It's the "if a tree falls in the forest" defense. "We didn't listen, so it didn't happen". If there's anything "sloppy" about the news reporting, it's that not enough journalists dig deep enough. There's nothing unfair here.

    We're Divided

    Some background: I respond here directly to a Google+ post by my colleague Ed Oswald, who I encourage to write for BetaNews a response to my commentary. That we disagree about Carrier IQ, its defensible position and reporting about it stabs to the heart the kind of privacy issues this incident raises. What reasonable expectation do you have to privacy and how much should you give away and who should inform you when your information is mined.

    Ed writes: "Carrier IQ's activities are no different than the 'customer experience' surveys many of us have already opted in, and why I refused to write any type of piece that suggests there is something nefarious here. Some journalists look for drama". He's right about that refusal. I assigned Ed the second-day news story on Carrier IQ, which I had to write instead. I commend Ed's taking a stand on principles, but, unfortunately, he's picked quicksand, not bedrock.

    The "me-too" defensive is ridiculous, more so because Carrier IQ software is so deeply embedded in handsets and meets just about any reasonable definition of spyware or rootkit. In comments on Google+, software developer Joe Groner rightly strips the "me-too" defense bare: "Google, for example, there is a quid pro quo involved with letting them scan your email and show you relevant ads. In the case of Carrier IQ, I get no direct benefit and I can't remove it or disable it. And I am sorry, the software doesn't need to be reading input buffers to report on dropped calls".

    My colleague calls news reporting about the Carrier IQ scandal "total hysteria, mainly due to some sloppy reporting and titling of those stories". I disagree. Much of the reporting is exceptionally restrained, particularly in context of Carrier IQ's official responses. Worth your time: John Paczkowski (for AllThingsD); Matthew Schwartz (Information Week); Larry Greenemeier (Scientific American); and David Kravets (Wired).

    Official Responses

    Paczkowski and Kravets have official responses from Carrier IQ. Schwartz observes that Eckhart isn't the first researcher to uncover the software/service, just the first to thoroughly document it. Greememeir addresses the topic bothering me from the start: Potential exploitation by cybercriminals.

    Paczkowski quotes Andrew Coward, Carrier IQ marketing veep: "The software receives a huge amount of information from the operating system. But just because it receives it doesn’t mean that it’s being used to gather intelligence about the user or passed along to the carrier". This is the aforementioned "we don't look at the naked person with spycam hidden in the room" defense (that's not a quote but quotation for emphasis). Carrier IQ installs software that records pretty much everything, but doesn't use it all -- not even most of it. The obvious question: If you don't need all that information, why record it?

    Unfortunately, Paczkowski doesn't directly quote Coward about keylogging. Instead he paraphrases: "While CIQ might 'listen' to a smartphone’s keyboard, it’s listening for very specific information. Company executives insist it doesn’t log or understand keystrokes". That reads likes semantics to me. Ed links to the AllThingsD story to show that Carrier IQ is acting responsibly and that reporters covering it are not, which is why I respond to it.

    Carrier IQ invited Wired to its headquarters, and Kravets shares first-hand, but again fails to directly quote Coward: "The data they vacuum to their servers from handsets is vast -- as the software also monitors app deployment, battery life, phone CPU output and data and cell-site connectivity, among other things". Coward tells Kravets that "'it's a treasure trove'" but "they are not logging every keystroke as a prominent critic suggested". Again, the unasked and so not answered question: Why is so much information collected, if it's not being mined? Then there's semantics about "every" keystroke. Not "every" doesn't mean none, and Eckhart's video clearly shows data logged as he hits the keys.

    Denial, Non-Denial

    I searched this morning and could find no explicit quote where Carrier IQ denies capturing keystrokes. If you've seen something, please link in comments. The company does quote Infidel research Rebecca Bace in a press release: "Having examined the Carrier IQ implementation it is my opinion that allegations of keystroke collection or other surveillance of mobile device user’s content are erroneous". But that's not the same as an explicit denial by a Carrier IQ executive. Using a third party gives Carrier IQ plausible deniability in court.

    If there's sloppy reporting here it's journalists meeting with Carrier IQ failing to directly quote Coward about keylogging. So I must assume the marketing exec didn't provide usable quotation -- that he engaged in the kind of doublespeak and semantics that are common among companies' crisis responses. I've seen the behavior hundreds of times over the years and there are consistent patterns across companies, in part because of human nature and the media-response training execs receive. Either that, or the reporters failed to quote where they should have.

    It's important when reporting on so controversial news to quote the executives as much as possible. Kravets writes: "Other carriers collect data that lets them drill down to the individual phone". That clearly indicates that Carrier IQ collects customer identifiable information as does: "On Carrier IQ’s end, while it might hold a vast amount of a user’s data, it does not know the names of the people whose data it controls. That data is simply linked to chip and phone identification numbers, Coward said". That actually means the collected cellular customer information absolutely is identifiable, since some carriers (I know AT&T and T-Mobile do) track smartphones' IMEI numbers as part of the process registering to them for network services. There should be direct quote on something as important as this.

    Circling back to that "treasure trove", let's assume Carrier IQ records but doesn't look. If data is captured, someone can get it. That's the point Scientific American's Greememeir makes. One remote-access Trojan is enough. So even if Carrier IQ really doesn't peek at the naked person with its hidden spycam, there remains the enormous amount of data collected that cybercriminals could mine, if no one else.

    Unanswered Questions

    Something else, and I haven't seen anywhere Coward or his colleagues address: If Carrier IQ is doing nothing unethical or illegal, meaning it has nothing to hide, then why is the software hidden and nearly impossible to remove? Reporters should always look first to a company's actions, not its words. Surely hidden means something.

    These are the questions I asked Coward (I couldn't find email address so posted to Google+). If I get response(s), there will be follow-up story.

    1. Does Carrier IQ software track any keystrokes?

    2. If yes, how many?

    3. Why does Carrier IQ collect so much data -- a "treasure trove" as Andrew Coward is quoted by Wired -- if it's not used?

    4. Why is Carrier IQ software/service hidden from smartphone subscribers?

    5. Does Carrier IQ provide a utility that lets smartphone users turn off the software?

    6. Does Carrier IQ provide a mechanism that lets smartphone users remove the software?

    7. If answer yes to questions 5 or 6, how?

    8. Which carriers currently use Carrier IQ software/service?

    Wrapping up, we live at a time where privacy mores are changing. People share all kinds of personal information on Facebook or their locations using services like Foursquare. Meanwhile, ATM, traffic and retail cams surveil us without permission. It's one thing to choose to disclose information or to be monitored in public. Collecting data from the most intimate device most people use, without their permission, is privacy abomination. Carrier end-user agreements that most nobody reads is no excuse for stealth tracking. You disagree?

    Photo Credit: Lakhesis/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/03/Why_buy_iPad_when_you_can_gift_so_much_more_'

    Why buy iPad when you can gift so much more?

    Publié: décembre 3, 2011, 8:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    All signs point to an iPad Christmas, for many people this year. But it's a pricey gift, starting at $499, and Apple isn't giving much away. Over the past 24 hours, I stumbled onto some unexpected Android alternatives that will put more than just a shiny new tablet under the Christmas tree.

    Simply put: If you're looking for a tablet but need to accessorize, iPad 2 will tighten your gifting budget. Meanwhile, competitors serve up some sweet deals that will let you give more for about the same price, or even less. If you think nothing compares to iPad 2, you're wrong.

    Bundle Up Some Sony Style

    Last night, a friend told me she was thinking about getting her partner an iPad. She wanted my advice. My immediate question: "Does he have an iPhone?" No. Android? Yes. I suggested the Sony S tablet instead, because it would be more suitable to his lifestyle; for example, setting up with an existing Google account syncs calendar, contacts and email. Starting price is 99 cents more than iPad 2, but SonyStyle Store has a holiday special -- I got an email about it yesterday. For the regular $499.99 price, she can get a discounted bundle, which includes: docking cradle, screen protector, spare AC adapter and free movies (up to 7), music (180 days) and ebook (limited selection).

    She will get nothing free from Apple, which means shelling out extra for a case ($39 or $69 smart cover), at the least. Among the Android tablets, Sony S is by far most comparable to iPad. Slate and screen sizes are similar. Sony offers extensive entertainment options (movies, music, etc.) and good selection of accessories (although third-party products put iPad choices way ahead). The $499.99 bundle comes with the 16GB S tablet, which memory is expandable (iPad 2's is not). There's a $599.99 bundle for the 32GB tablet, which is the same 99 cents more than the comparable iPad 2.

    By the specs:

    Sony S: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 9.4-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 16GB internal storage, expandable to 32GB with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 0.3-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; mico-USB port; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb). Rather than HDMI, S2 uses DNLA to stream content.

    iPad 2: 1GHz dual-core Apple A5 processor; 9.7 inch display with 1024 x 768 resolution; 512MB of RAM; 32GB internal storage (non-expandable); front-and-rear cameras; 720p video playback; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; and iOS 5. There is no HDMI port and external USB connector costs $29 extra.

    Come on and XOOM, XOOM, XOOM a XOOM

    Late Monday, I bought the XOOM LTE from Verizon for $199.99. It's a deal I wrote about here, asking if you'd spend that much on the tablet. I drank my own Kool-Aid. The tablet arrives on Monday. Arguably, XOOM LTE will be obsolete soon as Moto Mobility unveils what's next during the Consumer Electronics Show in January. But this tablet is just what I need now, and because XOOM is a "with Google" device, it will soon receive the Android 4.0 update. Verizon still offers XOOM LTE cheap -- $299.99, which is still $429.01 less than the comparable iPad 2 (with 3G, not 4G LTE).

    XOOM LTE: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable to 64GB with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb).

    I ordered accessories from Moto Mobility's Cyber Monday deals website, which I unexpectedly found while searching for something else last night: Bluetooth keyboard and mouse, $39.99; portfolio case, $19.99; and car charger, $14.99. Amazon sells the same kit, respectively: $53.99, $28 and $16.99 -- without the mouse, which is an extra $29.99. That's $84.78 from Motorola, tax and shipping, versus $128.97 from Amazon, with no tax and two-day free shipping. Moto's discount won't last the holidays -- hell, maybe not the weekend, if you've got XOOM and want to accessorize.

    Samsung, like Apple, is more Scrooge than Santa. Galaxy Tab prices aren't much moving downward. Verizon offers an instant discount on Galaxy Tab 10.1 32GB -- $529.99, which is same price as 16GB model. So why not take double the storage for the same price? The tablet is 4G LTE, but $230 more than XOOM's regular price. If you want to spend the most money on a tablet this holiday, Samsung gives you an option to go alongside Apple.

    Perhaps you'd like to see the future of Android tablets while shopping this weekend. GameStop has it. You can try out the ASUS Eee Pad Transformer Prime -- yeah quad-core and Tegra 3 -- in select stores.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/02/iPhone_4S___Ours_is_not_4G_'

    iPhone 4S: 'Ours is not 4G'

    Publié: décembre 2, 2011, 11:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's dress-down Friday here at BetaNews, and I can't resist letting Samsung dress down Apple. Yesterday, the South Korean electronics manufacturer uploaded to YouTube yet another TV commercial in "The Next Big Thing is Already Here" marketing campaign. This one answers the question I posed in late September: "What if iPhone 5 isn't LTE?" -- days before Apple revealed 4S; there was no 5 and only HSPA+.

    What's the answer: Disappointment, as the commercial reveals. Apple's smartphone and standard Galaxy S II both have HSPA+, but S2 is better, offering maximum 21Mbps vs iPhone 4S' 14Mbps. The Galaxy S II Skyrocket has 4G LTE -- granted only in 9 markets. I have that phone. Absolutely hilarious: The commercial's huge gaffe that will give Apple fanboys chance to do a little dressing down of their own. The TV spot is set in Denver, which is not one of the cities where AT&T officially offers 4G LTE. Whoops! No one would have noticed or cared if the location label was Washington, DC, where there is service.

    There's another problem, which is sure to delight the Apple Fanclub: When the Galaxy S2 owner holds up her phone, there's no connection of any kind. No HSPA+, no LTE, no WiFi. Nothing. That's not some fast 4G phone. It's magical, too.

    However, in nice attention to detail, the phone screen shows December 1, same day the video debuted on YouTube and presumably TV.

    It's helluva entertaining marketing, and Samsung's ad agency has brilliantly cut many different commercials from the same shoot. They deserve credit for nothing more than that. The editing is exceptional.

    The TV spots are getting high rotation in US Prime Time. I've seen three different versions aired.

    As for the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, AT&T starts selling the white model on Sunday (December 4). If you want a phone like the one in the commercial, it's available in two days.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/02/Win_CyberLink_PowerDirector_10'

    Win CyberLink PowerDirector 10

    Publié: décembre 2, 2011, 9:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Heck, you might score something even better.

    This week, CyberLink unveiled the "I Am a PowerDirector" community site and contest to promote it. BetaNews readers get special consideration. In addition to the regular prizes, CyberLink will hold a special drawing giving away 10 copies of PowerDirector 10 to our readers who enter the contest.

    CyberLink's contest differs slightly from the one including you. "Submit your written testimony and photo, or use video to tell us why you are a Power Director", according to CyberLink. "If the work is approved, you will be rewarded with a PowerDirector cap. You will also have a chance to join a lucky draw for amazing prizes". Videos must be 30 seconds to 2 minutes long and uploaded to YouTube before filmmakers (that's you) enter the contest. CyberLink recommends 720p video. Submission period ends Jan. 15, 2012, with drawing for prize winners two days later. See complete rules for more information.

    The deadline for BetaNews readers is sooner for anyone wanting to participate in the separate drawing for one of 10 copies of PowerDirector 10. CyberLink asks to receive these entries by end of the year, with drawing planned during the first few days of January; your deadline is December 31. BetaNews submissions must be videos only, no written testimonies. Please mention that you saw the promotion at BetaNews or are one of our readers when making your submission. Additionally, CyberLink asks you to email us (joe at betanews dot com) as backup. No one wants any BetaNews readers to get overlooked in the fray.

    This way you get two chances to win (but only one prize). PowerDVD 11 and Olympus XZ-1 digital camera are among the prizes available in the broader contest.

    As I've oft-said, enthusiasts are any company's best evangelists. CyberLink's goal here is to churn up more interest in its video production software, while certifying new evangelists. Contest participants who receive 100 or more Facebook Likes for their submissions will be certified "PowerDirector Evangelist". This kind of engagement isn't new to CyberLink, which also hosts the DirectorZone community site.

    Please do not submit entries here. After uploading to YouTube, please use CyberLink's official entry form.

    As for what you might win, please read our October review of CyberLink Power Director 10.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/02/Try_Windows_Phone_7.5_on_iPhone'

    Try Windows Phone 7.5 on iPhone

    Publié: décembre 2, 2011, 6:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft has a big problem. Windows Phone 7.5 is one of its best kept secrets. That's not a good thing. The operating system is fresh, remarkably different from Android and iOS and task-oriented. However, judging by US market share -- a puny 1.5 percent, according to Nielsen -- nearly no one knows about Windows Phone. In product marketing, secrets are very bad.

    So, Microsoft is taking the marketing home -- to your competing handset. The Redmond, Wash.-based company has posted a live WP demo that Android and iPhone users can try in their mobile browser. I captured the screenshot right from Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket running Android 2.3.6. It's a clever marketing gimmick that also demonstrates the value of HTML5 (and JavaScript) -- after all, iPhone is an Adobe Flash-free zone.

    If you've never experienced Windows Phone, please go to the demo on your Android or iPhone, try it and post your reaction in comments below. First impressions are everything, and that's all you really need share. The demo is a mockup, and while a pretty good one still not revealing enough about what Windows Phone could do for you.

    I'd like the demo more, if it went further -- like selling something. Microsoft should offer option to buy Windows Phone from their carrier.

    Really smart: Make gaining market share during the holidays matter more than moolah. Microsoft should offer extra carrier subsidies so that anyone who wants Windows Phone can get one even if otherwise ineligible for discounted, upgrade pricing.

    Marginally related, I'll announce our Windows Phone contest winners early next week. Our panel of judges narrowed the choices with some difficulty and likely will choose the winner randomly among the best submissions. We had asked contest participants to explain what Microsoft's "glance and go" approach means to them. Microsoft graciously is providing a Samsung Focus S to the lucky winner. Everyone wins in my book, but we don't have enough prizes -- just the one.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/02/Roll_up_to_the_Bing_Magical_Holiday_Calendar_tour'

    Roll up to the Bing Magical Holiday Calendar tour

    Publié: décembre 2, 2011, 5:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm a day late, but you shouldn't have to miss out. Caught up in reporting on the Carrier IQ scandal and editing responsibilities, I missed a Microsoft holiday promotion worth calling out: Bing Magical Holiday Calendar, which started yesterday.

    Christmas is all about giving and people. Microsoft features Kelly Osbourne as centerpiece for a month of winnables, supposedly inspired from her gift list. That's a much better approach than some of Microsoft's past contests, which put faceless Bing front and center.

    "In the spirit of celebrating traditions new and old, we’re trying something new and -- together with Ms. Osbourne and our partners -- Bing will unveil daily surprises in our Bing Magical Holiday Calendar this December", Lisa Gurry, Bing director says. "Part of the fun is the unexpected surprise awaiting you each day, and trust me you’ll want to check it out every day to see what we have in store".

    Think of the promotion as a month-long advent calendar. It's smart marketing, and Microsoft needs to do more of it. As BetaNews reader Robert Johnson observed earlier this week: "Microsoft is in trouble", based on three Thanksgiving Day experiences. The company has perception problems, which promotions like this can change.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/02/Carrier_IQ_is_a_scandal_now'

    Carrier IQ is a scandal now

    Publié: décembre 2, 2011, 2:16am CET par Joe Wilcox

    The furor over Carrier IQ tracking software only intensified on Thursday, as different affected parties attempted to limit public relations or potential legal damage. Apple and Verizon both essentially disavowed Carrier IQ, while Sprint acknowledged using the software/service but narrowed the scope. Meanwhile, the Carrier IQ website couldn't handle sudden traffic surges. BetaNews used a Google cached version to obtain the official statement, but later reached the site.

    Android developer Trevor Eckhart instigated the Carrier IQ scandal in a blog post and YouTube video based on his investigation of a persistent process running on HTC Android phones. He uncovered Carrier IQ, which he calls a rootkit because of its stealth behavior and the amount of information/services tapped. "The application is hidden in nearly every part of our phones, including the kernel", he writes. "Carrier IQ also subverts standard operating system functionality".

    What's Collected?

    The video demonstrates keylogging behavior. It's quite dramatic to watch -- information captured as Eckhart types. Carrier IQ disputes this apparent capability: "We are counting and summarizing performance, not recording keystrokes or providing tracking tools. The metrics and tools we derive are not designed to deliver such information, nor do we have any intention of developing such tools".

    What information Carrier IQ collects, how much or how little it transmits and who has access to what is the crux of a rapidly-developing privacy scandal. Carrier IQ might be less than it seems, a poorly designed program that like Sony's music-CD rootkit six years ago is more spyware by fault than design. Or it could be much more. The company's own press material reveals extensive data-collection capability, provided in real-time:

    IQ Insight Experience Manager gives wireless carriers and mobile device manufacturers an unprecedented, objective view into what is actually happening on mobile subscribers’ devices -- including quality of service, application usage and the related experience -- as it occurs, at the point of delivery and use..IQ Insight Experience Manager uses data directly from the mobile device to give a precise view of how the services and the applications are being used, even if the phone is not communicating with the network.

    Despite Eckhart's convincing presentation, questions remain about whom (carriers and handset makers) and what (devices) use Carrier IQ. The researcher demonstrated on a smartphone from Sprint, which has since acknowledged using Carrier IQ:

    Carrier IQ is an integral part of the Sprint service. Sprint uses Carrier IQ to help maintain our network performance...We collect enough information to understand the customer experience with devices on our network and how to address any connection problems, but we do not and cannot look at the contents of messages, photos, videos, etc., using this tool. The information collected is not sold and we don’t provide a direct feed of this data to anyone outside of Sprint.

    Not surprisingly, Carrier IQ is a hot topic on Sprint support forums. Writes one poster:

    I'm a business owner that often transmits proprietary data and information using my Sprint Mobile device and I'm wondering why I was never told that every keystroke I ever made including https was being catalogued and stored by a third party software company. I want this software removed and I want to know where my data is being stored so I can make sure it is deleted from this third party's servers.

    Another: "Sprint, it appears you have broken your Terms of Service agreement with us. You have unknowningly shared ALL our data with a 3rd party customer who is sending it in an insecure way. I would like you to either void my requirement to continue using your service or remove your rootkit software from MY phone".

    AT&T admits, Apple disavows

    AT&T wasn't as forthcoming, acknowledging use of Carrier IQ and stating it's within the company's privacy policy. That raises questions about there being an opt-in option. On Android, Eckhart writes that the "only place you can see that the application is installed on the phone is in Menu -> Settings -> Manage Applications -> All, then scroll down to IQRD". I don't see that or anything like it on my Galaxy S II Skyrocket. I don't recall whether I opted in to let AT&T collect data.

    Opt-in is a point Apple makes in its statement about Carrier IQ. Yes, Apple. "Our software is embedded by device manufacturers along with other diagnostic tools and software prior to shipment", according to Carrier IQ. Based on evidence at hand, manufacturers install Carrier IQ and wireless companies decide whether or not to use it. HTC and Samsung also acknowledge providing the software on a carrier-by-carrier basis. Apple has backed off, according to the statement:

    We stopped supporting Carrier IQ with iOS 5 in most of our products and will remove it completely in a future software update. With any diagnostic data sent to Apple, customers must actively opt-in to share this information, and if they do, the data is sent in an anonymous and encrypted form and does not include any personal information. We never recorded keystrokes, messages or any other personal information for diagnostic data and have no plans to ever do so.

    The statement shouldn't be misunderstood in context of Carrier IQ's official response to Eckhart's claims and to company marketing material. Apple places the software there for its carrier partners. Apple might not record "keystrokes, messages or any other personal information" but that doesn't mean someone else couldn't. Additionally, Carrier IQ is still part of iOS, which segues to another concern: Security.

    Cybercriminal Christmas

    All parties may be genuine in their responses, including Carrier IQ. None of them may be collecting personally identifying information, as they say. However, if Eckhart's analysis is correct, Carrier IQ pretty much records everything done on the phone, and it's embedded deeply into the operating system. Disconcerting: On Android when "Force Stop" is used, "the application continues to run".

    Eckhart continues:

    The very extensive list of Android security permissions granted to IQRD would raise anyone’s eyebrow, considering that it’s remotely controlled software, but some things such as reading contact data, Services that cost you money, reading/edit/sending sms, recording audio(?!??!?) and writing/changing wireless settings seem a bit excessive.

    Assuming Carrier IQ collects information on everything, or even lots of processes and activities, and can't easily be turned off or disabled, it is ideally suited to exploitation by cybercriminals. Carrier IQ is potentially the keys to the kindgom -- tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of cell phones. If cracked -- and that's assuming functionality as Eckhart identifies -- Carrier IQ could be a boon to cybercriminals.

    RIM, Verizon Untouched

    As the drama unfolds, two parties stand above the furor -- so far. "Any report that Verizon Wireless uses Carrier IQ is patently false", says the company, which does have opt-in data collection options. "We were transparent about how customer information will be used and gave clear choices to customers about whether they want to participate in these programs. Carrier IQ is not involved in these programs".

    Then there's Research in Motion:

    RIM is aware of a recent claim by a security researcher that an application called 'Carrier IQ' is installed on mobile devices from multiple vendors without the knowledge or consent of the device users. RIM does not pre-install the Carrier IQ app on BlackBerry smartphones or authorize its carrier partners to install the Carrier IQ app before sales or distribution. RIM also did not develop or commission the development of the Carrier IQ application, and has no involvement in the testing, promotion, or distribution of the app. RIM will continue to investigate reports and speculation related to Carrier IQ.

    Today, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) sent a letter to Carrier IQ, setting a December 14 deadline to explain itself. He says:

    The revelation that the locations and other sensitive data of millions of Americans are being secretly recorded and possibly transmitted is deeply troubling. This news underscores the need for Congress to act swiftly to protect the location information and private, sensitive information of consumers. But right now, Carrier IQ has a lot of questions to answer.

    But when and how? If someone hasn't filed a lawsuit, one is sure to follow. Carrier IQ's challenge: How to explain itself without risking great legal liability. Statements in its defense now could be used in court later on.

    Photo Credit: Netfalls/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/01/Safari_browser_usage_suddenly_tumbles'

    Safari browser usage suddenly tumbles

    Publié: décembre 1, 2011, 8:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft shouldn't break out the champagne just yet, but there's still reason to celebrate even if no trend is yet evident. Internet Explorer usage share nudged up ever so slightly in November, according to new data Network Applications released today. Meanwhile, Chrome kept its relentless march upward -- for the 13th consecutive month. Firefox is still No. 2, contrary to reports today from StatCounter. I trust NetApps data more.

    Safari was by far the month's biggest loser, with usage share falling to 5 percent from 5.43 percent in October. The loss is no small matter. Safari is integral to Apple's broader digital lifestyle push, where synchronization is vital component -- and that includes Safari. Related: Apple shipped record number of Macs during third calendar quarter, launched iPhone 4S and iCloud and saw global PC share top 5 percent. By that reckoning, Safari share should be up, not down.

    Mobile is perhaps the Webkit-based browser's redemption, however, or so it seems at first glance. There, Safari share is 55.03 percent, followed by Opera (20.09 percent) and Android's browser (16.36). But there's downward trend, and it's much more pronounced. Mobile Safari usage share fell from 62.03 percent, while Opera surged from 13.09 percent. That said, mobile stats are fairly inconsistent month-to-month, unlike those for desktop browsers.

    There, Safari usage share consistently rose -- from 4.15 percent in January until November's sudden drop. Is this start of a new trend? Here's something to consider: Chrome, Firefox and Opera are all on fast-development tracks -- typically six weeks between major milestones. Safari is not. If anything, Safari development looks more like Internet Explorer 6 in the early Noughties. New development and introduction of new features moves at a snail's pace compared to competing browsers.

    That's not surprising considering Apple's priority is nurturing its apps ecosystem from separate iOS and Mac OS X stores. Browser isn't as high priority. Something else to consider: Apple disdains Adobe Flash, which is no longer installed by default and isn't available at all on mobile. Perhaps the market sees Flash as necessary after all.

    Safari's pain is Internet Explorer's gain, if ever so slightly. IE usage share was 52.64 percent in November, up .01 percent a month earlier. That's still down from two years ago, when IE usage share was 60.35 percent. Meanwhile Chrome continues its relentless gains, which are slowing. Chrome share was 18.18 percent in November, up from 17.62 a month earlier and 9.5 percent in November 2010.

    Microsoft's newest shipping browser simply cannot keep pace. IE9 usage share is a meager 10.25 percent, well behind Chrome 15 (14.58 percent) and IE8 (28.2 percent). However, IE9 is on steady upward trajectory, moving up from 1.08 percent share in March.

    Firefox usage share fell for the fifth consecutive month -- to 22.14 percent share from 22.52 in October. Competing data from StatCounter puts Chrome ahead of Firefox. I'm predisposed to NetApps data, so I'm calling it Firefox second place and still solid over Chrome.

    But I'll add this: If not for Mozilla ramping up development cycles to match Google's, I'm convinced Chrome would have passed Firefox months ago. That said, rapid development, which also means half dozen or so new browser versions a year and fast retirement of older ones, holds back adoption for both browsers. Many larger businesses can't test and deploy current Chrome and Firefox versions before they're outdated. Internet Explorer and Safari are more stable options, from that perspective.

    As for Safari, only another couple months of data will reveal whether November was a hiccup or beginning of trouble.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/01/Carrier_IQ_is_stupid'

    Carrier IQ is stupid

    Publié: décembre 1, 2011, 4:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Okay, the stupidity lies with cellular carriers who let the tracking software onto their phones. Their actions will irreparably tarnish the industry's image and quite likely lead to unwanted government intervention. I'm assuming, of course, that Carrier IQ really is as bad as Android developer Trevor Eckhart claims. My God, what if it's worse?

    Carrier IQ is tracking software that behaves every bit like a keylogger -- installed at a low-level like a rootkit would be. It logs all activities. That's right. Everything, even when the phone is disconnected from the network, or when using WiFi, and it continues its privacy-violating ways even after a cellular subscriber's contract has expired. Simply put: It's an abomination. It's a violation of privacy in the worst way, because cell phones are the most personal tech devices and used to maintain the most intimate relationships.

    For those paranoid people worried someone is watching them, somebody is. It reminds me of Police song "Every Breath You Take", which contrary to popular convention is not a love song. Songwriter Sting says it's about stalking:

    Every breath you take
    Every move you make
    Every bond you break
    Every step you take
    I'll be watching you

    Every single day
    Every word you say
    Every game you play
    Every night you stay
    I'll be watching you

    Carrier IQ is watching you.

    This scandal is much worse than the Sony rootkit, installed on music CDs, Mark Russinovich uncovered six years ago. That privacy invasion led to numerous lawsuits subsequent settlement in 39 states and another with the Federal Trade Commission. Sony rootkit is a single car crash, while Carrier IQ is a plane smashing into a crowded Interstate highway during rush hour.

    Ongoing Facebook privacy issues, including this week's FTC settlement and agreement to 20 years oversight, pale in comparison to Carrier IQ. Because the question isn't how many people is Carrier IQ watching but how few. The number of global cellular subscribers is enormous. Severity really depends on the scope of Carrier IQ usage -- how many carriers in how many locales.

    For Americans, the Carrier IQ scandal is invitation for increased government intervention to protect their privacy and security -- that of federal agencies, too. Six years ago, savvy hackers used the Sony rootkit to hide Trojans. What security problems lay in wait -- if they haven't been exploited already -- from software so deeply hidden and running at such low levels in Android and iOS, and who knows where else? Surely, any cybercriminal delights in such opportunity -- tapping into a running process that tracks everything done on hundreds of millions of handsets. "Merry Christmas!" What a present! Government has as much concern protecting its own security (and privacy) as citizens.

    The tech industry has long held a hand up to government, promising to self-police, self-regulate. "We will be responsible. You can trust us". But Carrier IQ sends a different message: "You can't be trusted". Not when there is potentially so much money to be made tracking people's behavior. That has been the concern about Facebook or Google. But Carrier IQ is so much worse because it acts like a keylogger.

    Carrier IQ is the perfect election-year scandal, particularly when Democrats and Republicans can't seem to agree on anything or with state attorneys general up for re-election. It's ready-made for both sides to rally behind a common cause: Protecting Americans' privacy. Surely the FTC will intervene. Capitol Hill hearings are likely. Perhaps the tech industry will come under new scrutiny -- and even new legislation -- as lawmakers and regulators realize their worst fears: That companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have more control over Americans' privacy than they do. Wireless carriers make matters much worse.

    Carrier IQ is an evolving scandal. The extent of tracking may increase, or decrease, as there is more investigation. It's still not 100 percent clear how many carriers use the software, which handsets are infected, the full number of operating systems affected or what exceptions there are. On the latter point, for example, it looks like pure Google devices, such as Samsung Nexus S or Motorola XOOM, are Carrier IQ-free.

    I'll end simply by asking for your reaction, which you can give in comments.

    Photo Credit: Arman Zhenikeyev/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/12/01/Windows_Phone_7_needs_a_Christmas_miracle'

    Windows Phone 7 needs a Christmas miracle

    Publié: décembre 1, 2011, 1:27am CET par Joe Wilcox

    I've got a soft spot for Windows Phone. The operating system is classy, vibrant, intuitive and refreshing -- the latter particularly compared to Android and iOS. Windows Phone also is a bleeding failure, as I predicted it would be in February 2010 -- when calling the platform a "lost cause". I grudgingly admit to being right. Ah hum. Only Nokia can save Windows Phone now. They swim for land or drown together.

    Yesterday, Nielsen released US smartphone operating system share at end of third quarter. For Android and iOS: 42.8 percent and 28.3 percent, respectively. Windows Phone: 1.2 percent, which is less than Symbian (1.7 percent) -- the operating system WP will replace on Nokia handsets, which have far less visibility than does WP7 in the United States; that's sadist commentary of all. Windows Mobile share is 6.1 percent, and that's a good place for Microsoft to really target. Imagine if all those customers could convert to smartphones running the newer software.

    Maybe the holidays will be good to Microsoft, which needs a little Christmas miracle to lift Windows Phone 7 from last place. The share numbers explain why Microsoft has invested so much to churn up buzz, such as erecting a six-story Windows Phone in a New York City park or touring the country showing off WP 7.5 handsets over cocktails. The advertising looks pretty good, but Microsoft needs more of it. As BetaNews reader Robert Johnson explained two days ago, "Microsoft is in trouble", because of negative perceptions or little to no visibility against Apple and Google.

    The reasons I stated 21 months ago for Windows Phone's problems are little different today. Briefly recapping and expanding #2 and adding #5:

    1. There is no Windows monopoly leverage to jumpstart the platform. The opposite is true. Android and iOS leverage against Microsoft's mobile OS. They're anti-Windows monopolies, with beaucoup developers, hundreds of thousands of applications, thousands of third-party distribution partners (including major carriers globally) and a hugely expanding base platform.

    On the last point: Forty-four percent of US cellular subscribers have smartphones -- that's up 5 points in three months, says Nielsen. IDC predicts that global smartphone shipments will reach 1 billion units by 2015, which is larger than the current PC install base and about three times annual shipments. Good for Microsoft: That's a big pie. The bad news, at least in the United States: Androids and iPhone already have 71 percent subscriber share.

    2. Windows Phone 7 doesn't have enough developer momentum. But it's better, with something like 40,000 applications available. No platform succeeds without apps. WP7 doesn't need numbers just more of the right apps.

    3. Android adoption -- by manufacturers and mobile users -- is too great. You need look no further than Verizon here in the United States. The nation's largest carrier is pushing 4G LTE like the Mayan predictions are right and the world ends four days before Christmas next year. "Get real 4G before it's too late!" Verizon sells eight LTE phones, all running Android, and forthcoming Galaxy Nexus will make nine.

    4. Microsoft doesn't have an end-to-end software plus hardware plus services platform. Stated differently there's no Windows Phone. But Microsoft could come close with Nokia, which has made Windows Phone its primary operating system. The first Nokia WP smartphones are shipping in major markets other than the United States. Nokia could save Windows Phone, if you believe IDC, which predicts about 20 percent market share by 2015 -- but Android more than twice that.

    5. Windows Phone doesn't have global reach. While Nokia is beginning to broaden availability, WP is a long way from being available in as many geographies and from as many carriers as Androids and iPhone.

    Sadly, these are pretty much the same reasons as I stated 21 months ago, just condensed from the originals. Sometimes, I really hate being right.

    Still, there could be a Christmas miracle in Windows Phone's future, if you buy a handset. Will you?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/30/Black_Friday_consumers_buy_555_Xbox_consoles_per_minute'

    Black Friday consumers buy 555 Xbox consoles per minute

    Publié: novembre 30, 2011, 6:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Microsoft reported record Black Friday week Xbox console sales -- 960,000 units. That works out to roughly one per minute, assuming six-and-a-half days of sales (reduced for Thanksgiving Day). It's a phenomenal achievement for an aging console and demonstrates how Kinect and lower-entry cost 4GB models extend Xbox vitality as a platform. Microsoft describes the milestone as the "biggest week of sales in Xbox history".

    However, the sales per minute is much higher for Black Friday -- well, presumably. Microsoft says that 800,000 consoles sold in one 24-hour period, which I assume means day after Thanksgiving. That works out to 555.5555 Xboxes per minute. Consumers also snatched up 750,000 Kinect sensors -- that's standalone and bundled -- during the whole week.

    The numbers are simply huge and surely also reflect some aggressive discounting by Microsoft and its retail partners. Microsoft Store chopped Kinect senor price by one-third -- $99 instead of $149 over Black Friday weekend. Then there was the Xbox 360 Kinect Holiday bundles -- $299.99 for 250GB and $199.99 for 4GB, both $100 discounts. Somebody bought them. Microsoft Store online is sold out of both 250GB Holiday bundles, with and without Kinect.

    The real question to ask now: Will demand outstrip supply and are discounts really necessary to maintain sales momentum? Or has Microsoft, and its partners, already tapped the sales well dry? Discounts drew tech shoppers in droves on Black Friday as people lined up to get doorbusters. According to NPD, one-half of US electronics buyers shopped stores between Midnight and 3 am on Black Friday -- up from 13 percent last year.

    Black Friday game console buyers increased by 35 percent year over year, but nowhere near smartphones -- 85 percent. Consumers spent an average $360 on tech products, up $60 from a year ago.

    "While holiday sales and traffic were strong, the consumer electronics industry needs that momentum to continue in order to see just as strong a finish to the holiday season" Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says. "Consumers were driven into the stores by strong promotional deals, but the impact that aggressive pricing has on revenue will most likely outweigh the increased unit volumes".

    Perhaps in some categories, but not Xbox. Even if revenues --- and more likely margins -- are less, Xbox is a platform for selling additional products and services. But that's topic for the story about the next major Xbox system update coming in just a few days.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/30/Are_Windows_8_tablets_DOA_'

    Are Windows 8 tablets DOA?

    Publié: novembre 30, 2011, 4:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's my question for you to ponder and to comment and debate about. Yesterday, a Forrester Research analyst proclaimed "Microsoft has missed the peak of consumer desire for a product they haven't yet released" -- it's already too late for Windows 8 tablets. He's absolutely nuts, I say. Or is he?

    The analyst, JP Gownder, contends that "Windows 8 is going to be very late to the party" and Apple and Samsung tablets "will likely be into their third generation by the time Windows 8 launches". Microsoft is a late-starter to the tablet market. Meanwhile consumers have lost interest. "In Q1 2011, Windows was by far the top choice of consumers" with 46 percent US consumers pining for a tablet running Microsoft's OS. "By Q3 2011, that picture had changed dramatically...interest among consumers dropped to 25 percent". It's recipe for failure, he contends. I'm not sure what Forrester pays Gownder, but, hey, my more competent analysis is free.

    There are numerous flaws with Gownder's reasoning:

    1. Microsoft isn't late to the tablet market. The company jump-started the category with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition in late 2002. Gartner and IDC still treat that pioneering category separately from Androids and iPad, which are classified as media tablets. Windows slates are PCs. Gownder contends that Microsoft is last to market. No, Microsoft was first to market but lost momentum, something that can be recovered leveraging off the Windows monopoly.

    2. Plenty of attractive Windows tablets ship today, like the Samsung Series 7. These take advantage of touchscreen capabilities made available with Windows 7. What really separates them from Android tablets and iPad is price. Media tablet starting prices are now around $199 for Androids and $499 for iPad. Windows slates typically sell for much more. For example, Microsoft Store has the Series 7 slate for $1,299.99.

    3. Gartner and IDC don't casually categorize Windows slates as PCs. These devices are meant to be used as personal computers, not adjuncts to them like most Androids and iPad. Again, using Samsung's slate as example: 11.6-inch Series 7 is the touchscreen equivalent -- and many ways it's superior -- to Apple's MacBook Air.

    4. Windows 8 supports ARM processors, which fundamentally will broaden the form factors and pricing options compared to x86 models like Samsung Series 7. OEMs will be able to bring many varied products to market, all leveraging the robust Windows ecosystem.

    5. Gownder's data analysis draws the wrong conclusion about declining consumer interest in Windows slates. For starters, buying intention often doesn't lead to sales. More importantly, declining interest easily represents something else: Consumers' response to a market vacuum. Fewer people desire what they can't get: Windows tablet for about the price of iPad or less.

    6. Forrester's data is only about consumers, but Microsoft's enormous install base is business. Enterprises will want tablets that run office, that fit into existing business processes and can be securely managed. Windows is the known quantity, and many larger organizations will wait for it.

    7. The media tablet market is in its infancy and still tiny compared to PCs. Apple's sudden rise shows just how volatile it is and Amazon's Kindle Fire shows just how disruptive new entrants still can be. From that perspective, there is plenty of opportunity for Microsoft to catch up -- and let's qualify that. It's Microsoft and partners. The software giant doesn't manufacture or brand tablets.

    8. Microsoft does its best work when backed against the wall. Time and again, Microsoft has caught up in markets where it started behind. Trust me, there is real urgency in Redmond, Wash. to protect the Windows monopoly from possible tablet encroachment, particularly among businesses.

    Yesterday, my colleague Ed Oswald reported about the Forrester analysis. This morning, after writing my reasons above, I looked at some of the comments.

    BetaNews reader mshulman and I agree. He writes: "A Windows 8 tablet could be purchased and used as the only device since it can run all of the programs one might use. The only exception would be programs that just require too much power such as video editing and serious gaming..etc."

    Jeremy Benisek:

    They say this on everything MS does. They are always late to the game with the most reasonable product. Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox Live (even though Sony is free), Windows XP, 7, Windows Mobile 7. All of these were late compared to others but they have shown to be better and sell better than anyone else...Late to the game doesn't mean you lost as we see with Microsoft sales of Kinect vs Wii.

    Apple was late to smartphones and tablets, and look at its success in both categories -- and that was starting from scratch. Windows is incumbent.

    Commenter easson is spot on, writing:

    Microsoft believes that there is not one single, unified market for tablets. Instead, it believes that the tablet market is currently split into two distinct segments: 1) Those people who want a limited capability gadget (e.g., iPad), and 2) Those people who want a full-function tablet that has all the portability and ease of use of existing tablet gadgets, but which are also capable of running 'serious' applications (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets, etc.) on a 'serious' operating system (Windows).

    It intends to initially target the latter market with Windows 8 running on tablets using Intel CPU's. It intends to target the first market with Windows 8 running on lower-priced ARM CPU tablets which can only run the newer 'Metro' apps. Why lower-priced? Because they can't run the millions of Win32-based legacy Windows applications, and thus are less valuable in the buyer's eyes. (But, it is quite likely that Microsoft will offer its main applications like Office for ARM processors once Windows 8 is released.)

    This situation should prevail until the number of Metro apps grows considerably, at which time the two segments should blend together.

    It remains to be seen whether or not Microsoft is right about there being two segments. Once Windows 8 tablets are released in late 2012, there should be some preliminary hints of whether they are right. The proof of the pudding will come in 2013, however.

    So what do you think?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/29/Small_businesses_embrace_Microsoft_s_cloud__while_enterprises_wait_and_see'

    Small businesses embrace Microsoft's cloud, while enterprises wait and see

    Publié: novembre 29, 2011, 11:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    If you live in Seattle, it's hard not to think about clouds. The mean number of cloudy days a year is 255.5, with another 81.6 partly cloudy. That's a whole lot of overcastness (go ahead, tell me that's no word). Perhaps the skies above remind Microsoft employees below about the importance of "the cloud" to the company's future. Today, Microsoft reminded everyone with some stats on its cloud computing progress and updates to Office 365 and SkyDrive. However, beneath today's announcements there are signs of drought, with only a small number of enterprises embracing Microsoft's cloud.

    The Redmond, Wash.-based company is enhancing both services and has broadened availability, 22 more countries -- including Argentina, Iceland, Indonesia, South Africa and Taiwan -- for Office 365. SkyDrive gets a modern makeover, including HTML5 enhancements that are in line with broader Microsoft development objectives for Internet Explorer 10 and Windows 8.

    But Microsoft isn't a cloud company like Google, which profits from what it and third-parties sell around services like search. Microsoft sells software. Think of Microsoft's cloud quite literally -- rain falling to the earth and evaporating into the sky. Office 365 and SkyDrive depend at least in some way on desktop software, which utility they extend to the cloud and return to users.

    App-Centric Cloud

    Some SkyDrive improvements make the point. "We rebuilt fundamental pieces of SkyDrive to simplify sharing and make it more app-centric, particularly for Office", says Omar Shahine, group program manager. Meanwhile, Microsoft strips away some of the legacy desktop concepts. "Now you can share from within the app and complete your task, without having to think about the structure of folders or subfolders" he explains. "This is possible since SkyDrive now lets you share or permission individual files within a folder. This works for Office documents, photos, or any other type of file".

    I don't much use Google Docs (or Microsoft Office, for that matter), so not all features are familiar to me. But doesn't Docs work this way today, providing granular control over sharing files rather than setting them by folders? That's a question for anyone who knows enough to comment.

    Many other SkyDrive enhancements bring more of the desktop experience to the cloud. Among them:

    • More right-click context menus and options for documents and photos.
    • Improved -- acceptable really, when not as much previously -- viewing of PDF files.
    • Improved photo slideshows, giving an experience more like Windows Live Photo Gallery and playing catch up to Google+.
    • Support for photo RAW, something extended from Microsoft Camera Codec Pack for Windows Vista and 7.

    Also worth noting:

    • The photo gallery is touch-enabled, so users can swipe to advance on IE10 and Mobile Safari.
    • HTML5 support improves the file uploading and management experience from modern browsers -- there's CSS3 support, too. They're yet more signs Silverlight's days are numbered.

    Office rises Higher

    Microsoft separates Office 365 updates into two categories: Enterprises and professionals and small businesses.

    Among new capabilities in this update:

    • Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" is now supported.
    • SharePoint Online now supports Windows 7.5 handsets.
    • Office 365 administrators can now block access by IP address.
    • Administrators can now self-reset passwords using text messages or alternative email address.
    • Improved SharePoint support, such as sub-site restoration and enhanced Windows Live ID trust.
    • Office 365 administrators can now "deactivate and reactivate dirsync to switch between managing their users' master source of information on-premises or in the cloud".

    Microsoft launched Office 365 in June, to 40 countries, less than two months following public beta. Today's service release update is a little odd -- more akin to a Windows service pack and showing Microsoft's desktop mentality rising to the cloud. One of cloud computing benefits is seamless updating. Providers issue them, they're immediately available to all customers and their release causes minimal to no problems with personal computing devices or IT infrastructure. Amazon and Salesforce.com issue updates to their cloud services, as does Google to Chrome and Chrome OS, without them being events. Why all the fanfare? This isn't even the first update but the third.

    It's all about relevance, and Microsoft maintaining that it has any in the post-PC era. Today's announcements -- complete with coordinated blogs, customer testimonials, photos, press releases and videos -- reminds everyone that Microsoft has cloud services, too, and that they're important. Yesterday, BetaNews reader Robert Johnson recounted three experiences on Thanksgiving Day that spotlight Microsoft's perception problems -- that its products are no longer relevant or are losing relevance before others. Microsoft needs to occasionally be the peacock, strut its feathers, and updates to Office 365 and SkyDrive make good opportunity in the cloud.

    But there's something more. Today, Microsoft made a big deal about early adopters. Kurt DelBene, president of the Office division, says that Microsoft sees "great traction with small businesses, with more than 90 percent of our early Office 365 customers coming from small businesses". From one perspective, that's a helluva statistic and market segment Microsoft should want to reach. But the cloud suite is also about extending enterprises' Office experience. If 90 percent of customers are small businesses -- with fewer than 50 employees -- than only 1 in 10 is a mid-size or large business, which represent the core Office market.

    So while DelBene praises small business adoption, Microsoft also presents showcase enterprise customers, such as Campbell Soup Company and Groupe Marie-Claire. The announcement's timing and tone suggest that enterprise adoption isn't yet strong, and that undermines Microsoft's broader strategy, of extending its legacy Office-Windows-Windows Server app stack to the cloud.

    Is it raining today in Seattle? Perhaps it should be.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/29/Server_shipments_rise_globally__collapse_in_Europe'

    Server shipments rise globally, collapse in Europe

    Publié: novembre 29, 2011, 5:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    PC shipments may have been tepid during third quarter, but servers are up year over year despite the economy -- or perhaps because of it. Shipments grew 7.2 percent, according to Gartner, while revenue rose 5.2 percent. That's not exactly gangbusters growth and might have been greater if not for the drag in Europe, where server shipments declined by 4.9 percent.

    "Asia/Pacific grew the most significantly in shipments with a 23.9 percent increase", Jeffrey Hewitt, Gartner research vice president, says. "Eastern Europe posted the highest vendor revenue growth at 27.4 percent for the period". Globally, vendors shipped 2.37 million servers, generating $12.97 billion revenue.

    HP led the quarter in shipments, but IBM generated more revenue -- and from a significantly smaller base. HP shipped 693,265 servers for 29.2 percent market share -- IBM 287,507 servers for 12.1 percent share. However, IBM revenue nudged ahead of HP --$3.846 billion to $3.082 percent, respectively, in a dead heat of 29.7 percent to 29.3 percent revenue share. There's something to be said for big iron. HP revenue fell by 3.6 percent, while IBM's rose by 3.5 percent. Dell posted strongest revenue growth -- 6.3 percent.

    Lenovo is the up-and-comer to watch, posting 77 percent year-over-year shipment growth. HP led, but while shipping fewer units -- down 3.1 percent year over year, mostly from sluggish ProLiant server sales. Dell shipments rose by 3.2 percent while IBM's were flat.

    Good news for Microsoft software license sales: "x86 servers forged ahead and grew 7.6 percent in units and 9.3 percent in revenue", Hewitt says. "RISC/Itanium Worldwide Unix server shipments declined 6.8 percent, but vendor revenue increased 3.5 percent compared to the same quarter last year. The 'other' CPU category, which is primarily mainframes, showed a decline of 6.9 percent".

    Blade server shipments rose by 3.3 percent but more than double in revenue -- 7.6 percent. Rack-mounted servers rose 8.2 percent in shipments and 6.3 percent by revenue.

    Servers are undergoing a kind of tug and pull as IT organizations re-evaluate strategies. Virtualization saps some sales, while private and public cloud adoption drives them. There is the push to increase server density to support businesses' rapidly changing needs, whether server consolidation or expansion to support cloud efforts. For example, datacenter hardware spending will reach $98.9 billion this year -- that's up 12 percent from 2010, Gartner predicts. The analyst firm forecasts datacenter hardware spending to reach $106.4 billion next year and $126.2 billion in 2015.

    More immediately, the Euro's future as a currency weighs heavily on IT purchases in the region, and collapse could ripple to the United States. Declining server shipments may be the canary in the coalmine that IT spending is retracting across the Euro zone. Another indicator: PC shipments declined 11.4 percent year over year in the region, during Q3, according to Gartner.

     

    Photo Credit: gualtiero boffi/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/28/Would_you_pay__200_for_Motorola_XOOM_LTE_'

    Would you pay $200 for Motorola XOOM LTE?

    Publié: novembre 28, 2011, 9:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Verizon kicked off helluva holday sale for XOOM LTE on Black Friday -- and you can still get it today online: $199.99 with new two-year activation. But hurry, if interested. Surely pricing like this can't last. That's $529.99 less than the closest comparable iPad 2, and you won't get an LTE radio from Apple.

    Is that price low enough for you to buy? In February, when XOOM pricing first leaked, I asked: "Would you pay 800 bucks for the Motorola XOOM?" Eh, no, you wouldn't. You didn't like $600, when I asked about it later on. But now the price is way less, so I'm asking again. Would you pay $200 for Motorola XOOM LTE? Please answer in comments.

    Based on a BetaNews tablet pricing poll, $199.99 is just about right. Among the 1,200-plus respondents, 30.31 percent said $199 would be low enough for them to buy a media tablet. For $199 and below -- 64.53 percent; $299 and below -- 92.96 percent. So the majority of respondents aren't willing to pay as much as the cheapest iPad 2: $499. The comparable Apple tablet, with 32GB storage, sells for $729.

    Of course, that XOOM requires a 2-year data contract, which the non-LTE, 3G/WiFi iPad 2 doesn't. But for anyone planning to regularly use data anyway, does it matter? You pay less up front and get big data-speed boost. Verizon promises 5Mbps-12Mbps downstream over LTE compared to 600Kbps to 1.4Mbps over 3G.

    Let's do some real-world price comparison. Upfront cost for XOOM LTE is $199.99 with minimum $30 per month for 2GB data. Upfront cost for comparable iPad 2 is the aforementioned $729. XOOM LTE then has, comparably, a $529.99 credit to apply against data service -- 17 months against the 24-month contractual commitment. Unless the iPad 2 buyer only plans six months of data, XOOM LTE is the better deal -- and that's ignoring faster bandwidth benefits.

    Looked at differently, and acknowledging the iPad 2 user isn't committed to any contract, the holiday-priced XOOM LTE costs $919.99 over two years compared to $1,449 for Apple's tablet, when including data. Buyers could reduce iPad 2 data costs by $120 buying an AT&T model, if opting for the 2GB plan, which is $25 a month. AT&T offers 250MB plan for $15 a month, too. I wouldn't take it for a tablet.

    By the way, Verizon's no-commitment, month-to-month data option raises price to $669.99, which is still less than the 32GB iPad 2.

    Quick specs:

    XOOM LTE: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable to 64GB with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.2 (Honeycomb).

    iPad 2: 1GHz dual-core Apple A5 processor; 9.7 inch display with 1024 x 768 resolution; 512MB of RAM; 32GB internal storage (non-expandable); front-and-rear cameras; 720p video playback; WiFi N; Bluetooth; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; and iOS 5. There is no HDMI port and external USB connector costs $29 extra.

    I've been using a XOOM WiFi, and really like it -- more than the iPad 2 I sold several months ago. Both products appeal differently, and I won't debate Android vs iOS. I leave that to commenters. The point of this post is twofold: To see who finds $199.99 low enough for XOOM (or any tablet) and to compare Apple and Motorola tablets on a purely cost basis, which is the criteria that will matter most to many bargain shoppers over the Black Friday-to-Cyber Monday shopping period. Geeks argue operating systems and ecosystems.

    So, would you or will you buy Moto XOOM LTE for $199.99? Please respond in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/28/Apple_iPhone_violates_airline_s_no_smoking_policy'

    Apple iPhone violates airline's no-smoking policy

    Publié: novembre 28, 2011, 7:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It brings new meaning to Black Friday.

    Three days ago, airline Regional Express dropped a press release about a passenger's cell phone "emitting a significant amount of dense smoke, accompanied by a red glow". That must be air industry lingo for fire. That's a word you don't want to hear aboard jetliners in flight. Running for the exits could be worse. Of course, no airline wants to admit to flaming anything inside one of its cabins. The smoker was an iPhone, by the way. Can you tell from the photo whether it's the 4 or 4S? The incident occurred on a flight from Lismore to Sydney, Australia -- yes, on Black Friday.

    "In accordance with company standard safety procedures, the flight attendant carried out recovery actions immediately and the red glow was extinguished successfully", according to a Regional Express statement. In other words, he or she put out the fire! No one was harmed in the incident, according to the airline, which claims to be Australia's largest independent carrier.

    My colleague Tim Conneally spotted the press release, but he didn't want to write the story. But I asked, pleading "I'll be called anti-Apple" -- again. Since many readers will do just that in comments anyway, they should have reason. So here's one: I propose that the aviation administrations and airlines the world over ban iPhones on all flights. The reason: Non-removable batteries, which sometimes smoke and glow. ;-)

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/28/Did_you_get_a_great_Black_Friday_deal__Tell_us_about_it'

    Did you get a great Black Friday deal? Tell us about it

    Publié: novembre 28, 2011, 6:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The tech gods blessed those who worshiped at the Black Friday altar, or so claim industry analysts releasing numbers yesterday and today. I confess to taking my daughter to an outlet mall, where the checkout line at the Sony store snaked from register to door. But I bought nothing. What about you? Did you do the Black Friday diddy? Please tell your story in comments.

    Doorbuster sales -- those with really low prices for people willing to wait in line -- started as early as 10 pm local time Thursday night. Many tech retailers, Best Buy and Microsoft Store among them, opened Midnight Friday. "More than one-in-three (36 percent) Black Friday tech purchasers bought a doorbuster item -- an increase of four percentage points compared to 2010", says Ben Arnold, NPD's director of industry analysis. By NPD estimates, more broadly, American consumers completed one-quarter of their holiday shopping on Black Friday. However, tech buyers finished significantly more -- one-third.

    Deep discounting, early Black Friday sales and retailer nervousness about the economy contributed to tech shoppers' bargain successes. The latter is most disturbing with possible collapse of the Euro zone imminent. This Economist editorial claims the "single currency could break up within weeks". Meanwhile, stateside, the Economic Security Index, which measures the number of Americans who experience a 25 percent or greater decline in household income, released startling stats. After dropping sharply during the housing bubble, the share of Americans "who experience a major financial loss" tops 20 percent this year.

    Many retailers are taking a "sell it now while we still can approach" to Holiday 2011, because the Grinch and not Santa may come in a few weeks, if the Euro collapses.

    "Rock-bottom prices and record early-opening hours illustrate the concern of the entire technology industry views this holiday season", says Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. "NPD has been predicting that this would be the worst holiday since 2008, on a revenue basis, and the early season aggressiveness from the industry confirms this level of concern".

    Among the many debates every year is brick-and-mortar vs online -- which will be more. NPD sees nothing in the early sales trends to suggest that online will be bigger. Still, online is big if for nothing else than research. "Technology purchasers favored online sources for information on sales and Black Friday doorbuster deals leading up to the event with 59 percent indicating this", Arnold says. He adds:

    I fully expect mobile apps (used by just 3 percent of purchasers this year) to gain more traction as smartphone adoption increases. Prior to my outing Thursday evening, I used a few retailer apps (most notably apps from Walmart, Amazon, and Best Buy) to find store hours, locations, and product pricing. Another tool that was truly valuable was Twitter which enabled me to search tweets referencing 'Black Friday Deals' for real-time updates on sales and stock levels. A search of local tweets in my area was also great for gauging how long lines were at the stores.

    As for actual online sales, comScore offers insight. Online Black Friday spending rose 26 percent year over year to $816 million. Thanksgiving Day bargain buyers spent $479 million, up 18 percent from last year. For all November through Black Friday: $12.737 billion spent, up 15 percent.

    "Despite some analysts' predictions that the flurry of brick-and-mortar retailers opening their doors early for Black Friday would pull dollars from online retail, we still saw a banner day for ecommerce", comScore Chairman Gian Fulgoni says. "With brick-and-mortar retail also reporting strong gains on Black Friday, it's clear that the heavy promotional activity had a positive impact on both channels".

    About 50 million American shoppers spent some time at online retail sites this Black Friday, whether buying or doing the research Arnold calls out. That's a 35 percent increase from last year. Most visited retail sites (other than auctions) from first to fifth: Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy, Target and Apple. I wonder how many of those online Apple shoppers actually bought, considering the retailer had some of the stingiest deals of the day, ranging from 7 percent to 16 percent.

    Would you stand in line at Apple Store to save 10 percent on MacBook Air? Perhaps I shouldn't ask, since so many people will wait for iPhone for full price. Beware the real bargain hunters, by the way. They are ruthless. The big Black Friday story out here in California was the woman who pepper-sprayed other shoppers. She wanted her cheap Xbox, and who doesn't?

    I wonder if she bought the weapon of mass-Black Friday destruction at Walmart, which sells the "Sabre Red USA-Formula Pepper Spray Keychain" for just $7.97. Oh, but wait it's suddenly "not available at this time". You want to guess why?

    If you were pepper-sprayed or peppered with bargains on Black Friday, do tell us, please, in commments below.

    Photo Credit: K2 images/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/25/Retailers_prepare_for_Black_Eyeday'

    Retailers prepare for Black Eyeday

    Publié: novembre 25, 2011, 8:35pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By measure of discounts, tech retailers are running scared this holiday -- well, all perhaps other than Apple, which discounts range from puny 7 percent to 16 percent. Elsewhere big discounts mean retailer state of fear and expected Grinch-like consumer demand.

    "Overall we have seen nothing, either in the first couple of hours of Black Friday shopping or in the pricing and product tactics of the industry, to make us change our viewpoint to expect a very weak holiday season", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says. How grim will be the Holiday reaper? "NPD has been predicting that this would be the worst holiday since 2008, on a revenue basis, and the early season [discount] aggressiveness from the industry confirms this level of concern".

    He emphasizes:

    Weak economy, and considerable consumer anxiety have shifted the retailer focus to promoting products that can drive incremental traffic into the stores. As a consequence, we have seen record-low pricing across a number of core categories with TVs leading the way. Notebook PCs, video game systems and software, and Blu-ray players have also seen significant price drops with the hope of driving motivated customers into the stores.

    Arguably the hottest category of the season sees the fewest discounts. "We haven’t seen as aggressive pricing in tablets and e-readers where the leading products are typically covered by MAP pricing, and the alternatives are not perceived to be of sufficient customer interest to be worth the expense of Black Friday pricing and promotion", Baker says. For Black Friday, Apple discounts the entry-level iPad 2 for 10 percent. That's not exactly a fire sale.

    Not surprisingly, the National Retailers Federation puts a smiley face on the first big sales weekend. The trade group predicts 152 million Americans plan to shop over the three days. But the number is really a stretch. Only 74 million definitely plan to "hit the stores", while 77 million will wait and see on sales and other promotions.

    Many stores opened late Thanksgiving evening or Midnight today. My local Microsoft Store did 12 am, for example.

    NRF coordinated with BIGresearch on Americans shopping plans, which include watching for deals through social networking sites. "Social media will play a big role in how shoppers follow company sales announcements this holiday season", Phil Rist, BIGresearch executive vice president, says. "From Facebook to Twitter and even group buying sites, social retailers may be rewarded this season in terms of additional holiday sales".

    Seventeen percent of shoppers plan to monitor retailer Facebook pages, while another 11 percent will look to Groupon and LivingSocial, according to NRF. Tablet shoppers will go social for deals -- 21 percent looking on group-buying sites and 31 percent monitoring retailers' Facebook pages. However, based on NPD's research, deals won't be many. I haven't seen much. Have you? But soon after I posted a Verizon ad on BetaNews led me to one: Motorola XOOM LTE for $199.99 with new 2-year activation. Whoa.

    By the way, Betanews reader "wav" suggested "Black Eyeday". He writes in email: "I think I've coined the term, Black Eyeday, and I think it should be used. Since I am no journalist I am passing it on to you. :)" I Binged and Googled and didn't find the term used in context of Black Friday.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/25/Which_store_offers_better_Black_Friday_deals__Apple_or_Microsoft_'

    Which store offers better Black Friday deals? Apple or Microsoft?

    Publié: novembre 25, 2011, 6:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Consider yourself lucky if living nearby one of the 14 Microsoft stores -- there are big savings for you today and over the weekend. Live nearby one of the 330 or so Apple shops -- well, you can shop Microsoft Store online for real bargains.

    Black Friday is perhaps the one day of the year where Apple and Microsoft differences in retail pricing and digital lifestyle are most pronounced. Apple continues its "pay-more" philosophy, which granted is good for margins and keeps shareholders happy, while Microsoft focuses more on value. That's all assuming Windows PCs at much lower selling prices are more valuable to you than costlier Macs. Hey, more Americans drive mini-vans than Mercedes. But plenty of others can afford and will pay more.

    Probably Apple's best deal going is 11.6-inch MacBook Air for $898 -- that's $101 off -- and gets it down to the price of new competing Ultrabooks from HP and Toshiba. Or you could spend a lot less on a Windows laptop. The two best deals already are sold out online (and they weren't available in stores, being older models):

    • Acer Iconia dual-screen toucbook -- $599, dropped from $999. I've seen this beast in stores. It's huge and strange conception, being two screens and touch keyboard.
    • Sony VAIO S137GX -- $599, discounted from $999. It's not the newest model or most-recent Intel Core i5 processor, but there's much to like here, such as the luscious 13.3-inch display.

    As I write, the Samsung RC512 laptop is still available online for $499, which is $300 off, and in stores. It's a beast -- 15.3-inch LED display but with only 1366 x 768 resolution, 2.3GHz second-gen Core i5 processor, 4GB of DDR3 memory, 500GB hard drive and all the extras you expect, including two USB 3.0 ports.

    Back at Apple Store, iPhone 4S is available for helluva discount during Apple's "special pricing event": None. It's standard starting pricing of $199 for the newest model, no savings for you. However, you can score, HTC Arrive (Sprint), HTC Radar 4G (T-Mobile) or HTC Trophy (Verizon) for free with two-year contract. The Radar ranks among the best Windows Phone 7.5 models for design and specs. Apple's idea of free is the two-generations old iPhone 3GS. Free from Microsoft, using Radar 4G as example, means better camera and faster data than the 3GS, among other capabilities.

    Some other Microsoft deals are only available online, like the "Ultimate Gaming Bundle", discounted $200 to $394.94. Comes with: Xbox 360 250GB; Kinect controller; Xbox Live Gold 3-month membership; 1600 Microsoft Points (for buying stuff from Live); Razer Onza Tournament Edition gaming controller; 8GB SanDisk flash drive; and free game of your choice (from limited selection).

    For those shopping in store (and, of course, online) this weekend, Microsoft offers the Xbox 250GB Kinect Holiday Bundle for $299 -- that's $100 off -- or same as regularly priced non-Kinect model.

    Microsoft offers 25 percent off all accessories (from any manufacturer), while Apple discounts some of its stuff. The Apple Magic Mouse is $58 -- that's 11 bucks off. Microsoft Touch Mouse costs more, $59.97, from a higher starting price ($79.95). Apple Wireless Keyboard is 11 bucks off at $58. Microsoft's Wireless Comfort Desktop 5000 (with ergonomic keyboard and mouse) is $59.97. Price is a little higher, but, hey, there's a wireless mouse, too.

    Apple discounts iPad 2, and you won't find much comparable at any price from Microsoft Store. The entry-level price is $458 today, or a $41 savings. You can invest that extra in a Product Red smartcover, selling for $58, which is $11 off.

    If you spend $699 or more on a Windows PC, Microsoft offers a $100 store coupon (e.g., gift card). Okay, maybe. Sales rep at my local Microsoft Store, which opened at Midnight, says that special ended at 6 am. However, online the deal is listed as still available.

    Finally, in store only, Microsoft offers heap big discounts on overall purchases -- 15 percent for $100 - $499, 20 percent for $500 - $999 and 25 percent for $1,000 or more. Microsoft advertised those discounts before Black Friday. I saw them in store last week. So, I'll correct that statement about Microsoft not offering much discounted against iPad 2. With Microsoft Store's 20 percent discount, the Acer Iconia Tab W500 tablet, with dual-core processor, 32GB SSD and ATI graphics running Windows 7 Home Premium, would be $439.20, nearly 20 bucks less than Black Friday-sale priced iPad 2.

    By the way, circling back to where I started, MacBook Air, Microsoft's 25 percent discount puts the comparable Samsung Series 9 laptop at $861.75, or $36.25 less than MBA. Apple's special pricing is today only. Microsoft's discount goes longer.

    Where will you shop today? You see better deals elsewhere? Please share with other readers in comments.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/24/11_things_Microsoft_should_be_thankful_for_in_2011'

    11 things Microsoft should be thankful for in 2011

    Publié: novembre 24, 2011, 7:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This year I revive my annual "give thanks" series -- what Microsoft has to be grateful for this Thanksgiving Day. In 2006, "employee bloggers" topped the list and "Google's woes", following a year-long collapse of the search giant's shares, in 2008. What about 2011?

    I present the list in reverse order of importance. No. 1 is the last item and the reason for which Microsoft should give most thanks this year (so far).

    11. Ethics award. In March, Ethisphere announced the 110 most ethical companies. Microsoft joined the list, while competitors like Apple, Facebook and Google were absent.

    I'm not so surprised to see Microsoft on the list so much as not seeing it sooner -- at least since 2008 (that's how far back I looked). The company really cleaned up its corporate behavior during the new millennium and even has taken a leadership role among tech companies. Trust me, this kind of distinction means something when Microsoft engages enterprise customers.

    10. Steve Ballmer vote of confidence. Every month or so someone calls for the resignation or ouster of Microsoft's CEO. During this year's annual shareholder meeting, 92 percent of Microsoft shareholders voted to keep Ballmer. The number is down a few percent from last year, but, hey, 90-percent-plus of anything is outstanding. Then, again, it would be a little disheartening if Ballmer's shareholder confidence turns out to be less than Windows market share.

    9 Skype. In May, Microsoft announced plans to buy Skype; the $8.5 billion acquisition closed in October. Skype will probably make next year's list but higher, when Microsoft has integrated the video technologies across products.

    Skype corrects an important Microsoft failure. In early 2005, Ballmer passed on buying YouTube for $500 million. Google snatched up the video service for $1.6 billion in October of that year. Microsoft chose to build rather than to buy a video service, which later proved to be a huge blunder.

    Now video is front and center again, but instead of impersonal content posted for the world to see, Microsoft is betting on intimacy -- whether personal or professional communications. Advertising will be one of Microsoft's core objectives for monetizing Skype, and you can be sure search, too.

    8. Best workplace. In late October, the Great Places to Work Institute chose Microsoft as the, well, best place to work globally. It's a huge distinction, which importance cannot be understated. People are the muster behind great tech companies, and hiring the best and brightest is highly competitive. You could seek a job at Google, but, hey, Microsoft is the best place to work.

    7. Marketing. Microsoft advertising, once lackluster, is simply exceptional. Starting with "I'm a PC" three years ago, Microsoft has had a string of marketing success. Among those standout in 2011: "It's a great time to be a family" Kinect, Windows Phone and Windows 7. Then there's smart product placement, where the tech is actually used as part of the story, on TV shows like "Hawaii 5-0".

    The advertising isn't just about selling Microsoft stuff, it's more about rebuilding brand image.

    6. Nokia deal. In February, Microsoft and Nokia announced a distribution deal making Windows Phone primary operating system for the Finnish manufacturer's handsets. The deal is nothing but trouble for Nokia during a difficult transition period, but it's mostly upside for Microsoft.

    The software giant essentially becomes a handset manufacturer without the risk or expense, despite the hefty sum paid to Nokia as part of the arrangement. Microsoft's biggest problem developing a mobile operating system is licensing it and in doing so losing control over hardware integration. The Nokia deal gives Microsoft the closest thing to Apple's vertical integrated hardware, software and services approach without making a phone. By letting Nokia take some responsibility for Windows Phone development, Microsoft can assure that at least one handset manufacturer's devices will tightly integrate with its software and services.

    Then there is Bing. The future of search is mobile. Nokia may be declining, but it's still the world's largest handset manufacturer -- and it will bring Bing everywhere.

    The first Nokia Windows Phones, the Lumia 710 and 800, hit the streets in November. Nokia would have ranked higher on the list, if the new handsets had shipped in the United States.

    5. Samsung. The South Korean conglomerate became Microsoft's most-important OEM partner in 2011. I can't believe that statement isn't about Dell or HP -- although it could be for Lenovo. Samsung doesn't have anywhere the reach as the others in PCs but it's products are consistently the most bleeding edge:

    • Samsung's Series 9 notebook brought thin-and-light, MacBook Air-like design and portability to Windows laptops about 8 months before the first Ultrabook shipped.
    • Microsoft distributed approximately 5,000 Samsung slates running a Windows 8 preview to developers during September's BUILD conference.
    • Samsung's Series 7 slate is among the most compelling Windows 7 tablets, pushing ahead of competing models for style and features.
    • Samsung Focus S is arguably the best Windows Phone handset available. It's thin, light, handsome and delightful. That's not to dismiss the HTC Radar, which appeals, too.

    That said, Samsung's importance is less certain in 2012, particularly in light of the Nokia deal.

    4. Android patent licensing. Perhaps Microsoft's strangest business activity of the year is about Google's mobile OS. The company has successfully convinced more than half of Android licensees to pay Microsoft patent fees. The tactic is sheer brilliance. Microsoft essentially attaches a licensing fee to an operating system otherwise with none and collects, too. Meanwhile, related cross-licensing deals protect Microsoft from patent lawsuits in arguably the most important tech category of the decade -- mobile devices.

    There's loads of cash to be made here. IDC predicts that 1 billion smartphones will ship in 2015, with Android and Windows Phone comprising about 64 percent of the operating systems. That makes for easy math -- Microsoft collects some kind of licensing fee on as many as 641 million smartphones.

    Let's assume, for the sake of simple calculations, that Microsoft collects $10 per license. That works out to a cool $6.4 billion in licensing fees a year by 2015, for Android and Windows Phone. I believe the $10 estimate is a low, but workable figure since it's unclear how many of the nearly 40 Android licensees will pony up and the figure doesn't include tablets, which Microsoft can collect on, too. It's a helluva business opportunity.

    3. Kinect. A year ago, when Microsoft shipped the first Kinect game controller, it looked like nothing more than that. Today, Kinect is an emerging development platform and one that looks to transform how people interact with all kinds of products. Kinect is a transformative user interface that businesses already use for medical research and diagnosis and for education, among others. What's exciting about Kinect is the sheer potential. I've repeatedly asserted that the most natural user interface is you.

    Microsoft released the Kinect for Windows SDK beta in June and plans commercial release earlier next year. Technology like Kinect is the stuff of science fiction. If Microsoft and its partners do what's right with connect, you'll start reading and viewing more of the "i" associated with Microsoft. Not "i" as in iPhone but innovation.

    2. Windows 8. One word: Metro. Another: ARM. Windows 8 Developer Preview has renewed excitement in Microsoft's flagship operating system. ARM support opens Windows 7's successors to new classes of mobile devices and truly marks end of the Wintel era. Of course, Windows 8 will support x86 processors, but ARM dominates mobile device markets.

    Metro is a stunning revision of the user interface that looks lots like Windows Phone's tile motif, which inherits qualities from Zune. Touch is common denominator going from Zune HD to Window Phone 7.5 handsets to Windows 8 PCs. Tiles are the means of unifying the user experience across devices.

    Metro is task-oriented, mixes cloud and desktop content and works well on tablets. Metro reminds of Microsoft attempts to bring live content to the desktop during the Window 98 era. The strategy flopped for many reasons, limited bandwidth being one of them. That vision is fulfilled in Windows 8's Metro. The Internet is as much a part of the UI as local file storage.

    Changes to Windows plumbing, such as WinRT, will matter as much, if not more, to developers. The new API lets developers write native code -- and that's a big push for Windows 8.

    The new OS likely will ship in 2012, which makes it strange placer so high on this year's thankful list. But developers and tech analysts and writers already have received Windows 8 well. Windows' future is so bright, you'll have to wear shades.

    1. US antitrust oversight ends. In May, after nearly 10 years, government watchdogs got off Microsoft's back. In September I explained in detail how antitrust oversight hobbled Microsoft innovation and kept the company from using tactics like cross-product/feature integration competitors could use. (Have you looked at Google integration lately, for say G+, which is being bolted onto pretty much every other product or service the company offers?)

    The software giant settled its US antitrust case in November 2001, but the judge didn't approve it for another year. The consent decree had a term of five years, but oversight continued much longer for many reasons -- Microsoft's reluctance to share server protocol information among them.

    Two years ago next month, I called 2000-2009 "Microsoft's decade of shattered dreams". Antitrust oversight, and its impact on what Microsoft leadership decided they could do, negatively hobbled effective decision making. There were many false starts and second guessing that put the company at huge competitive disadvantage.

    Microsoft is free to compete again and to integrate as freely as Apple and Google do today. Already, based on the Windows 8 Developer Preview, integration is a top-design priority, which can be seen from inclusion of antivirus and tight integration with Live services. Microsoft will bring Kinect to Windows next year. I'm not sure the company would have done so at all, or with surety, if antitrust watchdogs were in the room.

    Finally, Microsoft is free to truly innovate again.

    Photo Credit: Karen Roach/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/23/_The_Next_Big_Thing__isn_t_iPhone'

    'The Next Big Thing' isn't iPhone

    Publié: novembre 23, 2011, 5:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last night I watched Samsung TV commercial "The Next Big Thing is Already Here" about a dozen times on YouTube. I'm a sucker for good advertising, and this one is clever to a punch and already is viral among tech blogs. Apple used to make adverts like this one -- inventive, clever, memorable -- now they're staid and boring. Anyone remember Apple's hugely successful "Switchers" and "Get a Mac" marketing campaigns from the last decade? This new TV spot is a hilarious poke at yokels waiting in line for the newest iPhone, all without mentioning Apple; meanwhile something better is already here -- from Samsung.

    Now before some commenter calls me anti-Apple, because I watched the commercial a dozen times and it snarks the iPhone cult, my interest is bigger. The advert is clever in so many ways, particularly how it uses jump cuts or little touches make it real. Example: When the iPhone line waiters ask to see a Samsung Galaxy S II, the owner holds it up. Someone in the line leans forward, raises his arm and says: "Can I see it with my hands?" I've embedded the long version above, which isn't as tight or dramatic as the 60-second spot. There's something to be said about tighter editing, more closeups and shorter jump cuts. The 30-second edit is good, too. Update: The 15-second ad is absolutely cruel.

    "The Next Big Thing" is among the best tech ads I've seen in years. But it's not the only one recently notable, and, unsurprisingly, to sell smartphones. Last week, I praised the new commercial for the Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Galaxy Nexus. The advert is aspirational in the best ways, showing how the phone can empower you. Both commercials share a similar quality: Emphasis on the individual, over the crowd, which is startling considering how group oriented is the Millennial generation -- where sometimes it seems standing out is a crime.

    "You" is everything in marketing. The best advertising shows how product X, Y or Z makes your life better. It's part of the allure of Apple nomenclature, by the way -- the "i" products. You read iPhone, iPod or iTunes but the connotation is something bigger: I, the capital letter. When I stands alone it is capitalized and refers to you, the subject. You read iPhone but really say IPhone as in my phone. Subliminal connotations have emotional hooks that, whether people want to admit it or not, impact buying decisions. Ask yourself: How often do you buy something ultimately because it feels right?

    Circling back to this empowering the individual theme, there are other recent, excellent smartphone advertising examples. HTC's "Get Closer to Your Contacts" is another exceptional commercial. Here a female artist uses the photos of friends from the People hub of her Windows Phone to create a collage. The phone empowers her to express individual creativity from those folks most important to her: "In the right hands it brings you closer".

    The commercial's tone reminds of an older promotional for the Nokia N79. Here a fashion designer uses the phone: "My online life has to stay with me all the time". Nokia doesn't get enough credit for its marketing, that's in part because there's so little of it in the United States and tech bloggers and journalists here are too obsessed with iPhone. Nokia marketing is exceptionally good, and it's one of the major reasons for the mobile device maker's global success. Nokia's challenge now is to reignite the kind of marketing for Windows Phone that put Symbian into the hands of billions.

    By comparison, Apple advertising, while still aspirational, feels all the same. There's a dryness to commercials promoting Siri on iPhone or iPad 2 benefits. They're not bad adverts, just not as clever or memorable as those from the last decade. Meanwhile, competitors do much better. I can't emphasize the importance of that. I remember, for example, when only Apple advertised MP3 players, so is it any wonder people bought iPod when seemingly the only choice? Apple is renown for its marketing, but that's an advantage competitors are chipping away. Enjoy the embedded videos.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/23/Microsoft_states_the_obvious_about_Kinect_for_Windows'

    Microsoft states the obvious about Kinect for Windows

    Publié: novembre 23, 2011, 1:27am CET par Joe Wilcox

    There's going to be a controller. Enough people inquired about the obvious that Craig Eisler, Kinect for Windows general manager, felt obliged to answer.

    "We’ve been asked whether there will also be new Kinect hardware especially for Windows", he blogs today. "The answer is yes; building on the existing Kinect for Xbox 360 device, we have optimized certain hardware components and made firmware adjustments which better enable PC-centric scenarios".

    Like, why wouldn't there be Kinect hardware for Windows?

    "Simple changes include shortening the USB cable to ensure reliability across a broad range of computers and the inclusion of a small dongle to improve coexistence with other USB peripherals", he writes. Wow. I'm simply quaking at the keyboard.

    "Of particular interest to developers will be the new firmware which enables the depth camera to see objects as close as 50 centimeters in front of the device without losing accuracy or precision, with graceful degradation down to 40 centimeters", he continues. Oh? Do tell more.

    "'Near Mode' will enable a whole new class of 'close up' applications, beyond the living room scenarios for Kinect for Xbox 360", Eisler explains. "This is one of the most requested features from the many developers and companies participating in our Kinect for Windows pilot program and folks commenting on our forums, and we’re pleased to deliver this, and more, at launch".

    Microsoft released the Kinect SDK for Windows beta in June. Commercial availability is expected in early 2012. Shall we guess Consumer Electronics Show in January? That's what I expect. Timing and venue are appropriate.

    Meanwhile Eisler will be busy with another project: "The Kinect Accelerator". According to Microsoft:

    Through this program, Microsoft is supporting entrepreneurs, engineers and innovators like you to bring to life a wide range of business ideas that leverage the limitless possibilities Kinect enables. Following a competitive screening process, ten finalists will be chosen for this unique three month incubation program running from March to May, 2012 in Seattle, WA.

    Accelerator resonates with Microsoft's recently debuted "Kinect Affect" marketing campaign promoting the natural user interface technology outside of gaming, particularly for business purposes.

    It's preparation for the big Kinect for Windows push that could dramatically change how businesses and individuals interact with their computers. No one should underestimate just how Kinect could revitalize the Windows PC's importance -- transforming it from that box people take for granted into something quite wondrous. You don't believe me? Watch some of the Kinect Effect videos and see how the technology is already changing lives -- all without the new hardware or final SDK.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/22/Non_iPad_buyers__Think_Different_'

    Non-iPad buyers 'Think Different'

    Publié: novembre 22, 2011, 6:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    "Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo."

    That's some of the text from Apple's famous "Think Different" marketing campaign from 1997 to 2002. The promotional likened Apple and Mac users to legendary individuals who stepped outside the mainstream, who expressed their independence and defied convention. Today, iPad is the status quo for tablets. What irony. Buyers of 1.2 million non-iPad tablets, sold at US retail, are the individualists -- the rebels who dared buy something else.

    "Seventy-six percent of consumers who purchased a non-Apple tablet didn’t even consider the iPad, an indication that a large group of consumers are looking for alternatives, and an opportunity for the rest of the market to grow their business", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, says.

    Today, NPD released non-iPad sales figures for January through October. Retailers -- brick and mortar and online -- sold 1.2 million tablets, generating $415 million in revenue. It's a puny amount compared to iPad. NPD didn't release iPad sales figures, but they're easy enough to figure. Globally, during third calendar quarter, Apple sold in about 10 days as many iPads as all other tablets combined at US retail for the first 10 months of the year.

    "I think the biggest takeaway is how weak the non-iPad tablet market really is" , Baker told me today. "The HP Touchpad was on the market for what 6 weeks and was still the best-selling tablet for the whole year, even with the crazy pricing. That is still a pretty damning statement".

    Yes, HP is non-iPad market share leader, bolstered by summer's $99 TouchPad fire sale. The PC maker discontinued the tablet after just six weeks of sales. Non-iPad market share leaders:

    • HP -- 17 percent
    • Samsung -- 16 percent
    • ASUS -- 10 percent
    • Motorola -- 9 percent
    • Acer -- 9 percent

    Non-iPad sales doubled from second to third quarter and tripled from first to second quarter. HP's fire sale, in late August, lifted the category during first half of the year.

    Light the Kindle Fire

    Looking ahead, "of course the sales of the non-iPad tablets are likely to be considerably higher for the holiday", Baker told me. I asked about Kindle Fire, which went on sale last week.

    "Don't forget the Fire is benefiting not just from price but holiday timing -- at $199 it is a good gift and with a huge percent of iPads sold as gifts last year I suspect the same will be true about the Fire and the rest of the tablet market".

    My wife received Kindle Fire last week as an early Christmas present. For days I've repeatedly heard: "Wow". "Amazing". "This is amazing". I asked for her quick review and she responded: "Kindle Fire is to the Kindle [reader] I got for last Christmas what the abacus is to the calculator". She had no interest in iPad 2, by the way; she's among NPD's 76 percent.

    In late September, Baker and I discussed a looming tablet price war for the holidays. But there's no clear sign yet that will happen. Tablet is the "one category I am not seeing any evidence of that yet", he told me. "Not sure why except that no one wants to upset the apple cart and they aren't comfortable with the demand that they can generate by being extra low prices".

    Much may depend on how well $199 Kindle Fire does as holiday sales pick up following Black Friday. Then there is iPad. I asked Baker: "And Apple has demand such it doesn't need to lower prices?" He answered: "Nope. There's no reason for them to do anything".

    By the way, NPD does with tablets what yesterday I said Canalys should do: Categorize tablets by form factor. Canalys considers tablets as PCs. Gartner and IDC break out media tablets from those running Windows, which count as PCs. NPD does it right, by counting all slate form factors, even those running Windows, as tablets. That said, Windows tablets sales are negligible, according to NPD.

    Circling back to where I started. Who are some of these individualists who "Think Different" about tablets. Betanews reader Jack Mabry is "enjoying my Acer Iconia A500. It has the entertainment side covered, and I've found it very useful in meetings for taking notes".

    Reader shy_one "bought an Asus Transformer...it's nice -- does almost all that I want it to and my cousin's 4-year and 7-year olds love to play with it when I come over, and the keyboard/extra battery pack makes sure I have enough power to go a couple days between charges".

    Do you own a tablet, and it's not iPad? I'd love your story, either here in comments or by email (joe at betanews dot com). What you bought, why and why not iPad?

    Photo Credit: Pixel 4 Images/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/21/Would_you_pay__299_for_Google_Chromebook_'

    Would you pay $299 for Google Chromebook?

    Publié: novembre 21, 2011, 9:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    "Beginning this week Acer and Samsung Chromebooks will be available starting at $299", Googler Venkat Rapaka blogs today. Is that price low enough for you or perhaps as present for a relative? For $100 more than Kindle Fire, you get a keyboard, double the storage (16GB vs 8GB), similar cloud connected benefits, comparable battery life and bigger display. Well, I had to ask.

    If you want to answer, fire off in comments. This is a serious question. Because there is a right price, one making Chromebook an appealing alternative to a new laptop or tablet. Before the price cuts, Acer and Sumsung models started at 349.99. Some commenter surely will claim price cuts are sure sign Chromebooks aren't selling well. Oh yeah? Consider this: Samsung is releasing a black Series 5 Chromebook (to go alongside grey and white ones) and prices fall for lots of reasons, such as economies of scale when products sell well, lower component prices or holiday prices. Reasons aside, is $299 low enough for you?

    Amazon already lists the Acer AC700-1099 Chromebook for $299.99. Specs: 11.6-inch LED-backlit display (1366 x 768 resolution; 16:9 aspect ratio; Intel Atom N570 dual-core processor; 2GB DDR RAM; 16GB SSD; Graphics Media Accelerator 3150; 1.3MP HD Webcam with noise cancelling microphone; two USB 2.0 ports; 4-in-1 memory card slot; HDMI port; WiFi N; and Chrome OS. The Acer Chromebook is about the same size as MacBook Air and some Windows PC ultrabooks, but selling for $700 and $600-$700 less, respectively.

    Chromebooks run Google's ChromeOS, which heavily relies on the cloud but not exclusively. Main benefits include:

    • Fast start-up (about 13 seconds)
    • Near instant recovery from sleep (about 1 second)
    • Ease of setup -- just log into Google account -- that's it
    • Long battery life, which for my Chromebook was 8 hours or more

    I got a taste of this alternate computing universe when during August and September a Samsung Series 5 Chromebook was my primary PC early on and exclusive one for most of the two months. In early October, I gave up my Chromebook experiment, switching to the delightful (and considerably faster) Lenovo ThinkPad T420s. But others carry the torch. Ian Betteridge is near the end of his own 30-day Chromebook adventure.

    My 70 year-old mom continues to use a Chromebook, for nearly four months now. I've heard no complaints, but no praise either. Her G5 iMac developed graphics problems. I couldn't afford to buy her a new Mac, and there was a spare Chromebook in my bedroom closet. I wouldn't have spent $449.99 on a Samsung Chromebook (price at the time) over a low-cost laptop. But I would consider $299.

    BetaNews reader S. Deemer is a Chromebook user: "I travel a lot by motorcycle, and the Chromebook makes a perfect travelling companion, with long battery life and, for the odd time when no Wi-Fi is available, 3G data connectivity without paying extra for a monthly plan. I have never used up the entire 100mb monthly 3G data allocation".

    Matt Plemmons is another, in September writing: "I have been using my chromebook exclusively for 3 months now. While there where some question marks in the beginning, frequent updates have remedied most buggyness and with the onset of offline Gmail, Calendar and Docs I see this product really blooming".

    Commenter boby_k doesn't share the enthusiasm: "I have Chrome machine that Google sent me. I dont like the hardware and with 100MB plan, it is almost useless. I keep it in my car for occasional use. Wireless connection takes too long and is not ready when browser comes up most of the time".

    Now the question comes back to you. Is $299 low enough for you to buy Chromebook? Please answer in comments.

    Editor's Note: Kindle Fire memory corrected.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/21/Okay__let_me_get_this_straight__Apple_is_gonna_be_No._1_PC_vendor_next_year_with_5%_market_share_'

    Okay, let me get this straight, Apple is gonna be No. 1 PC vendor next year with 5% market share?

    Publié: novembre 21, 2011, 5:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    US Thanksgiving is this Thursday, and their friends across the ocean have something for the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists to be grateful for: Canalys predictions that the Mac maker will be the No. 1 PC vendor next year -- gasp, possibly during holiday 2011. "HP and Apple will fight for top position in Q4, but Apple may have to wait for the release of iPad 3 before it passes HP", Canalys analyst Tim Coulling says.

    It's an amazing proclamation, considering that IDC put Mac global share at a puny 5.2 percent in third quarter. You'll read lots of gleeful headlines today about how Apple is going to strip HP's britches, then leap to the top spot. Canalys' magical prediction is all about counting. Is a tablet a PC? The UK-based analysis firm says yes, and adding iPad to the mix pulls Apple up from the doldrums to the stratosphere.

    I first asked the "Is Apple No. 1?" question that Canalys answers now in August 2010. The answer is hugely important and has far-reaching implications for Apple, perceptions about its future and how shareholders react in the early post-Steve Jobs era. Apple's a nobody at 5 percent, but the new kid in town if snatching HP's PC crown. Then there are the blogs and news stories pushed by the Apple Fanclub.

    What's a PC?

    Everything hinges on definition, which isn't as clear now as when I posed it 15 months ago. Gartner and IDC classify iPad and its Android competitors as media tablets, separate from PCs. They distinguish desktop operating systems like Windows from Android and iOS. Windows running on the Samsung Series 7 slate is a PC, while iPad is not, by their definition. Are they right?

    Two factors muddle Gartner and IDC definitions: iOS 5 and Windows 8 on ARM processors. IDC defines a media tablet as a slate device ranging in size from 5 inches to as much as 14 inches and running so-called lightweight operating systems, such as iOS and Android OS, on ARM processors. The analyst firm classifies tablets running Windows on x86 processors as PCs. Windows 8 Metro will run on ARM processors, so will they not be PCs then? That's a definition question Gartner and IDC must address.

    Then there is iOS 5 to consider. Over six months and several posts, I asked if Apple's tablet is a PC. February 2011 I answered: "iPad is not a PC". From the post:

    As long as iPad requires a PC for activation and to receive operating system updates, it is a dependent device. Apple's tablet requires a PC to fully function. By comparison, I would rank the new generation of Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablets as PCs, based on function. Multi-core processors, improved graphic performance and Honeycomb will make tablets like the HTC Flyer, Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 PC replacements for many buyers. Android has never been dependent on PCs. Account activation takes place from the device and all updates are sent over the air -- that is directly to the smartphone or tablet.

    By the "it's dependent" reasoning, Canalys and DisplaySearch are both wrong to classify iPad as a PC. Many Betanews readers have expressed similar opinion in comments, and they're due some recognition.

    Uh-oh, iOS 5 and iCloud pretty much liberate iPad from its PC dependence. Users can sync to the cloud and receive updates over the air. There's still strong argument that iPad is a PC-companion device but it's no longer wholly dependent on personal computers. But is it liberated? You tell me. I haven't used iPad since iOS 5's release. Is activation also OTA, or is a PC required? It's a small thing but factors into the definition.

    But is that enough distinction? My wife's Kindle doesn't require a PC, but that surely doesn't make the e-reader one. Windows on ARM makes definitions murkier than iOS 5, I think. Some people will argue that if iPad replaces a personal computer then it's a PC. I disagree. CD players replaced vinyl record players but they're not counted as the same thing. They're different devices recokened separately. Same is true of VHS and DVD players. Replacement doesn't make one thing the other.


    Is iPad a PC?

    Hell, not even Apple counts iPad as a PC. Tablet and Mac sales are separate. Before his death Jobs spoke enthusiastically about the post-PC era, and he referred to iPad and iPhone in that context. Not even Apple's then CEO regards iPad as PC -- if it's a product leading the post-PC era. From that perspective, Canalys shouldn't classify iPad a PC, like smartphones aren't counted as PCs.

    The definition really should apply the other way around -- tablet classification needs changing. Windows slates should count as tablets not as PCs based on form factor and function -- and why not, then, those running x86 processors. The classification is more sensible and, by that reasoning, means that iPad is not a PC and it's outrageous for Canalys to claim that Apple will be No. 1 next year based on current shipment growth trends. Similarily, I shouldn't call Android tablets PCs, either. So I correct myself. If iPads aren't PCs, neither are Android tablets.

    By the way, Canalys refers to tablets as "pads" and predicts 59 million unit shipments for all 2011 -- 22 million in fourth quarter. I won't state PC market share for obvious reasons.

    Do you agree? Is iPad not a PC? Please answer in comments below and take to poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/20/You_oppose_Congress__kill_free_speech_on_the_Internet_Act'

    You oppose Congress' kill free speech on the Internet Act

    Publié: novembre 20, 2011, 9:48pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The results are in to BetaNews poll "US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?" Among the 2,560 people who responded to the question (so far), 63 answered "Yes". Who are these people? I'm surprised it's that many. Only 95.43 percent answered "No" to legislation with wide bipartisan support and likelihood of passing both Houses in some form.

    "Whenever you hear about something having 'bipartisan' support, hold onto your wallet and don't pick up the soap" writes commenter psycros. My own reaction is equally strong, and the proposed bills are supposed to protect me. I'm a victim. Everyday people steal copyrighted content BetaNews paid to produce and posts it for their own profit -- if nothing else feeding off the Google economy. PROTECT IP and SOPA are supposed to protect my writing and livelihood as a copyrighted content producer. No thanks.

    To recap, Senators introduced PROTECT IP in May and House representatives did likewise with SOPA in October. Either bill would give the government broad powers to take down websites, seize domains and compel search engines from indexing these properties. Little more than a request from copyright holders is necessary. It's essentially guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation that would punish the many for the sins of the few, while disrupting the fundamental attributes that made the Internet so successful and empowered so many individuals or businesses to accomplish so much. (Review the bills: PROTECT IP. SOPA.)

    Government's Facebook Killer

    Based on my reading of both proposed bills, some of the most disrupting and socially transforming websites/cloud services wouldn't exist today if enacted, say, in 2005. YouTube, which opened to the public in November 2005 and Google purchased 11 months later, could have been killed in its infancy because users posted copyrighted content they didn't own. The bills would have empowered the US Justice Department to seize the website and its domain, potentially stifling a new industry.

    Americans watched an average 19.5 hours of online video in September 2011, according to comScore. Google sites, mostly from YouTube, handily topped the list, with 161.4 million unique viewers. Second ranked VEVO: 57.3 million. Number of videos watched, respectively, between the two sites: 18.6 billion and 748 million. Also in September, number of video ads reached more than 50 percent of the US online population -- a milestone. But the video sites and burgeoning ad market behind them likely wouldn't exist today if government, at the behest of Hollywood, seized YouTube and other video sites in the late Noughties.

    Then there's Facebook, the most socially disruptive and empowering website/service to come along in a generation. Thirteen months ago, writing for The New Republic, Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig observed that many "The Social Network" reviewers overlooked the movie's most important character: The Internet, and the ease with which it allowed Mark Zuckerberg to create Facebook. Lessig uses the founding of Nantucket Nectars as vehicle for comparing the old and new worlds:

    At each step after the first, along the way to giving their customers what they wanted, the two Toms had to ask permission from someone. They needed permission from a manufacturer to get into his plant. Permission from a distributor to get into her network. And permission from stores to get before the customer...

    Zuckerberg faced no such barrier. For less than $1,000, he could get his idea onto the Internet. He needed no permission from the network provider. He needed no clearance from Harvard to offer it to Harvard students. Neither with Yale, or Princeton, or Stanford. Nor with every other community he invited in. Because the platform of the Internet is open and free, or in the language of the day, because it is a 'neutral network' a billion Mark Zuckerbergs have the opportunity to invent for the platform.

    If either PROTECT IP or SOPA was law, Zuckerberg would need permission, and with or without it he could easily be shut down by Harvard or government intervention, simply because Facebook users post or even link to copyrighted content.


    US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?

    Guilt by Association

    Still, piracy, whether or not intentional, is widespread. I won't state figures here, believing most are overstated by groups like Business Software Alliance that assume most or every pirated created work would be a sale -- that's unlikely.

    Commenter Rsharp20 writes: "Piracy is a problem, and the only people who do not want such a bill are the people who do pirate". I don't pirate anything, but I oppose the bills, even though they would, in theory, protect me from pirates.

    Nicole F. sees the situation differently:

    To those who support the bill, mainly those that think that the only people opposing this bill are pirating individuals or that the bill has merit for its plans against pirating: The written intentions are good, but the problem with this bill is that is so vague and gives corporations way too much power.

    Rather than holding the individual accountable for piracy, it holds the entire website accountable. This bill gives corporations the power to take down said websites for even one comment, post, etc. that they deem inappropriate/illegal (which, might I add, would be the responsibility of the individual, not the website itself -- so long as it clearly states legal policies in line with the gov to users and requires that they adhere to them).

    This means that massive sites whose primary function are for social networking and sharing of user-created media, not for piracy, can be shut down completely (just because of a few idiots that would risk the whole website and all its users to get some videos or music for free). This is a HUGE threat to freedom of speech since many of these sites are where ideas are expressed and shared, where inspiration happens and movements begin.

    In reviewing the bills, I take away similar impression. So it's not just that Mark Zuckerberg couldn't create Facebook, it wouldn't be sustainable because of what people post or link to. Does the government have the legal authority to take down sites that link to others promoting illegal activities like drug trafficking? But, hey, it's okay to seize sites and domains because of Harry Potter?

    Protect Copyrights or Free Speech?

    But there's another way to look at both bills, as BetaNews commenter scophi observes:

    It's about shutting down major websites that are intentionally mass pirating software, products, medical prescriptions, stolen identities, etc. It's an effort to get companies to stop doing business with known traffickers. It's about closing down available outlets for pirates/thieves to trade their stolen goods. It's an attempt to stop mass criminal activity on the web.

    Additionally, IP is not over-protected here. If anything, it's the opposite, given our country's economic and political upbringings. That's why the bill is called PROTECT IP, because there's so little of it right now. The bill is looking to expand IP protection.

    Without IP, there is little motivation for R&D, authorship, or marketing. It's the basis for pharmaceutical companies, technology patents, musical groups, artists, engineers, writers, and virtually any field where innovation is possible. America is built on IP and ownership of ideas...The right to self-ownership and the ability to profit from your own efforts is the foundation of modern civilization.

    Freedom of speech and free flow of information also are foundations of American civilization. In the late 1700s, a young United States government set up boundaries for copyrights and patents, granting limited, short-term monopolies over creations/inventions before they become public domain. Let the inventors profit for a time, but allow all society to later benefit. There appears to be some conflict between free speech rights and those protecting copyrights. If you've got time, Stanford Technology Law Review paper "A Free Speech Theory of Copyright", by Steven Horowitz, is worthwhile reading.

    My question to scophi and others; Isn't Congress proposing to use a bazooka to kill mosquitoes? Should all mosquitoes be exterminated?

    In a February 2011 interview, writer Neil Gaiman offers startling perspective about online piracy: "Places where I was being pirated, particularly Russia -- people were translating my stuff into Russian and spreading it out into the world -- I was selling more and more books. People were discovering me through being pirated, and then they were going out and buying the real books. When a new book would come out in Russia, it would sell more and more copies".

    Another example predates the YouTube and Hulu era of streaming content. Back in 2004-2005, NBC Universal's Syfy (previously known as SciFi) network broke into limited streaming after observing the strange benefits of pirating. Mindjack's May 2005 story on BitTorrent trading of "Battlestar Galactica" episodes is a harrowing tale of piracy boosting TV viewership. "Battlestar Galactica" aired in the United States before the United Kingdom, making its way to BitTorrent in the between time. Mark Pesce explains the outcome:

    While you might assume the SciFi Channel saw a significant drop-off in viewership as a result of this piracy, it appears to have had the reverse effect: the series is so good that the few tens of thousands of people who watched downloaded versions told their friends to tune in on January 14th, and see for themselves. From its premiere, 'Battlestar Galactica' has been the most popular program ever to air on the SciFi Channel, and its audiences have only grown throughout the first series. Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about 'Battlestar Galactica.'

    NBC Universal and Syfy responded by streaming select "Battlestar Galactica" episodes by summer 2005. Full-episode TV streaming was pretty novel in early 2005. Would it exist today at all, if PROTECT IP or SOPA was law six years ago?

    Many opponents argue that both bills would curtail free speech, empowering the US government, or even big business backing it, to censor unwanted information online. Electronic Frontier Foundation says "this legislation invites Internet security risks, threatens online speech, and hampers Internet innovation".

    Perhaps I'm naive questioning that as overt outcome. But it's easy to see unintentional consequences, because of the potential impact on social networks that Nicole F. observes and, frankly, the way the World Wide Web has operated since its conception more than two decades ago. Still, both bills would allow the take down of websites and seizure of domains without much due process. As I asserted earlier, it's guilty-until-proven-innocent legislation.

    "Once these powers are granted they will be difficult if not impossible to take away", Betanews commenter Dirtanian warns. "Though this result has been inevitable since the dawn of the Internet. The web is like the wild west and there are those with power that feel it must be tamed by any means necessary".

    Photo Credit: conrado/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/19/Ring_in_the_holidays_with__A_Charlie_Brown_Christmas__for_tablets'

    Ring in the holidays with "A Charlie Brown Christmas" for tablets

    Publié: novembre 19, 2011, 6:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday I coughed up $6.99 for Loud Crow Interactive's digital pop-up remake of the Charles Schultz holiday classic. "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is available for Android and iOS from the Amazon, Apple and Google mobile apps stores -- for smartphones and tablets. The digital book delights, is more than worth 7 bucks and demonstrates how tablet apps/books should utilize the touchscreen. "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is the must-have addition to any tablet you gift. Tablets top this year's holiday wish lists.

    But "A Charlie Brown Christmas" also reveals a problematic similarity to the early PC era: Application incompatibilities across operating systems. Schultz's remade classic is available from the three aforementioned stores, and buyers will have to cough up for at least two platforms, if, say, Junior has Android phone and Janie iPad and both want the same digital app/book. They can purchase from Android Market but will have to again at Apple's App Store. Buyers pay twice if they want what functionally is the same content for two different platforms. This isn't a new problem, but visible example because of price (compared to, say, a 99-cent game). Loud Crow's "The Tale of Peter Rabbit" is available from the same three stores and Nook, too. The situation presents hardships for some developers and consumers.

    From a couple different perspectives, nothing is radically new here. Microsoft sells separate Mac and Windows versions of Office. Buyers pay twice for separate platforms, even if the software for one provides licenses for multiple computers. That said, some other products are cross-platform and usable on Windows or the Mac, such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (although, under ToS aggreement, not at the same time when singly licensed). Until Steve Jobs' disdain for Adobe Flash in early 2009, the technology stood at the forefront enabling developers to provide compelling digital content and games across platforms. HTML5 promises to revive some of this capability, but that doesn't help you if looking to buy Shazam Encore for Android smartphone and iOS tablet and pay just once.

    There's another way to look at this, and it's also a defense -- that the situation is status quo: Consumers have always paid for multiple platforms. So dad when younger bought The Beatles White album in vinyl, 8-track and cassette formats. Later, daughter separately paid for the CD and digital remastered downloads from Apple. Same applies to movies, going from VHS tape to DVD to Blu-ray and digital download. Consumers long have paid for the same content multiple times. In each of those examples, however, the technology changed. Vinyl records and CDs are different formats, use different hardware and arguably improves from one to the other.

    With "A Charlie Brown Christmas", buyers get essentially the same product, regardless of platform. They pay up -- a platform tax, so to speak -- for having Android phone and iOS on tablet, or, on Android, Samsung Galaxy S II and Kindle Fire or Nook. Purchasing from one Android store doesn't ensure compatibility across them -- and that's ignoring the fragmentation issue. Vinyl, CD or cassette is one format that works across multiple devices from many manufacturers.

    It's a New Classic

    I raise these concerns here and now because "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is classic remake of a classic story that hundreds of millions of people watched on television for more than 50 years. The digital book/app is interactive, like a pop-up paper title, but adapted to touchscreens. It's sure to delight adults and kids, and if other Baby Boomers and Gen-Xers are like me they'll awash with memories.

    My sisters and I gathered before the television every December to watch the "A Charlie Brown Christmas" special. Dolly Madison sponsored the airing, which frustrated me. The pastry company advertised Zingers -- coconut and strawberry sauce covered Twinkie-like cakes -- with character Snoppy on the packaging. But, argh, no stores sold Zingers in Northern Maine. This and other memories rose as I immersed in Loud Crow's delightful digital book.

    In June 2010, nearly six months after asserting no one needs a tablet, I admitted to being wrong about iPad. I didn't backtrack because of sales figures, reviews or predictions about success. I changed direction after buying iPad and seeing from a content consumption perspective its immersive qualities. I wrote then: "Apple's tablet is a sit down and focus device, as much because of size and shape as screen and user interface. The totality -- physical design and software benefits -- is immersion".

    "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is wonderfully immersive and demonstrates the potency of touch. As I've long repeated: The most natural user interface is you. Human beings are tool users. We're tactile. We manipulate the world using fingers and hands. Go into a store this Black Friday and observe shoppers. They look and then they touch.

    I purchased the interactive digital book from Android Market and consumed it on Motorola XOOM. iPad isn't the only immersive tablet out there. I really like XOOM more than iPad or Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 for reasons I can't identify. XOOM is a brick compared to the other two tablets. But there's something that, for me, is better using XOOM.

    Last night, I shopped the local Fry's Electronics looking for a case to protect the XOOM and got a big surprise. Besides iPad, I saw more than a dozen tablets on display. But when looking for a case, I found just a few for any other tablet but iPad. And there were iPad cases everywhere -- down and around several isles. I'd be stunned if any less than 95 percent of the 40 or so different cases I counted was for iPad. Now what does that tell you? :)

    Editor's note: "A Charlie Brown Christmas" is wonderful consumed on smartphones, too. Before any commenters complain, I put tablets only in headline for simplicity and shortness.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/18/Microsoft_expands_epic_retail_war_with_Apple'

    Microsoft expands epic retail war with Apple

    Publié: novembre 18, 2011, 7:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's grand opening weekend for Microsoft's 14th retail store, and first on the East Coast, at Tysons Corner Center in McLean, Va. The company pulled back the curtain yesterday at 9:30 am ET, just down the way from Apple's first-ever retail shop.

    I was there when Apple Store opened in May 2001 and regret missing Microsoft Store's debut there. I lived in the Washington, DC area for 23 years before moving to San Diego in October 2007. Tysons Corner is my favorite of the Beltway malls.

    Tysons is a good location for Microsoft and demonstrates an aggressive retail strategy. A decade ago, just as Apple opened its first shops, Gateway was in the process of shuttering hundreds of stores. Gateway's retail strategy failed for many reasons, but location tops them. Gateway chose outlying areas to save on real estate costs, and most stores stood isolated. Apple chooses high-traffic malls and urban areas, which cost more but also can generate more sales and, of course, revenues. Likewise, Microsoft picks high-traffic malls.

    Microsoft opened the first two stores in Arizona and California in October 2009. The fourth opened here in San Diego in June 2010.

    Apple Store provides valuable direct customer feedback that the company can put back into product development. Even with 14 stores, Microsoft sees similar benefits. "It's helping us transition from thinking about our customers to thinking like our customers", COO Kevin Turner says, when announcing store expansion in July. Important: "Direct customer feedback from the stores". Microsoft plans to open 75 stores over the next two to three years. Apple Store tops 330 locations, with continued expansion, mostly internationally, during fiscal 2012. Microsoft has yet to make a big international push.

    Apple, Microsoft and Sony operate stores all on the same level at Tysons. Eighteen months ago, I asserted that "Apple and Microsoft stores are the future of technology retailing" -- a shift from large box shops to boutiques. Or perhaps it's a return to the past. Radio Shack helped pioneer tech boutiques decades ago. Cellular carriers have long operated singular, smaller shops. Best Buy Mobile marks the trend. Circuit City and CompUSA are years gone. Sure Best Buy and Fry's remain -- and there will always be Walmart -- but selling much more than gadgets or PCs.

    The three company stores -- Apple, Microsoft and Sony -- share similarities relevant to providing products, services and customer service:

    • Apple and Microsoft offer in-store training for using hardware, software and services.
    • All three provide in-store tech support: Apple Genius Bar, Microsoft Answers and Sony Backstage.
    • Apple and Sony sell mostly end-to-end solutions (Sony offers some third-party software -- e.g., Windows on VAIO PCs).
    • Product categories are similar: Computing, gaming, home entertainment, mobility, photography and videography, among others.
    • Microsoft and Sony provide tools or services for personalizing products, giving them a unique touch, and they're selling points.

    But there's something important that sets these company stores apart from other tech shops. Each also sells a distinct lifestyle around their products. The Apple way, Microsoft living and Sony entertainment. Heck, Sony's shops have "style" in the name.

    Two days before Christmas last year I contrasted these lifestyles in post "Talking about Microsoft Store", which contrasted the differences between people shopping there and the Apple shop a few doors down in Fashion Valley Mall, San Diego. Apple Store was busier, and the crowd younger, with lots of individuals and couples. I observed about the other shop: "Microsoft Store is where families meet". Microsoft carries that theme foward in its exciting new "It's a great time to be a family" marketing campaign.

    Have you shopped in both Apple and Microsoft stores? Please share your experiences in comments or email joe at betanews dot com.

    Eight days before Black Friday 2011, Microsoft opens its 14th retail shop -- at Tysons Corner Center, the Washington, DC area's busiest mall.

    Eight days before Black Friday 2011, Microsoft opens its 14th retail shop -- at Tysons Corner Center, the Washington, DC area's busiest mall.

    General Counsel Brad Smith cuts the ribbon on Microsoft Store Tysons Corner. It's symbolic, as Smith also is the company's government liaison.

    General Counsel Brad Smith cuts the ribbon on Microsoft Store Tysons Corner. It's symbolic, as Smith also is the company's government liaison.

    The first shoppers flood into Microsoft Store Tysons Corner. There is another draw. The first 1,000 people through the door get tickets for Joe Jonas concert on Nov. 19, 2011.

    The first shoppers flood into Microsoft Store Tysons Corner. There is another draw. The first 1,000 people through the door get tickets for Joe Jonas concert on Nov. 19, 2011.

    Microsoft Store Tysons Corner is the company's 14th retail shop. About 75 are planned over the next two years.

    Microsoft Store Tysons Corner is the company's 14th retail shop. About 75 are planned over the next two years.

    The future of computing is touch.

    The future of computing is touch.

    A new survey by Nielsen says that 27 percent of kids 6 to 12 want an iPhone for Christmas. Perhaps someone should have asked about Windows Phone.

    A new survey by Nielsen says that 27 percent of kids 6 to 12 want an iPhone for Christmas. Perhaps someone should have asked about Windows Phone.

    Everyone gets a T-Shirt on Microsoft Store Tysons Corner's opening day.

    Everyone gets a T-Shirt on Microsoft Store Tysons Corner's opening day.

    The Tysons Corner shop is Microsoft's first East Coast location. It's also in the mall where Apple opened its first-ever store in May 2001.

    The Tysons Corner shop is Microsoft's first East Coast location. It's also in the mall where Apple opened its first-ever store in May 2001.

    Photo Credits: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/18/This_is_how_you_sell_a_smartphone'

    This is how you sell a smartphone

    Publié: novembre 18, 2011, 2:12am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Google's Galaxy Nexus TV spot is simply exceptional. Good advertising is aspirational, and the 60-second commercial is every bit. Something else, and this is particularly true for gadgets: Good marketing emphasizes benefits, not features.

    Sales started today in Europe, and I'm feeling oh-so cheated here on the other side of the Atlantic. Where's my Ice Cream Sandwich?

    If you've got the Galaxy Nexus, I'd like hear about it. Please share in comments below. Or if interested in writing a review email joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/17/Your_kid_wants_iPad_2_for_christmas'

    Your kid wants iPad 2 for christmas

    Publié: novembre 17, 2011, 10:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    What? You expected something more reasonably priced, given the recession? Bwhahaha. You're gonna be Grinch if you give anything less. Today, Nielsen released its holiday wish survey for kids ages 6 to 12. It's what they want to buy in the next six months, but Santa comes sooner.

    Holiday shopping for school-aged pre-teens isn't what it used to be. Bicycles, train sets, Barbies, Hello Kitty goodies aren't good enough for the youngest Millennials. Forty-four percent want iPads, up from 31 percent last holiday. I guess not enough six-to-twelves got Apple tablets last year.

    At a starting price of $499, mom and dad will have to really put out to meet the wish list. Say, kids, the economy sucks and Santa laid off half the elves. Perhaps you should go halfsies on that new iPad.

    Meanwhile, 30 percent of six-to-twelves want iPod touch and 27 percent iPhone -- like you're going to pay $15 to 25 bucks a month so your second grader can have the mandatory data plan. A year ago, more kiddies wanted new computers (29 percent) than iPhones.

    Still, 25 percent want a tablet other than iPad. I'd love to know how Nielsen reasons it can got meaningful data asking six year-olds about non-iPads.

    Among old folks, those 13 and older, iPad appeals, too -- not as much but more than a year ago. iPad topped the list, but with 24 percent want-to-haves compared to 18 percent in late 2010. Computer and e-reader tie at 18 percent and TV set and non-iPad tablet at 17 percent.

    Well, hell, more kiddies want more Apple stuff than the grups.

    Two weeks ago, my colleague Ed Oswald argued that Apple's future is set because the brand is popular among Millennials. Top three items on the 6-to-12 wish list are Apple products.

    Among the older group those wanting iPhone or another smartphone are close -- 15 percent and 14 percent, respectively.

    What does your kid want this holiday, or you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/17/Shortmail_makes_iOS_debut'

    Shortmail makes iOS debut

    Publié: novembre 17, 2011, 7:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Shortmail is now available for iPhone, tapping into capabilities from iOS 5. The service brings Twitter concepts to email, limiting messages to 500 characters (It's 140 for Twitter). Startup 410Labs took the wraps off cloud service Shortmail in June. The iOS app debuted on November 16.

    On the web, users can claim their shortmail address by logging into their Twitter account. "Using the Twitter integration in iOS 5 (which is required), we instantly convert your Twitter accounts into Shortmail accounts. No hassle, no signups, no passwords. It 'just works'", says 401Labs CEO Dave Troy.

    Twitter account log-in/tie-in simplifies setup -- "no IMAP, no special configuration required", Troy says. Unsurprisingly, Shortmail for iPhone uses iOS push to notify users of new messages.

    Shortmail has been available on Android and iOS via the built-in email clients. Different now is the dedicated iOS app.

    "Shortmail is all about communicating with people and puts each new message in its proper place", Troy says. "More like text messaging, less like email – still compatible with any email address!"

    Shortmail for iOS is free and is available in 16 languages: English, Bokmål, Norwegian, Chinese, Dutch, Esperanto, French, German, Persian, Portuguese, Russian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian and Vietnamese.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/17/Five_reasons_to_quit_XP_for_Windows_7__contest_winners_'

    Five reasons to quit XP for Windows 7 [contest winners]

    Publié: novembre 17, 2011, 1:51am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last in a series. I've got a box full of Microsoft mice cluttering up the living room, and my wife begging please to get rid of them. So with that pressure, I must finally announce winners of our "Five Reasons to Quit Windows XP" contest. My apologies for the delay. Winner for the Windows Phone 7 contest will come quicker.

    Before continuing, I offer heartfelt thanks to Microsoft's hardware PR team for providing the mice five lucky winners will receive. In appreciation, let's plug Microsoft's "The Art of Touch" contest. Click the link to create online art, which I can say from trying works better with some kind of touch device. According to Microsoft:

    Each week from November 10, 2011 to February 4, 2012, one lucky artist will win an Art of Touch prize package. The prizes change from week to week and include free Touch Mouse products, laptops, and cool swag imprinted with the winner’s artwork. You might see your design on anything from headphones to a skateboard.

    Their prizes are better than mine. But, hey, winners, these are great mice. Please enjoy them.

    Our panel of judges failed in its quest to balance the most serious reasons with the funny ones, in part because none of the former stood out. We couldn't find one compelling enough among them, which is why gthe delay announcing winners. Our panel wanted to award prizes to both kinds, but the number of humorous responses was too many to ignore.

    So, here's what we did. Our panel narrowed down the best answers until we had five reasons we liked more than the others. Among them, we awarded prizes by chance. We used a polyhedral dice from my old Dungeons & Dragons game -- yes, there was role playing before the Internet and Xbox 360 -- to award prizes randomly.

    The winners have 7 days -- until 11:59 pm ET, November 23 -- to claim their prizes. I'll mail them within 24 hours of notification. We will need to verify identities so that someone else doesn't step forward and snatch your prize. Unclaimed prizes will go the runners' up. Please email joe at betanews dot com.

    Now the five reasons you should give up XP and upgrade to Windows 7:

    1. "It's simple math: 2012 is the year to upgrade to 7 (or perhaps 8). Assuming the current version of Windows is twice as good as XP (whether you choose to use performance, security or MS included desktop images as your reason doesn't matter) then 2 x 2012 = 4024. But, of course, you must divide that by the 100 users who will complain forever that you made them learn something new: 4024/100 = 40.24 So, X = 40.24, and P in hex = 50. So the mathematical formula XP, which is simply X times P, is 40.24 x 50, which equals 2012. You've reached EOL. (and that's a whole different equation scenario which will take far too much space to explain)." Winner: TechRon. Prize: Arc Mouse

    Members on our awards panel are mathematically challenged. We couldn't figure out what TechRon was communicating, but it sure reads important enough to be reason to dump XP for Windows 7. One judge simplified the reason for the rest of us: "The Mayans predicted the world ends in December 2012. If you wait, you'll miss out on Windows 7" Now that we all understood.

    2. "My 5 year-old daughter's notebook at home is Windows 7 and my desktop at work is not". Winner: Isaac Vallee. Prize: Arc Mouse.

    The panel chose this reason because we expect so many people can relate. They've moved on to Windows 7 at home, but it's XP all the way at work.

    3. "You're finally moving out of your parents' basement, but they want to keep their old PC". Winner: Jason Syth. Prize: Explorer Touch Mouse.

    Our panel divided over this one and another from Jason: "You're tired of the neighborhood children thinking that your home is a museum when they try to sneak peeks of your VCR, your rotary dial phone, your CRT monitor, and your decade-old copy of Windows XP". They're both winners, far as I'm concerned, but the policy is one prize per submitter.

    4. "I have read the Voynich Manuscript, and it states that using Windows XP will keep you from being admitted into the *real* Secret Society. (Not those fake one's we all know about.). Winner: PC_Tool. Prize: Touch Mouse (which requires Windows 7).

    I personally got tingles down my back reading this one and strange feeling of watching a really good "Fringe" episode.

    5. "I've been on hold with Windows XP Tech Support since Feb. 14, 2001". Winner: Straspey. Prize: Explorer Touch Mouse.

    We'd love to see Straspey's phone bill, and we presume it's a landline. Our panel got two laughs from this one. First: The obvious on hold since 2001. Second: After I pointed out Windows XP didn't officially launch until Oct. 25, 2001. Straspey, if you're still on hold Feb. 14, 2012, let us know. We'll send your partner or spouse flowers for Valentine's Day.

    Runners Up

    1. "Because on the 7th day God rested". David Paige.

    The panel engaged in a fierce discussion about the existence of God, which I silenced. God's existence is immaterial to the reason's validity. For many XP users, moving to Windows 7 is a leap of faith.

    2. "You are almost to the end of War and Peace, having read a chapter every time you rebooted after a monthly patch cycle". Torchwood.

    Some of us have read the epic novel, but wondered: With that much downtime every second Tuesday, aren't there better things to do -- like see a movie or attend a play?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/17/Google_Music_launches____320Kbps_MP3s__free_plays_from_Google__and_artist_direct_sales'

    Google Music launches -- 320Kbps MP3s, free plays from Google+ and artist direct sales

    Publié: novembre 17, 2011, 12:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Late this afternoon, Google Music officially launched in the United States, ending a limited beta that started in May. The service differentiates from others by emphasizing mobile devices and by providing free full song or album plays when shared. Google will sell music from Android Market, where it also offers ebooks and movies. The search and information giant encodes tunes as 320Kbps MP3s, surpassing Apple's iTunes and other digital music sellers.

    One million people participated in the invitation-only beta, streaming 2.5 hours of music every day. Google distributed 100 million free songs during the beta. Until today, Google Music was little more than a storage locker for tracks people already owned. Now users can buy tunes, too.

    Google Music streams songs to supported devices -- Android phones, Macs and Windows PCs -- running the search giant's software. Users also can "pin" songs, so they download to their phones. Google Music desktop software syncs users' personal music from their Mac or Windows PC to the cloud.

    When the music beta debuted six months ago, Google said pricing for online storage would be announced when launched. "The service will continue to be free" -- up to 20,000 songs, Google's Jamie Rosenberg explains. "Other cloud services think you have to pay for music that you already own".

    Rosenberg describes Google Music as a "full end-to-end service. It's about the cloud, about the web and about mobile".

    Users of the service will typically pay using Google Checkout. T-Mobile subscribers will soon be able to pay through their phone bills. Pricing is comparable to iTunes, for singles, typically 99 cents or $1.29. However, many albums are a little less, like AmazonMP3, at $9.49. That said, prices are variable, similar to competing stores.

    Buyers can purchase from computer or Android phone. Google Music Android app is available for immediate download, for people wanting to buy right away. The company will dispatch the updated app to Android 2.2 and above devices over the next few days, also updating Mac and Windows PC software.

    The new music service is tightly woven to Google+. It's "social in a deeply-integrated way", Rosenberg says. When Google+ users share music, recipients in that Circle get one free play from their stream. That applies to albums as well as single tracks. Normal preview length is 90 seconds. Sharing is one way to improve music discovery.

    Google has obtained rights to 13 million tracks, 8 million of which are currently available. The search and information giant hasn't secured licensing deals with all major labels. However, EMI, Sony and Universal Music Group, plus a bunch of independents, are on board. These include: Matador Records, Merge Records, Naxos, XL Recordings and Warp Records. Google claims songs from 1,000 labels are available.

    Google also is working around labels, if you will, by allowing musicians to sell directly through the store via the "Artist hub". Registration is similar to that for Android developers, and like them artists keep 70 percent of revenues. Artists set up their own music page, write the bio, set attributes and metadata for tracks and, of course, upload music. Artists also will be able to sell music alongside videos on YouTube.

    The new music service launches with some enticing exclusives. According to Andy Rubin, Google's vice president of mobile:

    • The Rolling Stones are offering an exclusive, never-before-released live concert album, Brussels Affair (Live, 1973), including a free single, “Dancing with Mr. D.” This is the first of six in an unreleased concert series that will be made available exclusively through Google Music over the coming months.
    • Coldplay fans will find some original music that’s not available anywhere else: a free, live recording of “Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall”, a five-track live EP from their recent concert in Madrid and a remix of “Paradise” by Tiësto.
    • Busta Rhymes’s first single from his upcoming album, Why Stop Now (feat. Chris Brown), is available for free.
    • Shakira’s live EP from her recent concert in Paris and her new studio single, “Je L’Aime à Mourir” are both being offered up free.
    • Pearl Jam are releasing a live album from their 9/11/11 concert in Toronto, free to Google Music users.
    • Dave Matthews Band are offering up free albums from two live concerts, including new material from Live On Lakeside.
    • Tiësto is offering up a new mix, “What Can We Do?” (feat. Anastacia), exclusively to Google Music users.

    I have about 12,000 songs uploaded to Google Music and will begin testing the officially launched service tonight. Oh, the sacrifices we make for readers!

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/16/Mozilla_pleads___Protect_the_Internet__from_Stop_Online_Piracy_Act'

    Mozilla pleads: 'Protect the Internet' from Stop Online Piracy Act

    Publié: novembre 16, 2011, 5:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    This morning, as I write, the US House of Representatives is conducting a hearing on the Stop Online Piracy Act. Senate version of the bill is PROTECT IP. Either bill would dramatically change how Americans use the Internet, by granting power to shut down sites for many reasons -- in the case of SOPA simply for linking to another site or content that may be pirated.

    I'll probably write a commentary about the bills, which their critics claim will undermine free speech that made the World Wide Web an enabler of communications, commerce and transparency. Many opponents of both bills express greater concern about the House version, SOPA, which was introduced in late October. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) introduced the Senate version, PROTECT IP, in May. The bills' motivations are simple: To extend copyright protections to the Internet.

    But the means are aggressive, leading to outcries of censorship. Mozilla calls SOPA the "first American Internet censorship system. This bill can pass. If it does, the Internet and free speech will never be the same. Join us to stop this bill...Help us stop the Internet Blacklist Legislation". The open-source developer directs supporters via a "Take Action Now" button to Electronic Frontier Foundation, which fiercely opposes the bills.

    As law, PROTECT IP would empower government law enforcement to:

    • Seize domains of sites involved in the distribution of illegally obtained copyrighted material.
    • Compel ISPs to block access to seized domains (such as from cached servers).
    • Compel credit card companies to block access to infringing sites.
    • Prevent advertising companies from selling or carrying ads for infringing sites.
    • Require search engines like Bing and Google to block access to infringing sites.

    SOPA's objectives, many of which overlap PROTECT IP's, are simply stated in this House synopsis:

    H.R. 3261 allows the Attorney General to seek injunctions against foreign websites that steal and sell American innovations and products. The bill increases criminal penalties for individuals who traffic in counterfeit medicine and military goods, which put innocent civilians and American soldiers at risk. And it improves coordination between IP enforcement agencies in the U.S.

    EFF claims:

    Under SOPA's provisions, service providers (including hosting services) would be under new pressure to monitor and police their users’ activities. While PROTECT-IP targeted sites 'dedicated to infringing activities', SOPA targets websites that simply don’t do enough to track and police infringement (and it is not at all clear what would be enough). And it creates new powers to shut down folks who provide tools to help users get access to the Internet the rest of the world sees (not just the 'US. authorized version').


    US Congress is considering two new copyright bills: PROTECT IP and Stop Online Piracy Act. Do you support them?

    The bill's supporters brush aside such criticisms. In a letter to the US House of Representatives, Floyd Abrams, a constitutional attorney with law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, writes:

    Copyright violations have never been protected by the First Amendment and have been routinely punished wherever they occur, including the Internet. This proposed legislation is not inconsistent with the First Amendment; it would protect creators of speech, as Congress has done since this Nation was founded, by combating its theft.

    Do you support either bill? Please answer in comments below and poll above. I will include some of your comments in my followup commentary.

    Photo Credit: JustASC/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/16/Arthur_Levinson_replaces_Steve_Jobs_as_Apple_Chairman'

    Arthur Levinson replaces Steve Jobs as Apple Chairman

    Publié: novembre 16, 2011, 2:56am CET par Joe Wilcox

    People die. There is a period of mourning. Business goes on. So it is that today, more than 45 days after Steve Jobs' death, Apple replaced him as chairman of the board. If there is a day to truly mark the end of the Steve Jobs era, this is it.

    Arthur Levinson, an Apple board member since 2000 and co-lead director since 2005, is the new chairman. Jobs was chairman and CEO. His successor, Tim Cook is chief executive only.

    "Art has made enormous contributions to Apple since he joined the board in 2000", Cook says. "He has been our longest serving co-lead director, and his insight and leadership are incredibly valuable to Apple, our employees and our shareholders".

    "I am honored to be named chairman of Apple’s board and welcome Bob to our team", Levinson says. "Apple is always focused on out-innovating itself through the delivery of truly innovative products that simplify and improve our lives, and that is something I am very proud to be a part of".

    Apple also appointed Disney Robert Iger to its board of directors, where he will serve on the audit board.

    "Bob and I have gotten to know one another very well over the past few years and on behalf of the entire board, we think he is going to make an extraordinary addition to our already very strong board", Cook says. "His strategic vision for Disney is based on three fundamentals: generating the best creative content possible, fostering innovation and utilizing the latest technology, and expanding into new markets around the world which makes him a great fit for Apple".

    Iger comes to Apple as Jobs leaves vacancies at both companies. Apple's cofounder joined Disney's board in 2006, following the media company's acquisition of Pixar.

    "Apple has achieved unprecedented success by consistently creating high quality, truly innovative products, and I am extremely pleased to join the board of such a wonderful company", Iger says. "Over the years, I have come to know and admire the management team, now ably led by Tim Cook, and I am confident they have the leadership and vision to ensure Apple’s continued momentum and success".

    Apple shares dipped slightly in after-hours trading, on news of the board changes, down about 1 percent. Shares closed at $388.83 per share.

    Photo Credit: 1000 Words / Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/15/Datacenter_density_is_your_destiny'

    Datacenter density is your destiny

    Publié: novembre 15, 2011, 10:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    In `80s classic movie "Back to the Future", young George McFly approaches Lorraine Baines and flubs his introduction. Meaning to say "I'm your destiny", McFly nervously utters: "I'm your density". For business of all sizes, density is their destiny as they look ahead to the post-PC era and either acquiring or outsourcing massive datacenter capacity.

    The three years ahead will be tumultuous, as businesses look to balance converging and contradictory priorities as they rush to the cloud, or sometimes not. Any organization offering connected services -- whether to employees, business to business or business to consumer -- must think about expanding density as their destiny. Should they consolidate server capacity through virtualization, build datacenters or outsource capacity to cloud providers such as Amazon and Microsoft? There is no stock answer, because businesses' different sizes, global or local reach, IT budgets or operational needs vary so vastly. But there are trends that will hugely affect decision-making.

    According to Gartner, datacenter hardware spending will reach $98.9 billion this year -- that's up 12 percent from 2010. The analyst firm predicts datacenter hardware spending to reach $106.4 billion next year and $126.2 billion in 2015.

    "Worldwide data center hardware spending will finally reach and surpass 2008 levels", Jon Hardcastle, Gartner research director, says. "Storage is the main driver for growth. Although only a quarter of data center hardware spending is on storage, almost half of the growth in spending will be from the storage market".

    Virtualization and server consolidation are inhibiting overall spending, which is good for IT organizations. Additionally, "data centers are getting more efficient, leading to higher system deployment densities and inhibiting demand for floor space", Hardcastle says.

    Future Now

    Four converging trends will affect decisions businesses of all sizes must consider when designing datacenter strategies, whether in-house, outsourced or a combination of both.

    1. Lingering global economic problems. The European Union's ongoing sovereign debt crisis is destabilizing stock markets and economies across the globe. Greece's plight has nominal impact on US banks. However, according to the Federal Reserve, US banks hold about $34 billion in Italian and Spanish bonds. Default could set off a new debt crisis, with banks once again holding bad paper -- as they did during mortgage debt debacle.

    On November 14, the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned:

    Gathering storms across the Atlantic threaten a US economy not yet recovered from the last recession. The US economy is fragile with limited ability to withstand shocks...The odds are greater than 50 percent that we will experience a recession sometime early in 2012...Prudence suggests that the fragile state of the US economy would not easily withstand turbulence coming across the Atlantic. A European sovereign debt default may well sink the United States back into recession.

    Economic uncertainty, and even return to recession, puts pressure on IT organizations to cut budgets and re-evaluate investments. Many organizations curtailed expansion starting in 2008; for reasons stated below they can't afford to put off cloud and datacenter expansion again and may benefit long term from new investments. Datcenter spending is greatest among BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China), according to Gartner, and that's not surprising given the European debt crisis.

    2. Changing worker lifestyles. The lingering economic uncertainty is posed to regain intensity, going from hurricane in 2008 to tropical storm in 2009 and, if there is government bond default in Europe, hurricane again in 2012. Many companies already cut staffs to the bone during the last recession, accelerating another trend already underway: Commingling of worker behavior and personal and professional data.

    Gone are the days when knowledge workers, as some vendors refer to them, clock 9-to-5 jobs. There was the work role in the office that was separate from the home role. But now, with laptops, smartphones and other mobile devices, roles and data converge and commingle. The worker at home might go from parent role to office manager role with a single email, text message or phone call. Staff reductions accelerate this trend.

    Businesses evaluating datacenter options should consider how to maximize worker productivity in the continuing downturn while protecting sensitive data. Too much business data leaves corporate confines, creating privacy and security risks should mobile devices be lost or stolen. Cloud services, whether from in-house or outsourced datacenters, can pull data back inside the firewall and better separate personal and professional roles.

    3. Smartphone and tablets. The so-called post-PC era is here, as connected mobile devices displace personal computers. There are nearly 6 billion cell phone subscribers across the globe, according to the United Nations. IDC forecast 1 billion smartphone shipments annually by 2015 -- that's larger than the current PC install base.

    "Customers are clamoring for new and easy ways to interact with the organizations they deal with, and no company should think itself immune to this new business dynamic," Gene Alvarez, Gartner research vice president, says. "As more people use smartphones, they will expect an extension of their customer experience to be supported by this kind of device".

    Businesses must contend with increasing numbers of mobile workers, customers and partners. In October, Apple launched iCloud, which immediately collapsed under the weight of user demand -- much of it from mobile devices. Apple planned for the launch for at least most of 2011 and still couldn't meet demand, despite having increased datacenter capacity.

    This trend demands increased datacenter and storage capacity, particularly as cellular carriers deploy 4G networks capable of delivering bandwidth in the double digits to smartphones and tablets. These devices are go-everywhere, unlike PCs.

    4. Social media and collaboration. Dramatic changes confront businesses that once used collaboration tools from Microsoft and other vendors in the mid-Noughties to improve worker productivity. Cloud services that didn't exist before 2006, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube connect people and businesses in ways unimaginable half a decade ago. They create demand for increased cloud and datacenter capacity seemingly everywhere.

    This also ties into increased use of mobile devices. Smartphone users will demand "that social aspects of the Web be intertwined with this experience", Alvarez says.

    Smart businesses can use social media interaction to compensate for sagging workforces and cutbacks in R&D, customer service, partner outreach and other areas that are vital to future growth. Increased customer interaction via social media tools can increase their loyalty and leverage them to fill in organizational gaps via mechanisms like "crowd sourcing".

    Social media and increased mobility drive other trends. According to Gartner research vice president Brian Burke:

    Gamification could become as important as Facebook, eBay or Amazon. During 2012, 20 percent of Global 2000 organizations will deploy a gamified application. IT leaders must start exploring opportunities to use gamification to increase engagement with customers and employees, with the aim of deploying a gamified application next year. Understanding how to apply game mechanics to motivate positive behavioral change is critical to success

    The trend could be as transforming in three years as social networks are today. It all requires increased datacenter density to meet the destiny.

    Photo Credit: Eugene Kouzmenok/Shutterstock

    We would like to thank Juniper Networks for sponsoring this article. BetaNews maintains full editorial control over sponsored posts, which aren't reviewed or approved by outsiders.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/15/Did_sagging_iPhone_sales_slow_the_whole_smartphone_market_'

    Did sagging iPhone sales slow the whole smartphone market?

    Publié: novembre 15, 2011, 9:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The answer depends on how third quarter sales are interpreted. By one perspective, gangbuster smartphone growth is over, as mature markets saturate and economic woes in Europe zap consumer budgets. By another viewpoint, a slowdown in iPhones sales -- ahead of a product transition -- pulled down the entire market. If the latter is right, iPhone sales could be considerably larger during fourth quarter than even the fiercest Apple apologist's or investor's dreams.

    Today, Gartner released Q3 smartphone sales, with emphasis on sales. Most other analyst firms report shipments, which are those going into retail channels. Gartner reports actual sales to end users, which offer more realistic perspective about the smartphone market. Two data points differentiate third quarter sales from recent others: Smartphone growth slowed sequentially and iPhone/iOS market share declined. The question: Are these two sales changes related or coincidental?

    iPhone Cracks

    Smartphone sales reached 115 million units during Q3, up 42 percent year over year. However, as stated above, sales growth slowed to 7 percent sequentially. Slowing sales also affected smartphones' cut of the overall handset market -- 26 percent, up just 1 percent a quarter earlier. Meanwhile, iPhone fell by 3 million units quarter on quarter, pulling its market share down 1.6 points to 15 percent year over year.

    Gartner, like other analyst firms, attributes iPhone's sales slowdown to rumors ahead of the 4S' launch. "Apple's iOS market share suffered from delayed purchases as consumers waited for the new iPhone", Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst, says. Apple CEO Tim Cook made similar assertion in October.

    But there is more than just iPhone to consider. "Demand for smartphones stalled in advanced markets such as Western Europe and the US, as many users waited for new flagship devices featuring new versions of the key operating systems", Cozza says. "Slowdowns also occurred in Latin America and the Middle East and Africa". Strong sales in China and Russia offset some of the overall slowdown.

    Samsung Soars

    There's another way to look at the data and possible holiday quarter sales that is based more on actual performance and less on speculation about why iPhone share declined sequentially and year over year. Competitors produce better phones. Samsung rose to No. 1 in smartphone sales during third quarter, selling -- not shipping -- 24 million units. Apple apologists have criticized Samsung sales figures as deceptive, referring to shipments into the channel as sales. Gartner reports 24 million smartphone sales, triple those a year earlier. That puts Samsung's market share at 20.9 percent -- 14.8 percent for iPhone.

    "Gartner attributes this to the strong performance of Samsung's Galaxy smartphones, which now cover a broad range of prices, and a weaker competitive market". The weaker market meaning less iPhone competition, which the firm asserts will rebound fourth quarter. Perhaps.

    But Android smartphone OS share is 52.5 percent, more than double Q3 2010, while sales nearly tripled. Based on actual performance Android overall and Samsung with three operating systems (Android, Bada and Windows Phone) pushed well ahead, while iPhone and iOS fell behind.

    Wait and See

    Some of the strongest competing smartphones launched this quarter, including various Galaxy S II models, new HTC and Samsung Windows Phones and a swath of 4G LTE models from AT&T and Verizon. The latter carrier now offers eight LTE models, with, another, the highly-anticipated Galaxy Nexus coming soon. There's no LTE iPhone.

    "Some consumers held off upgrading in the third quarter because they were waiting for promotions on other new high-end models that were launched in the run-up to the fourth quarter holiday season", Cozza continues. Other people waited for rumored "price cuts on older iPhone models; this affected US sales particularly".

    With respect to fourth quarter, price cuts on iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 are wild cards that could dramatically affect sales. The 3GS is free and iPhone 4 $99 with carrier contractual commitment. In May, I recommended a similar strategy of offering cheaper, iPhone 4 everywhere. It's how Apple can boost sales in emerging markets and slow the Android Army's advances. Emerging markets like Brazil, China, Mexico and Russia are "becoming more important to Apple", according to Gartner, accounting for 16 percent of sales. The firm asserts that when weighing in price cuts on older models "iPhone has a place in emerging markets".

    Gartner may be right about an iPhone rebound in fourth quarter -- or not. Regardless, increased competition should be good for consumers looking for bargains during the holidays. Pardon me, I can't resist: Android and Windows Phone deals will be available on current models. For example, leaked Radio Shack ads show the Galaxy S II Skyrocket selling for $50 on Black Friday. To save on iPhone, you pay for older models.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/14/Who_s_buying_Kindle_Fire_'

    Who's buying Kindle Fire?

    Publié: novembre 14, 2011, 10:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    On September 30, I asked: "Will you buy Kindle Fire?" Based on responses to our survey, your comments and a study showing some people putting off iPad 2 purchases for Kindle Fire, the question could have been: "Why won't you buy Kindle Fire?" Many people plan to, and Amazon will make it easy. Unlike the original Kindle's debut, exclusively through Amazon, Fire sells in stores like Best Buy. Actually, Amazon plans broad retail availability, giving Kindle Fire the kind of distribution needed to take on other Android tablets and, of course, iPad 2.

    Among the 1,156 BetaNews survey respondents, 31.66 percent already preordered Kindle Fire -- another 23.26 percent plan to purchase within 3 months. I'll skip to the punchline: Only 28.89 percent of respondents "have no plans" to buy Amazon's Android tablet. I've embedded the survey below for some fresh responses and expect the numbers to go up. The responders aren't qualified, meaning we don't know who they are but assume many are techies like you.

    Kindle Fire is scheduled to ship tomorrow, but Amazon's website says "ships today". "We’re thrilled to be able to ship Kindle Fire to our customers earlier than we expected", Dave Limp, Kindle vice president, says. That's good marketing -- deliver more than promised.

    "Kindle Fire quickly became the bestselling item across all of Amazon.com, and based on customer response we’re building millions more than we’d planned", he continues.

    Among Fire's most appealing attributes is price -- $199. According to a different BetaNews survey, $199 is the selling sweet spot. We asked: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" The majority, 30.53 percent, answered $199. For more than 60 percent of respondents, it's $199 or less.

    That price puts Fire at half the cost of iPad 2, and with similar supporting benefits. Amazon is creating a curated experience. Like Apple, the online retailer takes complete control over the entire stack -- software, hardware, cloud services, retail sales and customer support. Fire features an Amazon-customized version of Android 2.x, its own Android app store, music and movie stores, ebook store, web browser and customized media consumption software and services. Amazon also brings to bear a popular brand, and loads of extras, such as free movies and TV shows and book lending for Prime members. Amazon Prime is a $79/year service that provides free two-day shipping for up to four accounts in the same residence/family.

    Today, IDC released a study finding that Kindle Fire is now the most popular Android tablet among developers. So what about you?

    Buyers and Naysayers

    I preordered, for my wife, as an early Christmas present. Amazon charged my credit card today but hasn't yet shipped Fire. Commenter Darell did likewise -- "for my son who just started college. We have three Kindles in our family and love them. I'm betting the Fire will be as enjoyable. the other thing I consider is, at $199, I can always afford to buy the upgrade in 6 months".


    Do you plan to buy Amazon's $199 tablet -- Kindle Fire?

    iPad comparisons irk some Betanews readers. "It's a 7-inch ereader with some bells and whistles", writes geomarks. "It's not in the same league as the iPad -- totally different devices with arguably different markets". RCS_hkt responds:

    Exactly. It is designed to provide the same basic functionality at a much lower price. When people shop for gifts they buy based on price points, not specs. It will sell like crazy this Xmas and beyond that will sell well because many mass market consumers are more concerned with price than with having absolutely the highest spec device on the planet. Two completely different markets. That's why companies like Walmart can exist.

    According to a study Retrevo published last week, 27 percent of existing tablet owners plan to buy Fire this holiday, compared to 20 percent for iPad 2. The markets may be different, but Retrevo's study shows potential sales pull away: 44 percent of respondents are interested in buying Fire instead of Apple's tablet.

    internetworld7: "I'll buy a Kindle Fire when it runs iOS and is MADE BY APPLE". Good luck with that. dougau: "Yeah sure, I'm going to buy one of everything, let the bank take my house and go protest on Wall Street!!" Excellent, when cops jail all the Occupy Wall Street protesters, you'll have something to read in the slammer.

    Commenter Defunct Online represents the kind of user who might have moved up from Kindle to iPad 2 but plans on Kindle Fire instead:

    To be bluntly honest, the Kindle Fire really doesn't have the specs that a lot of people demand from their Tablets. However, I am going to buy one- and this is why. I have been a Kindle owner for 3 years now. I absolutely love my Kindle. But more than that, when I have run into issues with my Kindle, Amazon's support has been utterly and completely fantastic. So, for $199, I see no reason why I shouldn't eventually upgrade to the Kindle Fire. No, I am not preordering, but I know I will eventually get it. After all, I can still read my Kindle books and do a lot more than I can currently do with my Kindle.

    Did you buy? Will you? Please answer in comments below and the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/14/Of_course_iPhone_4S_battery_life_matters'

    Of course iPhone 4S battery life matters

    Publié: novembre 14, 2011, 5:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Last night, my colleague Ed Oswald made the most ridiculous statement in defense of iPhone 4S: "Battery life is not a showstopping defect", and he put it in italics! I disagree and told him so in group chat: "It's a real apologist post. Battery life is a showstopping defect". Ed's commentary responds to so called "Batterygate", where for many iPhone 4Ses the charge drains too fast. On Thursday, Apple released an update that fixes the problem for some, but not for many others. Meanwhile, the company issued a statement that: "We continue to investigate a few remaining issues".

    Absolutely, smartphone battery life matters, and, yes, it's a "showstopping defect". In a survey of 23,000 phone and tablet users, conducted by SwiftKey developer and retailer/accessory maker Smartphone Experts, battery life ranked third as "essential" feature when answering "What's important when buying a new smartphone". When adding "quite important", battery life tops the list, which includes screen size, ease of typing and app availability.

    Battery life is important enough that Apple fairly quickly released an iOS 5 update to fix a problem previously stated as affecting a small number of users, and afterwards acknowledging there are "remaining issues".

    According to a survey conducted by ad network inMobi, days before Apple announced iPhone 4S, "consumers are most hopeful for improved battery life; increased processing speed; higher-quality screen resolution; and stronger phone service in the rumored Apple smartphone". Clearly battery life matters to somebody looking to buy iPhone 4S, or owning one already.

    Smartphone charging habits also reveal something about battery life. Study "Understanding Human-Smartphone Concerns: A Study of Battery Life" by Denzil Ferreira, Anind Dey and Vassilis Kostakos is an excellent primer on consumer habits. The researchers measured battery usage and charging on more than 17,000 smartphones -- 4,035 opted in to the study. "Users mostly avoided lower battery levels, with the daily average of the lowest battery percentage values being 30 percent". Battery life mattered enough that many participants didn't wait for zero or even close to it. However, the researchers attributed some of this behavior to notification: "The Android devices’ battery icon turns yellow at 30 percent".

    'Them, Too' is No Excuse

    Ed excuses iPhone 4S battery problems using the 'them, too' argument: "iPhone 4S is nothing different from any smartphone, and if you're going to return it, then you should return them all. It's an issue the industry needs to address overall, and without a breakthrough will only get worse as Newman says". Ed refers to Jared Newman's PC World post claiming smartphone battery life problems are industrywide.

    In group chat last night I chided Ed:

    It's absolutely insane to excuse Apple by saying that iPhone 4S is no worse than other smartphones, because:

    • Apple aspires to be better
    • Many buyers expect Apple products to be better
    • Poor battery life is a showstopping defect

    That's a major reason it comes across as Apple apology, excuses like this.

    There's mystique around Apple being more innovative than everyone else. Oh yeah? So why excuse Apple for being the same as everyone else.

    The measure of sameness isn't what either my colleague or Newman states. Smartphone battery life is hugely improved today compared to 18 months ago. I can only personally speak about Apple and Samsung. I've used two different iPhone 4 models, purchased about eight months apart. Battery life was exceptional for both. I typically recharged every other day and about every 24 hours with heavy use (or what it is for me). The Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Nexus offered about 80 percent the performance and the same or better than iPhone 4 when keeping off Bluetooth and turning on WiFi.

    My smartphone battery-saving tip: Only use Bluetooth when you must -- where hands-free usage is absolutely necessary -- because it's a battery-life sucker. Turning on WiFi can actually improve battery life, as counter-intuitive as that may seem. Cellular connection is flaky in my area. By turning on WiFi, the smartphone consumes considerably less juice trying to maintain data connection to the 3G network for routine tasks, more than offsetting what WiFi consumes.

    Back to actual battery life, I recently owned Samsung Galaxy S II and last week replaced it with Galaxy S II Skyrocket. Standard S II battery life was better than iPhone 4 and Skyrocket is about the same. Caveat: There's no LTE in my area, so I can't measure its impact on battery life.

    It's Not Bad Press

    Ed also excuses Apple by blaming the news media:

    The tech press shares some responsibility here in reporting this story accurately. While there is a battery life issue, there is nothing but anecdotal evidence to understand its extent. Like Antennagate before Batterygate -- which required phones to be held in a certain manner that most do not -- we have a tendency to overdo it.

    Considering how overly positive blog posts or news stories about Apple tend to be, that's quite the assertion to make. Here's a thought: What if there's so much online about iPhone 4S battery life because the function really does matter to people -- and, gasp, it is a "showstopping defect" for many?

    Last week, I asked: "Why can't Apple get iPhone's design right?" That Ed calls the battery life problem a "defect" at all deflates much of the Apple apology. It's acknowledgment of a real problem.

    Betanews commenter Michael C expresses the situation of many: "So far the update has been pretty much useless on my 4s. I am turning off features to save battery life, which were kind of the point in purchasing a 4s to begin with. Sooooo, less features to save power means my phone is not the phone I thought I was getting".

    That doesn't matter?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/13/Who_will_buy_Samsung_Focus_S_Windows_Phone_'

    Who will buy Samsung Focus S Windows Phone?

    Publié: novembre 13, 2011, 6:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft has a perception problem: It's the new IBM -- the stodgy has-been that built an empire on a now declining market. Meanwhile, Apple is the amazing innovator that drives the new era of computing, propelled by the cunning genius of Steve Jobs. That story is repeated every day, particularly now that Jobs has left this world, his biography is fresh off the presses and Apple and its fanclub of bloggers and journalists have in his passing new praise to heap. But it's fiction, and something those of you who have used Windows Phone understand.

    Six days ago I asked: "Will you buy the Samsung Focus S Windows Phone?" Many of you answered yes or proudly told how you already have. Your responses say much about what's right with Windows Phone and what's wrong with perceptions about it.

    As I've oft harped: In business, perception is everything. Apple is among the world's best marketers, able to make the simplest new feature seem like the company invented it. Apple's marketers have an amazing knack for making small things look larger than life. So Apple adds voice commands and questions to iPhone 4S, and suddenly it's magic. But voice-feature Siri obscures the truth about iOS: It's a tired, desktop PC-like user interface that has changed little since the first iPhone shipped in June 2007. By comparison, Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango" is fresh and uses the touchscreen more sensibly -- to accomplish meaningful tasks rather than launch applications.

    But there is the perception problem, and much of it Microsoft's creation -- mishandling Windows Mobile development and marketing, starting around v5 in 2005. Microsoft lost its mobile mojo, which it only started recovering with Windows Phone 7's launch a year ago and seriously regained with Mango's release in late September. Windows Phone looks and feels nothing like Android or iOS, and it's better suited to touchscreens because it is task oriented. The most natural user interface is you, something Microsoft demonstrates it gets with Windows Phone. But the perception of innovation belongs to Apple and iPhone and, to a lesser degree, Android and Google.

    BetaNews reader mtnrunner comments four days ago:

    I got the Focus S last night and love it. Don't understand why it's considered a red-headed stepchild when everything about it -- the OS, build quality, responsiveness, etc. -- is the best I've seen. Just need to finish it off with Skype but all my major apps are there. Zune is also a must-have and TellMe speech recognition does what I need, where I need it. What WP has is the best, hands down, no argument: Social integration and that’s what a smartphone needs to be 1st a foremost for me. It’s about connecting and not about weeding through one-half-a-million crappy app$.

    Reader Richard Hoffman, who plans to buy the Focus S, agrees. "Windows OS and the Focus are simply the best OS/Phone combination I have owned. You have no idea how much you will love Live Tiles until you try them, and then you will curse everytime you have to use a phone without them".

    "When you pin a contact as a live tile it is literally that: When there is new email from that person, a new update from his Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. account or when I have message from him, the Live Tile flips to inform me", arcana112 comments. "Android does NOT have this" -- nor iOS 5, I might add.

    Microsoft's design and marketing approach to Windows Phone is "glance and go", for which Live Titles are core feature. The idea is simple: Get what you need from the phone to live rather than be consumed by the device.

    John Megert: "Yes. Will buy either the Focus S or the coming HTC Titan. Love the Windows Phone".

    "Yes, everything I need from smartphone, and yes I also work in IT office so I need a phone that actually doesn't crash or freeze, like every Android I've previously had. Buying this phone from AT&T online as I type this! ;D", commenter Gromanon writes five days ago. Well, did you get it? How about sharing some first impressions.

    There's a common thread among most of the comments. I asked a question specifically about one Windows Phone, but the majority of comments are about the operating system.

    Philip Gould: "You betcha I will, when they are available in the UK that is". That's where Microsoft and its partners have gone wrong -- international distribution. Jeremy Moses laments:

    I'd buy the Samsung Focus Flash in a heartbeat -- that is if Microsoft would start supporting more than a handful of countries. I recently moved to Kenya and, well, there goes any chance of WP7 Marketplace support for at least a few years cause of how slow MS is rolling out international support. But lo & behold, Android is everywhere with amazing support for all their services here. I'm begrudgingly heading off to buy an android (Galaxy S Plus, or S2) this week sadly.

    However, the first Nokia Windows Phones, Lumia 710 and 800, may broaden the operating system's availability and supporting services. Nokia has huge global reach and brings Lumia Windows Phones to international markets first. Still iPhone is available in more countries and more carriers than is Windows Phone today.

    "I had a Windows HD7 for the last year and switched to the [iPhone] 4s the day it came out", Matt Gruber comments. "Even with its pre Mango shortcomings I still miss my Windows Phone, and if I could I would probably jump back to a Windows Phone. There is a lot to like about the iPhone but there will be things that I will always miss. For some reason I don't think I will say the same when I eventually replace my iPhone. Maybe Siri will change that but at this point I don't see it. In my opinion the UI for Windows offers the best experience I have ever had with a smartphone".

    Well, Matt, you can still go back. For people who preordered iPhone 4S or bought on launch day, the 30-day return period ends tomorrow.

    Baard Williams went the other way. He owned iPhone from first model through 4S:

    I bought the Windows Phone out of [disappointment] of not getting iPhone 5. So I tried something different. I gotta tell you, [Microsoft] is on to something. I am extremely satisfied. For me that uses social media a lot, Windows [Phone] is a gem and far superior to iPhone in that regards. I have never been a Windows fan -- I always hated their software and everything lagg and buggy. But I gotta give them thumbs up this time. It's far better than Android and closing in fast on iPhone. I never thought I would say this!!

    But for all this enthusiasm or my praising Windows Phone UI as being innovative and better-suited to touchscreens than either Android or iOS: People still have to buy. Will you? Have you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/12/Logitech_abandons_Google_TV__should_you_'

    Logitech abandons Google TV, should you?

    Publié: novembre 12, 2011, 8:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's all up to Sony now.

    Two weeks ago I started puzzling about my Logitech Revue's future. On October 28, Google announced that its next-generation TV set-top software would be available in just a few days -- from Sony, but Revue would come later. There was no date given. Then, on September 9, during its annual analysts meeting, Logitech made clear that Revue is finished. There will be no more Google TV devices from the peripherals maker.

    Logitech first revealed its Google TV misfortunes during a disastrous quarterly earnings call on July 28. The company reported a $30 million net loss and $34 million write-down to clear excess Revues, which price reduced to $99.99. The console once sold for $299.99. Logitech expressed commitment to Google TV, despite the fire sale. But I wondered: "There will be a second life for Google TV, but one wonders how Logitech will be part of it". No part is the answer.

    Current Revue users can expect Google TV 2.0, but a dark shroud of uncertainty hangs over future updates, or even when they can expect this one. Logitech is out of the Google TV business. Even 100 bucks is too much to pay for Revue, the way things look now. It's customer service travesty that Logitech passes along its Google TV misfortunes to Revue buyers.

    In a Google+ post yesterday, developer Ryan Conrad rightly expresses: "If Logitech drops support for the revue, Google better step up and continue OS update support on that thing". Yes, Google should bail out customers stiffed by Logitech.

    I was among the few reviewers who positively received Revue and Google TV, acknowledging also many limitations needing fixing in v2.0. The new version is greatly improved, but still needs work. But the foundation is there, with this update, which is based on Honeycomb. But I didn't find that out from using Revue.

    Sony NSZ-GT1 Google TV

    As of November 7, my Revue hadn't updated to Google TV 2.0. I gave up waiting and ordered the Sony NSZ-GT1 Blu-ray player. I sold my 40GB PS3 to fund Sony Google TV; I had purchased the game console for the Blu-ray anyway, so it was a trade-off or trade-up. Sony offers Google TV on several Internet televisions and the GT1. The set-top box sold for $399.99 at launch; I paid $199. Amazon has it for $186.41 today, and it's quite the value.

    I'm not ready to review Sony Google TV but will offer this first impression: Sony remains committed to Google TV, and you should be, too. FedEx brought the device on Tuesday, and the delivery man asked me if it's a new product. "I've delivered many recently". I explained that Sony had released Sony 2.0 software and price dropped on the set-top box.

    In using Sony Google TV, I can see why Logitech flubbed so badly. During Wednesday's conference call, Logitech executives called Google TV 1.0 immature and a mistake for the company to undertake. There's truth to those claims, but that telling omits much of the story. With the exception of IR emitters, NSZ-GT1 is superior to Revue in most every way. Logitech drew too much from its mouse and keyboard heritage designing Revue. Sony draws from its TV and gaming heritage. For example, Revue uses a portable wireless keyboard (it's clunky and feels cheap), while Sony TV uses what looks and feels like a modified game controller with numeric keys.

    Sony Google TV set up easier than did Revue, with a bonus. During initial process, once connected to my home network, NSZ-GT1 downloaded Google TV 2.0. So rather than being compelled to set up with the older OS version before downloading the new one, most of the process took place using Google TV 2.0. Overall, I'm impressed with the device and new software, which will get the big goings over in my upcoming review.

    I'd like to do a comparative review with new TV features coming to Xbox 360/Live, but Microsoft's external PR agency brushed off my loaner request. BetaNews needs to pump up Xbox coverage, but I need the game console and Kinect to take charge of it. Wonder what I'll have to sell next? :)

    As for Google TV, I would recommend against Revue, given its now uncertain future. Sony Google TV costs more, but it better belongs in the living room and packs Blu-ray, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/12/Can_you_return_iPhone_4S_'

    Can you return iPhone 4S?

    Publié: novembre 12, 2011, 6:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    It's the question everyone who preordered or purchased on launch day and is having battery-life problems should ask. That's because the 30-day return window closes in two days and may already have passed for others.

    A friend of mine, Sebastian, called this morning to tell me that he had arranged return of his iPhone 4S. He's displeased with battery life -- "five hours, not even a full day. If a phone doesn't work as a telephone it's worthless, it's a brick". Since he was contract-free before ordering iPhone 4S, he hasn't seen meaningful battery-life improvements from iOS 5.0.1 and there are enticing LTE alternatives, Sebastian wants to get out from the new two-year commitment while he can. But doing so proved arduous, although it looks like he succeeded. You might not be so lucky.

    Had Sebastian not phoned, I probably wouldn't have realized the dilemma many other iPhone 4S early adopters face. I'll continue with his story and add what I learned from calling Apple stores today. Sebastian expected an easy return. He called his local AT&T store first, since the return also involves resetting the two-year contract commitment. There a rep told him that because he preordered the phone, the 30-day window had passed. For him, October 7 and not 14 ends the buyer's remorse period, he was told.

    Sebastian persisted, calling his local Apple Store, which refused exchange for the same reason and also because the phone was purchased online. The store referred him to Apple online sales, where a different rep said the phone could be returned, but must be received by November 14. He received information to return his iPhone 4S and for the process needed to later inform AT&T so that he can get the two-year contract reset to zero.

    Sebastian emphasized that had he not engaged a new two-year contract on a phone with "terrible battery life" he might have waited longer. Then there is the allure of faster data. He lives in the Washington, DC area, where AT&T started LTE service on November 6. Without iPhone 4S, he's out of contract, which lets him consider Verizon. The carrier offers 7 LTE smartphones, and the number will be nine by month's end (AT&T has but two).

    What Apple Stores Say

    I got to wondering: What about everyone else having iPhone battery-life problems? Apple claims a software bug is causing some iPhone 4S batteries to drain fast. But what if it's not? That's a question to ask with reports flooding from iPhone 4S complaining the problem persists even after installing iOS 5.0.1, and that there are new ones. What if this is a design flaw, on the order of Death Grip, where Apple placed the 3G antenna where most people's palms would touch the metal band and block the signal? Early adopters have scant time to return their Apple phones. The 30-day window from iPhone 4S launch closes Monday, a mere four days after Apple dispatched the software update that's supposed to fix battery problems.

    I called Apple retail stores this morning to get some answers. I won't say which ones to protect employees should managers get flack from corporate. At the first store, an Apple specialist told me that "the date you received it" determines end of the 30-day return window, not order date. I gave battery-life problems as reason for returning iPhone 4S. He encouraged me to do a full restore and to bring in the phone for diagnostics. "I'm sad you're not happy with it". I asked what if I waited longer than 30 days to return the phone. "Yeah, after the fourteenth, you're stuck with the two-year contract".

    By the way, Apple Store now uses a Siri-like voice assistant (male, though).

    Another Apple Store gave different information. There the Specialist said the 30-day return period closes from the date on the receipt -- "when they processed your order", meaning "when they charged your credit card". If she's right, then the grace period has passed for many people who preordered and persistence got Sebastian an exception. I called him back: His order date on the receipt is October 10. I asked the specialist if iPhone 4S could be returned to Apple Store. "You have to return it through the online store if you purchased through the online store", which is consistent with information given my friend.

    A third Specialist also said order processing date but suggested I call Apple Store Online to be sure. I did. The helpful woman there said the 30-days starts from the date the phone was received. "You called just in time. There's another two days".

    But is that enough time? Many people may not yet have installed the update Apple promises will fix battery-drain problems. Many people complain problems persist after the update. Do they wait it out and hope Apple remedies the problem or return the phone while they still can?

    Keep in mind Apple never resolved Death Grip via software update. Wrapping an Apple Bumper or case around iPhone 4 fixed the problem for many people, by keeping their hands from touching the metal band. But the design flaw remained. What if this is a design problem, such as how the two-antenna design switches between 3G and HSPA+ to get a signal, thus draining the battery faster, that may or may not be resolved with a software update?

    Apple issued a statement yesterday: "The recent iOS software update addressed many of the battery issues that some customers experienced on their iOS 5 devices. We continue to investigate a few remaining issues". That's admission the issue is ongoing and unresolved.

    You can return iPhone 4S. But if you preordered or purchased on launch day, October 14, you have this weekend to decide whether to keep the smartphone or return it to Apple.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/12/What_s_so_special_about_11_11_11__Droid_Razr_for__111.11'

    What's so special about 11-11-11? Droid Razr for $111.11

    Publié: novembre 12, 2011, 12:15am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Verizon waited until 11-11-11 at 11:11 am to launch the Motorola Droid Razr. If that's not enough lucky ones for you, AmazonWireless has more. New Verizon customers can snag the Droid Razar for $111.11. Sorry, existing customers pay more -- $229.99 for an individual account and $244.99 for family account. Verizon sells the smartphone for $299.99.

    Droid Razr brings to seven the number of 4G LTE phones Verizon offers, with far greater national coverage than AT&T, which has just two LTE phones -- HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket. The new smartphone also marks Motorola's attempts to capitalize on and revive the hugely successful Razr, while leveraging the still successful Droid brand. If you want one, that one-eleven-eleven price is hard to beat.

    Droid Razr is thin, light and tough --- 7.1 mm thick, 127 grams weight and steel and kevlar enclosure and Gorilla glass screen. Other specs: 4.3-inch Super AMOLED display (960 x 540 resolution); capacitive touchscreen; 1.2GHz processor; 1GB RAM; 32GB storage (with 16GB microSD card); 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; 1080p video capture; 1780 mAh battery; and Android 2.3.5.

    By the specs, Droid Razr doesn't pack much more than many other Androids in its class. However, that Moto could squeeze such a large battery and LTE radio into such a thin smartphone is so bleeding edge, it's sure to cut competing handsets. Forget obtaining patents, Google has other very good reasons for buying Motorola Mobility; phones like Droid Razor are among them.

    "This phone isn't just competing with other Android devices, it’s crushing them", Jonathan Geller writes in his review for Boy Genius Report. "The Motorola Droid Razr has replaced Samsung’s Galaxy S II as the best Android device I’ve ever used". Really? More the Galaxy S II Skyrocket? Oh dear, oh my.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/11/Win_Windows_Phone'

    Win Windows Phone

    Publié: novembre 11, 2011, 8:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    How would you like to snag a Windows Phone running Mango? As part of its launch promotion and "Inner Circle" tour, Microsoft has graciously offered BetaNews one Windows Phone to give away to a lucky reader. That could be you.

    Microsoft's design and marketing strategy for Windows Phone is "glance and go" -- let people get what they need from their smartphones quickly rather than be consumed by them. Conceptually, Windows Phone enables people to live better rather than spend their lives tap, tap, tapping on the touchscreen. That concept, and the task-oriented user interface behind it, makes Windows Phone remarkably different from either Android or iOS. It's also inspiration for our contest. Please tell us why glance and go appeals to you and how you would benefit from it. You can respond in comments below or email joe at betanews dot com. We'll accept entries until November 14, 11:59 pm ET.

    Our panel of judges will select the best responses and choose a winner among them. How we narrow down a winner depends on quality and number of responses. If one stands out, that's the winner. If several are exceptional, we may come back to you to vote or simply roll the dice, so to speak, and randomly choose from the best responses.

    By the way, some of you might wonder about the Windows XP contest. We'll announce winners this weekend and send out the five Microsoft mice next week. There we asked for your reasons why switch to Windows 7 from XP. Choosing winners has proved arduous, in part because there were so many clever, funny responses. It would be easy to award all the prizes to the comedians, but that would be unfair to those of you who offered smart, serious responses. Please be patient with the process.

    Microsoft has taken a decidedly hands-on approach to launching Windows Phone 7.5. Mango started rolling out as an over-the-air update to existing WP customers on September 27. The first Mango handsets starting selling in the United States this week. They are: HTC Radar 4G on T-Mobile and Samsung Focus Flash and Focus S on AT&T. The HTC Titan soon comes to AT&T also. On Monday, Microsoft set up a six-story Windows Phone, where Far East Movement played a mini-concert, in New York City. Last week, the Windows Phone "Inner Circle" tour started in Los Angeles -- the first of 19 cities through November 21. I attended the San Diego event two days ago.

    This coordinated effort is all about word of mouth. Presumably many of the people who owned Windows Phone before Mango's release are enthusiasts. They're influencers. Microsoft rewarded their loyalty with Windows Phone 7.5 first, which also is smart marketing if enthused users tell their friends to buy. The New York event and Inner Circle tour are about putting Windows Phone in front of people -- letting them see just how different the user interface and broader user experience is from Androids or iPhone.

    Microsoft is going for slow-burn buzz that lasts long and builds loyalty, while also recognizing that Windows Phone must be seen, touched and used to be believed. Apple won't sue Microsoft for copying (like it is Android licensees); Windows Phone is nothing like iOS. Of course, Microsoft wants its OEM partners to sell lots of phones, but given the overwhelming noise out there about Android and even louder about iPhone, there's sense to the approach, which also should appeal to the business user base.

    I used the San Diego Inner Circle tour as opportunity to study the different Windows Phones and the people checking them out. In an unusual tact for me, I repeatedly circled the room like a shark -- always moving -- rather than interview participants. Many attendees clearly were gadget geeks or professionals. As for the phones, the white HTC Radar 4G is the handsomest of the newest Windows Phone 7.5 handsets, but I liked it least. The display dosen't pop the same as Samsung Focus Flash or Focus S. I wouldn't buy the HTC Titan (Microsoft gave away four of them during the event), because of the 4.7-inch screen size. Even the 4.5-inch smartphone I currently use seems overly large. That said, it's a beautiful handset. My fav is Focus S.

    If you haven't used Windows Phone 7.5, please go to a retail store and do so before entering the contest. I find the operating system to be fast and fluid on all the handsets presented during the Inner Circle. You'll want that experience, too, before explaining why glance and go appeals to you.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/11/Yusuf_Mehdi_is_the_best_thing_to_happen_to_Xbox_in_years'

    Yusuf Mehdi is the best thing to happen to Xbox in years

    Publié: novembre 11, 2011, 1:19am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Somehow I missed yesterday's rather startling Microsoft exec move, but, whoa, it's a doosey. Yusuf Mehdi, the sole-surviving executive of stature from the Online Services Business' better days, is stepping aside and taking up a new marketing role over Xbox -- and, whoa, is that a good thing. It's helluva loss for OSB, but Mehdi wasn't going up the executive ladder there anyway. His loyalty is worth something, and there's chance to distinguish himself at Entertainment and Devices the way he did during OSB's brief period of profitability (back when it was called something else).

    Mehdi was one of Microsoft's young, rising stars during the early Noughties and he worked as part of the leadership that turned MSN from Money Pit to Black Gold. I beta tested the online service before its debut with Windows 95. Microsoft launched MSN in response to online services AOL and CompuServe, while failing to see the more important World Wide Web rising above them. The MSN group lost money from day one and continued to do so into the new century. There was a joke among some Microsoft employees that MSN was on the "red side of campus", because it was perennially unprofitable.

    But a stunning turnabout came when Microsoft announced fiscal 2004 first quarterly earnings in October 2003. MSN posted a profit, which it maintained for eight consecutive quarters. Mehdi is the last remaining executive from MSN's golden era, and he is distinguished by moving on elsewhere within Microsoft rather than leaving altogether.

    Those eight quarters marked a real turnabout in MSN strategy and marketing, and Mehdi was one of the principal architects. Then came disastrous change. Microsoft decided to largely rebrand its online services as Windows Live. Related, CEO Steve Ballmer announced a massive early autumn 2005 reorganization that established three major Microsoft divisions and presidents over them (there are five now). During fiscal 2006 second quarter, the first full one post reorg, MSN revenue plummeted 125 percent year over year and 266 percent sequentially. Online Services hasn't posted a profit since. The reorg devastated the leadership, with only Mehdi remaining by Spring 2007.

    Mehdi was loyal, even though in a sense his star diminished for no fault of his own. Still, he wielded magic. He played instrumental roles negotiating the Yahoo search deal and with launching Bing. Microsoft search rebranding is every bit the success that Windows Live's was failure, much of that is about marketing execution, which I have repeatedly praised.

    Mehdi held many strategic roles during his 10 years at OSB, often coinciding with important positive milestones for the division, such as chief advertising officer and senior vice president of Strategic Partnerships. In February 2008, I described Mehdi as "a rising MSN star before the division's success led to its absorption into the Windows group. He's still someone to watch, whether he advances within Microsoft or moves on. As someone with responsibilities for mergers and acquisitions, Yahoo integration could be in Mehdi's future". At the time, Microsoft wanted to buy Yahoo, but later ended partnering on search.

    In an email to OSB employees yesterday, divisional president Qi Lu described Mehdi as a "pivotal leader at critical milestones of our division’s journey from the early days of MSN, to the original MSN and Live Search products, to the launch of Bing and the consummation of key strategic deals for OSD and MS, including Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter and Nokia. Most importantly, he has built a world class marketing, business development, strategy, and product management organization that has made incredible contributions to the success of OSD and Microsoft. I want to take this opportunity to express my heart-felt thanks to Yusuf for everything he has done for OSD".

    Currently, Mehdi is OSB's chief audience officer, a role he vacates when becoming chief marketing officer for Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Business on December 5 -- that means Xbox and gaming. According to his updated bio:

    Mehdi is responsible for the Xbox 360, Xbox LIVE, Xbox 360 games and Kinect brands. He works with the IEB leadership team to create hit products and services. Mehdi specifically leads product management, product marketing, market and business intelligence, PR/AR, advertising, brand and relationship marketing for the entire Xbox 360 business.

    He assumes a marketing position over a product seemingly in good marketing health. But there are key transitions ahead, as Xbox, Windows and Windows Phone intersect across online and offline gaming and cloud services -- then there is planning for Xbox 360's successor. Better he be in the role now and have marketing wonks working alongside console architects for the rumored 2013 launch.

    I haven't spoken to Mehdi in years, but he long has been one of my favorite Microsoft execs. He is fresh and frank, exuding an honesty not heard enough from Microsoft's higher echelons. The new role will fit him better than the last, I predict.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/10/Android_fragmentation_doesn_t_matter'

    Android fragmentation doesn't matter

    Publié: novembre 10, 2011, 8:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I've gotten off my purest high horse and come to look at Android differently. Starting with my purchase of the HTC-manufactured Google Nexus One in January 2009, I used pure Android smartphones, untouched by hardware maker or cellular carrier mods; no skins, no extras. Pure Android was the best, I believed. But over the last couple months, I've come to realize that the best thing about Android is what third parties -- and not Google -- do to make it better. Go ahead, eat that Ice Cream Sandwich on Galaxy Nexus. Gingerbread is good enough for me.

    Pundits of all types harp about fragmentation -- that it holds back Android and makes competing against iPhone harder. Oh yeah? If 550,000-plus Android activations a day is a problem, give it to me. What a failure to have. At the end of September, Android smartphone OS share, as measured by US cellular subscribers 13 or older, was 43 percent in third quarter, up from 39 percent at end of June, according to Nielsen. By comparison, iOS continued a year-long trend of no growth, with 28 percent share.

    The State of Android

    The state of Android fragmentation is this, as of November 3:

    • 44.4 percent Android 2.3-2.3.7 (Gingerbread)
    • 40.7 percent Android 2.2 (Froyo)
    • 10.7 percent Android 2.1 (Eclair)
    • 2.5 percent Android 1.5-1.6 (Cupcake, Donut)
    • 1.9 percent Android 3.x (Honeycomb)

    The newest version, Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich) doesn't yet show up in the numbers and likely won't until the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Galaxy Nexus starts shipping next week. Ice Cream Sandwich unifies the two forks for Android -- Gingerbread for smartphones and Honeycomb for tablets -- and is chock full of new features. But like older Android versions, there's no land rush. For example, HTC has committed to Ice Cream Sandwich in "early 2012" without saying what that really means. Handsets getting Android 4.0: EVO 3D and Design 4G on Sprint, Vivid on AT&T (which just launched November 6), Amaze 4G and Sensation, XE and XL on T-Mobile and Rezound on Verizon (which launches November 14).

    Unquestionably, fragmentation persists, but it's really more about users being on older Android versions than the newest thing. Apple controls iOS updates and pushes them out at will. Carriers and manufacturers determine which Androids get what software upgrades -- hence, a major reason for fragmentation. Anyone with iPhone 3GS, 4 and 4S can get iOS 5 (that's the newest version) right now. The argument goes: Newest version and most users on it is huge competitive advantage over Android.

    But as Windows XP's lingering success shows, newest isn't necessarily the best. What matters more, particularly when third parties are licensing operating systems, is the ecosystem that evolves around the platform and what it delivers to users. Related: Applications. There are plenty enough compared to Apple's App Store -- 315,000 according to AppBrain and 550,000 says AppLib.

    However, not all apps are available for all devices, because of fragmentation and slow developer uptake for Honeycomb. There Google protects developers and phone users. Android Market segregates apps based on the OS version running on the phone. Most Froyo and Gingerbread apps are available to most devices (running those OS versions or later, of course). The mechanism works quite well, and actually limits some of the more negative effects fragmentation causes.

    Making Android Better

    Android is doing surprisingly well considering the state of fragmentation and that most users are on some 2.x version, when 4.0 is newest. There, carriers and manufacturers deserve credit for improving the stock OS. With iPhone, it's one size fits all. iOS is pretty much the same across carriers. Apple doesn't permit them to customize the phones or even put on their own branding. In the United States, an AT&T iPhone 4S is indistinguishable from a Verizon model. Apple tightly controls branding and software.

    Recently, I started visiting Verizon and T-Mobile stores, spending time exploring higher-end Android smartphones, primarily from HTC and Samsung, which both skin the operating system -- with Sense and TouchWiz UI, respectively. To my surprise, I'm generally impressed with these UI add-ons, and that's an unexpected response. More surprising, well to me, is my reaction to carrier customizations, which are seemingly beneficial. I've long scorned carriers for loading up crapware that slows down performance and diminishes the user experience. But I'm not seeing much of that on higher-end Android smartphones.

    Personal user experience is perhaps the best explanation. In September and earlier this week, I purchased two different Samsung smartphones -- the Galaxy S II and Galaxy S II Skyrocket, on AT&T, respectively. Both are chock full of customizations, Samsung's TouchWiz UI and AT&T apps and services, that really add bang to the user experience. The Android enhancements make both phones much more enjoyable to use and more practical than the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Nexus S.

    I also find the fresh enhancements, coupled with the hardware, deliver better experience than iPhone 4 (I haven't used 4S). There's no Honeycomb, no Ice Cream Sandwich -- just Gingerbread with a twist. Next week my wife receives Kindle Fire, which uses Android 2.3.4.

    The Galaxy S II is simply the best phone I have ever used, and I was sorry to part with it. But on Tuesday, I trucked down to the local AT&T store and exchanged the S2 for the larger Galaxy S II Skyrocket, which also supports LTE. I'm not as satisfied with the larger phone (4.5-inch vs 4.3-inch display) or increased thickness -- doesn't feel as good in my hand -- but the performance is excellent and AT&T enhancements make it better.

    For example, on both phones, whenever I go to McDonald's or Starbucks, the Notifications Bar indicates there is an AT&T Hotspot. Skyrocket has Visual Voicemail, and it's a much more pleasant feature to look at and use than the comparable capability on iPhone.

    TouchWiz UI eye-pops Gingerbread, with more color and some great features, some of which are similar to those just now coming in Android 4.0. For example, there's option to send a text message when rejecting a call, and Social Hub brings together Facebook, email, instant messaging and Twitter into one app. I looked at this one askance, but it works well and consolidates communications and social interactions.

    Skyrocket's Android 2.3.5 touched up by AT&T and Samsung is much better than the same version on my wife's Nexus S, changing my perception. I've given up my purest ways. It's not so much what Google does to Android that matters but third-parties.

    Android fragmentation doesn't matter, as long as carriers, phone manufacturers and software developers do their jobs.

    Editor's note: Kindle Fire's Android version corrected.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/10/Can_you_imagine_if_Microsoft_took_this_approach_'

    Can you imagine if Microsoft took this approach?

    Publié: novembre 10, 2011, 2:17am CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's the question a BetaNews reader asked me earlier today, when forwarding news that esteemed researcher Charlie Miller had gotten the shaft from Apple. Miller released an app that exposed a serious security flaw in iOS. His reward: Banishment from Apple's developer program, for one year. Perhaps longer.

    I asked colleague Ed Oswald to write the news story. My followup here seeks to answer the question asked by the reader: "Can you imagine if Microsoft took this approach?" No, because that would go against Microsoft's security policies. But I can imagine the response had Microsoft done something like this -- punish a respected researcher for bringing a major security flaw to its attention. Vilification. Condemnation. Damnation. In blogs. In news commentaries. On social networks. And Apple? There is little noise at all. Once again Apple can do no wrong.

    From the most straightforward perspective, Miller got what he deserved from Apple. He released to the App Store a stock app that actually gave him broad control over devices. He was pretty much free to do what he wanted with them, although he chose to do nothing. That he released an app that did something other than its stated purpose violated Apple's terms of service. The app also made iOS devices liable to attack and seizure, although it can be argued, and Miller does, that the vulnerabilities already were there, which was the point of the app.

    But the rogue app reveals something more, which makes Apple's seeming retribution all the more egregious. Apple is renown for secrecy, particularly about new products and their development. But there also is secrecy about security matters -- security by stealth. Apple discloses little about its products' security problems, other than scant info when releasing occasional updates. According to the company's security website: "For the protection of our customers, Apple does not disclose, discuss or confirm security issues until a full investigation has occurred and any necessary patches or releases are available".

    That reads to me like a policy of denial, or better stated non-denial, non-admittance. Another reason for Apple secrecy: Managing perceptions -- the company's public image. Secrecy serves that objective exceptionally well, particularly around sensitive security matters. Apple's products are perceived to be more secure -- Mac OS better Windows, iOS more than Android -- which secrecy helps preserve. For developers who can't keep their silence, and most do (now why is that), there is punishment.

    It's Miller Time

    This isn't the first time Miller broke Apple's unwritten code of developer silence and doing so embarrassed the company. In July he exposed something simply unbelievable -- a security vulnerability affecting, get this, Apple laptop batteries. Yeah, batteries. Apple left unchanged the default passwords used for accessing and programming the batteries, which savvy developers could exploit in their applications. Miller published a paper showing how. Apple might as well have set all its employee passwords to "password".

    That's just a recent incident, and from an accomplished security researcher. In a July BetaNews post, Larry Seltzer wrote: "Charlie Miller is one of the best-known characters in the vulnerability research business. For years he has been famous as the only person to do serious research on Apple products, especially on Macs. He has a shelf full of Pwnie awards to show how good he is at it".

    Miller also is a consecutive-year Pwn2Own winner -- iPhone 4 in 2011 and MacBook Pro via patched Safari browser the three previous years. Perhaps Apple had enough of his exploits and the rogue iOS app is excuse to banish him.

    But what if Apple wasn't so secretive? Would Miller need, or want, to release an iOS-compromising app? He has been very active on Twitter this week. "I did violate the ToS, but I doubt the ToS let's me do any of the crap I do. So why boot me now?" Miller asks.

    It's common practice -- and one that Microsoft was instrumental establishing -- that researchers disclose vulnerabilities to companies first. The policy is sound, for protecting everyone from flaws being exploited before their patches. Not all security researchers abide by the practice, while others will disclose if they feel the vendor has been unresponsive.

    One-and-a-Half-Way Street

    In the case of the vulnerability Miller uncovered, he saw demonstration as the way to prove it. "Without a real app in the AppStore, people would say Apple wouldn't approve an app that took advantage of this flaw", he tweets two days ago. Apple is known for its strict App Store approval policy and perception that rogue or unsigned code can't sneak through. Miller also proved that perception wrong. But in doing so, he also didn't disclose to Apple beforehand. He explains: "I did contact Apple about vuln 3 weeks ago. Didn't tell'em there was an app. App has been in store since Sept."

    Disclosure is fundamental to the work security researchers do with major developers. But with Apple, disclosure is a one-and-a-half-way street. The company expects developers to disclose what they find, yet doesn't publicly reveal as much -- certainly not like Microsoft.

    Microsoft's security policy changed in the early Noughties. The company asked researchers to not publicly reveal security flaws before they were patched. Microsoft agreed to give these researchers credit for their discoveries when disclosing the vulnerabilities. The company expanded the role of the Microsoft Security Response Center, with a mandate of transparency and disclosure and release of updates on a regular monthly schedule. The amount of security information Microsoft releases is staggering compared to Apple. Security by stealth isn't sound policy.

    You tell me, IT managers dealing with Apple and Microsoft software, do you feel the company's give you equally adequate security information -- ranging from best practices to vulnerability disclosure. It's hard to conceive of Microsoft doing the same to a researcher of Miller's stature for exposing a major OS vulnerability.

    Former hacker turned security consultant Kevin Mitnick offers Miller advice in a tweet yesterday: "So tell Apple they are on a 1 year suspension for being notified first before you publish their vulnerabilities".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/09/Comcast_pushes_IPv6_forward'

    Comcast pushes IPv6 forward

    Publié: novembre 9, 2011, 9:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    But it's going to be slow going, and for good reasons. Despite all IPv6 promises, there is still much, much testing to do before it's ready for prime time.

    Today Comcast revealed that it has started an IPv6 "pilot market deployment" as first step leading to nationwide rollout next year. Broadband providers like Comcast haven't rushed the switch to IPv6 -- despite an increasing shortage of IPv4 network addresses -- because of lacking support, ranging from operating systems to network switches and other devices. Then there are security questions that only real-time use can answer.

    "This first phase will support certain types of directly connected CPE, where a computer is connected directly to a cable modem", John Brzozowski, Comcast distinguished engineer & chief architect for IPv6, explains. "This will depend upon the cable modem (a subset of DOCSIS 3.0 cable modems, which will expand over time) and will also depend upon the operating system (only Windows 7, Windows Vista, Mac OS X 10.7 / Lion), which must support stateful DHCPv6". Comcast's list of cable modems is 74, but only three support IPv6.

    Still, Comcast's starting with the cable modem is sensible, but could mean that, at least for the short haul, some customers won't be able to use their own attached routers -- many of which wouldn't support IPV6 anyway. Like other broadband providers, Comcast faces the challenge of supporting IPv4 while moving to its successor. Brzozowski explains:

    It is also important to note that we are deploying native dual stack, which means a customer gets both IPv6 and IPv4 addresses. That means we are not using tunneling technology or large scale Network Address Translation (NAT). Using a tunnel introduces additional overhead compared to not using one (native IPv6), as your traffic must traverse a relay before going to the destination and back. And NAT technologies rely on two layers of NAT, one in your home (in a home gateway device), and one within a the service provider's network that usually shares a single IPv4 address across possibly hundreds of customers or more...We believe those two layers of NAT will break a number of applications that are important to our customers.

    Still, there's a painful transition coming:

    • Most of the hardware currently available supports IPv4 and may not be firmware upgradeable to IPv6 (some of that is lacking willingness, where the vendor wants to sell something new).
    • IPv6 will break many connected applications, problems Brzozowski observes.
    • Security of IPv6 networks is still unproven.

    On the latter point, Larry Seltzer explains in a June analysis:

    The bottom line from observations like this is that IPv6 is not even in its infancy in terms of development. It's more like a fetus. And while clearly a lot of thought and experience went into the security design of IPv6, nothing is secure by design. It's a rock-solid certainty, as we gain real-world experience with IPv6 and malicious actors find incentives to research and attack it, that we will find serious security problems with it. We have virtually none of that experience today...The transition period to IPv6, Meyran says, will be especially dangerous because there's no way the security products will be mature enough to handle the environment.

    Someone has to take the lead, before IPv4 network addresses really do run out. Comcast (and its competitors) is right to get things moving. Finally.

    Photo Credit: bofotolux/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/07/Will_you_buy_the_Samsung_Focus_S_Windows_Phone_'

    Will you buy the Samsung Focus S Windows Phone?

    Publié: novembre 7, 2011, 10:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    We've given so much attention to iPhone 4S and Samsung Galaxy S II that Windows Phone looks mightily neglected. It is, and that needs to be remedied. If S2's 4.3-inch screen size, Super AMOLED Plus display, thinness and 8-megapixel camera appeal to you -- but not Android -- Samsung Focus S may be for you. The Focus S and Galaxy S2 share much in common. Call them fraternal twins or near-identical cousins, but these two handsets are kin.

    I apologize. In the rush to cover AT&T's new LTE phones, which went on sale yesterday, we overlooked Samsung Focus Flash and Focus S; they also debuted November 6. Like the Galaxy S II skyrocket, where we asked "Will you buy?", the same question comes for the two Windows Phone 7.5 Focus models that went on sale yesterday. Will you buy one, or have you already? Please answer in comments or email joe at betanews dot com.

    These are the Windows Phones you've been waiting for -- at least from AT&T. The two new Focus models up data speed with HSPA+ support and deliver Mango, the newest version of Windows Phone 7. If you're on T-Mobile, then it's HTC Radar 4G for you, offering similar benefits. But what sets Focus S apart is what it shares with the hot-selling Galaxy S II. Quick comparison:

    Galaxy S II: 1.2GHz Samsung Exynos dual-core processor; 4.27 Super AMOLED Plus display with 800 x 480 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel rear-facing and 2MP front-facing cameras; 1080p video capture; Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi "N"; Near-Field Communications (NFC); 1650mAh battery and Android 2.3.4.

    Focus S: 1.4GHz Qualcomm MSM8255 single-core processor; 4.27 Super AMOLED Plus display with 800 x 480 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel rear-facing and 1.3MP front-facing cameras; 720p video capture; Bluetooth 2.1; WiFi "N"; 1650mAh battery and Windows Phone 7.5. Note: I could not find RAM from AT&T, Microsoft or Samsung. Different product reviewers cite 512MB and 1GB. I bet on the higher number, which is same as S2. Both phones sell for $199.99 with 2-year contracts. Update: Amazon Wireless offers the Focus S for $149.99 (but backorderred 8 to 9 days), Focus Flash for one penny and Galaxy S II for $144.99.

    Weight: 3.9 ounces for Focus S and 4.3 ounces for Galaxy S2. Dimensions: 4.96 x 2.60 x 0.35 inches for the Android and 4.96 x 2.63 x 0.33 inches for the Windows Phone -- that's 8.9mm for the S2 and scant 8.55mm for Focus S. Battery life is all over the place. AT&T and Samsung say 6.5 hours and Microsoft 9 hours. I can only guess, but say this: Battery life on my Galaxy S II AT&T model is exceptional. Surely the Focus S must be as good. The Android has Gorilla glass, but I haven't confirmed same is true of the Windows Phone.

    For buyers concerned about size, shape, thinness, display size, screen resolution, 4G data speed, storage capacity, storage expandability and main camera, these phones are twins enough. The decision should weigh more towards operating system and supported applications (Android has more than Windows Phone to choose from, but only the ones you need matter). But subtle differences may matter to other buyers -- single- versus dual-core processor, 720p versus 1080p video recording and 1.3MP versus 2MP front-facing camera. Processor is immaterial to me, if OS and apps are fast and fluid enough. But the 720p video recording would put me off. What about you?

    Far East Movement performs in a 6-story Windows Phone, Nov, 7, 2011

    The S2 and Focus S are similarly plastic encased, whereas the smaller Focus Flash is metal. By the way, Focus Flash has same processor as the Focus S and similar capabilities but with 3.7-inch display, 5MP camera and significantly lower subsidized price: $49.99. Flash buyers also receive a $25 app gift card.

    To promote the new Windows Phones, Microsoft held a special event earlier today in New York City's Herald Square, putting up a six-story Windows Phone, from which Far East Movement played.

    "Windows Phone will help change the way people look at smartphones", Andy Lees, president of Microsoft's Windows Phone Division, says. "Other phones have you wade through a sea of apps, while we bubble up all the things that are important -- centered around the people that matter to you most".

    Windows Phone won't change anything if people don't buy. Will you? Buy Focus Flash or Focus S? If so why?

    Photo Credits: Microsoft

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/07/I_m_not_anti_Apple'

    I'm not anti-Apple

    Publié: novembre 7, 2011, 6:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    My problem is all the rumor and misinformation spread about Apple and apologists who treat the world's most valuable tech company like it's some rebel force. Apple is no longer a puny upstart fighting "The Man". Apple is the "Establishment". I'm aghast with apologist bloggers and so-called journalists, not the company the two Steves, Jobs and Wozniak, founded.

    This post responds to a question posed over the weekend by one of BetaNews' most loathed commenters, Bay_Area_CA_Male, who I threatened to ban last week because so many other readers complain about his comments. He responded to my email promising to tone things down and also asking: "Why do you hate Apple so much? Or is it a 'get the most hits thing?'" I don't hate Apple, and I stand behind everything I write about the company (there's no hit whoring here, just provocative writing and compelling headlines). Can the Apple rumor-mongering rabble say the same? For clarification, while I here answer Bay_Area_CA_Male's question, catalyst for writing is one of several Macworld UK headlines in my RSS feeds this morning: "[iPhone 5 'already built, waiting for LTE chipset']".

    Apple rumor-mongering is simply out of control. Another example from my RSS feeds today: "Apple leaning toward dual-LED light bars for iPad 3's Retina Display". Like Macworld, AppleInsider sources DigiTimes. I've griped about this kind of
    single-sourcing problem before and won't belabor it again.

    I highly recommend following recently launched Stupid Apple Rumors for a glimpse about just how many there are. Fresh off the vine today is "Proof of the Rumor Echo Chamber/Circle Jerk". Excerpt:

    Surfing around, looking for more rumor chum and I spot this from 9to5Mac:

    Apple completes testing of 15 inch LCD for ultra-thin MacBook Pro?

    They claim to have gotten the rumor from Macotakara. So I head over there to read:

    MacBook Air (15-inch)？

    But they claim they got it from MacRumors. Another click sends me to:

    Apple Finishing Up Work on an Ultra-Thin 15" Mac Notebook

    By the way, most Apple rumors turn out to be false, something Stupid Apple Rumors now tracks and reports on.

    Then there is the strange twisting of news to make something perhaps negative more positive. There, my apologist headline of the month (so far) goes to AppleInsider: "Apple allows Motorola Mobility to win procedural German injunction over iPhone". Oh yeah? Apple allowed, not the court ordered? Last month's favorite: "If you sold your Apple stock today, you're an idiot", by MG Siegler for TechCrunch. It was the apologist take for why it was okay that Apple fiscal 2011 fourth-quarter results missed Wall Street consensus.

    My problem isn't Apple, but all the news and misinformation about the company. You can chock up any tone in my Apple posts to them. Someone has to counterbalance this crap.

    It's nothing new. We've been here before, with Microsoft before its antitrust problems resurfaced in 1997 and 1998. Then tech reporting leaned heavily in Microsoft's favor. The kinds of Microsoft stories and rumors then remind of Apple today, just not as far-reaching. The World Wide Web reaches more people and is more a publishing platform than the 1990s.

    Now Why Is That?

    I see four fundamental factors driving the unabashed, unquestioning pro-Apple caucus:

    1. Brand loyalty. People love their Apple stuff, and that's good for the company and demonstrates just how successful are its customer service, marketing and products. Enthusiasts tend to gloss over shortcomings, which is the enviable circumstance many companies long for.

    But Apple doesn't just have enthusiasts. There are unabashed loyalists, who are part of a sub-culture decades old. These are the members of the original rebel alliance and those who joined them later on. During the 1990s, when Windows PCs crushed Macintosh, Guy Kawasaki returned to Apple, where he, starting in 1995, worked on product and brand evangelism. "My job on this tour of duty was to maintain and rejuvenate the Macintosh cult", he says.

    Kawasaki's hit squad of loyalists is well-known among long-time journalists for their relentless responses (attacks if you like) against anything not pro-Apple. The group is still active today, using similar tactics but with louder voice because of comments. Their continued, unabashed cries of "anti-Apple" and "Apple hater" is testimony to Kawasaki's success at rejuvenating the "Macintosh cult" of loyalists. Thing is, Apple is no longer the Rebel Alliance. It's the New Empire.

    A good example of the hit-squad mentality: Comments to my post "Why can't Apple get iPhone's design right?" The majority of posts attack me personally -- name calling, character defamation and other put-down tactics -- rather than actually address the content. Over the weekend, my colleague Ed Oswald told me he didn't understand why I wrote that story. The answer is for the reasons stated therein the analysis. Telephony and battery life rank as among the top priorities cell phone buyers expect. Death Grip plagued iPhone 4 and battery-life the 4S -- problems that emerged immediately after launch. These are serious matters.

    2. Stock price. I've harped on this one many times in past BetaNews posts. There are too many people too heavily invested in Apple, who don't want to see the share price fall. If financial analysts have Apple investments or clients invested in the company, conflict-of-interest is inevitable. This is an endemic scenario far larger than Apple.

    Over the weekend, Ed wrote about analysts and pundits taking a negative view of Apple's future following its fiscal 2011 fourth-quarter earnings announcement. I saw little of that. Surely no analyst heavily invested in Apple or clients there wants to rattle the stock price. Shares fell following the earnings announcement because of spooked investors, not because large numbers of Wall Street analysts suddenly turned against Apple.

    Some journalists are good about disclosing their investments. But if they have none, and acknowledge so, is that enough? The acceptable standard is yes. Does their significant other invest in Apple -- or parent, sibling, child or someone else whom they might be emotionally invested in. Conflict-of-interest isn't one layer deep.

    Apple rumors, of which there are way too many, help feed positive perceptions about Apple's future and help buoy the share price. Same can be said of the many rose-colored glasses stories that aren't critically balanced.

    3. Writer users. Many Apple watchers -- be they analysts, bloggers or journalists -- use the company's products. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made a startling observation two summers ago: "We have lower share in the investor audience". He joked about the number of Mac laptops he could see in the Financial Analyst Meeting 2009 audience "Don't hide them. I've already counted them. Feel free, as long as you're using Office". Several high-profile journalism schools strongly recommend or require Macs and other Apple products of incoming students. At events where I see bloggers or journalists, the majority use Macs, and I see lots of iPhones, too. There's inherent bias there. Microsoft got some of that same kind of benefit when everyone used Windows.

    4. Google economy. Pageviews are the new measure of success and means of generating cash. They mean much for site's securing direct advertising and ad sponsors and for writers getting paid. I see it as fundamental to the "circle jerk" example and to many others like it. Stories circulate and recirculate, too often singly-sourced, leading to loads of misinformation and propagation of false rumors. All the while, someone gets clicks. But there is little original reporting involved.

    I don't get paid by the pageview here, and that's another area of conflict-of-interest not called out enough. I write about what's interesting to me and hopefully to others. I also like to stir up discussion, by looking at things from a different viewpoint. There's never one perspective to anything.

    I'm not anti-Apple. I'm hard on everyone, myself included. But I do react to the amount of misinformation and rumors about Apple and apologists who excuse every little thing. There my award of the month (so far) goes to last week's GigaOm post "Does the Siri outage reveal its success?" -- which turned a service outage into a badge of honor.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/06/Who_is_buying_HTC_Vivid_or_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_Skyrocket_'

    Who is buying HTC Vivid or Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket?

    Publié: novembre 6, 2011, 5:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Not me, likely, and I'm surprised by the answer.

    Today, AT&T flipped the 4G LTE service switch in four additional markets and launched its first supporting smartphones -- HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyocket. Last week, I asked "Who will buy them?" I'm less surprised by your responses than my own.

    Several BetaNews readers are in the same pickle barrel as me. They bought the Galaxy S II around the time of its October 2 release, which is outside AT&T's 30-day return period (with $35 stocking fee) to get the Skyrocket. The question: Why wouldn't you take the LTE and HSPA+ model over the HSPA+-only one, extending your phone investment over the life of the two-year contract?

    BetaNews commenter VivekK offers the simplest solution to the 30-day return policy problem: "U know U can return the phone saying that something is wrong right? Do that, and U can get the LTE phone when it releases -- that's what I did. :D" I would more likely try to cajole bending the rules for a longstanding AT&T Wireless and U-verse customer. Do what your conscience will let you.

    "I'm in your exact situation, Joe," Jon Deutsch comments. He continues:

    Bought my GS2 on Oct 4, I think. So the GS2LTE will be after my 30-day return fee. I'm really torn (as you are), but what makes me less torn is that 4.5-inch screen -- and it's going to be thicker and heavier. And what we do not know at this point in time are many variables:

    • Will the LTE model have as good battery life? (i.e., with LTE on all day, will it even be worth it?)
    • Will the LTE model have NFC (so far, it's a no)? This means that the 'beam' feature in ICS will not work.
    • Will the LTE model perform as well? This is a serious concern. That Exonys CPU is only 1/2 the story. The quad-core MALI GPU makes my (and your) GS2 flow like melted butter. What if the new chipset doesn't perform as well?

    So, with that, I'm betting that I sit tight because Philly also isn't on the immediate list for LTE... and to your point, who knows if the performance will even be there this early in the game. Verizon has proven they can do it... but in my mind, AT&T hasn't yet. Remember, a 2-year contract is really only 18 months with AT&T in terms of getting discounted hardware.

    Deutsch's questions, which I had already asked and answered before reading his comment, are why I likely won't buy Galaxy S II Skyrocket today. Battery life is the kicker for me. I'm completely satisfied with Galaxy S2 battery life, which is surprisingly much better than what I had with iPhone 4 -- and that was exceptional. I typically recharge every other day, 24-40 hours with heavy usage. My own BetaNews story about iPhone 4/4S design problems -- signal strength for the older model and battery-life with the newer -- got me to reconsider my smartphone priorities. Skyrocket battery life, with larger display and LTE radio, is an uncertainty -- while I'm completely satisfied with what I've got.

    I've handled both the Sprint and T-Mobile Galaxy S II variants, which like Skyrocket and Vivid have 4.5-inch screens. The 4.3-inch S2 from AT&T is comfortable in part because of the thinness, which appeals more to me. Then there is Skyrocket's 1.5GHz dual-core Qualcomm processor, which in some early benchmarks performs considerably less well than the Exynos 1.2GHz processor in the S2. I haven't looked at reviews today, but read one last night at ChipChick (guys, it's okay to read this site -- these women know their tech). Helena Stone writes:

    The Galaxy S II blew through Quadrant’s benchmarks with a score of 3078, so it was a bit of a surprise to discover that the Skyrocket earned a score of 2518 in Quadrant. Don’t get us wrong, the Skyrocket feels just as responsive and fluid as the S II as far as everyday performance is concerned, but we were surprised that the benchmarks for the 1.2GHz processor in the S II are so significantly greater than the benchmarks on the Skyrocket. This really isn’t a deal breaker, but more of a peculiarity.

    Like Deutsch, I don't live in an area with LTE service. Considering how satisfied I am with the Galaxy S II, particularly battery life, I'm suddenly reluctant to take the risk. I will truck down to the AT&T store for a look at Skyrocket, but my thinking is not to trade up.

    Are You and AT&T Ready for LTE?

    What will you do? Lots more of you have something to say about that. First some quick specs:

    HTC Vivid: 1.2GHz Qualcomm APQ 8060 dual-core processor; 4.5-inch qHD
    super LCD display with 960 x 540 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; LTE/HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel camera; 1080p video capture; Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi "N"; 1620mAh battery and Android 2.3.4. Dimensions: 5.07" x 2.64" x .44". Price with two-year contract: $199.99.

    Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket: 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 4.5 Super AMOLED Plus display with 800 x 480 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; LTE/HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel camera; 1080p video capture; Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi "N"; Near-Field Communications (NFC); 1850mAh battery and Android 2.3.5. Dimensions: 5.15" x 2.75" x 0.37". Price with two-year contract: $249.99. (There is some confusion about NFC, which may be included but disabled.)

    Commenter RogerOfDoger makes a good point. Should the future investment be about software or hardware: "It will be interesting to see how quickly the 'investment for the future' is updated for Android 4.0, and how long it remains an 'investment in the past' with Android 2.3.5". I could grumble the same about the Galaxy S2.

    Commenter JL lives in a "LTE city, but LTE is not that important to me as I really just see it as a battery hog until the second gen chips come out. So, that being said, I am looking in to importing a Droid Razr GSM model from Canada, or getting the Galaxy Nexus. If this ends up being too expensive, I might opt for the HTC Vivid and just deal with the 4.5-inch screen, but my #1 concern is 960x540 or 720p resolution". If resolution matters to you, too, Vivid beats Skyrocket there.

    James Sarino:

    Yes, I'd be interested in this phone [Skyrocket], and I'm glad I waited. :-). I have an unlocked Nexus One now, and it's getting a bit long on the tooth. The only things that will sway me away from the Skyrocket are if the S II HD LTE makes it to the US (and AT&T), and of course there's the Galaxy Nexus, which can run on both HSPA+ and LTE, and it too makes it to AT&T (confirmed to Verizon so far), so I hope to hear about where those phones will go sooner rather than later. But I agree with you about investing in the future and getting an LTE-enabled phone early.

    Samsung announced the Galaxy S II HD LTE for the South Korean market in late September. Display size is 4.65 inches -- same as Galaxy Nexus -- but with better camera (8 megapixels, not 5MP).

    "I have the HTC Inspire and I'm thinking I'll probably just stick with it", writes Joe Dodd. "I actually got it a week ago and a couple of days later found out about the HTC Vivid. Shucks!...I won't be getting it because 4G isn't even offered in my area...Consider the acronym itself: 'long term evolution'. Doesn't it make more sense to wait for it to 'evolve' a little more before making an investment in one of the first pieces of AT&T technology to use it?

    Bruce Burns offers by far the longest comment, and it's worth reading the whole thing:

    Hey Joe! I was almost in the same boat as you. I bought the GSII on Oct 7. However, I must give AT&T credit. The AT&T store near me never stocked the GSII because they knew of the Skyrocket's release. I had to buy the GSII @ Radio Shack, which was not a consumer friendly event -- neither was taking them back (bought 2 phones). After I bought the phones an AT&T rep at the store told me about the some-time-in-the-future release of the LTE version. My thought at the time was it could be 6 months so I kept the phones. When they announced on Halloween about the Nov 6 release, I was shocked.

    A few of his reasons for going with S2 Skyrocket: "The GSII was the most awesome phone I've ever seen or had -- the Skyrocket is larger and faster processor-wise and then there is LTE". He lives in one of the nine markets where LTE is available. They are: Atlanta, Athens, Ga., Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Washington, DC.

    I'll end with another question: Did you buy either the HTC Vivid or Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket today?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/04/The_Siri_outage_reveals_its_failure'

    The Siri outage reveals its failure

    Publié: novembre 4, 2011, 4:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    That's my response to the question "Does the Siri outage reveal its success?" posed by Darrell Etherington at GigaOM today. Etherington's post will be one of many Apple apologies that you'll read, following Siri's collapse yesterday. There are conflicting reports about timing, but five to six hours is fairly consistent.

    I expect the typical fanboy comments to this post -- like those yesterday to my "Why can't Apple get iPhone's design right?" -- accusing of linkbaiting and being an Apple hater. Not so. In the Apple crowd, no one can hear you scream because they're all shouting you down.

    Etherington has a Master's Degree in creative writing and puts his talents to good use, contending that Apple might "want to reflect on this after the fact and pat itself on the back". This is where I spit up coffee while reading his Siri outage apology.

    Hopefully Apple learned a valuable lesson about managing a large-scale, persistent data service managed from its own server facility, and this will never happen again. But the extent of the outcry as the outage wore on, as well as the attempts Friday to follow-up and try to get to the bottom of what exactly happened show that Siri’s effect on the mobile landscape is not insignificant.

    Siri is a new iPhone feature/service for Apple, and one that requires cloud connectivity to answer the many questions people will ask. "Learn a valuable lesson?" What? Apple failed to learn the lesson about managing data centers when MobileMe collapsed during its launch nearly three-and-a-half years ago. That's no excuse for Siri's outage, nor is comparing to the recent, longer BlackBerry service outage (which he does).

    I posted about the Apple apology blog to Google+ before writing this response. Tom Paladino astutely sums up Etherington's response: "The article was asking: has Siri become ubiquitous so quickly that it's failure in up-time (and subsequent outcry) indicate that the overall service is a success?"

    I understand it all too well. John Berger responds to Paladino: "It indicates no such thing. All that it says is that they hired competent system admins who were able to identify, troubleshoot, and fix the problem in a relatively short amount of time. It has zero to do with the 'success' of Siri".

    Let's be generous and assume that Apple has sold 10 million iPhone 4Ses already and that all 10 million devices are located in areas where they have data access to Siri services and users can afford to pay data access fees. That's ubiquitous? Hardly, in a global market where there are 5.6 billion mobile subscribers. Nor is the number of iPhone 4Ses sold likely that high or the number of Siri users anywhere close to that number. What? Apple can't handle a few million users in the cloud? Etherington makes too much of Siri's success as justification for a service that should fail never.

    My colleague Ed Oswald upgraded to iPhone 4S, mainly because of Siri. I know other people who did the same. More importantly, Siri is Apple's primary advertising push for iPhone 4S. If for no other reason than marketing, the service shouldn't fail. Not now, especially. First impressions are everything.

    As more evidence the outage shows Siri's success, Etherington writes: "The outcry about Siri’s downtime reminds me of the web-wide groans that go up every time the Twitter fail whale makes one of its visits, or when Tumblr takes a tumble".

    Paladino offers better response than I could at Google+: "The outcry about the outage shows a lot of people were quite upset about it similar to when Twitter fails or when BlackBerry goes down. Do these represent a large enough pool to make the service ubiquitous? I don't think so yet".

    Exactly my point, and more. Even if a service is hugely popular, no outage can be excused by popularity. What? You think the BlackBerry users cowing for their service back would have accepted that excuse -- BB is so popular the service crashed? Did AT&T subscribers bitching about dropped calls accept iPhone's popularity as excuse. Hell, no.

    There's a broader issue and lesson to be learned from it: How much should mobile devices depend on cloud services for key functionality.

    "Given the state of data services in the US right now, I don't think a service like Siri is ready for prime-time" Paladino asserts. "Nor do I think ChromeOS was a good idea without offline capabilities. The fact that Siri needs a data connection to do local tasks like play a song or schedule an appointment is the big fail in my eyes".

    I must agree.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/04/Microsoft_s_clever__family__marketing_campaign_is_exceptional'

    Microsoft's clever 'family' marketing campaign is exceptional

    Publié: novembre 4, 2011, 3:37am CET par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's "It's a great time to be a family" marketing campaign keeps getting better. This ranks as one of my favorite high-tech promotionals in a decade and accomplishes something Microsoft has never successfully done in a mass-marketing campaign -- clearly show the benefits of multiple products working together. I spotted two more videos late today.

    Before Microsoft launched the "I'm a PC" campaign three years ago, I recommended firing then new ad agency Crispin Porter & Bogusky, after the Chairman Bill Gates and Comedian Jerry Seinfeld commercials aired. But I was wrong to make the recommendation. The agency has produced for Microsoft a string of creative hits, of which the family campaign is just the most recent.

    As I explained about two weeks ago, the campaign sells the Microsoft lifestyle -- emphasizing relationships and technology enabling them. There's a real familiarity, because family is something most people can relate to. It's not like most of us are harvested in test tubes. The commercials are also clever, in the storytelling and how they present the benefits of multiple products. Keyword: Benefits. Not features, but benefits people gain from them.

    In the commercial embedded above, a dad shops for groceries from a list on his phone. Yeah, big deal. So he has a shopping list. What's special about that? But the list updates in -- real time. From the family's Windows 7 PC. Dad uses OneNote on his Windows Phone, and it can dynamically sync via SkyDrive. This Microsoft video explains how. The products aren't all necessarily named -- OneNote, SkyDrive, sync, Windows Phone and Windows 7 -- but the benefits are clear.

    As I've been saying for years, sync is the killer application for the connected age and it's something the commercial above and another "Tech-No" I wrote about two weeks ago demonstrate. BetaNews reader John Crane commented about the latter:

    That epic sharing happened a couple of time in my extended family. We were having separate family get-togethers in two different locations across and country and were able to share videos and photos with each other in real time. We have a couple Apple PC holdouts in my family, but most everybody else uses Windows.

    Apple's iCloud is all the rage right now, in part because it's new. It's a sync service more than anything else. But the focus is more about individuals -- making your stuff available where you want it. Microsoft's approach with its cloud sync marketing emphasizes sharing with others -- an aspiring message conveyed through the family marketing campaign.

    No one talks in the TV commercials, which like those from previous campaigns will be reshot for each locality -- 34 international markets. Globalization may be easier for this campaign than others, since there's no dialogue. In watching the commercials, I find the no-dialog approach very effective. My attention is drawn to activity taking place around the different devices and services.

    Have you seen the movie "Blade Runner" directed by Ridley Scott? At the movie studio's insistence, the final commercial release included voice by actor Harrison Ford. Scott later released "Blade Runner" director's cut without the voice over, and it's a much better movie for it. What's that saying? Silence is golden. Sometimes it is -- well, there is musical background.

    The marketing campaign runs across different media. I spotted the embedded commercials this evening at iSmashPhone.com, while doing some background research on Apple's Siri service outage. They started playing immediately, unprompted, too, which is really annoying.

    I'm looking forward to the next commercials.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/03/Why_can_t_Apple_get_iPhone_s_design_right_'

    Why can't Apple get iPhone's design right?

    Publié: novembre 3, 2011, 6:31pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    For a company praised for such great design, Apple sure seems troubled getting out an iPhone that works right. Death Grip -- and its signal stifling capability -- marred iPhone 4 from Day One. Consumer Reports still won't recommend the handset, even after giving it a high rating. Successor 4S comes along and, uh-oh, suffers from heap, big battery-life problems. The story is everywhere -- even Apple apologist blogs report it. Perhaps the company should invest more resources in functional design than appearance.

    Maybe Apple simply is out of its depth. The company has received generous praise for launching a smartphone from scratch and dramatically changing -- arguably pushing ahead -- the entire mobile market with it. Apple deserves kudos for its accomplishment. But the company also is a newcomer to a market where depth-of-engineering is necessary to get products right. The smartphone category is also one where form shouldn't supplant function.

    Cell phone design isn't easy, and I don't profess to be any kind of expert. But it doesn't take a Masters degree in industrial design to see that Apple has got problems with iPhone 4/4S. From my perspective as someone who during the mid Noughties conducted consumer surveys about smartphone priorities, battery consistently ranked near the top and telephony often higher. iPhone 4 suffered signal problems and its successor has battery-drain issues. From a usability perspective, failure to deliver core functionality ranks among blunders any company can make designing products.

    When working as an analyst and consulting with high-tech vendors about cell phones, my colleagues and I delivered a consistent message: Additional features cannot take away from core functionality. Anything that compromises what's core should be verboten. For cell phones this is particularly true of telephony and battery life, two features Apple has, so far, mucked up in successive iPhone releases.

    Achieving Balance

    Depth-of-engineering is particularly problematic for Apple because the company is so secretive about new products. Because of the intricacy involved in balancing the many features against one another, broad testing is necessary. I assume, but can't definitely say, that Apple limits access to new prototypes to prevent leaks about them -- then there is the lost iPhone 4 prototype from last year and what that might mean for future testing. If testing is limited, and any smartphone manufacturer might do this, depth-of-engineering can make a huge difference getting the right balance of features that don't compromise those that are core.

    Compare to vendors like HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung or Sony, which have produced consumer electronics products -- cellular handsets among them -- for much longer than Apple. Motorola invented the cell phone in 1973 and Nokia the smartphone in 1996. These companies have deep device-engineering cultures. It's part of their DNA.

    Apple apologists will argue, with some justification, that the Cupertino, Calif.-based company has deep engineering culture, too, because of Macs and iPod. I agree. But cellular handsets, smartphones particularly, are considerably more complex. Something else: Apple often makes functional compromises for purposes of form. The list of products following this pattern is long and the approach is more part of Apple's engineering culture, I contend. There, looking at Mac and iPod, Apple did fairly well balancing features.

    Apple made numerous compromises with the original iPhone, such as no 3G or MMS, but did so for the purpose of balance and protecting core functions telephony and battery life. The company took greater risks with iPhone 3G and 3GS, but still managed to maintain balance -- although personally I was not satisfied with battery life, never able to make it one work day on one charge. But in pushing design limits with iPhone 4 and iOS 4, where form superseded function, Apple faltered. Battery life was exceptional, but the antenna design -- mandated in part for appearances -- brought on Death Grip and widespread complaints about dropped calls, even as AT&T improved its cellular network. A company with deeper-engineering function culture might not have so blundered as Apple did with iPhone 4's antenna design.

    A Really Big Problem

    Now there's iPhone 4S and the battery-sucking problem. Yesterday, my colleague Ed Oswald joined the chorus of iPhone 4S battery life posts, offering a list of solutions. In group chat, I teased Ed, calling him an Apple apologist for treating the topic so lightly.

    Apple's forum thread "iPhone 4S battery life?" is a litany of complaints. Among them:

    • "My iPhone 4s battery seems terrible! Almost equivalent to my 3GS and it's terrible battery life".
    • "Nearly every day my phone has been completely drained of battery before the end of the day, starting with a full charge. I didn't realize that this was a persistent and real problem until I had had the phone for a week".
    • "My iPhone 4, even on iOS 5, would only drop about 2 percent overnight but my iPhone 4S drops about 9-10 percent. And I've already calibrated the battery by letting it drain to 0 percent and then charging it all the way to 100 percent".
    • "I have AT&T, a guy in my office with Verizon has the exact same problem".

    Yesterday, Ed offered five remedies for iPhone 4S battery problems. Absolutely none should be necessary. If there was right balance of functions against operating system capabilities, nothing should need be turned off. Another forum poster expresses the sentiments of many -- and how bad from usability and customer satisfaction perspectives -- is the iPhone 4S battery-drain problem:

    This is completely ridiculous...It's crazy that I have to have a device with 75 percent of the functionality turned off in order for the battery usage to be at a semi 'normal' level. There is NO WAY ON THIS EARTH that my phone would get nearly half of the time that Apple advertises this phone should last. I've turned off notifications. I've turned off the feedback. I've turned off location. I've turned off calendars. I've turned off WiFi. I've deleted things. I've drained the battery and recharged it all the way. Bottom line, the battery life still *****. For a phone sitting on standby in the locked mode, my battery should not continue to drain the way it does (and I have good network strength where I am)...I feel like I have purchased a device which is MAJORLY FLAWED.

    Yesterday, Apple issued a statement minimizing the numbers and blaming iOS 5: "A small number of customers have reported lower than expected battery life on iOS 5 devices. We have found a few bugs that are affecting battery life and we will release a software update to address those in a few weeks". If that's true, why aren't more iPhone 4 users complaining about battery-drain problems?

    Whether hardware or software, iPhone 4S carries on the sad tradition of its predecessor, and I can't help wonder if a company with deeper cellular manufacturing engineering culture and one that puts function before design would have these problems. Google outsources its pure Android phones to longstanding cellular manufacturers -- for a reason; now the company is buying engineering expertise and culture with Motorola Mobility.

    I own the Samsung Galaxy S II, which battery life exceeds what I got from iPhone 4. Now why is that?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/03/Android_share_rises__again___iOS_still_stagnant'

    Android share rises (again), iOS still stagnant

    Publié: novembre 3, 2011, 4:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    The US smartphone market has become so consistent -- Android gains, iPhone is stagnant -- that Nielsen has started revealing other interesting trends, as it did today. First, for the fanboys: Android share among US subscribers 13 or older was 43 percent at the end of third quarter, up from 39 percent at the end of June. Meanwhile, iPhone is top-selling smartphone, but iOS share is stuck at 28 percent, following a trend fairly consistent since mid 2010.

    Each fan group has some number to wave around: Android as top-selling smartphone OS (and continually gaining) and iPhone leading handset in its class. To fan the fanboy fires, I should point out that iOS could finally get some pick up from new US iPhone carriers C Spire Wireless and Sprint. However, some of the hottest Android phones either shipped or will ship this quarter, including 4G LTE packing Motorola Droid Razr and Galaxy Nexus on Verizon and HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket on AT&T. iPhone 4S lacks LTE.

    For anyone keeping track, BlackBerry OS share fell 2 points to 18 percent quarter on quarter. Windows Mobile/Phone held steady at 7 percent. For the Microsoft fanboys, don't feel left out. Windows Phone 7.5 handsets shipping this quarter, such as Samsung Focus S 4G, could finally lift Microsoft's smartphone OS share.

    Now to Nielsen's other findings. Forty-three percent of US cellphone subscribers, again 13 or older, had a smartphone at the end of September -- up from 40 percent at the end of July. Interestingly, keeping an ongoing trend, Android OS share tracks consistently with overall smartphone share. Make of that what you will.

    More Americans 25-34 have smartphones than any other segment -- 62 percent. It's over 50 percent for anyone older than 17 and younger than 45. Forty-percent of 13-to-17 year olds have smartphones. The oldest segments are least likely to have smartphones -- only 18 percent among those 65 or older. My soon-to-be 90 year-old father-in-law has iPhone 4, which we updated to iOS 5 last night. The many changes already stun him, and it will be worse after upgrading his computer to Mac OS X 10.7. There's a reason to stick with more familiar feature phones.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/02/Will_you_buy_AT_T_LTE_phones____HTC_Vivid_or_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_Skyrocket_'

    Will you buy AT&T LTE phones -- HTC Vivid or Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket?

    Publié: novembre 2, 2011, 8:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    I'm feeling kind of cranky today and having bad flashbacks to the 1990s, when the honking PC bought one day seemed oh-so last year weeks later. On October 2, I bought the Galaxy S II from AT&T. Problem: On November 6, the carrier will launch its first two LTE phones -- and service in four new markets -- the HTC Vivid and Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket. I so want the Skyrocket. It's an investment for the future, because of LTE. But AT&T probably won't let me have it, because the new S2 releases a couple days outside the 30-day return period for the older model. Not hopeful, I will nevertheless try.

    What about you? Would you buy either phone, and would the main reason be LTE -- that is, if an AT&T subscriber? Verizon's LTE rollout already is farther along and reaches many more people, and the carrier offers six LTE phones (seven with the forthcoming Droid Razr) and two tablets. Have you bought a Verizon LTE phone, with faster data being a reason? Please answer in comments below.

    We've had some fiercely contentious discussions here at BetaNews about the value of LTE, and whether it really matters to many phone users. I'm in the "hell, yes, it does" camp. Verizon surely thinks so, given its network expansion -- $65 billion, including $9.6 billion for spectrum purchased in 2008 -- overall, including LTE. But there's division here in the newsroom about how many people really choose a phone or carrier because of LTE.

    According to a report In-Stat released last week, 75 percent of survey respondents listed 4G as one of the features they'd like in their "ideal phone". It's my experience that what people say they want on a survey but actually take differs dramatically. Factors like affordability often matter more.

    A few days before Apple announced iPhone 4S, when everyone thought it would be something else, I asked: "What if iPhone 5 isn't LTE?" Reader Lori Johnson responded: "It needs to be LTE!!!!" Commenter James: "Why buy a new phone that only supports old 3G and runs slower in major markets".

    That's exactly my quandary today. Had I known AT&T would release a Galaxy S II LTE model 36 days after the HSPA+ model, I would have waited. I've been here before, on PCs, when faster microprocessors, modems and USB came along. In the so-called post-PC era, better mobiles come out quickly, like personal computers in the 1990s. At least I could upgrade the PC, and there was no long-term monthly payment commitment. So it makes sense to me, if committing to a two-year cellular and data contract, to get LTE -- invest in the future. But fast data matters to me. Does it to you?

    Then there's the "What's fast enough?" question. WiFi is widely available in coffee shops and even McDonald's, and that's free data. Both Galaxy S II models support HSPA+, with theoretical data maximum of 21Mbps (iPhone 4S is only 14Mbps). That's plenty fast and pitched as 4G, too. Skyrocket adds LTE, which, in theory, delivers up to 70Mbps.

    "Although 4G is an important feature for handset buyers, there is a lot of confusion surrounding 4G", says In-Stat analyst Greg Potter. "When survey respondents were asked which carrier offered the fastest 4G speeds, the majority of the respondents either didn’t know or felt they were the same across carriers".

    Perhaps I'm the confused one. Since all this speed is theoretical, does any of it really matter? And what's really fast enough? Here in the San Diego area, I frequently got over 6Mbps on T-Mobile with Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Nexus S. I've yet to reach that speed on AT&T's network with Galaxy S II, which theoretical maximum is three times greater than Nexus S.

    Additionally, LTE isn't available in my area. On Sunday, AT&T will add LTE service in Athens, Ga., Baltimore, Boston and Washington, DC, which will join Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. San Diego may not get LTE service for some time. But I'm thinking that either I or someone else in the family will still be using this phone when it does -- after all there is a two-year contract.

    Then there is the phone, which features impress -- and same applies to HTC Vivid. Quick specs:

    HTC Vivid: 1.2GHz Qualcomm APQ 8060 dual-core processor; 4.5-inch qHD
    super LCD display with 960 x 540 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; LTE/HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel camera; 1080p video capture; Bluetooth 3.0; WiFi "N"; 1620mAh battery and Android 2.3.4. Dimensions: 5.07" x 2.64" x .44". Price with two-year contract: $199.99.

    Samsung Galaxy S II Skyrocket: 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 4.5 Super AMOLED Plus display with 800 x 480 resolution; capacitive touchscreen; LTE/HSPA+/UMTS/GSM/GPRS/EDGE; 1GB RAM; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card; 8-megapixel camera; 1080p video capture; Bluetooth; WiFi "N"; Near-Field Communications (NFC); 1850mAh battery and Android 2.3.5. Dimensions: 5.15" x 2.75" x 0.37". Price with two-year contract: $249.99.

    So, would you buy? Or have you got another LTE phone on another carrier? Please respond on comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/01/Internet_Explorer_hemorrhages_browser_usage_share'

    Internet Explorer hemorrhages browser usage share

    Publié: novembre 1, 2011, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Do I have your attention now?

    Google Chrome's assault on Internet Explorer continued a pace in October, according to browser usage share data that Net Applications released today. Chrome gained share for the 12th consecutive month. Since November 2010, IE share fell 7.72 points, while Chrome gained 8.05. Want to guess from where Google's browser is taking usage share? Hint: It's not Firefox.

    Looking more recently, Chrome gained 1.42 points, while Internet Explorer lost 1.76 points September to October. Firefox actually edged up 0.03 points, ending four months of consecutive losses. Apple's Safari eeked up 0.41 points. Usage share for each in October:

    • Internet Explorer: 52.63 percent
    • Firefox: 22.51 percent
    • Chrome: 17.62 percent
    • Safari: 5.43 percent
    • Opera: 1.56 percent

    Internet Explorer usage share fell from 60.35 percent in November 2010; Firefox fell from 23.52 percent; and Chrome rose from 9.57 percent.

    Last month, after viewing the startling results of a BetaNews poll, I asked: "My God, does ANYONE use Internet Explorer?" The poll is still open, but out of date, since new Chrome and Firefox versions has since shipped. Among the 4,470 respondents, 40.16 say they use some version of Chrome as their primary web browser. By comparison, 20.88 percent some version of IE, which is less than Firefox (30.18 percent). The poll is unqualified -- meaning we don't know who respondents are -- but we assume more tech-savvy folks based on readership.

    BetaNews site browser stats tell a different story, and one that is perhaps more perplexing. Firefox was the top browser used to view the site in October (29.68 percent) followed by Internet Explorer (24.07 percent) and Chrome (23.58 percent). What's surprising is how evenly they are spaced. Safari was 13.57 percent, by the way.

    Based on the poll, 70.34 percent of respondents use Chrome or Firefox as their primary web browser. BetaNews browser stats show 53.26 percent of visitors use one of the browsers. Does that invalidate the poll then? Site stats corroborate it, since usage share isn't finite market share. Most people use more than one browser, a tendency supported by BetaNews commenters on this topic and other analyst data.

    Judging IE9 Strategy

    Browser versions reveal a startling trend that shows the risks Microsoft took with its Internet Explorer 9 strategy. By version, IE8 had highest usage share in October (29 percent), followed by Chrome 14 (13.65 percent) and Firefox 7 (10.18 percent). For most of October, Chrome 14 and Firefox 7 were current versions of both browsers. The data shows how quickly their users are moving to the newest version compared to lag-behind Internet Explorer.

    IE9, which had 9.79 percent browser usage share in October, isn't available for Windows XP. Chrome and Firefox are. Microsoft took a look-forward strategy that may pay off as the Windows 7 install base increases, but there's short-term pain today. According to NetApps, Windows XP is still the leading PC operating system, with 48.03 percent share in October. Windows 7: 34.62 percent.

    Caveat: According to NetApps, there are 2 billion Internet users, and 93 percent of them use PC browsers. By that reckoning, because not every PC may connect to the Net, the data may not be fully representative of operating system share.

    Roger Capriotti, Microsoft Internet Explorer marketing director, presents the data differently. He observes that IE9's usage share on Windows 7 is 34.9 percent, followed by Chrome at 14.3 percent and Firefox at 11.8 percent. "IE9 is growing nicely and is on path to be the leading modern browser on Windows 7 behind IE8 as early as next month".

    From security and usability perspectives, Microsoft deserves praise for not making IE9 available for Windows XP. The question now: How quickly can Windows 7 deployments pull forward IE9 usage with it? Can there be enough to overcome Chrome gains? IE usage share was well above 90 percent when Firefox 1.0 shipped 7 years ago next month. Looked at the way, Internet Explorer hemorrhages browser usage share, at a time when Windows 7 adoption should give it more lift. My unsolicited advice: Microsoft must evangelize IE9 and Windows 7 benefits more, and it's high time for some fresh, aggressive marketing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/11/01/Tell_us_your_Xbox_Kinect_story'

    Tell us your Xbox Kinect story

    Publié: novembre 1, 2011, 4:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    November 4 is the one-year anniversary of Kinect, which rapidly is evolving into more than a game controller and a huge present and future success for Microsoft. The technology also represents the company's profound push into natural user interfaces. Apple's Siri has buzz now, but it's from Redmond, Wash., not Cupertino, Calif., that the most inventive NUIs are coming -- and most likely will dramatically affect your life and anyone within your sphere of six degrees of separation.

    But that's a future I'll expand on in a few paragraphs. For now, the present. Do you Kinect? If so, I'd like your story, whether it's about the technology for gaming or something else. Please share your story here or send email to joe at betanews dot com. I'll collect some stories here and post others separately, depending on writers' preferences.

    In January, reader Robert Johnson asked: "Could Kinect be Microsoft's iPod?" He gave a developer's perspective on the technology two months after launch and long before Microsoft released the Kinect SDK for Windows. His story is a good starting point.

    One of the reasons I'm so recently bullish about Microsoft -- and why you should be, too -- is recent investments in NUIs like Kinect. As I explained in February, Apple's success today traces back to four investments made in 2001 during a recession that sapped sales. Economic crisis seemingly is time to pull back, but historically companies that invest often reap rewards later. Here there's some irony. Apple's fortune soared during the current economic downturn from investments made during the last one. I see Microsoft NUI investments made over the last couple years in same ilk.

    During his Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote, at the height of the econolypse, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer professd: "I believe that companies and industries that continue to pursue innovation during tough economic times will achieve a significant competitive advantage positioning themselves for growth far more effectively than companies that hold back." He's absolutely right. Microsoft's investments in cloud infrastructure and purchases of companies like Skype, for example, are sure to pay off in the future. But Kinect, and other NUI technogies, stand apart for their potential to dramatically change how we all interface with high-tech. The most natural user interface is you.

    Microsoft is getting much better at user interfaces and user experience -- that is UX -- and Bill Buxton is one of the key influencers. Buxton, principal researcher at Microsoft Research, is one of the best hires of the Steve Ballmer decade. I encourage you to review the Buxton Collection for a sense of what he sees as delivering good UX and sense for where Microsoft is going with NUIs.

    Science Fiction

    Technology like Kinect is the stuff of science fiction. But that's not the only tale being told.

    Microsoft's biggest competitive problem is fiction -- what competitor's might do. There are now rumors that Apple will add Siri to Apple TV and that it will be better than Kinect. It's really laughable, since they do different things (granted there is voice command overlap). But the rumors -- and don't take them too seriously -- are having impact.

    Yesterday, Ali Muzaffar commented:

    I do love the Kinect but it's days are numbered if all the Android and Apple powered smart tv's are really coming. MS needs to do something drastic here, the Xbox is already a great media hub, they really need to extend the abilities of the Xbox and Kinect interface to allow you to do more. Perhaps make the Kinect sensor smaller in the process.

    Microsoft is doing more, as the "Kinect Effect" campaign and Windows SDK indicate.

    Yesterday morning, Microsoft watcher Paul Thurrott picked up on the rumors spread by The New York Times Bits blog about Siri coming to Apple TV. (Who needs misinformed blog posts when the Grey Lady so effectively spreads rumors?) He writes: "Science fiction? I guess that's true if you ignore what Microsoft shipped a year ago".

    I posted to Google+: "Apple doesn't copy, eh?" -- and the comments are worth a look. Fellow journalist Ian Betteridge makes the most important point:

    Umm... you're all suggesting a feature which doesn't exist, on a product which doesn't exist, is a copy of something? Remember, these rumours originate with the same bunch of fantasists who insisted that Apple was going to be unveils a teardrop-shaped iPhone 5 with NFC and blah blah blah.

    That's right, the science fiction here is Siri for Apple TV. But already Microsoft is competing against this amorphous thing. Surely, Apple rumors will be the ruin of us all!

    Circling back, please share your Kinect story here in comments or by emailing joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/31/10_things_that_should_scare_you_about_Microsoft'

    10 things that should scare you about Microsoft

    Publié: octobre 31, 2011, 4:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    Happy Halloween!

    It's fun time at Microsoft's expense, being trick-or-treat today and Day of the Dead tomorrow. To celebrate, we've got 10 scary things about Microsoft to ponder. I encourage you to add to the list in comments. It's all meant to be light-hearted, so keep that spirit when adding to the list.

    On a frustrated side note. I had prepared this list as a slideshow, but there's some bug preventing the plugin from working correctly. I had a better treat for you but I got tricked instead. Grumble. Grumble.

    1. Steve Ballmer. Need we say more? We laugh when reading any of the ongoing blogs, news stories or other online posts demanding Ballmer be fired. Surely, he laughs at them, too. Mr. "Developers, Developers, Developers" is an imposing figure. For those folks demanding Ballmer's head should be very afraid, because he might still be Microsoft CEO Halloween 2020.

    2. The Lawyers. Microsoft's legal hit team is amazing. Ten years ago, an appeals court upheld a dozen adverse antitrust findings against the company. The lawyers got Microsoft off US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's death sentence and negotiated a fairly favorable settlement. More recently, they've convinced Android licensees to pay Microsoft royalties -- all without filing one court case (#3). Apple has to sue everyone. Microsoft's legal team blinks and its opponents ask where's the agreement to sign. Now that's scary.

    3. Android patents. Microsoft has cunningly signed up about half the Android licensees for its "You pay us so we don't sue you program". I did some quick math a few months ago and reckoned Android patent licensing could be a $6 billion business for Microsoft by 2015. That's pure profit, with no ongoing costs. But surely Microsoft paid dearly up front in lawyer fees.

    4. Antitrust oversight. Microsoft's decade of house arrest is over. Finally the company can innovate the way it likes, and how competitors have done it for years -- cross-integrating products and features. Antivirus inclusion in Windows 8 foreshadows lots more to come. Additionally, Microsoft bulked up in prison and is showing through its Android licensing program just how much the bully it can be (again). Be very afraid.

    5. Stock price. Despite consistently strong earnings for about a decade, Microsoft can't get a break from investors. The stock is moribund. Microsoft shares traded at $29.08 on Halloween 2001. By comparison Apple was $8.78. Oct. 31, 2011, Microsoft opened at $26.80 and Apple $402.11. Now that's scary.

    6. Windows Phone. IDC claims that Windows Phone will go from obscurity to second place in smartphone shipments by 2015 -- behind Androids but ahead of iPhone. You must understand what this means. Microsoft's design philosophy is "glance and go" -- the idea being you spend less time on the device and more living life. That means interacting with REAL people, rather than texting, tweeting or posting status updates to them. That's not scary?

    7. Skype. If you Skype on any platforms other than Windows or Windows Phone, be very afraid. Microsoft now owns Skype and claims commitment to platforms like Android or Mac OS X. But we've heard this talk before. Skype is destined for deep integration into Microsoft products. It likely will continue on other platforms for awhile but with nowhere near the same feature set.

    8. The Office Ribbon. It's coming to Windows 8 whether or not you want it. If you think the operating systems' new tile motif is scary, wait until the Ribbon you fear in Office is part of Windows. We know some of you like the Ribbon -- yeah, some people obsess over the "SAW" series and vampire movies. That's not most of us.

    9. Kinect. Do you think that dad looks goofy dancing in the new Microsoft family TV commercial? Wait until that's you motioning to your refrigerator or living room light switch -- or, gasp, ATM on the street. Apple chose voice commands with Siri, Microsoft is going for the whole body, and, whoa, will you look like the dork.

    10. Internet Explorer 6 and Windows XP. Pick your favorite zombie movie or TV show. Microsoft has been trying to kill off these undead products for years. But they won't die. IE6 may literally be dawn of the living dead, allowing hackers to control millions of computers into botnets spewing spam and malware.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/28/Is_PlayBook_3_for_2_deal_cheap_enough_'

    Is PlayBook 3-for-2 deal cheap enough?

    Publié: octobre 28, 2011, 6:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Research in Motion is using a little clothing retailer incentive to motivate businesses to buy BlackBerry PlayBook. But if you don't want any, would you buy three? For a limited time, RIM and its retail partners are offering a buy 2-get-1-free special. If that's not enough incentive, they're throwing in free accessories, too, like leather sleeve and HDMI cable. The deal is available through December 31.

    RIM sold 500,000 PlayBooks during the launch quarter but only 200,000 the one following. It's safe to assume there's lots of inventory in the channel, and a deal like this is one way to clear the stock rooms. But how good is it really, and is it enough to push you to PlayBook? The latter question is for you to answer in comments. I've got the first here.

    For starters, RIM is heavily relying on its dealer channel. The deal website offers contact info for sites like CDW and PC Connection -- that's to direct sales people. Sorry, you can't rush over to Amazon. Businesses must either go through their existing account reps at these dealers or through the designated point of contact. The PlayBook deal is also available through value-added resellers.

    I contacted CDW, and got an email box closed message. There's no email response yet from PC Connection or PC Mall. The question: What starting price -- and if high enough is there a real deal here? For example, CDW's website lists the 16GB PlayBook for $499.99. Assuming that's the price for the deal, too, then the cost for three PlayBooks is $999.98 before tax, plus buyers get one accessory per tablet.

    By comparison, PC Connection sells the 16GB PlayBook for $299. If you really want three, the price then is $100 less, but that's without free accessories. What if PC Connection's business price is higher? Then it might be cheaper to buy from the website instead of through a designated sales person.

    "Are they selling PlayBooks at $999 for three?" Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. "If so that is just the retail equivalent of $299. Business channels would rather have the total dollars and drive higher spending so 3 for 2 works nicely for them (plus their customers often need more than one, whereas retail channels want the lower absolute price point so as to not scare consumers away".

    But what if in the case of PC Connection it's $598 for three -- meaning the current website price is same for the 3-for-2 deal? That's the question I'm waiting for the online dealer to answer. I'll update when I get it. What price would move you to buy PlayBook -- if at all?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/28/Should_your_small_business_virtualize_'

    Should your small business virtualize?

    Publié: octobre 28, 2011, 3:30am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Virtualization is one of the hottest IT topics today. Everyone's talking about it, but few are really doing it -- and there's a big gulf between enterprise and small business adoption, even though many of the benefits are the same. Small business is one of my favorite technology segments, because of its diversity, unique needs, large size, yet small IT footprint. When working as an analyst during the mid-Noughties I launched JupiterResearch's SMB practice. I've been remiss by not writing more about small business tech at BetaNews.

    There is much confusion about what is a small business -- how official statisticians and high-tech vendors segment sizes. Small businesses account for 97 percent of employee firms, according to US government agencies. But that segmentation counts firms with fewer than 500 employees as small business -- large by my measure -- and ignores the enormous number of operations with non-payroll employees. This segment is often overlooked by high-tech vendors, many of which count them as consumers. By the US Census Bureau's reckoning, there are nearly 27.3 million small businesses, but only 5.9 million have payrolls and 3.62 million employ fewer than five people. So there are 21.4 million businesses employing less than 5 people -- that's 78 percent of them.

    Integrated Approach

    For JupiterResearch, I segmented small businesses differently. Small is small. Companies with less than 50 employees counted as small businesses, those with fewer than 10 employees as very small businesses and those with no payroll employees were sole proprietorships. It's typical for business owners in this segment to run their establishments on the side or to have more than one operation. I am surprised to see how few high-tech firms address the unique needs of very small businesses or sole proprietorships.

    Among PC manufacturers, HP and Dell stand out for their small business offerings, for no other reason than size, being No. 1 and No. 2 in global shipments, according to Gartner and IDC. But both vendors are going through dramatic realignments. Earlier this summer, HP announced plans to either sell off or spin off its PC division, separating it from valuable services necessary to support business needs of all sizes. Today, HP made the decision to keep its PC division.

    Dell's changes are different, as the company makes the cloud, virtualization and supporting services priorities. Dell's emphasis is integration -- one place for software, hardware and services. IBM also is good at vertical integration but Big Blue sold its PC business to Lenovo years ago. Meanwhile IBM defines small businesses by the thousands of employees, which to most other vendors would qualify as enterprises. HP also is big on services, but uncertainty about the future of its PC business (including x86 servers) and recent CEO changes create competitive opportunities.

    Dell, which has long had strong small business offerings, is trying to seize the opportunity and also take its renewed integration focus to mid-size and large organizations. Forrester analyst Richard Fichera says the company is "really trying to change its image. Old Dell was boxes, discounts and low-cost supply chain. New Dell is applications, solution, cloud (now there's a surprise!) and investments in software and integration. OK, good image, but what's the reality? All in all, I think they are telling the truth about their intentions, and their investments continue to be aligned with these intentions".

    Virtualization Interest

    The "new Dell", as Fichera calls it, has been hot pushing cloud computing and virtualization solutions to small businesses. While writing this post I wondered why? The cloud is plain as day, but virtualizaton? Cisco, Microsoft and VMWare are among the many other vendors looking at this segment, too. But is that small business by that 499 employees, lesser number or something really small? Do the smallest of the lot even need virtualization?

    There surely is interest. In August, Symantec published the "Small Business Virtualization Poll". The security firm surveyed 658 small businesses with 5 to 249 employees in 28 countries. Symantec found that "70 percent of the small businesses surveyed are considering virtualization", but only "10 percent have deployed virtualized servers, and another 17 percent are now doing so. This leaves 43 percent in technology trials or discussions". Thirty-percent aren't considering virtualization at all.

    Top-three applications being virtualized: Web, database management and email/calendaring. Who does the work for the small business, whether those with dedicated IT organizations or small shops where the business owner oversees tech? For 58 percent of small businesses, its the "hardware or software vendor's professional services organization", which makes lots of sense of Dell and other PC manufacturers focusing more on providing small businesses with vertically integrated hardware, software and services.

    Small businesses' top two reasons for virtualizing are about money: "reduce capital expense" (70 percent) and "reduce operating expense" (68 percent), which doesn't surprise given economic crises in Europe and North America. No 3: "Use less servers for the same amount of applications". Surely server consolidation matters more to companies with larger numbers of employees than those with fewer. But Symantec didn't provide the important granular view -- priorities of businesses with 5 employees versus 249.

    The Mobile Problem

    Small businesses all share two common problems not revealed by Symantec's poll, which offers too many enterprise-like reasons to small businesses to choose from: Proliferation of mobile devices and the mixing of personal and corporate data. Virtualization can help solve both these problems, which I'd argue are more pronounced in the smallest businesses -- the ones not represented at all by Symnatec's survey or as strong sales segment focuses by many vendors selling hardware, software or services (if not all three).

    In my experience as an analyst and journalist, non-payroll operations typically use the same devices for personal and professional purposes -- there is tremendous overlap of data and behavior. This situation is pervasive among very small businesses, too, with tight tech budgets being one reason. Perhaps an employee uses a personal laptop for work purposes or the small business lets the worker use the official-issue notebook personally. Personal and professional data also commingles on smartphones and tablets. Larger operations share similar problems, but more because of so-called "consumerization of IT", where workers bring in personal devices like tablets. Stronger IT management mitigates the extent compared to smaller shops where there is no dedicated IT person or someone else, often the small business owner, wears two hats.

    Businesses of all sizes suffer from the larger mobility problem -- data leaving the safe confines of the firewall on all kinds portable devices -- laptops, smartphones and tablets, among them. These devices can become infected with malware or be lost or stolen -- creating unnecessary privacy and security risks. Cloud services and virtualization can help small businesses keep precious data where it belongs and mitigate the risks when devices are lost or stolen.

    Server virtualization has led the way for providing this kind of service, but some vendors are adding client virtuatization and privately hosted web services to the mix. For example, Intel is taking this approach for its IT infrastructure, because employees want to use a broader range of devices, "including personally owned smartphones and tablets". Obviously, Intel is no small business but its approach to virtualization as a solution to the two aforementioned problems could be applied on smaller scale. You can download the white paper here.

    Circling back to the question: Should your small business virtualize? Probably yes. For the smallest of businesses, that could be in tandem with setting up a private cloud or outsourcing purely cloud services like Office 365 and Salesforce.com. The smallest businesses get something they also probably don't have now -- centralized IT management. The case for operations with 10 or more employees is stronger, whether to consolidate servers, better manage applications, reduce costs, provide employees anytime, anywhere access or separate personal and professional workspaces on the same devices.

    Charts: Symantec

    Photo Credit: Angela Waye/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/27/Hate_Google__Try_Firefox_with_Bing'

    Hate Google? Try Firefox with Bing

    Publié: octobre 27, 2011, 6:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In the rush to cover Nokia World and new Windows Phones, I missed something kind of ground quaking yesterday. Microsoft is promoting Firefox with Bing. The default search engine, which users can change, is Google on standard Firefox. Now they can get the browser with Bing as default. Did hell freeze over and I miss the tweet?

    Firefox exists today because of Google. People can rabble on about the importance of open-source and raise Firefox as the poster application for the movement's success. Software development isn't free, and running an organization and marketing products require capital. Firefox launched 7 years ago next month, and Google not only has powered search but provided through the bundled service the cash that keeps the organization running. Why on earth, or any planet, then would Mozilla jeopardize that relationship?

    Sixteen days ago, Mozilla released its annual report, revealing that 98 percent of revenues come from search. The majority must be from Google, because it's the default search engine and Google is No. 1 in most countries (okay, not China).

    Web browsers languished after Microsoft won the browser wars and essentially extinguished Netscape as a rival. But bundled search, with Google coughing up fees, revived browser development with Netscape (before its eventual death) and Mozilla leading a new charge into territory conquered by Microsoft in the mid-Noughties. Good thing for Mozilla that Microsoft had largely abandoned that territory by letting Internet Explorer development languish. Firefox charged into IE territory -- as did others. Internet Explorer has retreated since, with usage share down to 54.39 percent in September, according to Net Applications, from about 90 percent in 2004.

    But Mozilla is losing usage share, too, as partner Google laps it up. Firefox fell to 22.48 percent from 23.52 percent usage share between November 2010 and September 2011, according to NetApps. September marked the fourth consecutive month of decline for Firefox. Meanwhile, Chrome usage share rose to 16.2 percent from 9.57 from November to September, consecutively gaining share for all 11 months. At this pace, Chrome should catch Firefox by mid-2012. That makes Google a new-found competitor and one taking money from Mozilla's wallet.

    Mozilla has two good reasons then to release Firefox with Bing: Google is a competitor, and Bing can make up search revenues lost to Google. Microsoft powers Yahoo search. Combined, they had 31 percent US search share in September, according to comScore. That's just one country.

    But there is another reason to consider, and this one could really lead to a hell freezes over announcement. Mozilla's search deal with Google is up for renewal next month. Could it be Mozilla is prepping for a switch to Bing as default, which would be a huge coup for Microsoft and eventually Mozilla if Bing search share rises. The move also could be little more than a negotiating tactic, with Mozilla looking to leverage Firefox with Bing as it works out a new agreement with Google. Regardless, there's a new choice for users, not that switching search providers is hard in Firefox.

    Still it removes an extra step. "We’re teaming with Mozilla to release Firefox with Bing, a version of the popular Web browser that includes default search settings for Bing," says Tor Steiner, of Microsoft's Bing team. "Now Firefox users who are Bing enthusiasts can use Firefox with Bing to use the Web the way they want without having to take extra steps to navigate or customize their settings to Bing".

    Windows users can download the software here.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/27/I_really_want_to_get_excited_about_Lumia_800_Windows_Phone__but...'

    I really want to get excited about Lumia 800 Windows Phone, but...

    Publié: octobre 27, 2011, 4:47am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Nokia makes it damn hard. No US distribution this year. (Europe? With the Euro zone in state of collapse?) No front-facing camera -- long a standard feature on Nokia handsets -- and, hells bells, Microsoft now owns Skype. Surely that makes front-facing camera selling in Europe, Nokia's and Skype's home turf, required equipment. The phone maker announced the Lumia 800, and lower-cost Lumia 710, today at Nokia World.

    I'm a longstanding Nokia enthusiast -- a rare-breed in the United States and particularly among journalists, many of whom trumpet for iPhone. I've owned two different N95s, E71, N79, N97 and N900, among other Nokia handsets -- and loved them all, even with their quirks. But in January 2011, I opined: "Confessions of a former Nokia enthusiast", writing "I love Nokia, but Nokia doesn't love me". I'm still not feeling the love, and perhaps I set expectations too high. A few weeks back I thought of writing a post titled something like: "Will the hottest phone this holiday come from Nokia and not Apple". Good thing, I didn't.

    I had hoped that Windows Phone would bring a fresh new era to Nokia handsets, instead the Lumia 800 clings to sadder tradition -- shipping last year's model. Before Apple shipped iPhone in July 2007, Nokia defined bleeding-edge mobility, rightly claiming handsets like the N82 or N95 were pocket computers. But the Finnish phone maker lost its way with smartphones, a category it created in 1996. Each new model post-iPhone seemed to be behind others, often because they took so long coming to market. When Nokia announced the N8 in April 2010, the tech looked pretty good but old when it shipped half-a-year later, following iPhone 4.

    Nokia should be applauded for fixing the lag-to-market problem. Independent analyst Ian Fogg observes: "The Lumia 800 Windows Phone is already shipping from Nokia’s factories just eight months after the major strategy change". He, like me, contrasts this against N8's slow move to market.

    Last Year's Model

    Back to those features of yesteryear, only the camera stands out as likely being ahead of competitors. But Nokia has long had and maintained leadership here. The f/2.2 Carl Zeiss lens and big sensor (for a phone) are suited to capturing good photos in low light -- then there is the dual-LED flash; most competing phones have single-LED flash.

    Otherwise it's last-year's tech for a smartphone of this class:

    • Single-core processor, while iPhone 4S, Galaxy S II and others are dual-core
    • 720p video recording, while competitors are 1080p
    • Bluetooth 2.1, while iPhone 4S has Bluetooth 4.0
    • 512MB, like iPhone 4S; both are behind Androids
    • AMOLED display is okay, except outdoors

    Because of the single-core chip, some people complain the Nokia Lumia 800 is underpowered compared to iPhone 4S and Androids in the same class. "At this point, is there really any reason to buy a single-core personal computing device unless it's a throw-away? That applies to any platform or form", writes Simon Pasieka, in response to a question I put on Google+.

    I've been deprived using Windows Phone and can't say, but real users and wireless carriers tell me that Microsoft's software is light and responsive on handsets with single-core chips. If true, the 1.4GHz Qualcomm MSM8255 single-core processor is fine. Still, Pasieka has a point: "Unless WP7 does not multitask well, and from what I am hearing it does, there is no way a single core Nokia will be more responsive than multi-core Samsung or HTC".

    See Tim Conneally's slideshow: "Hands-on with Nokia's first Windows Phones"

    I want to root for Nokia and Lumia 800, but I'm not feeling it yet. There's something here that feels unfinished. Has Nokia primed Lumia 800, and sibling 710, before its time or simply shipped what was ready now rather than wait to get it all? I want to give Nokia benefit of the doubt, but it's hard when comparing Lumia 800 hardware to the luscious Symbian-based N9 (and similarities between them are, unsurprisingly, striking).

    Nokia N9 quick specs: 3.9-inch AMOLED display -- curved Gorilla glass -- with 854 x 480 resolution; 1GHz ARM Cortex-A8 OMAP3630 processor; 1GB RAM; 16GB or 64GB storage; 8-megapixel rear-facing camera -- Carl Zeiss f/2.2 lens with 2x LED flash; front-facing camera for video conferencing; 720p video recording; Near-Field Communications; Bluetooth 2.1; GPS: 1450 mA battery; and MeeGo 1.2 "Harmattan."

    Nokia Lumia 800 quick specs: 3.7-inch AMOLED display -- curved glass -- with 800 x 480 resolution; 1.4GHz Qualcomm MSM8255 processor; 512MB RAM; 16GB storage; 8-megapixel rear-facing camera -- Carl Zeiss f/2.2 lens with 2x LED flash; 720p video recording; Near-Field Communications; Bluetooth 2.1; GPS: 1450 mA battery; and Windows Phone 7.5 "Mango".

    Clinging to Hope

    "What a disaster for Nokia & WP7. Ugly phones, no front camera, with iOS 5 running circles around these phones", BetaNews reader ilev comments. "Ah, and according to [Nokia CEO Stephen] Elop these are the REAL WP7s, so, anyone who bought a WP7 until now bought crap phone".

    Others are more optimistic about today's announcements. "Nokia World 2011 marks just the start of a new Nokia. Nokia has progressed through the first stage of a transition", Fogg says. "But there's much much more to do. These two Lumia handsets just the first two smartphones of what Nokia intend to be an entire product family that will spearhead a revival in the US, Europe and Asia".

    The Lumia 800 will be available in France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom, from 31 operators, starting next month. Nokia plans to bring the Windows Phone to Hong Kong, India, Russia, Singapore and Taiwan by year's end. These are core Nokia markets, by the way, and right place to start.

    What about missing the United States during the holidays? I asked Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. "I don’t necessarily see not having a product in store in the US for the holiday as a negative", he says. "They’ll have Europe and since their presence here is so anemic I think holiday would be a struggle to get some mind share amid all the noise of the holiday season".

    Can Nokia pull it together, and can Microsoft and Windows Phone make a difference? I'm feeling less pessimistic today than July. But not enough to get excited, sigh, about Lumia 800. What about you?

    Photo Credit: Tim Conneally

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/26/It_s_the__Five_Reasons_to_Quit_Windows_XP__contest'

    It's the 'Five Reasons to Quit Windows XP' contest

    Publié: octobre 26, 2011, 10:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Eleventh in a series. Our celebration of Windows XP's 10th anniversary continues with a contest! You give us reasons to quit XP for Windows 7, and we could give you a prize. Right now we've got five Microsoft mice to give away. But I'm hoping that some other Microsoft group will see the Entertainment & Devices division's generosity and throw more prizes your way. For a contest like this, a few copies of Window 7 would be appropriate. We thank E&D PR for providing: Arch Mouse (two), Explorer Touch Mouse (two) and Touch Mouse (one).

    The rules are simple: Submit your reasons in comments below or (if you want to keep your ideas secret from others) email joe at betanews dot com. You can submit up to five reasons, and we will choose five from all submissions -- more if we add to the prize list. Your reasons must be why give up Windows XP for 7. Sorry, but this is a Linux- and Mac-free contest. Reasons can be serious or funny, but they will need some originality or pizzazz to beat out others. For example, "security is better" won't win anything, unless all the submissions are godawful. But "my mother-in-law is a botnet herder" has potential. Our panel of editors will pick the winners. The contest is open from now until 11:59 pm ET on October 29. We'll announce prize winners the first week of November 2011.

    Meanwhile, have a look at our "Windows XP turns 10" series -- stories and comments -- for inspiration. Then give us your reasons to quit XP for Windows 7.

    1. "Remembering Windows XP" -- Joe Wilcox

    2. "What Windows XP's Launch Meant to Me" -- Andre Da Costa

    3. "You can pry Windows XP from my cold, dead hands" -- Chris Boss

    4. "Windows XP was two products worth of development" -- Larry Seltzer

    5. "Where did Windows XP codename 'Whistler' come from?" -- Roland Hofmann

    6. "Windows XP made me a chain smoker" -- Robbie Jardine

    7. "Windows XP changed my life" -- James Ward

    8. "Celebrate XP's anniversary -- switch to Windows 7" -- Joe Wilcox

    9. "Happy Birthday! Windows XP turns 10" -- Joe Wilcox

    10. "10 years of Windows XP [slideshow]" -- Joe Wilcox

    Photo Credit: Peshkova/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/25/10_years_of_Windows_XP__slideshow_'

    10 years of Windows XP [slideshow]

    Publié: octobre 25, 2011, 7:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft launched Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001. By every measure it is the most successful Windows version ever, bringing stability to the platform, too.

    Anyone can easily dismiss Windows XP, because it's so overly familiar, having stayed long in market and so seemingly unchanged. But Microsoft accomplished much around the venerable operating system, which quickly became a stable platform for the company, too. In fact, change defined XP during its first half-decade in market, but built on the stable platform beneath. Within three weeks of the launch, Microsoft announced the Tablet PC version and Media Center Edition, then codename "Freestyle", in January 2002.

    Windows XP's evolution should be a case study for other operating system developers. Perhaps it is; I suspect that if anyone looks hard enough they'll see Apple copying -- following with Mac OS X (and iOS derived from it) a pattern of innovation by iteration Microsoft applied to Windows XP.

    Please celebrate with us a decade of Windows XP.

    Microsoft then-CEO Bill Gates poses with Windows XP "gold" disc. [Microsoft]

    Microsoft then-CEO Bill Gates poses with Windows XP "gold" disc. [Microsoft]

    Bill Gates signs off Windows XP gold master, Aug. 24, 2001. A helicopter waits to fly off the code. [Ari Pernick]

    Bill Gates signs off Windows XP gold master, Aug. 24, 2001. A helicopter waits to fly off the code. [Ari Pernick]

    Windows XP boxes come off the assembly lines during simpler times. Microsoft offered only two versions of the operating system. [Microsoft]

    Windows XP boxes come off the assembly lines during simpler times. Microsoft offered only two versions of the operating system. [Microsoft]

    While people wanting this disc waited until Oct. 25, 2001, XP shipped on new PCs more than a month earlier. [Priceminister]

    While people wanting this disc waited until Oct. 25, 2001, XP shipped on new PCs more than a month earlier. [Priceminister]

    Sign of the Times -- the launch took place in New York about six week after the Twin Towers fell. Microsoft culled back its launch plans in respect to the fallen. [Nate Mook]

    Sign of the Times -- the launch took place in New York about six week after the Twin Towers fell. Microsoft culled back its launch plans in respect to the fallen. [Nate Mook]

    Bill Gates and Jim Allchin kick off the Windows XP launch event, Oct. 25, 2001. [Nate Mook]

    Bill Gates and Jim Allchin kick off the Windows XP launch event, Oct. 25, 2001. [Nate Mook]

    Choir sings "America the Beautiful" during Windows XP's launch. The song had renewed meaning for many, following terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and US Pentagon the previous month. [Nate Mook]

    Choir sings "America the Beautiful" during Windows XP's launch. The song had renewed meaning for many, following terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and US Pentagon the previous month. [Nate Mook]

    Gateway gave out cows -- befitting its black-and-white moo herd motif -- during Windows XP's New York launch. The direct PC maker started selling XP systems more than a month earlier. [Larry Seltzer]

    Gateway gave out cows -- befitting its black-and-white moo herd motif -- during Windows XP's New York launch. The direct PC maker started selling XP systems more than a month earlier. [Larry Seltzer]

    Sting performs in Bryant Park, as part of Windows XP launch festivities, Oct. 25, 2001. [Tammy Loh]

    Sting performs in Bryant Park, as part of Windows XP launch festivities, Oct. 25, 2001. [Tammy Loh]

    About three weeks after XP's launch, Gates unveiled Windows XP Tablet PC Edition during Comdex 2001. The first Tablet PCs debuted about a year later. Here Gates holds one during the November 2002 launch event. [Microsoft]

    About three weeks after XP's launch, Gates unveiled Windows XP Tablet PC Edition during Comdex 2001. The first Tablet PCs debuted about a year later. Here Gates holds one during the November 2002 launch event. [Microsoft]

    Microsoft unveiled Windows XP Embedded for ATM, cash registers and other devices on Nov. 28, 2001. Here a BT Internet payphone runs the OS.

    Microsoft unveiled Windows XP Embedded for ATM, cash registers and other devices on Nov. 28, 2001. Here a BT Internet payphone runs the OS.

    About six weeks after Windows XP launched, Bill Gates debuted a second, media-oriented user interface codename "Freestyle". The first Windows XP Media Center Edition PCs shipped for holiday 2002. Here Gates poses with MCE 2005, three years later. [Microsoft]

    About six weeks after Windows XP launched, Bill Gates debuted a second, media-oriented user interface codename "Freestyle". The first Windows XP Media Center Edition PCs shipped for holiday 2002. Here Gates poses with MCE 2005, three years later. [Microsoft]

    Microsoft chose actor Tom Arnold as its spokesman for Windows XP Media Center Edition, which officially launched Oct. 29, 2002. [Microsoft]

    Microsoft chose actor Tom Arnold as its spokesman for Windows XP Media Center Edition, which officially launched Oct. 29, 2002. [Microsoft]

    Windows XP Service Pack 1, released in September 2002, brought dramatic changes. As part of its US antitrust settlement, Microsoft agreed to provide a utility for setting program defaults for so-called middleware, like web browsing and digital media playback.

    Windows XP Service Pack 1, released in September 2002, brought dramatic changes. As part of its US antitrust settlement, Microsoft agreed to provide a utility for setting program defaults for so-called middleware, like web browsing and digital media playback.

    In March 2004, the European Union Competition Commission ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws and must release locally Windows XP sans the media player. Microsoft coyly planned to call the new version Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, but later changed this middle finger to European trustbusters to "N". [Microsoft]

    In March 2004, the European Union Competition Commission ruled that Microsoft violated antitrust laws and must release locally Windows XP sans the media player. Microsoft coyly planned to call the new version Windows XP Reduced Media Edition, but later changed this middle finger to European trustbusters to "N". [Microsoft]

    Released in summer 2004, Windows XP Service Pack 2 wasn't just an update, it was a whole new version for free. Microsoft could have and perhaps should have released Windows XP2 instead.

    Released in summer 2004, Windows XP Service Pack 2 wasn't just an update, it was a whole new version for free. Microsoft could have and perhaps should have released Windows XP2 instead.

    Keeping with Bill Gates' mandate that security be Microsoft's top priority, Windows Service Pack 2 added the "Security Center", featuring Firewall, Automatic Updates and antivirus prompts. [Microsoft],

    Keeping with Bill Gates' mandate that security be Microsoft's top priority, Windows Service Pack 2 added the "Security Center", featuring Firewall, Automatic Updates and antivirus prompts. [Microsoft],

    On Aug. 11, 2004, Microsoft unveiled Windows XP Starter Edition, which two months later went into trials in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Shown here is box for the Indonesian edition. [Microsoft]

    On Aug. 11, 2004, Microsoft unveiled Windows XP Starter Edition, which two months later went into trials in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. Shown here is box for the Indonesian edition. [Microsoft]

    Increase sales in emerging markets; do so without causing pricing backlash in mature markets; and reduce piracy. Shown here is the Hindi version, which like others lacks capabilities found in full XP. [Microsoft]

    Microsoft had several Windows XP Starter Edition objectives: Increase sales in emerging markets; do so without causing pricing backlash in mature markets; and reduce piracy. Shown here is the Hindi version, which like others lacks capabilities found in full XP. [Microsoft]

    Bill Gates introduces Ultra-Mobile PC, codename "Origami", in March 2006. Microsoft provided partners with reference designs, hoping for devices selling for under $500, but the first UMPCs sold for twice as much or more. [Microsoft]

    Bill Gates introduces Ultra-Mobile PC, codename "Origami", in March 2006. Microsoft provided partners with reference designs, hoping for devices selling for under $500, but the first UMPCs sold for twice as much or more. [Microsoft]

    Before iPad, there was Ultra-Mobile PC. Microsoft Touch Pack for Windows XP, shown here on the Samsung Q1, offered tablet-size, touchscreen capabilities four years before Apple released iPad. [Microsoft]

    Before iPad, there was Ultra-Mobile PC. Microsoft Touch Pack for Windows XP, shown here on the Samsung Q1, offered tablet-size, touchscreen capabilities four years before Apple released iPad. [Microsoft]

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/25/Happy_Birthday___Windows_XP_turns_10'

    Happy Birthday! Windows XP turns 10

    Publié: octobre 25, 2011, 8:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Few products have impacted more people than Windows XP. Microsoft officially launched the operating system -- the first for consumers based on the NT kernel -- on Oct. 25, 2001. That's right, 10 years ago today. But PC manufacturers started offering XP systems in early September 2001, a week before terrorist attacks against New York City and Northern Virginia. XP is the most popular Windows version ever released. Even today, depending on the analyst crunching numbers, more people use Windows XP than any other PC operating system (although Windows 7 is nearly tied).

    Windows XP is a workhorse. Microsoft kept it in market longer than any other Windows version, allowing a very stable ecosystem of third-party applications and products to evolve around it. The operating system fulfilled the vision set for Windows 95 six years earlier -- release of stable, 32-bit code suitable for businesses and consumers. Microsoft's biggest development challenge: Providing compatibility with games and supporting hardware drivers that wanted access to the kernel, which NT blocked for security reasons.

    Troubled Start

    Yet Windows XP was troubled long before it shipped. During the software's early development, April 2000, Microsoft lost its US antitrust case, and US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered the company to split in two. A year later, an appeals court overturned Jackson's remedy but still upheld a dozen antitrust violations. Meanwhile competitors and privacy organizations dogged Microsoft. After a public spat with Kodak, for example, Microsoft changed how XP would import digital photos -- then-up-and-coming activity; 35mm film still ruled the day, but XP developers rightly looked to future needs.

    This tension -- Microsoft as some kind of bully trying to use its success in PC operating systems to control the Internet -- hung over and around Windows XP's development and launch. Heck, in that spirit, my editors at CNET News chose to call our Windows XP launch series "The Gatekeeper". Microsoft turned out to be no such thing. Windows XP enabled people to get on the Internet instead. But that's okay, eh, as today trustbusters have found a new, accused Internet gatekeeper: Google.

    Two other major problems plagued Windows XP -- affecting adoption. Microsoft decided to extend product activation, part of Office XP, to the operating system. Many users rebuffed the technology, which Microsoft meant to reduce piracy. Suddenly, Windows was a police state, where users presented their IDs as demanded -- or that's how some people reacted. Far worse, recession gripped America. Strong, early 2000 personal computer sales collapsed in autumn, leading major Windows PC manufacturers, even Apple and Microsoft, to issue profit warnings. Holiday 2000 sales were disastrous.  Seemingly everyone looked to Windows XP to save Christmas 2001.

    Then came Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that compelled Microsoft to do the respectful thing and tone down Windows XP's planned, coincidentally, New York launch. Even with something like a $1 billion blitz planned, XP didn't get the big gala needed to drive sales forward; they weren't bad just not gangbuster. For example, according to NPD, about 650,000 Windows XP copies sold at retail during the first six weeks in market. By comparison, Windows 98 units topped 850,000.

    Innovation by Iteration

    Anyone can easily dismiss Windows XP, because it's so overly familiar, having stayed long in market and so seemingly unchanged. But Microsoft accomplished much around the venerable operating system, which quickly became a stable platform for the company, too. In fact, change defined XP during its first half-decade in market, but built on the stable platform beneath. Windows XP's evolution should be a case study for other operating system developers. Perhaps it is; I suspect that if anyone looks hard enough they'll see Apple copying -- following with Mac OS X (and iOS derived from it) a pattern of innovation by iteration Microsoft applied to Windows XP.

    Microsoft started adapting Windows XP and planning other changes even before it shipped. There was the August 2001 agreement with Kodak over digital photo importing and months earlier modifications to the Windows desktop, where Microsoft ceded control to OEMs.

    Microsoft released to manufacturing the Windows XP gold master on Aug. 24, 2001. Then-CEO Bill Gates and Jim Allchin, then-group vice president in charge of Windows, officiated the impressive event, which included a helicopter flying off gold code. By September 4, Gateway started taking orders for Windows XP PCs. Direct manufacturers Dell and Gateway had unique advantage over channel-centric Compaq and HP getting out new XP systems fast -- and they were anxious given the still stricken economy.

    In cooperation with PC partners, Microsoft committed $1 billion to launching and marketing Windows XP. The New York launch event, while subdued from earlier plans still had bang, such as the concert featuring Sting. I passed up dinner with Gates the night before, suspecting that there would be news in Washington, DC. There was, with Microsoft's antitrust opponents trying to steal some of XP's thunder.

    Platform Differences

    From here I'll chronicle the aforementioned innovation by iteration, which starts with something predicted in 2001 that later proved true. I wrote for CNET News on Oct. 23, 2001: "For years, software makers invented operating systems and applications that required more computing power...The release of Windows XP, however, may mark the formal end to that cycle as consumers and businesses find increasingly that the equipment they already own is good enough to run most of the software they need".

    Allchin claimed that PCs purchased during holiday 1999 would comfortably run Windows XP. Moreover, XP's demands didn't much change even as Microsoft released service packs during the years that followed. This helped to establish greater stability in the Windows ecosystem, benefiting consumers, developers, IT organizations and Microsoft partners -- even PC manufacturers, which finally could focus more on differentiating brands and features rather than running the megahertz and later gigahertz rat race. AMD and Intel achieved a state of detente in the processor speed wars; Windows XP wasn't overly demanding and no successor OS appeared ahead. XP brought a state of tranquility to the Windows ecosystem.

    Instead of rushing out XP2, Microsoft instead chose to extend Windows by releasing sub-versions for new device categories, and quickly.

    Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. Less than three weeks after Windows XP launched, Gates introduced the Tablet PC version during Comdex 2001. Analysts looked skeptically on the tablet and stylus concept, which never really found its footing in the marketplace -- more because Gates' vision was ahead of its time. When launched a year later, with 20 partners, Tablet PCs were costly and the tech they really needed -- capacitive touchscreens -- wasn't ready for the market. Microsoft continued to evolve the concept, which led to another XP innovation, Origami, I'll recap in a few paragraphs.

    Windows XP Media Center Edition. In January 2002, during the Consumer Electronics Show, Gates debuted a secondary user interface codenamed Freestyle, which later became Windows XP Media Center Edition. The concept was brilliant for the time. XP users could access photos, music and TV programs from across the room with remote control. Microsoft's TV program guide mimicked TiVo but offered cleaner, faster and less-cluttered interface. HP kicked off the Media Center fanfare for holiday 2002, but then-No. 1 PC vendor was absent and would be for years.

    My family used Media Center before TiVo. Within a week, my then 10 year-old daughter's TV habits changed. She started recording programs and within months expected me to stop live programming when she demanded. Microsoft initially limited Media Center's appeal by requiring a TV tuner and new PCs; there was no boxed software upgrades. Microsoft rapidly iterated new Media Center versions over the next three years, eventually dropping the TV tuner requirement (which got Dell on board) and later incorporated the feature into retail Windows.

    Windows XP SP 1. Microsoft uses service packs to apply bug fixes and to consolidate cumulative updates. But SP1 did much more. In November 2001, Microsoft settled its US antitrust case with the Justice Department and eight states (another handful continued the fight). As part of the settlement, Microsoft agreed to provide a tool for hiding so-called middleware, such as Internet Explorer and Windows Messenger. This add-on was one of the service packs' major components. As such, released in Septemeber 2002, SP1, which also brought USB 2.0 support, constituted a major update to Windows XP.

    Windows XP Starter Edition. In August 2002, XP de-evolved, so to speak. Microsoft announced trials for Starter Edition, a truncated XP version for Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. The company wanted to offer a low-cost Windows version in emerging markets, where piracy rates were high, without jeopardizing pricing in established markets -- hence the culling back of features, such as a lower memory capability and limits on number of running applications. Starter Edition would later become available across the globe.

    Windows XP SP 2. Following several prominent widespread malware attacks, Gates set security as Microsoft's top priority in an employee memo on Jan. 17, 2002. More than two-and-a-half years later, the priority would manifest in Service Pack 2. The update can only be described as a major overhaul of Windows XP that could -- and perhaps should -- have warranted calling it a new version. XP wasn't the same after SP2. It was better. Microsoft released the service pack on the third anniversary of Windows XP's launch.

    Ultra-Mobile PC. In March 2006, Microsoft introduced new XP software for small-screen touchscreen PCs -- consider this the real precursor to Apple's iPad, not Tablet PC. Codename Origami, Microsoft created reference designs in hopes of partners producing devices under $500, but early products sold for twice as much. UMPCs ran Microsoft Touch Pack for Windows XP. Samsung was one of Origami's biggest supporters. Funny, today, my local Best Buy Mobile store uses a Samsung UMPC to interface with its legacy retail point-of-sale system.

    Writing this post got me to look at XP differently, to see that Microsoft continually innovated but through iteration -- creating new products from the stable platform rather than focusing on splashy new Windows versions. It's an approach Microsoft should reconsider as it moves towards Windows 8.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/24/Tablets_and_laptops_are_on_a__collision_course_'

    Tablets and laptops are on a 'collision course'

    Publié: octobre 24, 2011, 6:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    But you knew that already, right?

    Today, DisplaySearch issued the most unusual of tablet forecasts -- one that looks at the totality of the market and takes Windows into consideration. Gartner and IDC use a separate "media tablet" category for Android tablets and iPad, based on the operating system, choosing to classify "Tablet PCs" running Windows as personal computers. DisplaySearch has more sensibly made the designation around processors -- ARM and x86 -- which better defines the market for the future, and isn't the future what a forecast is all about?

    Still, while perhaps practical, the designation ignores fundamental aspects of the tablet market, such as: Consumers don't care about tablet microprocessors. "Unlike notebook and netbook PCs, where consumers have chosen products based on the processor or PC vendor, consumers of new mobile devices care more about what they can do with the devices, which is associated more with the device applications and services", says Jim McGregor, chief technology strategist for In-Stat, a sister organization to DisplaySearch (both analyst firms are part of NPD group).

    Yeah, but hasn't "what they can do with the devices" always been the case? No platform succeeds without applications, whether they're programs running on it or things you do with it -- the task. The killer application (or use) for toasters is, well, browning bread. I'm making a designation between applications and application (what you apply) but functionally they're the same -- the platform or device has purpose meaningful to you.

    What's most surprising from DisplaySearch's forecast is how dramatically it differs from Gartner's, even while adding x86 Tablet PCs into the mix. Gartner predicts that media tablet sales will reach 900 million by 2016, up from 20 million last year. DisplaySearch sees the number only reaching 330 million by 2017 -- a stunning two-thirds less. The NPD company sees the number growing from a projected 59.9 million this year.

    Is Gartner being overly bullish or DisplaySearch overly conservative -- or neither? The analyst firm is called DisplaySearch for a reason -- using in part relationships with display manufacturers in Asia as major component of its forecasts. If DisplaySearch is right, Gartner and many other analyst firms are grossly over-estimating how many tablets will be sold within the next half-decade.

    Even 330 million is a huge number and represents significant cannibalization of the PC market. Gartner projects PC shipments of more than 360 million this year. While one doesn't have to replace the other, DisplaySearch sees eventual displacement as features converge.

    "The tablet PC and notebook PC markets are on a collision course as both product categories continue to evolve and improve on their respective weaknesses" Richard Shim, DisplaySearch senior analyst, says. "As such, each product category will influence the other over time. Still, the incumbent platforms have inherent advantages in the early years".

    Some of that collision is occurring now, as consumers buy tablets, primarily market-leading iPad, instead of new PCs. For some people, the media tablet replaces the personal computer, for others it augments functionality enough to displace new purchase. Windows 8 dramatically changes the dynamics. The operating system will support ARM as well as x86 processors, opening up new categories of devices -- and they will be more like laptops available today. DisplaySearch sees Windows 8 Tablet PCs picking up momentum starting in 2013.

    Still, Android and iOS will capitalize on a larger market -- one IDC forecasts will reach 1 billion unit shipments by 2015: smartphones. McGregor explains: "Although several processor architectures could be used to power tablet SoCs, the rich software ecosystem of the ARM architecture built around smart phones is proving to be a key differentiating factor".

    Cellular data will increasingly be important to tablets, according to DisplaySearch, rise from 10 percent of units in 2013 to one-quarter in 2017.

    Photo Credit: Wolfgang Kruck/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/23/Celebrate_XP_s_10th_anniversary____switch_to_Windows_7'

    Celebrate XP's 10th anniversary -- switch to Windows 7

    Publié: octobre 23, 2011, 5:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This week, the most successful personal computer operating system ever turns 10. Microsoft officially launched Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001, with a muted New York gala. The Redmond, Wash.-based company tempered planned festivities. The collective American psyche wasn't ready to celebrate much of anything following terrorist attacks the previous month against the World Trade Center and US Pentagon. This week at BetaNews we'll give Windows XP a bit of the festivity it deserved and didn't get a decade ago.

    But we'll temper this celebration, too. For all Windows XP's successes, it has been too long in market. Too many of you still use this venerable workhorse, which is testimony to its compatibility, familiarity and utility. But XP is showing its age. In August, F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen wrote for BetaNews: "Do a good deed today, uninstall Windows XP". That's good advice. He observes that the operating system's security simply isn't as good as Windows 7, or even Mac OS X. "Ten years is an eternity in this business. So it's no wonder XP's security architecture is not up to date".

    A Betanews commenter going by Hans responds: "Send your article to my employer, and to my former employer, and to the employer before him, and send -- oh well, you catch the point. In fact, I'm rather afraid I won't see the end of XP before I retire".

    "So we should make decisions based on what hackers might do?" reader Kevin Provance asks. "That's akin to capitulating to terrorists. If you want to let a bunch of entitled brats dictate what you do with your computer, then by all means, cower in fear. I am quite happy with XP and see no need to use an OS that looks like it came out of the WIlly Wonka reject bin, thanks".

    Security isn't the only consideration. In the decade since Windows XP launched, the personal computing landscape dramatically changed. Cell phones are more personal than PCs, and more common. The United Nations says there are 5.5 billion cellular subscribers worldwide. The Windows PC install base is about 1 billion. In mature markets, people adopt smartphones at rapid pace. In August, 234 million Americans 13 or older used cell phones -- 85 million smartphones, up from 55.7 million a year earlier, according to comScore, which also finds that more than half of US mobile subscribers use data services. Meanwhile, services like Facebook and Twitter, which only opened to the public in 2006, have changed how people connect. Then there is cloud computing -- a topic too big for this post.

    So much has changed since Windows XP launched 10 years ago, there's a simple question to ask: Do you want to live in the past -- support your legacy apps, business processes or personal computing habits -- or embrace the present and future?

    BetaNews reader smarterthanyou scolds:

    Anyone who doesn't want Windows 7 on their PC really needs to have their head examined. Windows 7 has better hardware support. It can run every single Windows XP program in existence. Even those custom-designed business programs without modification. Windows 7 is faster than XP in every single area and unlike XP, Windows 7 doesn't experience that gradual slowdown over time that eventually requires a reinstall. The image-based install in Windows 7 makes it much easier to install in a corporate environment than XP.

    So celebrate Windows XP by switching to Windows 7 -- or perhaps download Windows 8 Developer Preview and begin testing it for eventual deployment. Tip your glass to Windows XP, then let it go.

    "Do they really think XP die-hards will 'celebrate' XP's decade by leaving it for Windows 7, which has reduced usability (no Classic Start Menu, no TweakUI, no decent search, dumbed-down Taskbar, piss poor buggy Explorer), extremely limited customizability and tons of features broken by design?" asks BetaNews reader xpclient (how appropriate).

    I must admit that many XP die-hards likely won't switch soon, particularly in markets where software pirates are Microsoft's greatest competitors. But many people or IT organizations are simply dragging their feet, letting inertia and the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" principle rule the day.

    We'd like to offer encouragement. This week, we'll publish more Windows XP memories, something we started in August on the 10 anniversary of XP's release to manufacturing. If you've got a story to tell about XP, I'd like to publish it. Please post comments here or, better, email joe at betanews dot com. I also ask for your XP-to-Windows 7 stories -- that's encouragement for XP hold-outs. Your experience might help others make the move, which arguably can be painful, since there is no direct upgrade to Windows 7 from XP. Comment below or email me.

    To celebrate Windows XP, we'll give away some goodies this week. I contacted Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices PR and the folks responsible for peripherals graciously offered some mice. We'll give away Arch Mouse (two), Explorer Touch Mouse (two) and Touch Mouse (one). Thank you, Microsoft, for the generosity. I can't make promises, but we'll see if maybe the Windows & Windows Live group could contribute a few copies of Windows 7 to the week's giveaways. Microsoft also is encouraging users to get off XP and on to Windows 7.

    I'll offer more on when and how you can win something from the Microsoft goody stash on Tuesday. For now, consider writing a captivating Windows XP recollection or XP-to-Windows 7 transition story as best chance to win something.

    Photo Credit: Nate Mook

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/22/Is__Hawaii_5_0__one_long_Microsoft_commercial_'

    Is 'Hawaii 5-0' one long Microsoft commercial?

    Publié: octobre 22, 2011, 6:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Product placement is the ultimate in marketing. It's relatively cheap -- that's assuming the company pays anything at all -- the value worth millions in potential sales and/or savings paying for actual advertising. Why pay for a 30- or 60-second TV commercial when your product can be part of the show? Or on CBS cop drama "Hawaii 5-0" be one of the stars of the show?

    I've been pondering writing about Microsoft's product placement since 5-0's first season aired (season two started last month). The program's actors routinely use the company's big-ass table -- that is Surface -- and Bing to search from Windows Phone. But this week, in episode "Ma'ema'e", Windows Live SkyDrive joins the active placement of Microsoft products -- or cast, if you will.

    It's not unusual to see products placed on TV shows or films. "New Trends in Product Placement", an early 2007 UC Berkely paper written Lilia Gutnik, Tom Huang, Jill Blue Lin and Ted Schmidt, identifies trends in the mid-Noughties:

    In the 2004-2005 television season, over 100,000 product placements were embedded in the broadcast networks alone: ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN, and the WB. The product placement market is growing rapidly; the value of the industry in 2005 is estimated at $4.24 billion. This figure includes barter, where the use of the product is the payment for the placement, and gratis, where the product's placement enriches the storyline or amplifies the character's profile.

    Product placement is even bigger business today. According to Nielsen, product placement among 12 major networks during primetime, rose 22 percent from 2006 to 2010. Its value is even greater when people can record programs on DVRs and fast-forward past the commercials.

    For years, the Apple logo has been a staple on television and movies. Apple has a longstanding product placement program that is so successful the company often doesn't pay. Apple gets gratis placement, perhaps because its products are popular among the creatives making the shows/film and because the tech looks so good -- they have camera appeal. Two things worth noting, I'm seeing more Apple laptop placements where the logo is covered and the products are typically used passively.

    What sets "Hawaii 5-0" apart from most other TV shows is how the products are placed -- and, more importantly, how actively characters are engaged with the objects. In this week's episode, Steve McGarrett tells Danny "Danno" Williams to upload photos to the SkyDrive -- that's Microsoft's online storage service -- and he does, using a Windows Phone handset to snap and send them. The scene immediately cuts back to 5-0 headquarters where the photos are viewed on a Surface Computer and the young woman in them is identified. This is much more than product placement. It's product engagement.

    Something else: McGarrett's laptop has a prominent Windows logo on the back. It's hard to miss. The point: Microsoft tech owns this show, and its products are as much actors in the drama as the human stars.

    Then there is the DVR advantage. Someone might fast-forward one of the new Microsoft family commercials, but how many will skip Danno uploading photos of a scantily-clad female volleyball player to Windows Live SkyDrive?

    The product placements aren't exclusive to Microsoft, just the degree of interaction. "Hawaii 5-0" has plenty of them. During May 2011 -- the end of the 2010-11 primetime viewing season -- there were 26 product placements on the cop drama, according to Nielsen, putting it tenth. "Celebrity Apprentice" had 145 and "American Idol" 127, but they like most of the others were reality shows. Only one other non-reality program had more product placements than 5-0: "Friday Night Lights".

    I dunno what it is about "Hawaii 5-0", which is a remake of the 70's show I watched as a kid. The plots are obvious (I knew Kono was working undercover to get bad cops three episodes ago); the acting (or perhaps just the dialogue) is laughable; and dramatic tension might enthrall six year olds. Or perhaps retirees. I've long viewed CBS as the network for old folks (CBS can't over-excite aging hearts). My fav networks are Fox, CW, TBS and TNT. But somehow I can't stop watching "Hawaii 5-0". Perhaps the actors all look so damn good, or Hawaii is such an exotic setting -- although with all the murder, drug trafficking and other mayhem (Hey, someone killed the governor and framed McGarrett in the season one cliffhanger), the islands don't look like such a great place to settle down.

    For Microsoft, this show is invaluable, because each week its products are actively used by the handsome actors in the exotic setting. The subliminal connotation is cutting-edge tech, something Surface evokes more than any other Microsoft product on the show. I've got to say that if real law enforcement would be way more efficient if able to capture and analyze information as fast as the cops on 5-0 using surface. If only cops had the same tools in real life as they do on television.

    So when will Danno use Office 365 on "Hawaii 5-0", or has he and I missed it?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/21/iPhone_4S_launches_in_22_more_countries'

    iPhone 4S launches in 22 more countries

    Publié: octobre 21, 2011, 5:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple calls iPhone 4S a "worldphone", but the real measure isn't wireless frequency support, but actual availability. The 4S went on sale one week ago in seven countries. Apple added another 22 today and plans 70 countries by end of year. Preorders start today, and phones will be available in stores on October 28.

    No global iPhone expansion is more important for Apple than iPhone 4S. On Tuesday, the company offered stunning guidance for calendar fourth quarter: $37 billion in revenue and earnings per share of $9.30. Analyst consensus before Apple issued guidance: $36.63 revenue and $8.98 EPS. Wall Street estimates are now $37.55 billion and $9.45 per share. More typically, Apple has issued conservative guidance with analyst consensus billions ahead, and fourth quarter -- even with holiday sales -- isn't typically one of Apple's strongest. I don't see how the company reaches $37 billion in revenue without bang-up iPhone 3GS (free), iPhone 4 ($99) and iPhone 4S ($199-$399) sales. I'm looking at the numbers for a future post, but for now it looks to me like Apple, and really new CEO Tim Cook, has bet the quarter on iPhone. Distribution will be key to achieving that number.

    Apple launched iPhone 4S in: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States, starting with preorders on October 7. Today adding: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

    Early sales are promising: 4 million units from October 7 (when preorders started) through October 16. The fist million units came during the first 24 hours of sales. Yesterday, AT&T boasted about 1 million iPhone 4S activations so far.

    I'll be closely watching any reports on new international sales, as you should do, too, if an Apple investor (disclosure: I am not one). iPhone 4S reaching 70 countries this year could make or break Apple's quarter. And if you think the two-day stock sell-off this week was bad after Apple missed Wall Street's over-inflated consensus for calendar Q3, just watch what happens if Apple sales don't grow 40 percent and reach $37 billion this quarter. Analyst consensus for Apple calendar Q4 is greater than actual revenues were for all fiscal 2009. Oh, how Apple has changed in just two years. But the risks are all the greater, because expectations are so high.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/20/Microsoft_Q1_2012_by_the_numbers___17.37B_revenue___5.7B_profit'

    Microsoft Q1 2012 by the numbers: $17.37B revenue, $5.7B profit

    Publié: octobre 20, 2011, 10:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Will slowing PC sales be the end of Microsoft? You'd think so from some recent punditry, boatloads of Apple iOS device sales and consumers buying tablets and smartphones instead of new computers. But, today, after the closing bell, Microsoft showed that it has staying power and shouldn't be written off for dead (although Apple apologists give quarterly epitaphs). The Redmond, Wash.-based company revealed fiscal 2012 first quarter results after the closing bell.

    For Q1, ended September 30, Microsoft $17.37 billion, up 7 percent year over year. Operating income: $7.2 billion, a 1 percent increase. Net income rose 6 percent to $5.7 billion, or 68 cents a share. Earnings per share rose by 10 percent year over year.

    Average consensus was $17.25 billion revenue and 68 cents earnings per share, for the quarter. Revenue estimates ranged from $16.83 billion to $17.83 billion, with estimated year-over-year growth of 6.5 percent. So Microsoft met, but really didn't beat, the Street.

    "We had another strong quarter for Office, SharePoint, Exchange, and Lync, and saw growing demand for our public and private cloud services including Office 365, Dynamics CRM Online, and Windows Azure" Microsoft COO Kevin Turner says. "With a great set of consumer products like Windows 7 PCs, Windows Phone 7.5, Xbox and Kinect, we are excited about the holiday buying season".

    Microsoft's PC Problem

    The seemingly endless economic crisis -- now three years strong -- continues to drag on PC sales, affecting pretty much all areas of Microsoft's software business, but nowhere more than the Windows & Windows Live.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary third-quarter PC shipments, which rose 3.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner, missing its forecast of 5.1 percent growth. IDC put growth lower -- 2.7 percent -- and off its 4.5-percent growth forecast. Manufacturers shipped 91.8 million PCs, according to both analyst firms.

    An alarming trend continued: "The popularity of non-PC devices, including media tablets, such as the iPad and smartphones, took consumers' spending away from PC", Mikako Kitagawa, Principal Gartner analyst, says. "The PC industry has been performing below normal seasonality. As expected, back-to-school PC sales were disappointing in mature markets, confirming that the consumer PC market continues to be weak".

    "For the moment, PCs have taken a backseat to a range of other devices competing for shrinking consumer and business budgets," Jay Chou, IDC senior research analyst, says.

    Earth to Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofksy: You can't ship Windows 8 soon enough. The new operating system, which runs on ARM as well as x86 processors, is optimized for tablets as well as PCs. Microsoft can fill an important niche in the PC sales-cannibalizing tablet marketing -- offer a truly desktop operating system that runs the same applications and supports enterprise services as those on PCs.

    Q1 2012 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.87 billion, up 2 percent from $4.79 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $4.25 billion, up 10 percent from $3.85  billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $5.62 billion, up 5 percent from $5.22 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $625 million, up 19 percent from $527 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.97 billion, up 9 percent from $1.8 billion a year earlier.

    There's no time to lose. In a report released today, Good Technology looked at enterprise deployments of Android and iOS devices -- mainly tablets, but also smartphones. "The iOS platform, which has driven the majority of Good’s enterprise activations since its launch, accounted for 70.8 percent of net activations in Q3, dipping from 78.7 percent of net activations in Q2", according to Good's report. Slowing sales before last week's release of iPhone 4S is one explanation. Flat iPad 2 activations is another.

    "Looking forward to Q4 2011, we expect to see the iPhone 4S to be the catalyst for another Apple rally. Good Technology ran preliminary numbers on just the opening weekend of the iPhone 4S’ availability (October 14-16, 2011) and found a 25 percent increase in activations compared to the 3Q daily average for the iPhone 4".

    The point: iOS is encroaching on Microsoft's core turf. There's a potential future cannibalization problem in the enterprise, too.

    Q1 2012 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $3.25 billion, down 1 percent from $3.27 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.6 billion, up 4 percent from $1.54 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.67 billion, up 7 percent from $3.46 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $424 million, up 11 percent from $558 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $352 million, down 9 percent from $386 million a year earlier.

    That said, Microsoft can bank on another modest uptick in IT spending, which disproportionately favors Office and server products over Windows. Many enterprises buy these products through annuity licensing contracts -- for two- or three-year terms with upgrades -- insulating them any changes in PC sales.

    Gartner predicts that global IT spending will rise 3.9 percent to $2.7 trillion in 2012. For this year, growth is projected to be 7.1 percent, with enterprise software growing by 9.5 percent.

    Division Highlights

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Weaker than-expected PC demand hurt the division during fiscal first quarter. Still, revenue nudged up 2 percent year over year. Profits declined, however, by 1 percent. Microsoft says business PC shipments rose 5 percent year over year -- that's 35 million units -- while consumer sales were flat. However, removing netbooks, consumer PC shipments rose by 8 percent; these numbers are global. Overall, PC shipments grew by 1 percent to 3 percent.

    PC shipments were strongest to emerging markets, where piracy is a chronic problem. "We're definitely seeing some improvements in piracy", CFO Peter Klein says, speaking to financial analysts during today's Microsoft earnings call.

    After three consecutive quarters of inventory reduction, PC manufacturers started restocking shelves during Microsoft's fiscal first quarter, IDC observed last week. According to Microsoft's financial release: "Windows Division revenue was positively impacted by higher inventory levels within our distribution channels and higher attach rates, offset in part by the effect of higher growth in emerging markets, where average selling prices are lower, relative to developed markets, and by lower recognition of previously deferred Windows XP revenue".

    To date, Microsoft has sold 450 million Windows 7 licenses.

    Server & Tools. Revenue rose about 10 percent year over year and operating income by 4 percent. The division is insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements.

    During the quarter, the division benefited from $108 million positive currency exchange, 20 percent increase in SQL Server Premium sales and 17 percent increase in enterprise services -- by $133 million.

    Business. The division was the quarter's big overall performer (again), with revenue up 5 percent year over year and revenue up 6 percent -- revenue reached a stunning $5.62 billion. An 8 percent increase in multi-year Office licensing agreements added $326 million in revenue.  Annuity contracts for Dynamics products grew by 17 percent. For clarification, end of July is a big licensing renewal period for many enterprises. Lync revenue grew by 25 percent year over year and consumer by 7 percent, despite slow PC sales. The consumer surge is expected for Microsoft's back-to-school quarter.

    Like Server & Tools, Business division is largely insulated against sluggish PC sales. Sixty percent of revenue comes from annuity licensing to businesses.

    Online Services Business. Search and display ads drove up online advertising revenue by 21 percent -- $100 million to $572 million. "Search revenue grew due to our Yahoo alliance, increased volumes reflecting general market growth, and relative share gains in the US offset in part by decreased revenue per search primarily related to challenges associated with optimizing the adCenter platform for the new mix and volume of traffic from the combined Yahoo and Bing properties", according to Microsoft's financial release.

    Entertainment & Devices.  Revenue rose by 9 percent, but losses increased by 9 percent year over year. Microsoft shipped 2.8 million Xboxes during the quarter, but didn't indicate how many were freebies given out during its back-to-school PC promotion. "Xbox 360 platform revenue grew $114 million or 7 percent, led by higher Xbox LIVE revenue", according to Microsoft's financial release. During its first week on the market, Gears of War 3 racked up 3 million unit sales. By the holidays, Microsoft says there will be 70 Kinect games.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/20/Want_a_one_night_stand_with_Windows_Phone_and_a_good_band_'

    Want a one-night stand with Windows Phone and a good band?

    Publié: octobre 20, 2011, 7:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Then stop reading this post and hop on over to the Windows Phone Facebook fan page. Tickets are going fast.

    As part of a smart marketing campaign to promote Windows Phone, Microsoft will hold events in five cities -- New York, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles and San Francisco in order of occurrence, starting November 7. Performers: Matt & Kim, The Drums, Young The Giant, MutheMouth and Best Coast. Wow, it's a great lineup. I've got music from most of these groups in my digital collection. Ah, if only there was one of these in San Diego. Hey, Microsoft, why not Boston, with its quarter-million population of students this time of year? Surely you won't be run out by iPhone idolaters, if the right group plays there.

    "See where the night takes you when you challenge your friends to a Fruit Ninja battle, or chill out in one of our device lounges as you sip cocktails and sample good eats from top local chefs", Brian Seitz blogs for Microsoft. "These events are free," but "tickets are very limited".

    Attendees can play with Windows Phones HTC Titan, HTC Radar, Samsung Focus S and Samsung Focus Flash.

    The promotion joins another I briefly mentioned three days ago -- Microsoft Store buyers spending $500 or more can get a free Windows Phone.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/20/AT_T_activates_1M_iPhone_4S_handsets__as_Android_army_advances'

    AT&T activates 1M iPhone 4S handsets, as Android army advances

    Publié: octobre 20, 2011, 5:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    AT&T's third quarter earnings are out, and the big news is iPhone vs everything else. Either iPhone 4S is a huge success or Android, depending on how the numbers are cut -- and really both. Either way, AT&T's churn rate was just 1.1 percent -- on par with the year-ago-quarter -- and signed subscribers are staying despite all that customer grumbling about dropped calls.

    The nation's second-largest carrier sold 4.8 million smartphones during Q3 -- or about two-thirds of all "post-paid" handsets. Now more than half -- 52.6 percent -- of AT&T's 68.6 million post-paid subscribers have smartphones -- that's up from 39.1 percent a year ago.

    AT&T activated 2.7 million iPhones, a substantial decline ahead of the 4S launch last week. iPhone activations totaled 3.6 million the previous quarter. By comparison, Android and other handsets accounted for "almost half" of activations, the company says.

    Android sales more than doubled year over year, which can be looked at a couple ways. AT&T is having huge success selling Android smartphones. That doubling comes from a small base, since the carrier only started offering Android handsets about a year ago.

    AT&T is being uncharacteristically boastful about early iPhone 4S sales, touting 200,000 preorder sales nearly two weeks ago and, today, 1 million 4S activations since the mobile's availability six days ago. The figure is a sure sign of success for iPhone 4S, at least on the one carrier, but also preemptive marketing by AT&T. This is the first iPhone launch in the United States where the carrier has competition selling the device, mainly No. 1 Verizon and No. 3 Sprint. But smaller carriers are getting the smartphone, too, such as C Spire Wireless.

    "It’s no surprise that customers are clamoring for iPhone 4S and they want it to run on a network that lets them download twice as fast as competitors", AT&T Mobility & Consumer Markets president Ralph de la Vega says. Apple didn't release an LTE iPhone, giving advantage to AT&T, over CDMA rivals, with data speeds as much as 14Mbps on its network.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/18/Apple_Q4_2011_by_the_numbers___28.27B_revenue___6.62B_profit____misses_Wall_Street_consensus'

    Apple Q4 2011 by the numbers: $28.27B revenue, $6.62B profit -- misses Wall Street consensus

    Publié: octobre 18, 2011, 10:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, after the closing bell, Apple announced another blow-out quarter -- and the first with Tim Cook officially as CEO. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company also closed fiscal 2011. While Wall Street waited with interest for today's results, fiscal Q1 2012 may be more interesting -- Cook's first full quarter as chief executive and when Apple launched iPhone 4S.

    The quarter broke a longstanding trend of Apple beating Wall Street's over-inflated estimates, not just revenue and earnings but also for numbers of prominent products shipped. Only Macs exceeded analyst projections among the top-tier products.

    The market reacted harshly and immediately to the rare earnings miss -- the first of post-Steve Jobs Apple. Between the earnings announcement and start of Apple's conference call with analysts, shares dropped by nearly 5.82 percent. After hours, Apple traded at $397.67 at 5 pm EDT, off the day's close of $422.24. Thirty minutes into the call, the sell-off intensified, rather than abated. Shares were down 6.63 percent then. When the call ended around 6 pm, shares were down 6.69 percent.

    Apple shipped, 4.89 million Macs, 11.12 million iPads and 17.07 million iPhones during fiscal Q4. Analyst consensus was around 4.2 million, 11.5 million and 20 million, respectively.

    For fiscal fourth quarter, Apple reported $28.27 billion revenue and net profits of $6.62 billion, or $7.03 a share. A year earlier, the company reported revenue of $20.34 billion and $4.31 billion net quarterly profit, or $4.64 per share. Apple announced fiscal Q4 results after the market closed today.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast $25 billion in revenue with earnings per share of $5.50. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $29.45 billion revenue and $7.28 earnings per share.

    "We are thrilled with the very strong finish of an outstanding fiscal 2011, growing annual revenue to $108 billion and growing earnings to $26 billion", Cook says in a statement. "Customer response to iPhone 4S has been fantastic, we have strong momentum going into the holiday season, and we remain really enthusiastic about our product pipeline".

    Gross margins were 40.3 percent. Apple had forecast 38 percent.

    International sales accounted for 63 percent of revenues. China was phenomenal. The country accounted for just 2 percent of Apple revenues in fiscal 2009, Cook told financial analysts today. China accounted for 12 percent of revenues for fiscal 2011 and 16 percent for the quarter. By the way, Cook, as COO, has long participated in the earnings conference call, something he continued today as chief executive -- unlike Jobs when he was CEO.

    Apple ended the quarter with $81.6 billion in cash and securities, up from $76.2 billion three months earlier.

    Looking ahead, Apple forecasts $37 billion in revenue for fiscal 2012 first quarter, with earnings per share of $9.30. Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer offered guidance during today's conference call. Analyst consensus before Apple issued guidance: $36.63 revenue and $8.98 EPS.

    Q4 2011 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.69 billion, up 1 percent from $1.68 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $4.59 billion, up 44 percent from $3.19 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.1 billion, down 25 percent from $1.48 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.68 billion, up 35 percent from $1.24 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $10.99 billion, up 24 percent from $8.82 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $6.87 billion, up 146 percent from $2.8 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $640 million, up 34 percent from $477 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $729 million, up 10 percent from $662 million a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped 17.07 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal fourth quarter, up from 14.1 million iPhones a year earlier. That's a 27 percent increase, year over year. Wall Street analyst average estimate was about 20 million units. Apple counts shipments into the channel, typically making them several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales.

    Oppenheimer told analysts today that iPhone sales fell off during the last half of the quarter, citing the "rumor of the day" about iPhone 4S.

    Sales in Asia more than doubled. Apple ended the quarter with 5.75 million iPhones in inventory.

    With the iPhone 4S launch, the handset is available from 230 carriers in 105 countries.

    "I'm confident we'll have strong supply", Cook assured analysts today, regarding Apple having enough iPhone 4Ses to sell during the holidays. He went on to predict "an all-time record" for iPhone sales.

    Q4 2011 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.28 million units, up 3 percent from 1 .24 million units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 3.62 million units, up 37 percent from 2.64 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 6.62 million units, down 27 percent from 9.05 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 17.07 million units, up 21 percent from 14.1 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 11.1 million units, up 166 percent from 4.19 million units a year earlier.

    iPad. Apple shipped 11.12 million iPads globally during the quarter -- that's up from 4.19 million -- a 166 percent -- a year earlier. The tablet was available in 90 countries at end of quarter, when Apple had 2.5 million units in channel inventory.

    The media tablet is one of the most successful new products ever. In this quarter alone, iPad added $6.87 billion revenue to Apple's bottom line. According to Gartner, iPad leads the market segment, currently with 73.4 percent market share, and will continue to do so at least through 2015.

    iPad is leading the charge of devices hampering PC sales. Regarding third calendar quarter (Apple's fiscal fourth): "The popularity of non-PC devices, including media tablets, such as the iPad and smartphones, took consumers' spending away from PC", Mikako Kitagawa, Principal Gartner analyst, says. "The PC industry has been performing below normal seasonality. As expected, back-to-school PC sales were disappointing in mature markets, confirming that the consumer PC market continues to be weak".

    "I do believe we're seeing some cannibalization", Cook admitted today. He acknowledged that some people are buying iPads instead of Macs, but many more are displacing PC sales. "Cannibalization like this -- I hope it continues".

    Apple is a major player in the two most disruptive technologies affecting PCs today -- media tablets and smartphones. "By 2015, mobile application development projects targeting smartphones and tablets will outnumber PC projects by 4 to 1", Hung LeHong, Gartner research vice president, says. "The PC is no longer king".

    Gartner predicts that media tablet sales will reach 900 million by 2016, up from 17.6 million last year. For perspective, that's more than 2.5 times the current rate for PCs and nearly as much as the entire Windows PC install base.

    "The tablet market will be bigger than the PC", Cook told analysts today. "It's a huge opportunity for Apple across time".

    Q4 2011 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $9.65 billion, up 34 percent from $7.19 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $7.4 billion, up 36 percent from $5.46 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $1.2 billion, down 21 percent from $1.4 billion a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $6.5 billion, up 139 percent from $2.7 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $3.58 billion, up 1 percent from $3.57 billion a year earlier.

    Computers. Mac shipments soared during fiscal fourth quarter. Apple sold -- what company executives really mean by shipped -- 4.89 million Macs during the quarter, up from 3.89 million units from fiscal Q4 2010; growth was 26 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus was about 4.2 million units worldwide. Apple ended the quarter with 3 to 4 weeks of inventory in channel.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released calendar third quarter 2011 preliminary PC shipments. Apple was a star performer, establishing an uncontested third place in the United States. By Gartner's reckoning, Apple's percentage of US PC shipments during the quarter was a stunning 12.9 percent, a solid and unchallenged third place. Fourth-ranked Toshiba had 8.4 percent share. IDC's numbers weren't as magnanimous -- 11.3 percent -- but still better than Apple has had in nearly two decades.

    In the United States, Apple outpaced the broader PC market -- with 21.5 percent growth, according to Gartner, and 8.3 percent growth by IDC's reckoning. By comparison, the overall US PC market grew 1.1 percent and 0.1 percent according to Gartner and IDC, respectively.

    Q4 2011 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.7 million units, up 18 percent from 1.5 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 1.2 million units, up 20 percent from 978,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 175,000 units, up 48 percent from 118,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 731,000 units, up 61 percent from 455,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 1.1 million units, up 25 percent from 874,000 units a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 6.62 million iPods during fiscal fourth quarter, down from 9.05 million a year earlier -- a 27 percent decline. Apple ended the quarter with 4 to 6 weeks channel inventory.

    Retail. Revenue from Apple Store rose just 1 percent year over year to $3.58 billion -- that's from an average 336 retail shops. Unit sales increased 25 percent -- to 1.07 million from 874,000 a year earlier. Apple opened 30 new stores during the quarter -- 21 outside the united States and 7 during last week of the quarter. Apple ended Q4 with 357 stores.

    During fiscal 2012, Apple will "focus on international expansion" -- 40 new stores -- "with three-quarters outside the United States", Oppenheimer told financial analysts.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/18/CIOs_must___re_imagine_IT_'

    CIOs must 're-imagine IT'

    Publié: octobre 18, 2011, 6:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Businesses aren't exactly busting open their coffers, but IT spending will rise next year. Gartner predicts a 3.9 percent increase -- to $2.7 trillion, from $2.6 trillion this year. The analyst firm had expected 5.9 percent spending growth for 2011, and that's not happening.

    What's important now isn't so much how much is spent but where. Social media, cloud computing and virtualization are disruptive technologies forcing IT departments and business leaders to re-evaluate technology adoption. Then there are the relentless, lingering effects of the global downturn. As such, Gartner claims that more enterprises are making IT a competitive, business priority -- and that affects who makes the decisions and how technology investments fit the top and bottom lines.

    "The days when IT was the passive observer of the world are over", Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's head of global research, says. "Global politics and the global economy are being shaped by IT. IT is a primary driver of business growth. For example, this year 350 companies will each invest more than $1 billion in IT".

    He emphasizes: "They are doing this because IT impacts their business performance. For the IT leader to thrive in this environment, IT leaders must lead from the front and re-imagine IT. IT leaders must embrace the post-modern business, a business driven by customer relationships, fueled by the explosion in information, collaboration, and mobility".

    Sondergaard identifies four technologies forcing IT organizations to change: cloud computing, information fragmentation, mobility and social media. "These forces are innovative and disruptive just taken on their own, but brought together, they are revolutionizing business and society".

    Take social media, for example. Facebook and Twitter opened to the public in 2006. YouTube launched in November 2005. While social media through bulletin boards, forums, instant messaging and such has been around for years, the big wave of social media services and apps are largely less than five years old.

    Gartner says that 1.2 billion people -- that's 20 percent of the world's population -- use social networks. "IT leaders must immediately incorporate social software capabilities throughout their enterprise system", Sondergaard says.

    Fast-changing pace means that IT organizations, and the business leadership supporting them, must do something they have long resisted: Take more risks. "Never taking risks means you are predictable and an easy target for your competition" Tina Nunno, Gartner fellow, says. "Strive to take calculated risks and surprise both your business and the competition".

    Risk means making fundamental changes to how businesses operate and regard IT. "In the post-modern business, your business has no walls. It must be everywhere", Daryl Plummer, Gartner fellow, says. "It will be a virtual and fluid business that changes as customers change. In the post-modern business, you will forget phrases such as 'business architecture' and embrace phrases like 'customer delight', 'customer involvement', and 'customer intimacy'".

    There social media plays a pivotal role, but so does the broader push into the cloud. "What supply chain models did to manufacturing is what cloud computing is doing to in-house data centers", Sondergaard says. "It is allowing people to optimize around where they have differentiated capabilities".

    Gartner describes public cloud as one of the "hottest topics in IT". Spending on public cloud services is growing four times faster than overall IT spending. Gartner forecasts $89 billion spent this year and $177 billion by 2015.

    Meanwhile, mobility isn't just hot, it's setting a blistering pace that many IT organizations can't match. As such, the so-called consumerization of IT is as much about mobile as anything else. Media tablets and smartphones are hugely disruptive technologies that IT departments must manage and embrace. Gartner predicts that media tablet sales will reach 900 million by 2016, up from 20 million last year. For perspective, that's more than 2.5 times the current rate for PCs and nearly as much as the entire Windows PC install base.

    "By 2015, mobile application development projects targeting smartphones and tablets will outnumber PC projects by 4 to 1", Hung LeHong, Gartner research vice president, says. "The PC is no longer king. IT needs to be part of building out this future. Things should be so simple that people should be able to do what they need to do on any device".

    Sondergaard predicts: "By 2014, private app stores will be deployed by 60 percent of IT organizations. The applications themselves will be redesigned -- they will become context-enabled, understanding the user’s intent automatically. Mobile computing is not just the desktop on a handheld device. The future of mobile computing is context-aware computing".

    Is your business, government or organization ready to re-imagine IT as Gartner demands is necessary? Or do you see the analyst firm blowing the same kind of "IT must change now or else" smoke that's been around for decades?

    Photo Credit: cybrain/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/17/It_s_a_great_time_to_be_a_Microsoft_family'

    It's a great time to be a Microsoft family

    Publié: octobre 17, 2011, 9:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Two days before Christmas last year I posted "Talking about Microsoft Store", which contrasted the differences between people shopping there and the Apple shop a few doors down in Fashion Valley Mall, San Diego. Apple Store was busier, and the crowd younger, with lots of individuals and couples. I observed about the other shop: "Microsoft Store is where families meet".

    So it is with great intrigue and curiosity that I watch Microsoft's new "It's a great time to be a family" marketing campaign unfold. I'm loving it. The first commercials clearly show the benefits of using Microsoft stuff and put them in context of what matters most to the majority: Family. Core family values also are central to the Microsoft lifestyle. And when I express "core family values" the meaning simply is "one another" -- not some moral conservative or liberal moral agenda.

    The Apple lifestyle is quite different. Apple culture is much more about individualism, friendship and creativity. That can so clearly be seen by who shops the stores and what they're there for and by comparing Apple marketing campaigns to Microsoft's. Even the products reveal something. For example, Apple chose to integrate Twitter, rather than Facebook, into iOS 5. Twitter is a much more individualistic service -- people broadcast, others follow them and they all react within 140-character exchanges. Contrast that to Facebook, which is about friends and relationships. Microsoft has long touted Facebook integration/support with its products, with Windows Phone being one obvious example.

    Pulling Heart Strings

    Microsoft's sales pitch isn't complex: "Whatever your family’s into, there’s a Microsoft® product that's right for them. It all starts with a Windows 7 PC. See how well our family fits in with yours". But the focus is broader: Windows Phone, Xbox 360 and Windows 7 as anchors, which, unsurprisingly fit into the company's focus on three screens: PC, phone and television.

    Microsoft's pitch is aspirational, and I'll watch to see how well it works. Good marketing effectively:

    • Presents a product or brand in a way that makes you remember them
    • Demonstrates benefits that will make your life better, or make you believe it will be
    • Makes you feel good, creating an emotional hook attached to the product or brand

    What has more loaded emotions -- and hopefully good ones -- than family? My daughter is a senior in high school, and the first two commercials make me feel jealous for an earlier time in our family life. She sadly is our only child and will be gone to college soon.

    In Microsoft TV commercial "Epic Share", a dad moves to Dance Central 2 for Xbox 360, while the daughter videos him using Windows Phone. She sends it to a PC, from which her brother uses Windows Live Movie Maker to edit and post online (for family to see). It's all family fun, while showing five Microsoft products: Windows Live Movie Maker, Windows Phone, Windows 7, Xbox 360 and Kinect. The commercial also shows off the 11.6-inch Samsung Series 9 notebook, which competes with Apple's MacBook Air.

    TV commercial "Dog.PPT" captures this family value lifestyle well, too. A youngster uses PowerPoint to make the case for getting a family dog. Who can't relate to a boy and a dog, or to some parents' reaction to his wanting one? The advert shows PowerPoint in a different context -- kid and parents, rather than the workplace.

    The Value of Value

    One of Microsoft's longstanding core values is, well, value -- making computing affordable for everyone. That's something I'd like to see more from future Microsoft family marketing. It's something I see inside Microsoft today -- well, yesterday.

    I often go inside my local Microsoft Store to check out the deals. Yesterday I spotted a Sony VAIO SA laptop, which offers tremendous value compared to the Mac laptops for sale four stores away. Basic config: 2.3GHz Intel Core i5 2410M processor, 13.3-inch display with 1600 x 900 resolution, 4GB DDR 3 RAM; 1GB AMD Radeon HD 6300M graphics, 500GB 5400-RPM hard drive and Windows 7 Professional. The kicker: Free Sony sheet battery that attaches to the laptop's bottom. Sony claims up to 7.5 hours battery life standard or up to 15 hours with the extra one. Price: $999, and buyers spending $500 or more are eligible for free Windows Phone, too.

    To get as good or better screen resolution, Mac laptop buyers must spend $1,949; to get 1GB of graphics memory, $2,199; and they can't get 15-hour battery for any price from Apple.

    Value is often a priority for many families. Kids cost money. Microsoft has played up value before with the "I'm a PC" marketing campaign. It should resonate as well or better as part of family marketing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/17/Which_is_more_likely_to_survive_a_bad_drop__iPhone_4S_or_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_'

    Which is more likely to survive a bad drop, iPhone 4S or Samsung Galaxy S II?

    Publié: octobre 17, 2011, 7:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple offers a pretty good protection plan for iPhone 4S. AppleCare+ adds a second year of standard warranty coverage and phone replacement for $49 -- all for $99 at point of purchase. Do you need it? For that matter, if you like me chose Galaxy S II instead, do you need AT&T's $9.99/month insurance, which offers phone replacement for $125? Or if on another carrier, the insurance they offer? I've wondered. Haven't you?

    Warranty/insurance provider SquareTrade offers some real insight in video: "iPhone 4S vs. Samsung Galaxy S II Drop Test". It's amazing how much tension watching someone nonchalantly drop a cell phone creates. Perhaps it's that sickening feeling this could happen to you or the anticipation that your phone will do better than the other.

    You'll have to watch the video to see which, if either, survives or in what condition. Please offer your reaction in comments. This is one of those rare occasions where I encourage you to be bit of a fanboy. :)

    Oh, confession: I spotted this video at TechCrunch.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/17/There_are_20M_iCloud_and_25M_iOS_5_users'

    There are 20M iCloud and 25M iOS 5 users

    Publié: octobre 17, 2011, 6:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple's rocky iCloud and iOS 5 launches haven't deterred determined upgraders. Today Apple revealed that over the first five days 20 million people had signed up for iCloud and 25 million upgraded to iOS 5. Considering that Apple claims a market of 250 million iOS devices, the numbers are either good or not depending on your view of 10 percent (or less) adoption. It's a fair guess the numbers could have been higher if not for the complexity of this upgrade or data center problems that delayed or thwarted many would-be updaters.

    iCloud, Apple's data center-powered synchronization service demands, much during setup. To fully utilize the service, Mac users have to upgrade to iOS 5, iTunes 10.5 and Mac OS X 10.7.2. MobileMe subscribers also must migrate to iCloud, but only after getting the other upgrades. Many Betanews readers report difficulty getting all the updates and iCloud rightly working, particularly with desktop mail clients.

    Christopher Sacra explains some of his problems:

    I updated my 5 devices with several bumps along the way (took lots of retries). My biggest heartburn is iCloud. I migrated my Mobile Me account, but then, when you are installing the iCloud account on the devices, it's not clear whether to use Apple ID or Mobile Me login, as both can be used on the website. My devices could not retrieve [me.com] email, saying the username and/or password were incorrect. My MacBook Pro told my I couldn't sync because I wasn't using my "Primary iCloud account." Primary iCloud account? Come one - there should be one account to set up and sync. I shouldn't have to decide where Apple wants my iTunes Apple ID and my Mobile Me/iCloud login - can it be any more complicated?

    lvthunder observes there is a "lack of documentation. Apple is great at the marketing, but I don't know what all the options are".

    Some users also report changes (which I haven't confirmed firsthand). Apple Address Book in Mac OS X 10.6 lets users sync to MobileMe and Google or Yahoo. "If I want to synchronize my address book to iCloud, I need to turn off Google Contacts sync", José Tierno writes. "[It] will not let me sync to both. That just will not work for me. Bummer".

    By contrast, Gé Weijers: "Upgrading was pretty uneventful for me. Getting rid of iTunes for backups and security updates is the best feature. The rest is not that important to me".

    Many people found iOS 5 challenging, too. For example: "The installation process was difficult, with several failed attempts before IOS 5 installed on both my iPhone and iPad, but now I'm up and running" Charles Bond writes. "But I'm puzzled and can't find an answer to the question: When does a device sync to iCloud -- and then vice versa. It's clearly not in real time, or even close to it. Right at this moment I have an entry to my Calendar that has not been synched to my my iPhone in over an hour, although the phone is on, locked and connected to power via a USB connection to my MacBook Pro. So am I missing something, which might well be the case? When does the magic happen?"

    I don't know Bond's setup, but isn't the point that iCloud syncs cable-free?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/17/iPhone_4S_launch_sales_top_4_million'

    iPhone 4S launch sales top 4 million

    Publié: octobre 17, 2011, 5:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's right, Apple and its carrier and retail partners sold 4 million iPhones during the launch. My question: How many are still in inventory? For the first Apple product launch I can ever remember, iPhone 4S breezed through the weekend without selling out everywhere. Is that better logistics under CEO Tim Cook's leadership or less-than-expected demand? But, hey, 4 million is no small achievement.

    Apple is touting that big four number over three days. That's not right. Apple and its partners started taking preorders on October 7, racking up 1 million sales in the first 24 hours. What? People stopped preordering after the first day? I don't think so. Under the most generous accounting, 3 million iPhone 4Ses sold over the launch weekend and the total 4 million is over 9 days, not three.

    I'm not trying to diminish the achievement -- this is by far the best iPhone launch based on early numbers -- but to report accurately. Pretty much everyone will quote the mouth of Apple today: 4 million in 3 days, which simply isn't right. In fairness and for perspective: Based on Gartner and IDC data on phone shipments, Samsung is Apple's biggest rival selling smartphones. Samsung Galaxy S II took 55 days to reach 3 million sales -- granted without China or the United States. Clearly, iPhone 4S did better, in just 9 days.

    "iPhone 4S is off to a great start with more than four million sold in its first weekend -- the most ever for a phone and more than double the iPhone 4 launch during its first three days", Phil Schiller, Apple’s global marketing chief, says in a statement. "iPhone 4S is a hit with customers around the world, and together with iOS 5 and iCloud, is the best iPhone ever". The 4 million in the "first weekend" isn't accurate, as I've explained, and "hit with customers around the world" is either disingenuous or exaggeration. The phone is available in 7 countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. Apple's smartphone launches in 22 more countries on October 28.

    They are: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

    The 4 million number doesn't surprise me. I'm more surprised it's not higher and raises questions of how this big achievement is foreshadowing iPhone 4S ultimate success. What's different now:

    • iPhone 4 launched in fewer countries and only from one US carrier, AT&T
    • iPhone 4S adds Sprint, for which there obviously is pent-up demand for any Apple smartphone
    • Verizon got iPhone 4 in February, and surely many customers waited for its successor. (I know a few, don't you?)
    • Sixteen months passed between iPhone 4 and 4S launches. That means many more people are eligible for subsidized phone upgrade, and there was greater pent-up demand than for iPhone 4 (based on time between new handsets).

    So, yeah, 4 million is reasonable, but not exceptional -- for Apple. Apple to Apple is the only comparison that matters here.

    Please read Ed Oswald's iPhone 4S review

    I jaunted down to my local Apple Store several times over the weekend, even buying my daughter an iPhone 4S early Friday afternoon. I waited 15 minutes -- not long at all. On Friday, there was plenty of stock, except for Sprint. Little had changed yesterday. "We have a lot, lot, lot of them in stock. Everything AT&T, Verizon -- nothing Sprint", an Apple Store Fashion Valley employee told me.

    Lines at Apple Store for iPhone 4S Launch one hour after opening on Oct. 14, 2011 -- Orlando Millennia Mall, Florida

    Is that a sign of improved distribution efficiency, Apple overstocking stores, less-than-expected demand -- or a combination of them? I don't have an answer, but I chuckled at the photo directly above, which @markbyrn tweeted on Friday (and I only saw yesterday) and wondered.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/15/What_I_learned_while_buying_my_daughter_iPhone_4S'

    What I learned while buying my daughter iPhone 4S

    Publié: octobre 15, 2011, 2:57am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I missed out on the big iPhone 4S launch here in San Diego, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise -- as the anachronism goes. There was chaos this morning in BetaNews manor, so I ground my teeth, cursed often and kept my fingers pounding the Lenovo ThinkPad T420s keyboard. I wouldn't have gone to buy iPhone 4S but to take photos before the store doors opened at 8 a.m. My sixth sense sniffed opportunity -- that the line outside Apple Store Fashion Valley would be nowhere near as big for iPhone 4s as it was for v4. I was right. It wasn't, I later learned. Grumble, grumble.

    My daughter texted soon after going to school. She needed me to sign some papers for taking tests and to cough up payment for exorbitant fees. She needed everything during lunch, and "It'd be amazing if you could bring some food too!!!" Parenthood. I needed a break, so we met and squared everything away. Then I got to thinking about Apple Store. It was only a few miles away. Why not pop over there and see how the line looked and if iPhone 4S had sold out.

    No Sell Out

    I arrived to see a sparse line of perhaps 20 people, which suggested the store still had phones to sell. Sure enough. When I asked, an employee answered: "We've got plenty for AT&T". But the store had sold out of Sprint phones.

    “Sprint today reported its best ever day of sales in retail, web and telesales for a device family in Sprint history with the launch of iPhone 4S and iPhone 4", Fared Adib, Sprint product chief, says in a statement. "We reached this milestone at approximately noon CT/1pm ET".

    I arrived at the Apple Store around 1 p.m. PT, or so about three hours after Sprint achieved its sales milestone. Someone in the newsroom sent around the Sprint statement soon after I returned from Apple Store, remarking: "we can stop asking if the 4S will be a massive success". To which I responded: "I'll keep right on asking. My local Apple Store had at 1:30 overwhelming stock of iPhone 4S for AT&T and Verizon. Sold out for Sprint. Only...Of course, Sprint launch was huge. First-time iPhone carrier".

    "The response to this device by current and new customers has surpassed our expectations and validates our customers’ desire for a truly unlimited data pricing plan", Adib says. Right. iPhone is completely new to Sprint.

    So the first thing I learned: Sprint had a helluva good sales day -- perhaps too good if people want to buy and there's nothing to sell. The second: AT&T hadn't sold out its phone. The third: Neither had Verizon. Well, at least in San Diego. I queried an Apple employee with stacks of cards in her hand. I've seen them before. It's how an Apple Store tracks inventory out in the waiting line, asking people which models they want and ensuring those are available. Clearly the store had hundreds of Verizon iPhone 4S models still available and she told me even more for AT&T.

    How's the stock holding up, as I write about four hours later? My local Apple Store still has plenty of AT&T and Verizon models. Perhaps it's different on the East Coast. So I called Apple Store Tysons Corner, the first of the company's shops to open -- May 2001 (I was there) -- at 7:35 p.m. ET and asked. Employee told me that all colors, all capacities are available for AT&T; similar availability for Verizon. But the store sold out of 16GB models for Sprint. Oh yeah? Tysons still has some Sprint iPhone 4S models! So there was something else I learned -- at least one Apple Store has Sprint iPhone 4Ses.

    I also learned that either 4S demand isn't exceptional compared to iPhone 4 or Apple has gotten much more efficient stocking inventory -- or both.

    AppleCare+

    But that's now. I'm not done with then. Since the iPhone 4S waiting line was so short -- and the promised wait time 15 minutes -- I joined. Right now my family is split between AT&T and T-Mobile, which is overly costly. We need to consolidate to one carrier. If not for the troubled AT&T merger and my daughter and father-in-law using iPhones, I would move the family to T-Mobile. The contracts expire next week, and I will instead migrate the remaining two lines to AT&T. I planned to buy a new phone anyway and had been nudging my daughter towards Android, which most of her friends have. I texted her and asked whether Android or iPhone 4S. Her answer didn't surprise. I was right to stand in line.

    Only about 12 minutes later, an Apple employee ushered me inside the store. He confirmed that my daughter's lines isn't eligible for a subsidized upgrade. I would purchase the phone with a new line. I asked for the 16GB white model; my daughter would go from the 32GB black iPhone 4. I couldn't afford more but unexpectedly ended up paying as much as the 32GB iPhone 4S -- another $99.

    What a sales pitch! The employee introduced me to AppleCare+, which is new. That was the next thing I learned while buying my daughter iPhone 4S. Apple raised the protection plan's price from $49 to $99 -- well, if you want the plus. I also learned: "AppleCare+ must be purchased together with your new iPhone", according to the company. And something else: Plus really offers something extra -- replacement of damaged iPhones. I twiced asked the employee if replacement was free, and he assured me it is. But it's not, which is another thing I learned but only later when checking out AppleCare+ for this story: The plan "adds coverage for up to two incidents of accidental damage due to handling, each subject to a $49 service fee". That's still cheaper than what AT&T charges for insurance and replacement, and the Plus service also extends AppleCare to two years.

    But what about the people who preodered iPhone 4S? The answer is another thing I learned. According to Apple: "AppleCare+ will be available through November 14, 2011, to customers who pre-ordered iPhone 4 (8GB) and iPhone 4S. After you receive your new iPhone, contact us at 1-800-275-2273 to purchase AppleCare+". You've got a month, baby.

    After choosing to add AppleCare+ to the purchase, I completed the transaction and activated the phone while still in the store -- at 1:30 a.m. PT. About the same time, something else happened, which I learned about later. "As of 4:30 pm ET today, AT&T had already activated a record number of iPhones on our network -- and is on-track to double our previous record for activations on a single day", according to a company statement. I'd like to think my activation put AT&T over the top (say is there a prize for this), but I'm not quite that presumptuous.

    I learned something else: iPhone 4S really doesn't interest me. I wrote last week: "You can have iPhone 4S, I'll take Samsung Galaxy S II". I felt no tug to buy one for myself or even to commandeer my daughter's iPhone 4S for a few hours before she gets it. I'm completely satisfied with the S2.

    But I learned one more thing -- not while at Apple Store but while writing this story about the visit. Governor Jerry Brown tweeted about an hour ago: "This Sunday will be Steve Jobs Day in the State of California". Can you believe that?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/14/Did_you_buy_iPhone_4S__and_was_it__for_Steve__'

    Did you buy iPhone 4S, and was it 'for Steve'?

    Publié: octobre 14, 2011, 6:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Apple's newest smartphone goes on sale in seven countries -- Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. We'd like to know: Did you buy one? If so, did you preorder or stand in line? Perhaps you're in line somewhere right now reading this. Do tell us. Maybe you're home, taking a day off from work, waiting for FedEx to deliver you preorder -- and wondering why not a day early like iPhone 4.

    I didn't buy the new smartphone. As I wrote last week, "You can have iPhone 4S, I'll take Galaxy S II". (By the way, the S2 is simply the best smartphone I've ever owned. I haven't enjoyed a gadget this much in years.) Meanwhile, my colleague Ed Oswald preordered iPhone 4S. He received it minutes ago as I write. Look for his unboxing photos and first-impressions review later today.

    What's your story? What are your first impressions? Where are your photos -- say, that glowing self-portrait holding your new phone? Please share in comments below or email joe at betanews dot com.

    Last week, we took a poll asking: "Will you buy iPhone 4S?". There are more than 6,300 responses right now. It's a good sample size, but what people say they will do isn't often what happens. The question really measures desire -- what you want to do. Now we want to know what you did.

    More than 63 percent of respondents said they would buy iPhone 4S -- 15.56 percent of iPhone 3GS owners and 12.91 percent who have iPhone 4. Only 8.86 percent are moving from Android phones. Among those answering "No", 20.62 percent don't find iPhone 4S compelling enough, while 12.99 percent are satisfied with what they have got. A surprisingly small 3.11 percent don't qualify for discount pricing.

    Betanews reader dougau answers the question: "Yeah sure, Why not! The heck with my mortgage".

    Hayden Kirk writes in comments: "I've got a 4. Love it, best phone I've ever had. I like solid phones and the 4 is much more solid that the 3 or 3GS. The 4S doesn't offer enough to switch, but then again, it was never meant to make iPhone 4 users switch. Not sure if it's just me, but I've found most android phones laggy. The interface lags".


    Did you buy iPhone 4S?

    Apple announced iPhone 4S on October 4. By the end of business the following day, the world learned that Apple cofounder Steve Jobs had died of complications related to cancer. Preorders started October 11, with Apple touting 1-million units during first 24 hours. Sales begin in 22 additional countries -- Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland -- on October 28.


    If you bought (or plan to buy) iPhone 4S is "For Steve" -- meaning for Steve Jobs -- primary reason?

    Jobs is an iconic figure, with rock star-like appeal. It's not unusual for a rock star's album sales to soar following an untimely death. Amy Winehouse, who died in July, is example. Already, social networks are buzzing with people claiming 4S is "For Steve" in memory of Jobs. If you bought iPhone 4S, please explain why. If it was for Steve Jobs, we'd really like to know. Please answer in comments below and take both our polls above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/14/What_do_you_think_of_iCloud_'

    What do you think of iCloud?

    Publié: octobre 14, 2011, 1:49am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    We asked, and you surprised us with your answers. Many of you don't think much of iCloud. But perhaps you got off to a bad start because of the glitchy launch. First impressions are so important in any new relationship.

    Yesterday, Apple flipped the switch on iCloud in conjunction with a rash of supporting software updates, including iOS 5. Getting those updates was no easy matter, as Ed Oswald reported yesterday and many of you also shared. iCloud is Apple's new connected synchronization service, which replaces iTunes as major sync hub and offers a rash of new capabilities. But to really get it, many of you have to persevere through more updates than I've seen necessary from Apple in years. The service also isn't working quite right for many of you, in a cascade of glitches that reminds of the catastrophic launch of MobileMe three years ago.

    Commenter shockme writes:

    I ended up having to download:

    • iTunes 10.5
    • Max OS X Lion 10.7.2
    • New baseband for iPhone
    • iOS 5 for iPhone
    • iOS 5 for iPad
    • Move MobileMe to iCloud and enable it on all my iOS 5 devices

    A few GBs later and now I'll never have to use that damn cable and iTunes again.

    "I was lucky enough to have a short work day today (honestly, not because of the iOS 5 update)", writes BetaNews reader Tim Harbison. "Started the download about 15:00 -- finally finished downloading at 17:00. Took half a dozen attempts to update and that finally finished, along with restoring the media, at around 18:00".

    People wanting full iCloud benefits need to go through similar update process, which wasn't easy yesterday. Among them: Synchronization of content across all iOS 5 devices via iCloud. But it was overly much for some people.

    "The servers being slammed on update day is typical" shockme asserts. "But the interface for updating devices is never on the correct page and it never remembers my settings with regard to the crap I don't want on each device. Damn thing tried to download three years worth of podcasts even though it was clear they wouldn't fit and though I expressly asked for only five of them".

    Reader bodean is having better luck: "Its nice to have my music that I get on my iPhone, available to me when I'm on the road with my iPad via cloud".

    "I don't really see the need for iCloud", mshulman comments. "I personally would much rather have my content stored online and access it online and there are already so many ways to do that".

    Commenter ghostface147 agrees:

    I've been using iCloud since the beta stages. It gets the job done, but for me, iCloud is currently a problem for one reason...No interface to manage it. I'd love to use photostream, but I want to be able to manage what shows up on my other devices. I don't mind them all getting uploaded at once, but it needs to let me manage it before I have another iOS/Mac turned on.

    I work in IT and I take pictures of assests with my i4. I don't want those on photostream. Fine you say, turn it off while you take those pics. Nope. It deletes your current photo library in iCloud (at least that's what I understand happens, if I'm wrong, correct me). Just a management interface, whether on a OS X or an iOS app -- that's all we need.

    Apple has retired MobileMe, which will remain available to existing subscribers until next summer. To use iCloud, MobileMe users must migrate. That process proved troublesome for some of you. John1jim: "I had trouble setting up mail on the Mac. I had to delete the MobileMe account 3 times before all the IMAP folders appeared. And I had to manually reconfigure SMTP. It did not appear at first; same on Outlook for the PC. And I still can't get calendar to work on Outlook".

    Mark Burford has "not been able to send any emails at all using Apple Mail with any of my various email accounts" after moving to iCloud.

    People, I can only use what you provide, and this post represents early iCloud reaction here at BetaNews. From my vantage point it looks like Apple muffed iCloud's launch as badly as MobileMe in 2008. I contend that iCloud is Apple's killer application. But that's only true if people use or want to use it -- or that the cloud service works. As I wrote earlier, first impressions are important in any relationship.

    Are you having better experience with iCloud than these folks? Please tell us all in comments.

    Photo Credit: Ralf Juergen Kraft/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/13/Android_activations_top_190M__close_on_iOS'

    Android activations top 190M, close on iOS

    Publié: octobre 13, 2011, 11:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google's mobile operating system picked up tremendous momentum from July to September. Today, during Google's Q3 earnings conference call, CEO Larry Page said that the total number of activations had reached 190 million -- that's up from 135 million three months ago. Last week, Apple reported that it had sold 250 million iOS devices to date, up 25 million during the same time period.

    It's no secret that Androids are outselling iOS devices on a sheer volume basis, but based on these numbers, and recent analyst data, momentum is increasing. Whether or not Android can sustain the gains depends on much occurring this month that foreshadows the future. Tomorrow, iPhone 4S officially launches at 8 a.m., local time, whatever that is for you. While many people have expressed disappointment at there being no iPhone 5, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' untimely death last week could spur a rock star effect of sudden sales. It's now social media-spread folklore that 4S is "For Steve". Similar Jobs allure could likewise lift already hot-selling iPad 2.

    Five days later, October 19, Google is expected to formally launch Android 4.0 -- aka Ice Cream Sandwich -- during an event in Hong Kong. The new OS brings together Android 2.x for smartphones and 3.x for tablets, closing the fork between them. "You won't believe what we managed to get done in this release", Page said on a conference call with investors, late this afternoon.

    Maybe, but who will believe in something they can't see? Android 4.0 isn't religion. Yesterday, Apple released iOS 5. How well -- or better -- Ice Cream Sandwich compares and how quickly it is available for existing handsets will be essential to effective competition. Availability is key. Apple released iOS 5 to any iPhone 3GS or 4 users willing to take time to download the software and install it with supporting updates. Ice Cream Sandwich is nothing to everyone who can't easily get it, and right now Android has a huge, unresolved fragmentation problem. Major part of the problem: Cellular carriers, not Google, control updates.

    More broadly, Android and iOS sales are disproportionate, with the overwhelming number of Google OS device sales smartphones. During second quarter, Apple sold more than 20 million iPhones and nearly 10 million iPads.

    That raises something else: While it's clear Android activations increased by 55 million during third quarter, iOS sales remain uncertain despite the figure given last week. Apple hasn't released quarterly results (they come next week). The final numbers could be higher.

    By the way, Page released some other numbers of note today. Google+ has now more than 40 million users, a stunning achievement in less than four months. New users are "flocking" to Google+ at an "incredible rate -- and we are just getting started".

    Meanwhile, Page said there are now 200 million Chrome users worldwide, in 130 countries.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/13/Google_serves_up_Ice_Cream_Sandwich_October_19'

    Google serves up Ice Cream Sandwich October 19

    Publié: octobre 13, 2011, 10:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    You can call me disappointed. I was psyched for the Google-Samsung event that was scheduled to take place in San Diego, where I live, this week. But then the companies cancelled, claiming they wanted to show respect for Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who died last week. Bloggers, journalists and phone geeks had gone gaga over the "Unpacked" event, which presumably was to announce the next Google phone and Android 4.0 -- aka Ice Cream Sandwich. The new invites are out, and as you can see from the image right, there's little doubt what's coming.

    But the location isn't good for me, and perhaps not for you. From the companies: "The Samsung/Google media event has been rescheduled to take place on October 19 in Hong Kong, China at S221 Hong Kong Convention & Exhibition Centre. The event starts at 10:00 a.m. HKT with doors opening at 9:30 a.m. HKT. The event livestream will be available at YouTube.com/Android at 10 p.m. EST on October 18 for US media who cannot attend the event".

    I don't keep a public calendar, but if you want to know where I'll be on the evening of October 18, now you do: Sitting in front of the Lenovo ThinkPad 420s watching the launch event half-a-world away. I had so looked forward to holding gooey Ice Cream Sandwich in my hands and (figuratively) licking the new smartphone's screen. It's rare any company launches anything in San Diego. Hong Kong simply isn't in my travel budget.

    By all indications, the new smartphone and Android 4.0 are coming very soon following their unveiling next week. Yesterday, the final Google TV 2.0 SDK released to developers. The forthcoming update is based on Android 4.0. Over the weekend, Samsung smartphone model I9250 passed through the FCC, well, the GSM version supporting AT&T and T-Mobile networks.

    Then there are the boatloads of rumors -- enough to sink a ship steaming to Hong Kong -- leaked screenshots, YouTube videos and specs. The phone, has many names, with Nexus Prime the most commonly used. I have no inside skinny on the specs, but I expect they'll be similar to the recently announced Galaxy S II HD LTE, without the LTE (at least in United States, based on FCC filings) -- no better, and likely not as good. The S2 HD LTE packs a 4.65-inch Super AMOLED display -- 1280 x 720 screen resolution, with 316-ppi pixel density; 1.5GHz dual-core processor; 8-megapixel camera; and the usual stock of features. The LTE phone is only 9.5mm thick.

    Based on a teaser video Samsung released before the event was cancelled in San Diego, Nexus Prime (or whatever it's called), will have a curved screen -- like predecessor Nexus S. There will be a tablet, too. What? You thought Prime was just a phone? Samsung has a new Ice Cream Sandwich tablet coming, too.

    Considering how satisfied I am with Galaxy S II, my interest is Ice Cream Sandwich (which likely won't be available for the smartphone anytime soon -- no thank you, AT&T and Samsung!). There are screenshots -- believe them or not -- in comments to a Nexus Prime story on Romanian tech site mobilissimo.ro.

    Where will you be October 18 or 19 (depending on time zone)?

    Update: Rumored Ice Cream Sandwich screenshots replaced with more interesting video. Google is now Candyland.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/13/Apple_and_Lenovo_make_shocking_Q3_PC_sales_gains'

    Apple and Lenovo make shocking Q3 PC sales gains

    Publié: octobre 13, 2011, 2:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm quite critical of the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists for overreaching pretty much anything regarding the Cupertino, Calif.-based company. They'll quote data from firms no one has heard of to make Apple and its products much bigger successes than they are. And because this group is so loudmouth, their exaggerations and lies are widely read and often taken for fact. But ever so occasionally, something altogether legitimate comes along. Today is that day. Mac market share soared during third quarter, according to Gartner and IDC, which both released preliminary data today.

    By Gartner's reckoning, Apple's percentage of US PC shipments during the quarter was a stunning 12.9 percent, a solid and unchallenged third place. Fourth-ranked Toshiba had 8.4 percent share. IDC's numbers weren't as magnanimous -- 11.3 percent -- but still better than Apple has had in nearly two decades. But there's more than shocking Mac news in the data. Lenovo has unseated Dell as the No. 2 PC manufacturer worldwide, according to both analyst firms. With HP considering selling off its PC division and given Lenovo's dramatic gains, the China-based company could snatch the top spot in just a few quarters.

    “Lenovo has captured incredible marketplace momentum to surpass two competitors to capture the No. 2 spot in worldwide PCs over the span of just two quarters", Lenovo CEO Yuanqing Yang, says in a statement. "This is the highest rank Lenovo has achieved in worldwide PC sales and, given the current competitive environment, positions the company as a strong challenger to ultimately become the global market leader".

    Apple and Lenovo successes come during another tough quarter for PC manufacturers. Shipments rose 3.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner, missing its forecast of 5.1 percent growth. IDC put growth lower -- 2.7 percent -- and off its 4.5-percent growth forecast. Manufacturers shipped 91.8 million PCs, according to both analyst firms.

    An alarming trend continued: "The popularity of non-PC devices, including media tablets, such as the iPad and smartphones, took consumers' spending away from PC", Mikako Kitagawa, Principal Gartner analyst, says in a statement. "The PC industry has been performing below normal seasonality. As expected, back-to-school PC sales were disappointing in mature markets, confirming that the consumer PC market continues to be weak".

    While consumers shift buying priorities to more personal, portable devices like smartphones and media tablets, there's a related factor: The economy, which has forced PC manufacturers to slowdown shipments. However, "the inventory buildup, which slowed growth the last four quarters, mostly cleared out during the third quarter of this year", Kitagawa says.

    "For the moment, PCs have taken a backseat to a range of other devices competing for shrinking consumer and business budgets," Jay Chou, IDC senior research analyst, says in a statement.

    "Most vendors continue to struggle with the slow market environment and product changes", Loren Loverde, IDC vice president, says in a statement. "We don't see media tablets and other devices replacing PCs", but he calls them "distractions" dragging sales. "Still, there are opportunities, as demonstrated by Lenovo's gains".

    Note: First two charts are from Gartner, second two from IDC.

    "While growth is expected to stay in mid-single digits in the fourth quarter, we should see faster growth in 2012 and beyond based on easier comparisons and refreshed PC offerings as the industry better addresses the evolving usage models by integrating more of the features in ultra mobile devices", Chou says.

    Perhaps, but in the world's largest economy, PC sales look grim going into holidays, with Apple, HP and Lenovo in best shape. US PC sales grew 1.1 percent during third quarter, which isn't much to cheer about. Gains can largely be attributed to channel restocking after three earlier quarters of declines. By comparison, IDC put US shipments flat year over year.

    "The main contributor to the weak consumer PC market in the US. was intensified competition for consumers' money", Kitagawa says. "Media tablets and smartphones took center stage in the US retail sector, and the expectation is for continuing demand for these devices throughout the holiday season".

    But IDC sees broader problems -- "the state of saturation and lack of incentives for consumers to upgrade", David Daoud, IDC research director, says in a statement. "Inhibitors included the poor economic environment and, to a certain extent, iPad cannibalization". For the holidays, "the opportunity for low single-digit growth is real, but mostly as a result of poor market conditions last year, as opposed to a recovery in demand".

    MacBook Air lifted Apple PC shipments during Q3, according to Gartner's preliminary estimates. Going into the holidays, Acer and Asus, among others, will seek to capture some of that thin-and-light magic with their first Ultrabooks. But Apple has huge retail presence, just from its 245 company stores, and from partners like Best Buy.

    Meanwhile, Lenovo's gains are global and far outpace Apple. IDC noted that Lenovo's growth exceeded the market by more than 10 percent for nine straight quarters and by more than 20 percent for six consecutive quarters. The company benefits in part by resoundingly capitalizing on "disarray among the other top players".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/12/We_want_your_iCloud_and_iOS_5_stories'

    We want your iCloud and iOS 5 stories

    Publié: octobre 12, 2011, 3:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Apple releases iCloud and iOS 5, two days before iPhone 4S launches in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. The new operating system is a significant upgrade that can be installed on iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4. iOS 5 works in tandem with iCloud, which is Apple's Internet-enabled synchronization service; it replaces iTunes as the company's major sync hub.

    We're crowdsoucing our initial reviews, and I ask for your first take ahead of anything that we might do. If you've got something to say about either iCloud or iOS 5 -- or both -- we'd like to get it right away. If you've tested either or both before their release, we request your full or mini-review even sooner.

    Many people are debating whether or not iPhone 4S is a worthy upgrade. I expect little debate about iOS 5, which borrows (okay copies) some of Android's best features, or iCloud, which adopts a push rather than pull model for your digital content and even applications. iCloud is an online sync service rather than storage one.

    I'll collect your reviews into one post, but also welcome -- actually encourage -- longer first takes that can run with your name, bio and photo. We love user submissions! Either comment your first-impression reviews here or send them to joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/11/AT_T__Sprint_and_Verizon__Cloud_connected_devices_change_everything'

    AT&T, Sprint and Verizon: Cloud-connected devices change everything

    Publié: octobre 11, 2011, 8:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    CTIA Enterprise & Applications kicked off today in San Diego with a brief tribute to Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who died last week. CTIA President Steve Largent praised Apple's move into the smartphone market, also calling it "disruptive".

    Dan Hesse, Sprint CEO, then took the stage -- the first of three chief executives. He checked off wireless industry accomplishments, such as the year's many natural disasters or the Arab Spring that toppled governments across Northern Africa and the Middle East. "We make a difference in the lives of nearly every person on earth", he asserted.

    Hesse, who opposes AT&T's proposed and increasingly troubled T-Mobile acquisition, couldn't resist mentioning it in passing. But he emphasized; "Members of the CTIA board have worked very well this year".

    Hesse spoke about wireless' contributions now and in the future, claiming the trillion dollar industry -- only one of five -- could add $860 billion in additional US GDP over the next decade. He spent an enormous amount of his time on stage talking about green wireless.

    Sprint strongly opposes texting and driving, which accounts for 20 percent of fatal car crashes, Hesse said. The carrier recently launched the "Sprint Drive First" app for Android phones. When installed, the phone locks after the vehicle goes faster than 10 miles an hour.

    Hesse is a surprisingly good speaker. Sprint's CEO is articulate, clear and he presented without prompts. No slides! Now there's the measure of someone who can command the stage.

    "Perfect Storm of Innovation"

    Ralph de la Vega, CEO AT&T Mobility and Consumer Markets, followed Hesse. His style was more antimated than was Sprint's CEO. He started by talking about the "mobile revolution", which he described as "the perfect storm of innovation".

    The AT&T executive focused on the new era of collaboration, calling out Boeing as an example for inviting customers/partners to participate in the design of the Dreamliner.

    Collaboration is a priority for AT&T particularly working with mobile software developers. "We can't wait for innovation to come to us, we have to go to where the innovation is". So the company founded AT&T Foundry, with locations in Palo Alto, Calif., Plano, Texas and Israel.

    AT&T has created its own API toolkit and supports HTML5. The Foundry also provides access to back-end services. It's a platform pitch you don't often hear from wireless carriers.

    There's more. "We're using a venture capital model" to allow ideas generated anywhere within the company to quickly get attention. The ideas with the most potential receive immediate funding. AT&T calls the collaboration program TIP -- The Innovation Platform. More than 100,000 employees participate.

    Yesterday, AT&T released an app for dividing work and personal zones on its handsets. The idea, de la Vega explained, is to help CIOs demarcate employees' personal stuff, like music, from corporate applications and content. The app came out of the TIP program, from an employee suggestion.

    "Connected devices are the next big thing in mobility", de la Vega said, and he wasn't talking cell phones -- everything from e-readers to GPS pet tags and more. He went on to discuss connected "wearable devices", such as the fireman's suit that reports his vital signs.

    Ralph de la Vega's content contrasted sharply from Dan Hesse'. Sprint's CEO spoke about wireless' broader benefits and put them in context of helping people everywhere. The AT&T chief executive mostly spoke about what his company is doing and the benefits to business.

    Machine-to-Machine Wireless

    Dan Mead, Verizon Wireless CEO, wrapped up the keynote, and he commanded the stage, too. I've reported on tech for 17 years, and I've rarely seen three so articulate major executives speaking one after the other.

    Mead spoke about the importance of collaboration. He asserted that the wireless carriers have long worked together, even while competing, which has allowed the industry to rapidly grow. He used roaming agreements as one example how carriers cooperate while competing.

    "Cooperation and collaboration are booming today at Verizon Wireless", he boasted.

    Mead emphasized the importance of "machine-to-machine" wireless communications. Examples include cameras that snap photos if a car is hit while the driver is away.

    Mead spoke about the speed of wireless innovation, but "we are just at the beginning", he claimed. Four years ago the average lifecycle of a cell phone was 24 months, but it is much less today. That's a measure of the speed of innovation, he said.

    Verizon Wireless' CEO wrapped up by emphasizing the importance of collaboration -- and with it responsibility -- as assuring the industry can proceed without "government intervention".

    Cloud-connected apps and services was the undercurrent to all three execs' presentations. It was the one unifying theme other than boasting about the importance of wireless in general.

    CTIA Enterprise & Applications continues through October 13, ironically or perhaps appropriately, the day before iPhone 4S goes on sale in a handful of countries, including Japan, United Kingdom and United States. The smartphone goes on sale in an additional 22 countries on October 28.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/11/Is_Facebook_4_for_iOS_a_roach_motel_'

    Is Facebook 4 for iOS a roach motel?

    Publié: octobre 11, 2011, 4:17pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    You'd think so after seeing all the bug reports. Ah, perhaps Facebook should have waited even longer to release the app supporting iPad. If not for how long people waited for this version, someone could accuse Facebook of rushing the new iOS app out the door. Scratch that, the app can't possibly be ready.

    Less than 24 hours has passed since Facebook 4 for iOS appeared on Apple's App Store. The number of 1-star ratings and complaints about crashes and other problems is staggering. They go on and on and on. The majority are similar.

    Kawasaki10 one-stars the app and gripes: "With the new update it won't load up the sign-in page". After giving the app 5 stars, carloc24 gripes: "Doesn't work for the iPad! It keeps on crashing whne I try to use it!"

    "Every update I get for this fuggin app it gets worse", Destortion complains. "After the latest one the damn thing won't even open -- just sits there and load". Problems opening the app by far rank among the most common complaints about Facebook 4 for iOS.

    Matt Arguin writes:

    Get it together, Facebook. You'd think a major company would be able to produce a good app. Apparently not. I'll give you this: in the 4.0 version, it looks good. Heck, it looks awesome. Great UI decisions and purposeful navigation. BUT (and this is a big BUT here, folks), it's generally awful. It takes forever to load, is laggy and full of busg and crashes. For instance, I have two navigation bars, both work. Navigating between items in the slide-out menu doesn't work and causes the app to freeze or crash. I don't get it. Focus on your code, Facebook.

    Facebook user agriffith96 "downloaded the new app. It crashed and never loaded. Deleted the app and redownloaded. Got halfway downloaded and got stuck. Power cycled the iPhone. Now it's hung on the Apple log. APP FAIL!"

    Isuldur2 calls the app "useless. Just when you think Facebook can't get any worse, they do!" Two2olives writes: "The app locked up the iPhone when launched -- completely locked up, as in 'hit the power button and home button restart the phone'. I had to uninstall and reinstall the app".

    Rosas9rojas: "This has to be the worst update ever!"

    So, I've got ask: How is Facebook 4 for iOS working out for you?

    Photo Credit: Bradipoo/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/11/Cybercriminals_go_for_easy_money__Facebook_and_Bitcoin_users'

    Cybercriminals go for easy money: Facebook and Bitcoin users

    Publié: octobre 11, 2011, 9:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Bank, credit card and PayPal accounts aren't as lucrative treasures for cybercriminals -- not like they once were. New security measures make pilfering accounts more difficult than years past. So the bad guys are going after easier money and, in process, younger users. In its third-quarter "Community Powered Threat Report", released today, AVG Technologies identifies two emerging security trends: Clipjacking and Survey Scamming Facebook accounts and siphoning digital money from Bitcoin users. With both, cybercriminals tap new revenue streams, cell phone accounts for the one and pure currency for the other.

    Yesterday, I spoke with Yuval Ben-Itzhak, AVG's chief technology officer, about the new report and these two trends. "There's a ridiculous number of stolen credit cards on criminal sites", Ben-Itzhak says. "The main issue is how to use these compromised credit cards, because the credit card companies have taken serious actions to prevent and minimize the damages". Auction of PayPal accounts is commonplace, too, "but this is also becoming challenging to monetize because of all the security that is in place".

    Target: Young People w/o Credit Cards

    Predators don't give up when cut off from their main food animals, they simply look for new prey. "Premium SMS starts to be the main monetization vehicle for cybercriminals, both from the mobiles themselves and fake applications -- but also from the web itself and the best example is Facebook", Ben-Itzhak says.

    The United Nations estimates that there are 5.6 billion cell phone subscribers worldwide. The number of potential victims eclipses those on PCs by huge margin -- more than 5 to 1.

    Cybercriminals seek to trick cell phone users into accepting bogus services. The way cellular carriers handle certain services makes adding new ones, without explicit permission, easy. Charges tend to be $10/month and target "young people without credit cards" Ben-Itzhak says. These extra charges can go unnoticed for months.

    The appeal to cybercriminals:

    • They can go after "many more users".
    • Credit cards are higher criminal risk.
    • It's easier than stealing credit card numbers.
    • "It's much easier to monetize because they can use the mobile operators in many countries".

    "That's a big change from how they've been monetizing for the last couple of years", Ben-Itzhak emphasizes.

    Facebook is becoming an increasingly popular means of launching these kinds of attacks. In the companion to this story, AVG's CTO explains the process in-depth. Quickly summarizing: cybercriminals exploit trust. Someone receives a link to "Cool Video" and clicks it. Clicking the video actually activates a "clear GIF" -- an image with hidden script that launches the attack. Unknown to him or her, this posts the bogus video to the Wall, which Friends see, too. The user is presented with a series of survey questions before the video can be viewed. The last, supposedly for verification purposes, requests the cell phone number, which authorizes a $10/monthly charge against the phone bill.

    "Until a parent or an adult notices these charges, it could take some time. Think about the volume of traffic happening in Facebook, you can imagine just how much money is running around here", Ben-Itzhak says.

    Picking Bitcoin's Wallet

    AVG also sees an increasing number of attacks targeting digital currencies, such as Bitcoin. People use Bitcoin in place of cash for the purpose of conducting online transactions -- it's essentially a micro-payments system. Credentials and transaction are placed on the user's PC or on service providers' servers. The AVG report explains:

    The main difference of Bitcoin is that it designed to allow people to buy and sell without centralized control by banks, governments or commercial companies. It also allows for pseudonymous transactions, which aren't tied to a real identity...Bitcoin is a digital version of cash. Payments are made with no intermediaries, but it also has the same major disadvantage as cash, if someone is stealing cash, it is almost impossible to get it back, the same goes for Bitcoin, once the transaction is approved by the network, there is no way to reverse the action...As of August 2011 there are over 7.1 Bitcoins available. Estimated Market Capital is $63,336,546.

    AVG's report identifies several methods being used to steal Bitcoins. Among them:

    Our Security Labs have noticed a kind of a Trojan that uses the user's computer to mine Bitcoins on behalf of the attacker. The Trojan manages to silently install itself on victim's computers (exploiting various vulnerabilities). This piece of malware can run without a user’s knowledge, it is running in the background by disguising itself as a windows process (using filenames that belong to or are similar to the Microsoft Windows processes, often exploited to hide a malware presence such as spoolsv.exe, svcho0st.exe, explorer.exe). The Malware is using victims CPU and/or GPU computing power to mine BTC (Bitcoin currency) for someone else.

    Users could get the Trojan by a number of means, including the all-too-common installation with another application. The Trojan opens a back door that mines Bitcoins from others and/or steals the Bitcoin "Wallet" from the compromised PC.

    "Surprise, surprise, the hackers are running after that. It's really about free cash they are collecting right from the computer, and they can use it right away", Ben-Itzhak says.

    Photo Credit: Photosani/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/11/Finally__Facebook_for_iPad_is_here'

    Finally, Facebook for iPad is here

    Publié: octobre 11, 2011, 12:55am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The wait is over. You heard the rumors and saw the leaked screenshots. You believe in unicorns and UFOs. But it was growing hard to keep believing in Facebook for iPad. Today, the social network rewards your faith and anoints your pad with Facebook 4.0. Surely aliens will land tomorrow and unicorns will be found in some remote jungle. If so, you can more easily tell all your friends from iPad.

    Facebook 4.0 is the long-anticipated remedy for what ills iPad: FB iPhone app. The social network released Facebook 3.5 for iOS in early September and to the disbelief of many unicorn and UFO hunters (and plenty other people) without the long-anticipated iPad support.

    Apple (on the iTunes store) and Facebook (on its official app page) are promoting six benefits. From iTunes:

    • Enjoy bigger, better photos: Your photos are high-res and easy to flip through, like a real photo album
    • Navigate anywhere, fast: Just tap, slide or pinch to move from one screen to another
    • Play games on the go: Access your favorite Facebook apps and games, wherever you are
    • Focus on what matters: Zoom in on your friends' photos, updates and stories
    • Never lose your place: Share a photo, update your status or send a message without leaving News Feed
    • See who's nearby: Check out the Nearby map to see what your friends are up to

    Okay, Facebook for iPad is here. So why aren't you downloading it already?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/10/Celebrate_Windows_XP_s_10th_anniversary_with_us'

    Celebrate Windows XP's 10th anniversary with us

    Publié: octobre 10, 2011, 7:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In late August, Betanews published a series of seven stories, sharing memories using Windows XP. The majority came from readers like you. The first set of recollections commemorated the tenth anniversary of XP's release to manufacturing. Another date remains. Microsoft launched Windows XP on Oct. 25, 2001, and we'd like to celebrate the decade since with even more Windows XP memories.

    Ideally, we want to publish your recollection as its own story with your name, photo and bio. You write it -- we edit and publish during the launch week anniversary. Please email your stories to joe at betanews dot com -- or, if you must, comment below. The first round, we only posted stories received for publication with author identified. During the second round, we will also post from the many memories shared in comments. The majority of these will be collections rather than stories written by you.

    Windows XP is by far the most important operating system released by Microsoft -- I'd argue by any company. XP has stayed in market for a decade and brought huge stability to the Windows ecosystem. But the OS is ancient as measured in Internet years and perhaps more from a security perspective. The Internet is a wilder place for malware today than 2001. Windows XP simply isn't as safe as Vista or 7.

    In a timely post today at Microsoft's Windows blog, Rich Reynolds writes: "Celebrate a Decade of Windows XP by Moving to Windows 7". That's good advice. He remembers:

    As I think back 10 years, I had never watched a video or listened to music online and my camera still used film. Back then, we would have been pleasantly surprised to have internet access outside our office, and today we’re disappointed if wireless access isn’t free at our local coffee shop. Ten years ago, my son was still playing with toy cars and my daughter was still in diapers. Today he’s in high school and my daughter is in Jr. High, and they work and play on multiple PCs, MP3 players and smart phones. Usually all at the same time.

    "Now is the time to accelerate your Windows 7 Enterprise deployments", he advises. Again, that's good advice.

    But while you're making that migration or planning for it, please take a few moments to share your Windows XP memories with us.

    "What memories?" Betanews reader ilev asks. "I still use my 2001 IBM Thinkpad with XP SP3. During these 10 years, my XP , running 24/7, remained free of viruses, tojans, botnets, BSODs -- XP is fast, stable, secure. There is no need to move to Windows 7/8/9". Others of you have expressed similar sentiments. You love your Windows XP. MikeTechno:

    Memories? What are you talking about? Every system I run is still on XP today. Why? Because it still has the best user interface design of any OS that MS has produced. It's much easier to use (and better designed) than either Vista or Win7. When you use Vista or Win7 you just feel like MS couldn't get out of it's own way on the design and totally over-thought it.

    The user experience on Vista and Win7 is a step backwards in my opinion. I know that Vista and Win7 are more advanced and secure, but that doesn't mean that users will enjoy using them and want to use them. If I was MS, I would have done a few more focus groups before releasing those OS's. They just feel like a step in the wrong direction when it comes to usability. Sticking with XP for as long as possible, because it's largely just a better design, all the way around, from an user stand point.

    Microsoft plans to end the last vestiges of Windows XP support in April 2014.

    Are you as attached to XP as these two readers? Is there some other memory you would share? Again, please comment below -- or if you'd like to be a star, email joe at betanews dot com to discuss writing a recollection to be posted with your name, bio and photo.

    We'll post your recollections the week of October 25. Who knows, maybe we can find some way to encourage your participation in our celebration. ;-) Check back for more details on what that might be.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/10/iPhone_4S__First_million_served_in_24_hours'

    iPhone 4S: First million served in 24 hours

    Publié: octobre 10, 2011, 4:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Is iPhone 4S perhaps a worthy upgrade after all? Are all the people who waited for iPhone 5 (and didn't get it) coming clamoring for 4S? Is Apple benefiting from the rock star effect following cofounder Steve Jobs's death last week. Take your pick of reasons, but one thing is certain: iPhone 4S is off to a seemingly good start. Today the Cupertino, Calif.-based company announced that preorders topped 1 million during first 24 hours of sales. AT&T didn't wait, boasting about 200,000 units on Friday, when preorders started.

    That 1 million surpasses the record set by iPhone 4 -- 600,000 preorders -- in June 2010. But before you believe the Apple Fanclub of reporters and journalists claiming it's the end of Android -- "this time for sure!" -- consider this: That 1 million number, while an achievement, comes from considerably broader distribution. From that perspective, 1 million first-day sales is no guarantee that iPhone 4S will be a hit.

    For example, in the United States, only Apple and AT&T sold iPhone 4 when it launched 16 months ago. On Friday, Apple, AT&T, Best Buy, Sprint and Verizon took preorders. Presumably there is great pent up demand at Verizon (for customers who waited instead of buying in February when iPhone 4 debuted on the carrier) and Sprint (where iPhone is available for the first time). The 1 million units isn't so surprising as much as it isn't more.

    But from a public relations perspective, it's a good announcement for the company to make and one the Apple Fanclub will thump about until iPhone 4S is available in stores on October 14. Scratch that. iCloud and iOS 5 debut October 12, so Fanclubbers will have something else to babble about -- other than endless speculation about Android's end -- sooner.

    "We are blown away with the incredible customer response to iPhone 4S", Philip Schiller, senior vice president of Apple Worldwide Product Marketing, says in a statement. "The first day pre-orders for iPhone 4S have been the most for any new product that Apple has ever launched and we are thrilled that customers love iPhone 4S as much as we do".

    Schiller needs the excitement. Ahead of iPhone 4S preorders, Android continued its brutal sales gains in the United States. On October 5, comScore released new US handset data -- we let it pass because of Jobs' death news coverage. For the three months ending in August, Android smartphone OS share, as measured by handset subscribers, was 43.7 percent, up a stunning 5.6 points from the three months ending in May. By comparison, iOS/iPhone nudged up from 26.6 percent to 27.3 percent during the same time frame. That's a consistent trend of flat iPhone sales going back about 12 months -- even with iPhone 4 debuting on Verizon in February.

    Still, our Betanews poll -- "Will you buy iPhone 4S?" -- shows tremendous interest in the smartphone. We have an excellent sample size of 5,421 respondents, as I write. Among them, 62.76 percent plan to buy iPhone 4S. Android defections won't be anywhere as big as the Apple Fanclub will claim today. Just 8.67 percent of Android phone owners say they're switching to 4S. Unfortunately, I can't say on which carriers. Perhaps that's a poll worth doing later this week.

    Will you buy iPhone 4S?
    If you want iPhone 4S now -- if the buying frenzy suddenly set in -- you've either got to stand in line on Friday or wait a few more weeks. Apple's online store puts delivery at 1-2 weeks, which, by the way, is the estimated time given since late Friday. That raises question: Are Apple logistics that good, or has the big preorder sales surge come and past -- and that's another reason to wonder, given the increased places to preorder, how big that 1 million number really is.

    Apple opens the doors of its 245 US stores at 8 a.m. local time on Friday. Three iPhone 4S models will be available in either black or white and specific to AT&T, Sprint or Verizon: 16GB ($199), 32GB ($299) and 64GB ($399) -- all requiring two-year contractual commitment and data plans. Apple plans to start selling unlocked, contract-free 4S models in November.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/09/Mac_OS_X_Lion_drove_me_to_Windows_7'

    Mac OS X Lion drove me to Windows 7

    Publié: octobre 9, 2011, 9:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    On October 6, I made a dramatic, personal computing switch. After more than two months using the Samsung Series 5 Chromebook running Google's Chrome OS, I didn't go back to the Mac but to Windows 7. Mac OS X 10.7 -- aka "Lion" -- is major, but not only, reason. Lion is the first Mac operating system that I don't like. Also, I find the hardware options, particularly the all-important display and resolution, to be much better from Windows PC manufacturers than Apple in the same price range.

    Others will disagree, but I see in Lion many uncharacteristic user interface and file system changes that smack of Windows Vista. Priorities aren't all in the right place, compared to previous OS X releases, with changes made for Apple's benefit -- such as trying to unify many behaviors with iOS -- and increased complexity where simplicity should be priority.

    Most of the usability changes are philosophical and support an Apple worldview about computers and mobile devices: Features like multi-touch gestures (including reversing the direction of the scroll pad), LaunchPad (which presents apps in a way reminiscent of iOS) or full-screen apps all derive from behaviors taken from Apple's mobile operating system. Considering how many more iOS devices Apple has shipped (250 million) versus the Mac install base (58 million), it's unsurprising that Apple would look to making its desktop operating system more like the mobile one -- not the other way around. Most people are likely to buy an iOS device first and a Mac later (if at all).

    Apple is driving users to full-screen apps and trying to mimic the touchscreen experience of iOS devices. From that perspective, Lion radically differs from all other modern operating systems, except Chrome OS, which only functions in full-screen mode. There is no desktop with Chrome OS. The two objectives are intertwined with respect to certain decisions Apple has made regarding how some very basic UI elements function differently.

    I have no problem with change, and full screen is the future of personal computing interfaces. Microsoft rightly is going there, too, and full screen already is state of the art on smartphones and media tablets. I'd argue, in fact, that one of the fundamental reasons Microsoft couldn't make Tablet PC a success -- years before Apple launched iPad -- is full-screen mode, or lack of truly having it. Windows 8 Metro UI fixes that problem, and Apple better hope Microsoft drags its ass getting the new OS to market.

    But I find in Lion too much change for the sake of it, just like Windows Vista, without enough compelling benefits. The biggest: price ($29.99 for your personal Macs) and ease of purchase/installation (download from the Mac App Store and update). One other benefit offers much, but introduces unnecessary complexity with it: Auto-save. Resume, which relaunches an app where the user left it, is another.

    Six Principles

    In 2004, I first posted my four principles of good tech product design, which I expanded to six about two years later. A successful product:

    1. Hides complexity

    2. Emphasizes simplicity

    3. Builds on the familiar

    4. Does what it's supposed to do really well

    5. Allows people to do something they wished they could do

    6. When displacing something else, offers significantly better experience

    Many Apple products incorporate all six principles, and No. 5 often sets them apart from everything else. People don't know what they want. Focus groups won't tell you or beta feedback. The best products anticipate what users need and gives it to them. That's what creates the "magic" Apple often uses to describe its products and the "doh" and "wow" experiences people have when first using them.

    I don't see much of that No. 5 magic in Lion, nor is the experience remarkably better than predecessor Snow Leopard; for me. If you disagree, please explain why in comments. Default changes to scrolling behavior and many other little tweaks change how people interact with Mac OS X -- increasing complexity for some people and decreasing for others (particularly those using iOS devices or coming from Windows rather than other OS X version). Again, if you disagree, I'd love to learn how you think Lion meets these six principles.

    I commend Apple for looking ahead to the eventual closing of the fork separating Mac OS X and iOS -- at least from a user-interaction perspective. It's gutsy. But I personally don't like it. Last week, Apple revealed that there had been 6 million Lion downloads, which assuming one-to-one installation, means more than 10 percent of the install base has upgraded since its July release. But the changes don't work for me. Do they for you?

    Open Windows -- Fresh Air

    Lion roared, and I ran away from the Mac -- as fast as I could bolt from the beast. For two months I lived on Chrome OS, which still isn't ready for mass consumption -- and may never be. There is much to like about the Google operating system and the Chromebook concept, but there is too much complexity introduced simply from crashes and bugs that shouldn't be in a shipping product.

    So early into the second month, I decided not to buy a Chromebook as planned (Google and Samsung graciously had provided a loaner). Around the same time, Microsoft held its BUILD conference and released Windows 8 Developer Preview. I started thinking about returning to Windows 7 -- and eventually going full-time Windows 8 during the development process. I experimented some more with Lion (we still have two Macs in the household and there is always Apple Store), but couldn't warm up to the cat.

    Before going with Chromebook on July 31, I had used the 11.6-inch MacBook Air, which I found to be a simply delightful and svelte laptop. MacBook Air defines portable computing -- well almost. Cellular radio would be near-perfection. The near instant-on capability is one of the laptop's most useful benefits. Could I get that from a Windows laptop?

    I could have bought a new MacBook Air or even MacBook Pro and installed Windows 7, but I wasn't confident about running Windows 8 all the way through the development cycle. Also, I wanted to see how the out-of-box Windows 7 notebook experience had changed in the last year. Something else: Last month, I expressed how "I lost my passion for Apple". That had much to do with cofounder Steve Jobs' waning influence as he fought for his life and, most tragically, lost it last week.

    No computer is ideal. There are benefits that matter more than others. With the new laptop, Lenovo ThinkPad T420s, I trade the portability offered by MacBook Air for better performance, longer battery life and higher display resolution. If Air is a Porsche or Mazda Miata, the boxy T420s is a Volvo -- bigger, not as sporty, but stout, solid. I don't travel enough that slimmer and lighter is a necessity. Instant-on matters more -- how quickly I can get the laptop out of the bag and useful. So far, as configured, the ThinkPad T420s starts as fast as MacBook Air from sleep -- but it takes about twice as long when turned off.

    The ThinkPad T420s has a 2.5GHz Intel Core i5 processor (with 3MB L3 cache); 14-inch matte screen (with 1600 x 900 resolution); 160GB Intel sold-state drive; 4GB of DDR3 memory (1333MHz); DVD burner; WebCam; Ethernet; WiFi N, card reader; 3 USB ports, one each HDMI and VGA port; and Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit. Lenovo currently sells this configuration for $1,358.10, or about $158 more than the top-end Air. None of the MacBook Pros are comparable at the price range, when adding SSD drive and none of the 13.3-inch or 15-inch models have as high-resolution a display. For example, Apple sells the 15-inch MacBook Pro with 128GB SSD and 1680 x 1050 resolution display for $2,099.

    High-res display is a huge priority for me, as is matte finish, because I often work outside (it's always summer in San Diego) and glossy finishes reflect too much light. SSD is another priority, because it helps make near instant-on a reality. Sony offers 1600 x 900 with VAIO Z series, slimmer and lighter), but not at a price I could afford.

    To my surprise, it's a refreshing change using Windows 7 as my full-time operating system -- granted it has only been a few days. Overall, I'm impressed with the T420s performance, and I had forgotten just how amazing the ThinkPad keyboard is to use. Yeah, the keys may go clickity-clack, but suddenly I'm a touch typist (or as close as I'll ever be).

    Betanews' Microsoft, Internet Explorer and Windows reporting has lagged as of late, something I plan to change by the switch back to Windows; I can write more authoritively about stuff I actually use. Then there is future reporting on Windows 8, which in many ways is a more interesting product than either iOS or Mac OS X. No one should underestimate what Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky will do with Windows 8 and connected services.

    For now, I'm remembering what appeals so much about Windows 7 and enjoying that Volvo of laptops -- the ThnkPad.

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/08/Did_Google_and_Samsung_do_what_Apple_wouldn_t_'

    Did Google and Samsung do what Apple wouldn't?

    Publié: octobre 8, 2011, 6:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Yesterday, after having raised anticipation with event invite, video and other teasers, Google and Samsung delayed the presumed launch of Android 4.0 (aka Ice Cream Sandwich) and Nexus Prime (or whatever the smartphone is called). The announcement is hugely important to both companies -- really more than iPhone 4S is to Apple -- because Ice Cream Sandwich closes the fork between Android 2.x for phones and 3.x for tablets. Reason for cancelling the October 11 event: "We believe this is not the right time to announce a new product as the world expresses tribute to Steve Jobs's passing". So what? Google and Samsung show respect for Jobs, but Apple doesn't?

    Apple announced iPhone 4S on October 4. A day later, the company revealed that Jobs, Apple's chairman and until late-August its CEO, had died. The world is mourning the loss of one of the rarest of humans -- a true visionary who compelled loyalty among the people closest to him and those who used Apple's products, in part by aspiring for something better. How does Apple remember Jobs? By keeping business as usual.

    News of Jobs death came late-day on October 5. My colleagues and I couldn't really discuss it until the following day. When everyone was online in group chat I chimed: "Now comes the test of the new management's character. I would delay iPhone 4S launch a week out of respect". That's exactly what Google and Samsung chose to do, for even longer, but not Apple. iPhone 4S presales started yesterday as planned, with the handset coming to stores starting October 14.

    "Business is Business"?

    Yesterday, I asked Ed Oswald to write the post you're reading now, proposing the headline above. Ed sees things differently, however, and I respect his perspective. Debate is good and fits one of the fundamental principles of good journalism: Provide perspective. News doesn't lay out in linear fashion. That's why we seek to answer in stories: who, what, when, where and why and use multiple sources to present the information. Ed presents one viewpoint on the Google-Samsung product launch delay, now I give another. We don't agree.

    "It's just dumb from a business aspect", Ed asserts about Google and Samsung's cancelled event and continues:

    Any delay can and will hurt sales of your device. If you're going to hold off on its release, you better have a damn good reason to do it. I know there's a lot of us out there who respect Jobs -- this journalist included -- but even he would say business is business, and probably also told his people not to stop his own company's plans over his death.

    I commend Samsung and Google for being respectful in a time like this, but I will most definitely scorn them for making a move that seemingly lacks in business logic. Sometimes you overreact in grief, and this is certainly one of those moments.

    From one perspective, Ed is right. Businesses don't operate by the same moral agenda as the people running or working for them. For public companies the first obligation is to shareholders, who demand more profits. While Apple stock didn't plummet following news of Jobs' death, iPhone 4S delay could certainly send jitters over the share price and would rob shareholders of a week's profits so close to the holidays. Launching October 21 in the first seven countries would push into November the iPhone 4S debut in the next 22 countries.

    Principles before Profits

    But Steve Jobs isn't anyone. He is an iconic figure, undeniably, whether or not you liked him, Apple or its products. Jobs is someone mourned globally, as seen by the makeshift shrines outside Apple retail stores, which have come to be places of vigil for people remembering him. Few men will be so mourned, so idolized as Jobs in our lifetimes.

    Even in the cold, heartless world of profit-driven business, people are given time to mourn -- days off from work following the death of family members or even friends. People are allowed time to grieve. Companies show their respect to employees by giving this time (yes, even when local laws require it). We all know or will know someone who has died, and will someday pass ourselves.

    Google and Samsung have good reasons to show their respect to Jobs.

    Confucianism widely impacts the culture of South Korea, Samsung's home country. In Confucianism, filial-piety is the highest virtue -- it's a concept of showing respect for elders, particularly familiar members and to ancestors. South Korean funerals are highly ritualistic and respectful. It's not surprising that Samsung executives would choose to respect Jobs' passing. Apple is a large Samsung customer, of components for iPad and iPhone.

    Google's reasons are different. Google has longstanding ties to Apple and directly to Jobs. Some of the most prominent Googlers worked for Apple and directly with Jobs. Android creator Andy Rubin is a formal Apple employee. Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt was on Apple's board of directors and interacted closely with Jobs. These are people mourning someone they knew or worked closely with.

    Something else: Google is rare among public companies for operating around a clear set of principles -- epitomized in the list of "10 Things". Google has put principles before business before, when in January the company stopped censoring search share in China. Microsoft's Bing later benefited from the action.

    Ed's assertion that "business is business" is bunk. Google and Samsung show respect for Jobs' passing in ways the Apple hasn't -- and should have. The new management has failed the test of character I put before my colleagues two days ago.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/08/Who_is_buying_iPhone_4S_'

    Who is buying iPhone 4S?

    Publié: octobre 8, 2011, 4:19am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Whoa, the results from our "Will you buy iPhone 4S?" poll are in, and, damn, are they interesting. As I write, there are 3,816 respondents -- that's a helluva good sample size -- and nearly 60 percent (okay, 58.48 percent) say they will buy the new Apple smartphone. But before the Apple Fanclub blows a heart value and excitedly calls this the end of Android, the majority of respondents (35.46 percent) are upgrading from another iPhone. Only 7.31 percent plan to give up Android for iPhone 4S.

    Not surprisingly, the majority of iPhone upgraders (14.7 percent) are coming from 3GS. Still, 12.47 percent are iPhone 4 users. Few are coming from Windows Mobile/Phone -- less than 1 percent, but the numbers may not be great to begin with. Among BlackBerry users, 4.93 percent plan to switch, while 9.93 percent are coming from "another phone".

    So what about the more than 40 percent of respondents not interested in iPhone 4S?

    • 3.35 percent "don't qualify for discounted pricing"
    • 24.46 percent answered no, "because iPhone 4S isn't compelling enough"
    • 14.1 percent: "No, because I'm satisfied with what I've got"

    Nearly one-quarter of respondents don't think iPhone 4S is worth it. That's a big number. Of course the number planning on buying iPhone 4S is larger.

    Digging Deeper

    Now for the caveats. This is an unqualified poll. It's open to anyone with an Internet connection and may not fully represent the intentions of Betanews readership. What people say and what they do often differ. The survey measures desire not action. I wouldn't be surprised if half as many people who say they will buy actually do.

    Something else: Timing. I planned to conduct the poll on Wednesday night, but then Apple cofounder Steve Jobs died of cancer. I suspect the results would be different in other circumstances. There's a heightened sense about Apple right now that likely lifts peoples' feelings about buying. The poll could reflect actual buying, if those intentions sustain. I can't say until we poll later on.

    What's certain: Most of the respondents plan to buy iPhone 4S, most plan to upgrade from another iPhone and only a small number want to give up their Androids.

    Let me quantify the numbers differently. Responses come from people in 82 countries, with the majority (3,044) coming from the United States. US responses only differ slightly from the whole.

    In the United Kingdom a much larger number (23.17 percent) are coming from iPhone 3G and fewer from iPhone 4 or Android -- 7.32 percent and 4.88 percent, respectively. More than 47 percent don't plan to upgrade, with 26.83 saying that iPhone 4S isn't compelling enough.

    The sample from Japan, while small (but measurable), is startling. More than 61 percent of respondents say they will not buy iPhone 4S. That contrasts with Australia, where 60 percent of respondents say they will buy iPhone 4S. Responses from most other countries were too small to make any meaningful measurements.


    Will you buy iPhone 4S?

    What Readers Say

    Betanews readers also responded in comments. David Ramey answered the question: "Already have. Pre-ordered this morning".

    Jon Fingas:

    I have an iPhone 3GS, and you'll bet I'm upgrading to the iPhone 4S. Simply put, I like the iPhone experience, and I'm bumping into a list of needs and wants: I need more than 32GB of storage, I can tell my apps are hitting the limits of performance, and I'm locked out of apps that need the front camera. I really want a sharper display, faster 3G, and a better rear camera.

    I've used the Galaxy S II, and it's awesome, but Android's app ecosystem and my tastes for media playback would make me pick the iPhone.

    Saman Azizkhani: "I'm waiting for Nexus Prime".

    "The 4S offers enough new features to tip the scale for me", Herb Gardener writes. "I've been hanging onto my Verizon contract because I just can't stand AT&T. The 1st model available on Verizon wasn't enough -- now the extra speed, nicer camera, voice command features, world travel capabilities, are enough to make me finally get one. I'm excited about it. Finally, one worth buying on Verizon".

    Ralph Pennino plans to "buy a Nexus Prime -- or whatever there going to call it". He will be "upgrading from a Nexus One. Had a iPhone 3G -- did not enjoy it; very closed ecosystems, unlike Android".

    Gary Lader: "I will be upgrading from a 4 to 4S, just for the compatibility with HSPA alone. Not to mention considerable upgrades in processor, (prob ram) and the camera. Siri won't work on anything else either. Just because it doesn't have a new shape or a 5 on it, that means it sucks? What a joke. It's a pretty big upgrade in my book".

    What about you? You can still answer the question, and I've embedded the poll to collect more responses.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/07/Shrines_for_Steve_Jobs__slideshow_'

    Shrines for Steve Jobs [slideshow]

    Publié: octobre 7, 2011, 11:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For many people, Apple cofounder Steve Jobs is a fallen hero. People are remembering his life in shrines outside Apple retail stores around the world.

    His funeral, reportedly scheduled for Oct. 7, 2011, accentuates rather than ends the mourning for memory. I haven't seen such emotion expressed for man since former Beatle John Lennon was murdered in December 1980.

    This story was first posted Oct. 6, 2011 at 2:07 p.m. and later updated.

    Flowers outside Apple's New York store commemorate Steve Jobs, who passed away Oct. 5, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    Flowers outside Apple's New York store commemorate Steve Jobs, who passed away Oct. 5, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    Apple's flagship store in New York is coincidentally enshrined for renovations. The somber gray covering the once mighty cube is seemingly appropriate for the people coming not to shop but to remember Steve Jobs. [Tim Conneally]

    Apple's flagship store in New York is coincidentally enshrined for renovations. The somber gray covering the once mighty cube is seemingly appropriate for the people coming not to shop but to remember Steve Jobs. [Tim Conneally]

    The news media nearly overwhelmed by numbers the crowd outside Apple Store Fifth Avenue the morning of Oct. 6, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    The news media nearly overwhelmed by numbers the crowd outside Apple Store Fifth Avenue the morning of Oct. 6, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    A woman writes, perhaps a message, before the small shrine of flowers outside Apple Store Fifth Avenue on Oct. 6, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    A woman writes, perhaps a message, before the small shrine of flowers outside Apple Store Fifth Avenue on Oct. 6, 2011. [Tim Conneally]

    Candles keep vigil for Apple's cofounder and visionary leader. [Tim Conneally]

    Candles keep vigil for Apple's cofounder and visionary leader. [Tim Conneally]

    His funeral was scheduled for Oct. 7, 2011. [JAM Project]

    His funeral was scheduled for Oct. 7, 2011. [JAM Project]

    Mourners remember the products past and iPhone 4S to come, on Oct. 8, 2011. [Joe Wilcox]

    Mourners remember the products past and iPhone 4S to come, on Oct. 8, 2011. [Joe Wilcox]

    Future Apple Store in Berlin, with notes left and candles remembering Steve Jobs [@jsaaby]

    Future Apple Store in Berlin, with notes left and candles remembering Steve Jobs [@jsaaby]

    Close-up of notes on the unopened Berlin Apple Store, October 7, 2011. [@jsaaby]

    Close-up of notes on the unopened Berlin Apple Store, October 7, 2011. [@jsaaby]

    Mourners placed flowers outside Apple's uptown store in Minneapolis. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Mourners placed flowers outside Apple's uptown store in Minneapolis. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Cards express comfort to Apple employees and gratitude to Steve Jobs. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Cards express comfort to Apple employees and gratitude to Steve Jobs. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Mourners leave notes outside Apple Store San Francisco. [Aaron Muszalski]

    Mourners leave notes outside Apple Store San Francisco. [Aaron Muszalski]

    Another view of the notes on Apple Store San Francisco window. [Paul Bonugli]

    Another view of the notes on Apple Store San Francisco window. [Paul Bonugli]

    "With all my admiration". [Joe Wilcox]

    "With all my admiration". [Joe Wilcox]

    Is the likeness to the original? [JAM Project]

    Is the likeness to the original? [JAM Project]

    Flowers adorn an Apple Store door, hours after the world learned that Steve Jobs had died. [Blake Patterson]

    Flowers adorn an Apple Store door, hours after the world learned that Steve Jobs had died. [Blake Patterson]

    "Like a father to me". [JAM Project]

    "Like a father to me". [JAM Project]

    Jobs' signature wear was black turtle neck and blue jeans. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Jobs' signature wear was black turtle neck and blue jeans. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    "American Genius" [JAM Project]

    "American Genius" [JAM Project]

    Someone left a real Apple, outside the Apple uptown store in Minneapolis. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Someone left a real Apple, outside the Apple uptown store in Minneapolis. [Julio Ojeda-Zapata]

    Can you read the sentiment? [JAM Project]

    Can you read the sentiment? [JAM Project]

    One window of Apple Store Fashion Valley, San Diego, fills with notes of well wishes and remorse for the passing of Steve Jobs, Oct. 8, 2011. [Joe Wilcox]

    One window of Apple Store Fashion Valley, San Diego, fills with notes of well wishes and remorse for the passing of Steve Jobs, Oct. 8, 2011. [Joe Wilcox]

    Close-up of notes to Steve Jobs, Apple Store Fashion Valley. [Joe Wilcox]

    Close-up of notes to Steve Jobs, Apple Store Fashion Valley. [Joe Wilcox]

    "Paying my respects" -- Georgetown area, Washington, DC. [David Chico Pham]

    "Paying my respects" -- Georgetown area, Washington, DC. [David Chico Pham]

    Flowers outside Apple Store, Sydney, Australia. [Ruben Schade]

    Flowers outside Apple Store, Sydney, Australia. [Ruben Schade]

    Mourners gather outside Apple Store, Sydney. [JAM Project]

    Mourners gather outside Apple Store, Sydney. [JAM Project]

    "You've changed the world", Sydney. [Ruben Schade]

    "You've changed the world", Sydney. [Ruben Schade]

    Shrine outside Apple Store, Birmingham, AL. [Ralph Daily]

    Shrine outside Apple Store, Birmingham, AL. [Ralph Daily]

    Jobs and the iconic symbol that made Apple a household name. [Ruben Schade]

    Jobs and the iconic symbol that made Apple a household name. [Ruben Schade]

    Homage to Steve Jobs in Austin Texas [Ben Sutherland]

    Homage to Steve Jobs in Austin Texas [Ben Sutherland]

    So are we. [JAM Project]

    So are we. [JAM Project]

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/07/Why_was_Samsung_Mobile_Unpacked_cancelled_'

    Why was Samsung Mobile Unpacked cancelled?

    Publié: octobre 7, 2011, 8:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Sharpen your conspiracy theories, Batman. Google and Samsung have cancelled the October 11 event that promised something really special and sent many gadget geeks into near convulsive states of anticipation for the Nexus Prime (or whatever it's called) and Ice Cream Sandwich. The question everyone should ask is "Why?"

    Samsung has fanned the rumor fires with the original invite and clever video that promised not just a new smartphone but tablet, too. Given that Ice Cream Sandwich brings together Android 2.x for phones and 3.x for tablets, the tease is almost overwhelming. Surely there is mass disappointment -- it's a wicked day to be a gadget geek if iPhone 4S preordering wasn't on plan.

    I got this statement from Samsung today:

    Samsung and Google have decided to postpone the Samsung Mobile Unpacked event during the CTIA in San Diego, previously scheduled for Oct. 11. Under the current circumstances, both parties have agreed that this is not the appropriate time for the announcement of a new product. We would ask for the understanding of our clients and media for any inconvenience caused. We will announce a new date and venue in due course.

    The event was an unusual opportunity for me. Google and Samsung planned to hold the "Unpacked" during CTIA Enterprise And Applications Mobile Business, which starts here in San Diego on October 11. I was going to the show anyway, but that first-day bang won't be.

    So what's up? I dunno but will speculate and encourage you to do same in comments, where you also can share your disappointment. It's support group Friday here at Betanews!

    Okay, some possible reasons:

    1. Something has gone terribly wrong with the hardware or software, forcing a delay. It would have to be huge for Google and Samsung to pull out after all the buildup.

    2. There is some problem with the venue, perhaps some issue with CTIA and location of the event. In the latter case, there might not have been enough RSVPs to guarantee satisfactory press coverage.

    3. iPhone 4S preorders started today and the handset is in stores in one week. Perhaps Google and Samsung decided they could generate more buzz, blogs and news stories if the event was later. That said, rumors about the iPhone 4S have circulated for weeks.

    4. Steve Jobs died this week. Maybe the parties decided that their launch plans and marketing material might come off as disrespectful. Given how much Jobs is identified with Apple -- and increasingly with all the blogs and news stories this week -- Google and Samsung chose to wait. Better: They simply want to show their respect.

    5. There's a critical court hearing on October 13, where a California judge could issue a preliminary injunction -- asked by Apple -- against four Samsung devices. Perhaps Google or Samsung lawyers thought it unwise to flaunt the next, new thing two days earlier.

    After I posted I got an updated statement, which added: "We believe this is not the right time to announce a new product as the world expresses tribute to Steve Jobs's passing". So No. 4 is officially it, although I wouldn't discount the last one, either.

    Is this a classy move on the part of Google and Samsung, or a cheap PR stunt? Are you disappointed by the delay? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/07/Will_you_buy_iPhone_4S_'

    Will you buy iPhone 4S?

    Publié: octobre 7, 2011, 3:57am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple's newest smartphone -- not that you can much tell it from the old one -- is up for preorder October 7 and officially goes on sale seven days later. That's in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, United Kingdom and United States. iPhone 4S will be available October 28 in 22 other countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland.

    Apple also will cut the price on older models -- free for iPhone 3GS and $99 for iPhone 4 (8GB). The 4 will be available from Sprint along with the 4S. The United States' third-largest carrier has already started taking preorders on iPhone 4. As for the newer model, pricing is much like now, but with an extra SKU: 16GB, $199; 32GB, $299; 64GB, $399. Carrier-contractual commitments (two years in the United States) apply to get that pricing. The question: Will you buy iPhone 4S?

    I ask these kinds of buying questions with some frequency, but I'm particularly interested in your answer (in comments and the poll below) this round because many people expected iPhone 5. Instead, Apple chose to make iPhone 4 a little better. Is that enough to pull out your credit card?

    The externals, including shell and screen are the same, although the smartphone is new inside. There's a faster microprocessor (same A5 chip as iPad 2), improved graphics, 8-megapixel camera, 1080p video recording capability, Bluetooth 4.0 and other improvements. But the big benefits are i0S 5 and iCloud, both coming October 12, and these will be available for iPhone 3GS and 4.

    My colleague Ed Oswald plans to buy iPhone 4S, but it's a no-brainer decision as he will upgrade from the 3GS. I'm particularly interested in the plans of people who have iPhone 4 -- or those with Android phones who had considered switching before Apple announced the new smartphone.

    On Google+, I asked people about whether or not they will upgrade. Jesper Lauridsen responds: "iPhone 4S, my 3GS needs the update".

    Others have expressed disappointment. Betanews commenter Aires laments about iPhone 4S:

    Not good enough, simply not good enough. So very, very disappointing. All this does now is make me think of Windows 7.5 instead. This is such a missed opportunity, it's unreal. I'm sure this iPhone is a very good phone, but it does not impress me. No matter what's been described above as being better, faster, stronger, it does not impress me. It does not impress me enough to shell out my hard earned money (trust me, I work hard for my money). I have an iPhone 3G -- not a 3G S -- an iPhone 3G. I didn't get the 3GS and I didn't get iPhone 4. I sure as hell won't be getting iPhone 4S.

    Well, maybe Ed's 3GS upgrade to 4S isn't such a no-brainer, after all.

    "I call it the Borephone 4S -- and I am an Apple fan. Seriously, they missed the bus on this one", Aleic Grant comments.

    On October 2, two days before the iPhone 4S launch, I bought the Samsung Galaxy S II. There will be no iPhone 4S. I have no interest.


    Will you buy iPhone 4S?

    But what about you? Will you buy? Would you buy but can't (perhaps because you're not eligible for subsidized pricing)? Please answer in comments below and the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/06/What_people_are_saying_about_Steve_Jobs'

    What people are saying about Steve Jobs

    Publié: octobre 6, 2011, 7:29am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I first met then Apple CEO Steve Jobs in May 2001, during the opening of the first Apple Store at Tysons Corner Center in McLean, Va. Jobs hosted a media gathering a few days before thousands of Mac enthusiasts gathered to be the first customers. Jobs was dynamic and captivating. He made this unbelievable pitch for Apple's Mac market share reaching 5 percent and beyond, a seemingly unattainable goal at the time, with Windows so dominant. A decade later, Apple has accomplished that and so much more.

    I'm genuinely sorry to see Steve Jobs' light extinguished from this earth. I offer my condolences to his family, friends and anyone else who loved him. But those words aren't enough, so I've collected others' sentiments -- from blogs, Facebook, Google+ and Twitter. The many can express what needs to be better than can the one, meaning me.

    Before others' sentiments begin, let me make something absolutely clear: Comments to this post will be treated with zero tolerance. This collection of sentiments honors someone beloved by many and who truly positively impacted the lives of millions. Please show your respect by saving snotty or searing comments for another day, another story.

    Steven Levy: "I first met Steve Jobs in November 1983. I was working for Rolling Stone and over dinner he told me about the computer Apple was about to ship -- the Macintosh. That was the first of many interviews I would do with Steve, as I got a firsthand look at how this unique and brilliant man put a major, major dent in in the universe. It is with deep sadness that I write his obituary. Goodbye, Steve. You were unforgettable".

    Justin Horn: "Can anyone name Founder/CEO from any other company that would have such a personal impact on people after hearing of their death?"

    Robin Thede: "I feel like #SteveJobs was the only person keeping SkyNet from taking over. Now the machines will go rogue".

    Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates:

    I'm truly saddened to learn of Steve Jobs' death. Melinda and I extend our sincere condolences to his family and friends, and to everyone Steve has touched through his work. Steve and I first met nearly 30 years ago, and have been colleagues, competitors and friends over the course of more than half our lives. The world rarely sees someone who has had the profound impact Steve has had, the effects of which will be felt for many generations to come. For those of us lucky enough to get to work with him, it's been an insanely great honor. I will miss Steve immensely.

    Walt Mossberg, Wall Street Journal tech columnist: "He was a historical figure on the scale of a Thomas Edison or Henry Ford, and set the mold for many other corporate leaders in many other industries".

    Mark Cuban: "The PC era is officially over. #RIP #SteveJobs".

    Larry Page, Google CEO:

    I am very, very sad to hear the news about Steve. He was a great man with incredible achievements and amazing brilliance. He always seemed to be able to say in very few words what you actually should have been thinking before you thought it. His focus on the user experience above all else has always been an inspiration to me. He was very kind to reach out to me as I became CEO of Google and spend time offering his advice and knowledge even though he was not at all well. My thoughts and Google's are with his family and the whole Apple family.

    Alex Grossman: "A true visionary. People are lucky if they get one great business success. Steve had almost more than we can count, each one truly impacting the world we live in today. Business leaders like him come along only once in a generation and he shall be missed. Thank you for everything Steve".

    Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO: "Steve, thank you for being a mentor and a friend. Thanks for showing that what you build can change the world. I will miss you".

    Fredrik Åkerberg: "Despite the fact that I always disliked many of his marketing strategies and ideas, not to mention his whole company, I cannot deny that he was a great man, that helped the technological development forward. After all, I will never forget the first time I used a Mac, iPod or iPhone".

    "Steven, you have left me and millions of other entrepreneurs with the nothing but the very best path and leadership skills to emulate. You are forever & more one of the Greats this country has EVER been blessed with", Adam F., CEO, Speedmaxpc.com.

    Steve Groner: "I have never owned an Apple product in my life. There is a decent chance I never will. But the effect Steve Jobs has had on my life, and billions of others, cannot be measured. To say we have lost a genius or a visionary does not do him justice. Rest in peace, Steve".

    John Hilla: "Apple was blessed with a visionary he took an idea and it blossomed, even so when the very first concept of an iPod pre-existed with the Newton. No doubt his ideas and creation will live on for a long time. To his family and close friends, he touched lives from all walks of the earth. To his rivals, he kept them on the edge making them work harder."

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/06/iPhone_4S_is_sheer_brilliance'

    iPhone 4S is sheer brilliance

    Publié: octobre 6, 2011, 12:59am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    New Apple CEO Tim Cook made his mark yesterday, with the launch of iPhone 4S. This isn't Chairman Steve Jobs' baby but Cook's. While Jobs technically remained chief executive through August, he was on medical leave from January , with Cook responsible for day-to-day operations. The world expected iPhone 5, but Cook and company chose to give something less. From a purely logistical perspective -- and for maximizing margins -- iPhone 4S is sheer brilliance.

    Competitively, however, Apple has bet iPhone's future on sameness and demonstrated corporate arrogance that create opportunity for other phone makers. For them, iPhone 4S is another kind of brilliance -- a shining light of opportunity. They may also see in Cook weakness, that the genius of logistics lacks the qualities that made Jobs a visionary leader and in process an uncharacteristic risk taker among CEOs.

    "S in 4S Means 'Same'"

    There's little risky about the new iPhone. In comments to one of my Google+ posts Rodrigo Moraes writes about the new name: "I've heard that the S in 4S means 'same'". There's truth to that. The phone's guts may be new, but the shell and screen are the same. The iPhone 4 and 4S are essentially indistinguishable, which is the whole point. Sameness is fundamental to the iPhone 4S strategy.

    In March, when rumors surfaced that Apple wouldn't unveil a new handset in June as widely expected, I posted: "Apple shouldn't rush iPhone 5, and neither should you". I gave five reasons, but one matters more than the others: "The goose is laying golden eggs -- don't disturb it. If people so want iPhone 4, by all means let them buy it".

    So Apple chose to let people buy iPhone 4 longer, by releasing it-looks-the-same 4S. During second calendar quarter, the company shipped more than 20 million iPhones, up 142 percent year over year. iPhone sales are momentous -- the envy of every company selling anything. From a purely logistical perspective, there's little sense rocking a fast-moving boat like iPhone 4. The 4S looks the same, but is better inside.

    Taking My Advice

    Meanwhile Cook has done what I said in May Apple should do -- in post: "Can Apple stop the Android Army's advances?" I opined that Apple should do "with iPhone 4 what it does today with iPhone 3GS on AT&T -- offer a cheap smartphone for people who want the device and user experience but can't pay $199 or $299...There is a huge market for cheap iPhones, provided Apple sells an older model...iPhone 5 shouldn't come to market alone. Apple should let iPhone 4 be the loss leader, allowing more people to buy into the platform rather than letting them go to Android...I would not price iPhone 4 at $49, however. Ninety-nine dollars makes more sense, because Apple hasn't tapped that price point in most countries and $49 really could cannibalize iPhone 5 sales".

    Concurrent with iPhone 4S launch, Apple will begin offering $99 iPhone 4 and the older 3GS for free (it's $49 today); carrier contractual commitments apply, of course. The pricing cuts the Android mid-tier to the quick, with Apple only modestly cutting into its margins. For a product like iPhone, the big costs are up front, in things like research and development, setting up manufacturing and opening distribution channels and such. But costs diminish over time because of economies of scale and lower component pricing, among other factors. It costs Apple relatively little to offer lower pricing on older models.

    Meanwhile, there is huge competitive advantage against Android, for which new activations are more than 550,000 a day. That's more in 40 days than number of iPhones shipped in second calendar quarter. Apple had to do something to punch up sales, and an older-phones-for-less approach hits the necessary lower price points.

    But there's arrogance offering iPhone 3GS at all -- that the broader brand is so coveted, people will take whatever Apple reaches down from its pedestal and offers them. True, that forthcoming iOS 5 will give 3GS some currency, but the hardware lags behind newer handsets also available for free. Cook has bet much on the strength of iPhone as a brand.

    I agree with Betanews reader chinch987, who comments: "Real-world consumers will walk into a store and buy a nice 'phone' and form factor -- not Android or iOS. As you saw all summer at Verizon many went in thinking iPhone (that is like calling a a paper copier a 'Xerox machine' back in the day) and left with 4.3-inch smartphone (that happened to be running Android -- the buyer typically doesn't know or care)".

    iPod nano Lesson

    The 4S approach is tactical rather than visionary. When in better health, Jobs took radical risks, often to thwart copy-cat competitors and show them up. The original iPod nano is classic example. Apple killed off iPod mini in September 2005 at the height of popularity and replaced it with the diminutive nano. Copy-cat mini's were just reaching store shelves for the holidays, and suddenly they looked like last year's model and simply gigantic alongside iPod nano. It was a huge marketing and logistical coup and showed exceptional brilliance.

    Cook's early tenure is marked not by risk but sameness. Apple launched new iPods yesterday that look like the old ones. It's another safe, logistical bet, but with a difference: iPod owns the portable media player market. iPhone is fighting for dominance. The original mini and nano were risks that led to huge spikes in iPod sales. A radically inventive iPhone 5 could have done something similar for Apple smartphone sales. Instead, Cook chose sameness, leveraging logistical strengths, instead. Competitors can sigh in relief, because Apple didn't pull an iPod nano on the smartphone market.

    The sameness approach makes sense of all these Apple patent infringement and other intellectual property claims. If Apple planned to radically change iPhone -- to truly leap ahead of competitors, what concern would there be about copying? The so-called copy-cats would imitate last year's model. But last year's model is suddenly iPhone 4S.

    In September, I offered another reason for Apple's patent attacks against Samsung, which has emerged as iPhone's biggest competitor:

    The IP attacks against Samsung make the South Korean electronics giant appear to be the bad guy -- a copycat of Apple's good work. But the lawsuits serve another purpose, generating news about Apple vs Samsung rather than Samsung the successful competitor vs Apple the suddenly indecisive. Seemingly every day, this misdirection keeps pageview-hungry blogs and news sites writing about the lawsuits rather than asking the big question: Why hasn't iPhone shipped yet?

    The question is more pertinent, now that Apple has released iPhone 4S and not 5. Apple's recent rash of patent bullying in context of yesterday's iPhone 4S announcement will be to some competitors sign of weakness.

    Last Year's Model

    That's because iPhone 4S really is last year's model, or close enough to it. Two days before Apple's smartphone launch event, I bought Samsung Galaxy S II, feeling fully confident the new iPhone can't compete -- and it can't. What a strange irony -- that a company renown for bleeding edge hardware and design is selling not next year's model, but last year's.

    Commenter meandmyhomies contends (and I agree): "Jacking up specs isn't innovation. If you call 8 or 24MP camera 'innovation' you are delusional. Adding dual-core is a no-brainer. Heck, how about quad-core? Maxing out screen size/res is not innovation".

    Betanews reader Ronny Bolding has "iPhone running iOS 5 beta and Samsung Galaxy S2. I like them both a lot. My gripe is that the iPhone 4S announcement claimed to be innovating all these key points. The Galaxy S2 ha[d] them before they were even announced by Apple. I will admit the hardware quality feel of iPhones are exceptional. I do feel the iOS system is in need of major re-tooling. I don't like being told what I can and cannot install or modify on my device. Galaxy S2 wins for me".

    Charles Humble in comments to one of my Google+ posts: "Certainly no new hardware was a disappointment given all the hype and the relative certainty it was happening. I'm on iPhone 4 now and won't upgrade. Why? Will try the new OS though. Also very tempted by the SII. Microsoft must be gleeful".

    I'm seeing reactions like these all of the web. Why? Because competitors aren't trailing behind Apple. Many smartphones are as good as, and many offer better hardware (including larger displays) and features than, iPhone 4 or 4S. Big screens are in. chinch987 writes:

    For the next year iPhone will have the lamest hardware of any system, including BlackBerry. Windows Phone has 3.5-inch, 3.8-inch, 4.0-inch, 4.3-inch and 4.7-inch [screens] with and without keyboards. Android has everything. For Xmas and after, iPhone has a 3.5-inch phone that looks like the one released 2-3 years ago -- and does the same stuff, not much more".

    The market was ripe for Apple to pull an iPod nano trick.

    Which brilliance will outshine the other -- Cook's choosing the sameness and safety of iPhone 4 or the light of opportunity competitors see in last year's model? Perhaps the market will answer in 6 months or even a year.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/05/You_can_have_iPhone_4S__I_ll_take_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II'

    You can have iPhone 4S, I'll take Samsung Galaxy S II

    Publié: octobre 5, 2011, 2:51pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I suspected for some time that rumors of iPhone 4S were correct. That meant, based on past Apple release schedules, the new handset would be more evolutionary than revolutionary and likely nothing more than catch-up to newer Android models from HTC and Samsung. So on Sunday, while the InterWeb filled with excitement and speculation about iPhone 5, I trucked over to AT&T and bought Samsung Galaxy S II, which went on sale that day.

    Apple announced iPhone 4S yesterday, and I have no regrets choosing the S2. I have absolutely no interest in Apple's new handset and wouldn't if I still owned iPhone 4. For Android users tempted by Apple marketing, don't be. Nexus Prime is coming, and Galaxy S II is here now. It's an exceptional smartphone by most every measure. With iPhone 4S, Apple is the innovation follower, not leader here.

    Not that I'm surprised. Yesterday afternoon, my colleague Tim Conneally writes: "Judging by this season's iPod refresh, unveiled on Tuesday, Apple isn't trying to change anything about its market-leading portable media players yet". Later chat to Tim: "I could plagiarize your first two paragraphs to describe iPhone 4S". I chose to quote him instead, but the same observation applies to iPhone 4S. There isn't much new here. Apple is following where others have tread.

    Incremental Improvements

    In March, I explained why iPad 2 isn't so radically different from the original. Apple follows a longstanding pattern: A showstopping product debuts with modest hardware features but something else nevertheless killer -- something people want, or think they do. Apple then iterates -- incrementally improves -- the product over time. The process is essential to maximizing margins. So the original iPhone was good and the 3G better, 3GS better still and the 4 much better, by iteration.

    Actually, iPhone 4 qualifies as a major redesign, resetting the incremental process at a higher level and starting it over. iPhone 4S clearly follows the approach of incremental development, by offering small improvements with substantial benefits, without dramatically changing basic form and function. It's the approach I expected, which is major reason for my ignoring the much crazed iPhone 5 hype and rumors.

    Please read counterpoint: "I'll buy the iPhone 4S, and so should you"

    Not surprisingly then, iPhone 4 and 4S are nearly indistinguishable at first glance. The case designs are identical, screen sizes are the same and display resolution and pixel density are unchanged as are overall device functions. But as analyst Ian Fogg points out in a comment to one of my Google+ posts: "There is new hardware. Everything about the iPhone 4S is new apart from the screen and industrial design. It has new dual mode radios, new chipset and baseband, new dual-core CPU, new dual-core graphics, larger 64GB capacity option [and more]".

    Catch-up and Copycat

    But there's more than the typical incremental improvement process here. Android and Samsung's Galaxy S series lept ahead of iPhone and iOS. In July, I identified five things that iOS borrows -- my polite way of saying copies -- from Android. That's the short list.

    While Apple files patent and other intellectual property claims against Samsung, iPhone 4S reveals the real copycat right down to "S" in the product name. It's iPhone 4S pitted against Galaxy S II. This kind of confusing competitive product naming has gone on for years, particularly around similar version numbers. Apple is but one of many vendors doing this.

    Meanwhile, Apple has chosen to catch up to competitor features. So like the S2 and some other high end Android smartphones iPhone 4 features an 8MP camera that seemed simply amazing during yesterday's launch event -- but in reality not so remarkable. Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller touted the 8-megapixel camera that produces 3264 x 2488 pixel images that can be printed 8 X 10. Oh yeah? The S2 camera also is 8MP and produces same resolution images that can be printed the same. In a brilliant marketing move, Schiller compared time to first shot -- 1.1 seconds for iPhone 4S and 2 seconds for Galaxy S II. That comparison avoids the stickier issue of photo quality. Now why is that?

    Galaxy S II is loaded with some surprising photo features, such as adjusting focus to macro or face detection, setting exposure compensation, choosing ISO (auto to 800), enabling blink detection or changing focus point (by dragging with your finger), among other features. The smartphone shoots 1080p video, another catch-up feature for iPhone 4S. Both phones come with photo- and video-editing software. I snapped the quick shot of the Android collectible using the S2 camera.

    Both phones have dual-core processors, robust graphics capabilities, capacitive touchscreens and high-resolution displays. Like its predecessor, Apple's Retina display has 960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi. The S2's resolution is less -- 800 x 400 at 218 ppi. However, Samsung's proprietary Super AMOLED Plus display is brighter and produces richer contrast and more vivid colors. There is simply no comparison which display pops when the Galaxy S II sits alongside iPhone 4.

    Geek Nirvana

    Apple finally supports pseudo-4G on iPhone; 4S' top bandwidth is 14.4Mbps, or double its predecessor. But my Galaxy S II can do 21Mbps and the T-Mobile model twice that. Apple's and Samsung's smartphones are both rated for 8 hours continuous talk time. S2 battery life is exceptional, and in my two days use significantly longer than iPhone 4. There's another catch-up feature.

    iPhone 4S has Bluetooth 4.0, which is a nicety. The S2 is considerably larger because of its display (4.27 inches compared to 3.7 inches for iPhone 4S) but lighter. Some people are enamored by iPhone 4's Siri voice command/interaction feature. Android has had voice dictation and command capabilities since before iPhone 4 shipped in summer 2010. It's another catch-up capability.

    The point: Galaxy S II is as good or much better than iPhone 4, which major features play catch-up or copycat. The T-Mobile model, which goes on sale October 12, might be the best smartphone available, with its 1.5GHz dual-core Snapdragon S3 processor and other features. This Engadget headline makes the point: "Samsung's Galaxy S II for T-Mobile proves that unicorns do exist". Engadget got a review unit; I didn't. But I could say the same about the AT&T model, which is fast and fluid -- really unbelievable.

    I haven't enjoyed using a cell phone this much or had such a "wow" experience in years. The original iPhone would be closest. I'll explain more in my upcoming review why Galaxy S II is so good. CNET gives the AT&T S2 "editor's choice", by the way.

    I even like Samsung's TouchWiz UI, which adds lots of color and freshness to stock Android, without slowing it down -- to my surprise.

    While unboxing and using Galaxy S II for the first time, I had such a laugh thinking about Apple accusing Samsung of copying iPad and iPhone. The S2 and iPhone 4/4S don't look alike, by styling, design or size -- and most certainly not by user interface. TouchWiz is colorful and distinctive compared to iOS. Then there are the many customization features exposed by Android or TouchWiz not available to iPhone users.

    I've achieved geek nirvana using Samsung's flagship smartphone. Enjoy your life with the Pod people. I aspire for something more. You can have iPhone 4S, I'll take Galaxy S II.

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/01/Google_Chrome_usage_rises_as_Firefox_and_Internet_Explorer_fall'

    Google Chrome usage rises as Firefox and Internet Explorer fall

    Publié: octobre 1, 2011, 5:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Internet Explorer lost market share (again) in September, with Google Chrome collecting the difference. Meanwhile, Firefox share is stagnant, as Chrome pushes ever closer to the No. 2 spot in global browser usage share.

    It's first day of the month, and that means new browser share data from Net Applications. Internet Explorer usage share is 54.39 percent, down from 60.35 percent in November 2010. Firefox fell to 22.48 percent from 23.52 percent during the same time period. September marked the fourth consecutive month of decline for Firefox. Meanwhile, Chrome usage share rose to 16.2 percent from 9.57 from November to September, consecutively gaining share for all 11 months.

    Chrome appears to benefit from a number of factors:

    • Leverage from search (Google share is tops in most geographies).
    • Web applications that run in the browser, from the cloud rather than desktop.
    • Marketing -- Google is aggressively advertising Chrome, now in TV commercials.
    • Rapid-fire development cycle delivering new features (Chrome 10-15 released this year).
    • Little legacy -- Google doesn't need worry about supporting business users or years of plugins.

    Chrome's continued gains pose no immediate threat to Internet Explorer, but Firefox's longstanding reign as second-most-used browser is in jeopardy. There is nothing in Net Applications data to suggest Chrome can unseat Firefox this year, contrary to yesterday's big buzz. Numerous reports citing StatCounter data claim Chrome will beat Firefox this year. No disrespect to StatCounter, but NetApps is the gold standard for measuring browser usage. I have to side with its data, which, based on current trends, wouldn't put Chrome ahead of Firefox for about six months.

    Mozilla clearly is feeling the pressure, such that the organization has adopted a Google-like development cycle of versions crossing new milestones every six weeks. Firefox versions 8, 9 and 10 are in development, and FF7 released this week. But if there is any real advantage to the approach, slowing usage share losses isn't it.

    In April, I asked: "Is web browser development moving too fast?" Clearly that's not the case for Google, at least from a usage perspective. It's perhaps not moving fast enough for Firefox, which memory leakage and other problems Mozilla is only now addressing -- and presumably in response to Chrome competition (otherwise, why make FF users wait so long). Meanwhile, the breakneck pace is too much for Microsoft, which has slowed down development IE cycles for the benefit of its huge business customer base and making strides to improve IE's adoption of HTML5 and other web technologies/standards.

    But as I observed two months ago today, "Internet Explorer usage is a falling rock". Microsoft can't seem to reverse gravity's pull downward. Much now depends on the risky Internet Explore 9 strategy. The browser doesn't support Windows XP, which still is the most-widely used version of the operating system.

    "Skipping XP support, Microsoft has been pushing Internet Explorer 9 and Windows 7 as the best browsing experience on Windows 7 because of IE9's use of hardware acceleration and its integration with the Windows 7 user interface", according to Net Applications. "For the month of September, Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 hit 21 percent worldwide usage share".

    Apparently NetApps segments September from year-to-date, unless I'm misreading something: "As of the end of September, Internet Explorer 9 on Windows 7 reached 22.1 percent share worldwide and 31% in the United States. Share of worldwide browsing of Windows 7 also grew in September, passing 30% with 30.4 percent of worldwide browsing share".

    Presumably, as the Windows 7 install base grows, so will IE9 usage. However, that hasn't stopped Chrome, which also is available for XP. While Google only released Chrome 14 two weeks ago, it gained surprising usage share for September -- 5.94. Combined share with Chrome 13: 19.03 percent, putting Chrome second to Internet Explorer as measure of most-recent, supported versions on Windows 7. Firefox 6 share was only 13.86 percent. The point: Chrome usage share on Windows 7 is close to IE9's.


    Which is your primary web browser?

    Chrome's rise creates a strange juxtaposition to Internet Explorer. Microsoft is hot-and-heavy about web standards and encouraging developers to adopt them. Meanwhile, with Chrome 14, Google has introduced native code, which developers are encouraged to use to write web apps. Still, two native code approaches will compete as IE10 on Windows 8 move closer to release.

    Wrapping up, there remains a question: What web browser do you use and why? Please respond in comments and answer the poll above. For the poll, you get one choice -- for browser primarily used. But many people use more than one browser, which you can explain in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/10/01/Is_that_Google_Chrome_or_malware_on_your_PC_'

    Is that Google Chrome or malware on your PC?

    Publié: octobre 1, 2011, 12:52am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Is Google Chrome suddenly not working for you? If Microsoft Security Essentials is installed on your PC, that's likely explanation. It seems that, well, ah, that the security software is misidentifying the browser as malware. Oh, Microsoft you wish! With Chrome market share going up, surely someone at Microsoft sees the Google browser as an infestation to be purged.

    But ribbing aside, it's just one of those glitches that sometimes occurs with software. But surely there's a script here somewhere for how Microsoft would like to remove unwelcome software on your Windows PC. Gone it is. If you're affected, it's possible Security Essentials has identified Chrome as "PWS:Win32/Zbot" and removed it from your PC. Quick! Where's the Internet Explorer 6 installation disc? :)

    "We are releasing an update that will automatically repair Chrome for affected users over the course of the next 24 hours", Mark Larson, Google engineering manager, blogs. Meanwhile, Google offers a quick fix, "if you want to fix the problem with Microsoft Security Essentials and restore Chrome manually".

    Now this is where things get fuzzy for me. Because Larson says Security Essentials removes Chrome but later says you'll have to do this. By the way, if Chrome is working for you, stop reading now and grab a cup of brew. You're okay. If Chrome isn't working, you might not even be reading this. But, hey, one can hope.

    The first step is easy. Update Security Essentials. You'll also need to update Chrome, but only after updating Security Essentials' signature file, which you want to be at least 1.113.672.0. Next up: Uninstall Chrome. Larson offers instructions, but I can't imagine many, if any, Betanews readers will need them.

    After you've wiped out Chrome -- honestly, Microsoft should release a PC arcade game for this; blast the bejeebies out of that four-color logo -- it's time to reinstall Chrome. Assuming you really don't have IE6 installed, which Google sites don't support anyway, it's time to download and install Google's browser. Hopefully, your Windows PC has IE9 installed. Say, you might want to try it on for awhile, and see if it's a better fit than Chrome.

    But if you must download that piece of malware called Chrome (Microsoft says it is), do so and reinstall it. Duck and cover, and you're done.

    Art Credit: Albert Ziganshin/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/30/Will_you_buy_Amazon_Kindle_Fire_'

    Will you buy Amazon Kindle Fire?

    Publié: septembre 30, 2011, 8:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The hottest tablet to debut in months has pretty puny specs. There's no camera, no Bluetooth, no sensors for orientation and no 3G radio. The device runs Android 2.1, but it's customized such your existing apps probably won't run -- and Amazon has developed its own web browser, too. But the $199 price is compelling, and seemingly everyone is talking about it. So I have to ask: Has Kindle Fire set your wallet ablaze? Amazon is taking preorders for November 15 release. As usual you can answer in comments or email joe at betanews dot com. Then there is the poll below; please take it.

    I must admit to having a hearty laugh at the news coverage. For weeks, as Amazon tablet rumors mounted, bloggers and journalists posted story after story asserting that the iPad killer was coming -- like some new-found messiah they worshiped sight unseen who would vanquish the Jesus Pad from Apple cultdom. Over the last two days, many of those same sites posted about how "Kindle Fire is no iPad killer". I laughed my ass off. Seriously, there really needs to be some kind rumor-control meter for the Internet.

    Kindle Fire most certainly is an iPad sales killer, much as I loathe the overused death-by-another-product term. Amazon has brilliantly blurred the line separating e-book readers and media tablets. That IDC already reports on the devices together, while counting them separately, says much about how the two categories likely will merge in the future. Fire would also be a Kindle e-reader killer, too, but Amazon fixed that problem by offering a $79 model.

    Price Advantage

    Yesterday, I posted poll: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" As I write, more than 60 percent of respondents would pay $199 or less and 31.5 percent $199. And what does Fire sell for?

    Forrester Research analyst Sarah Rotman predicts that "Amazon will sell millions of tablets, and the rapidfire adoption of the Kindle Fire will give app developers a reason, finally, to develop Android tablet apps. Apple’s place as market leader is secure, but Amazon will be a strong number two, and we expect no other serious tablet competitors until Windows 8 tablets launch".

    However, Forrester predicts Aamzon will only sell about 3 million Fires this year because of the late launch date -- November 15. Oh yeah? But Amazon is taking preorders now and heavily promoting the tablet on its home page. Before the launch event this week, Forrester had put the range between 3 million and 5 million units. My money is the upper end, since preorders are underway now. Still, it's likely to be far behind Apple, which shipped 9.25 million iPads during second calendar quarter.

    In a research note to IDC clients, analyst Tom Mainelli says that Fire "has the potential to radically redraw the media tablet market". Price it the key. He explains:

    By setting the price of its 7-inch product at $199, Amazon has made life very complicated for the long-list of media tablet vendors who have been trying, and mostly failing, to gain traction against Apple’s dominant iPad 2, which starts at $500. One after another we’ve watched these vendors introduced products at the same price point (or higher). And one after another, with the possible exception of Sony’s recently launched Sony Tablet S, we’ve seen the market respond with indifference. Realistically, even top-tier vendors like Sony, Samsung, and Toshiba must realize that to gain any real traction their 9- and 10-inch products must be priced closer to $300 than to $500...

    Neither Microsoft nor its partners have announced future pricing for Windows 8 based tablets, but chances are they didn’t expect to be competing with a $200 device. And that’s today’s price. A year from now when Windows 8 devices ship, it’s possible Amazon may well be selling the Kindle Fire 2 at an even lower price.

    The Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists are rallying behind iPad and chant: "Kindle Fire is no iPad killer". But it is, if the result is that all other tablet prices go down -- leaving iPad between $499 and $829. Apple's tablet will continue to sell well, like the Mac today, but to a smaller, wealthier demographic, while the mass market chooses Fire or one of its many heartier-configured competitors.

    Curated Digital Lifestyle

    The no-killer crowd doesn't see Kindle Fire as directly competing against iPad 2 because of the huge difference in specs and capabilities, mainly, and the great Apple lifestyle experience. But that may not matter. "Media tablets are additive devices, not replacements for PCs, and that’s why media tablet vendors, aside from Apple, have had trouble selling units at $500 and higher", Mainelli opines. "By pricing the Fire below $200, Amazon gives cash-strapped mainstream consumers permission to own a third device (PC, phone, and now tablet) without having to justify its cost by attempting to use it to replace their PC".


    Do you plan to buy Amazon's $199 tablet -- Kindle Fire?

    Kindle Fire by every measure that matters -- and not just price -- directly competes with iPad 2. Unlike other Android tablet manufacturers, Amazon takes complete control over the entire stack -- software, hardware, cloud services, retail sales and customer support. Fire features an Amazon-customized version of Android 2.x, its own Android app store, music and movie stores, ebook store, web browser and customized media consumption software and services. Sony is closest, followed by Samsung, among Android tablet manufacturers.

    This curated approach reminds primarily of, well, Apple. Amazon is creating a curated experience that matches Apple's and exceeds it in some respects. Consumers can buy Kindle books for Fire, but read them on their iPhone, Android handset or other device. They can stream movies, as well as download them; Apple doesn't offer streaming from its store. Same can be said of music, and Amazon allows movies and music on Kindle Fire or other devices. From Apple it's just devices supporting iTunes Store. People buying into the Amazon lifestyle get Kindle Fire plus something else. That's an added benefit not available from Apple.

    However, comparisons to Apple makes risky business for Amazon. As independent analyst Ian Fogg observes, Amazon launched Kindle Fire without giving the news media participating in the event real access to the tablet. "This lack of access to the Fire this close to launch is suspicious", he asserts.

    Fogg is concerned that Amazon still has bugs to work out -- that, seven weeks from launch, Fire isn't ready. He warns: "If Amazon’s Kindle Fire isn’t the slickly executed product that everyone is expecting then all of the current forecasts are off. Like Apple, buyers expect Amazon’s digital products to be as smooth as Amazon’s mail order customer service. If not, well, Amazon better have a strong version two on the way".

    Gulp. I preorded? Did you? Or do you plan to? Please respond in comments below and answer the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/30/Is__199_the_right_price_for_tablets_'

    Is $199 the right price for tablets?

    Publié: septembre 30, 2011, 6:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Preliminary results are in from Betanews poll: "What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?" For the majority of respondents (30 percent), $199 is the price. Only about 5 percent of you would spend more than $299.

    Not that Apple seems all that perplexed about selling tablets ranging from $499 to $829. But perhaps it should be now that Amazon has lowered the price bar to $199 with Kindle Fire.

    In a research note to IDC subscribers, Tom Mainelli writes:

    We have long maintained that media tablets are additive devices, not replacements for PCs, and that’s why media tablet vendors, aside from Apple, have had trouble selling units at $500 and higher. By pricing the Fire below $200, Amazon gives cash-strapped mainstream consumers permission to own a third device (PC, phone, and now tablet) without having to justify its cost by attempting to use it to replace their PC. At that price a tablet can just be a tablet: A device that’s quite good at consuming media, writing short emails, and Web browsing.

    Prices have got to come down, as our survey suggests. Twenty-nine percent of respondents to our poll would pay $149 or less and 59 percent $199 or less. As I post, we have 665 responses, which is decent but not nearly enough. So I'm reposting the poll and asking you to respond if you haven't. By the way, and I'm surprised by this, only 4 percent of respondents answered: "None, I wouldn't buy a media tablet".

    "It's a win for Amazon", rebradley comments. "I ordered several Kindle Fires as Christmas presents. Amazon has deep pockets and will reap much more than its loses on hardware very quickly. Another brilliant move by Amazon".

    I ordered one for my wife. She got Kindle for Christmas last year; Fire on December 25.

    Betanews reader fulltext (what's the story behind that handle) "pre-ordered a Kindle Fire" too. "It will hold me until 2nd gen Windows 8 tablets are out". What? Did you get one of the Samsung Windows 8 Developer tablets during BUILD? Should that be first-generation otherwise?

    Even $199 is too high for VampireFrost: "I am going to wait and let everyone buy high and then when they hit $99 I will get 2 that are newer and better". For 11 percent of our poll respondents, $99 or less-than $99 is the right price.


    What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?

    The question: Will Kindle Fire set a price war ablaze? If you look at the majority of tablets now available, they offer comparable capabilities -- and all priced well above $299, which, based on early results to our poll, is top-end of acceptable pricing. For any product category, there is always a tipping price that moves from early adopters to mass-market buyers. Something south of $299 is it, with $199 magical I believe -- and that's particularly true if Mainelli's assessment is accurate about how tablets are used.

    Gartner and IDC data already shows that tablets are taking sales away from PCs. But it's one thing to delay or choose not to buy a new PC, and it's altogether different to replace it. But people do. During BUILD, I sat next to another journalist who used the ASUS Transformer with keyboard. Is he the exception or the rule? The answer to that question is vital to understanding what Fire's $199 pricing means for the broader tablet market. People looking to replace a PC with a tablet will need more performance and features than Fire or other low-cost tablets can offer.

    So, I ask again: What would you pay for a media tablet? But add a second question: Do you or would you use a tablet as your primary PC? Please answer in comments.

    Corrected: IDC misidentified as Forrester Research

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/29/Finally_you_can_Skype_video_on_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_and_XOOM'

    Finally you can Skype video on Galaxy Tab 10.1 and XOOM

    Publié: septembre 29, 2011, 10:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I must have been asleep at the wheel yesterday, because somehow this reporter missed the big Skype for Android upgrade. What? You missed it, too?

    Well, hells bells. Version 2.5 adds video-calling support for 14 more devices -- and, finally, some big-brand tablets: Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. About friggin' time!

    Some of the phones are so old, support is almost laughable, like Google Nexus One. But, hey, I've still got one of those in a closet somewhere. My honey used it before she switched to the Nexus S.

    Skype 2.5 brings the number of video-calling Androids to 41. Among the new ones, according to Skype:

    • Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1
    • HTC Nexus One
    • HTC EVO 3D
    • Sony Ericsson Xperia Live with Walkman
    • Sony Ericsson Xperia neo V
    • LG Optimus Black
    • LG Optimus 3D
    • LG Optimus 2x
    • Motorola Photon
    • Motorola Droid 3
    • Motorola Bionic
    • Motorola Xoom
    • Motorola Atrix
    • Acer Iconia

    "The Skype 2.5 for Android update also brings you further video enhancements," Dan Chastney, Skype senior product manager, writes in a blog post. "You can now switch between portrait and landscape mode during video calls, and zoom in with a simple double tap on the screen".

    He adds: "We also improved support for bluetooth headsets and included a number of bug fixes and performance enhancements, which should further boost the user experience of Skype for Android on your phone".

    Yesterday, Skype also updated for iOS, bringing to both platforms something many users may not want: Advertising. "There will be an advertising platform introduced in this new release", Chastney explains. "Advertising will not be shown to users that have Skype Credit, a Calling or Skype Premium subscription".

    Finally, my long-languishing $1.35 credit has purpose.

    You can download Skype 2.5 from Android Market.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/29/Let_the_tablet_price_wars_begin'

    Let the tablet price wars begin

    Publié: septembre 29, 2011, 8:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What better way for retailers to celebrate the low-cost Amazon Kindle Fire than to offer cut-rate prices on existing tablets. Woot has a one-day special on Motorola XOOM WiFi, refurbished, for $349.99 plus $5 shipping; the tablet typically retails for $499.99. Meanwhile, Best Buy has dropped the price on BlackBerry PlayBook again to $299.99 -- that's $200 off the list price -- for the 16GB model.

    The deals come one day after Amazon announced its 7-inch tablet, for $199. The online retailer is taking preorders now, but Kindle Fire doesn't ship until November 15. Best Buy and Woot deals may or may not be coincidentally timed, but they foreshadow what likely will be a price war during the holidays. Tablet prices are going south for the holidays.

    Already, Best Buy offers more than 50 tablet SKUs, the majority from top-tier manufacturers, like Apple, Motorola, Samsung and Sony.

    "There is no way there is room on the shelves of America’s retailers for that many tablets", Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, said earlier this year. "The fight for shelf space is therefore likely to be vicious as we head into...the holiday season -- and robust shelf space competition inevitably leads to one thing: Price Wars".

    Retailers typically use a number of tried-and-true techniques to drive interest in different product categories, with short-term discounts, rebates and even gift cards among them. With tablets, they will be looking for that magic price point consumers can't resist. Kindle Fire seems to have found that price already: $199.

    To be clear, overall tablet competition will drive the price war, not Amazon's tablet. Baker tells Betanews today: "Unless Fire really sells and really impacts other SKUs then it will not set off a price reaction. It really is not the same thing as a tablet".

    Back specifically to these two deals, I'll start with XOOM. It's a helluva tablet for the price -- 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.1 (Honeycomb). But it is refurbished. While I'm a big fan of refurb PCs, I'm more cautious about consumer electronics devices. The fine-print matters -- the warranty. I buy when the full warranty backs confidence in the refurb; otherwise not.

    Best Buy's BlackBerry PlayBook pricing is altogether different. Sales of the tablet collapsed during second quarter, dropping to 200,000 from 500,000 units sequentially. That suggests an inevitable inventory build up in channel, sitting on store shelves and in warehouses at retailers like Best Buy. "Playbook is marked down because it doesn't sell, not because of competition," Baker observes.

    Best Buy also cut prices on TouchBook, not long before HP killed off the product after six weeks of sales. I don't suggest that Research in Motion plans something similar. The discount merely points to Best Buy trying to churn up interest in the tablet, while clearing out inventory -- a common retail practice. Playbook is marked down because it doesn't sell, not because of competition.


    What price would be low enough for you to buy a media tablet?

    Today's deals foreshadow the first of potentially many price cuts as the holidays approach and retailers feel pressure to move inventory. At what price are you likely to buy a tablet? Please answer in comments below and take the poll above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/29/Is_XOOM_4G_LTE_better_late_than_never_'

    Is XOOM 4G LTE better late than never?

    Publié: septembre 29, 2011, 1:19am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    You were an earlier adopter. You bought Motorola XOOM six months ago -- or five, or three, or one -- on the promise of a free LTE upgrade. Soon. But you waited, and waited, and waited. Then Verizon released Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE first. You felt gipped. Angry. Frustrated.

    The wait is over. Finally, Motorola and Verizon are coming through for you. Today Verizon announced that XOOM LTE upgrades start tomorrow, and that XOOM 4G LTE models will be in stores on October 13.

    If it's any consolation, you waited longer but Tab 10.1 LTE buyers pay considerably more. Verizon sells the XOOM 4G LTE with 32GB for $499.99. Samsung's 16GB model costs $30 more, and the 32GB Tab 10.1 LTE is $599.99. For the privilege of paying more, Tab buyers also get Android 3.1 and Samsung's TouchWiz UI. XOOMers are rewarded with Android 3.2, consistent updates to the newest Honeycomb version and no tacked-on skins. Now that Google is buying Moto Mobility there's some assurance of purer Android experience for the future. You're a gadget geek, you don't want Samsung crapware, or any other.

    If you signed up for a Verizon email alert, you should receive it tomorrow -- or you can go to this website (which isn't live as I post) for instructions. The upgrade is free, but you'll have to wait (gasp) six business days to get your tablet back. Yes, I know you thought the waiting was over. Waiting with your XOOM was bad enough, but this!

    I have to wonder, what is it about October and mobile devices this year. Geesh:

    That's a shortlist, and surely I left out something.

    Back to the story's question. Was it worth the wait? Would you have bought XOOM later or chosen something else had you known how long the wait would be? Did you hold off buying XOOM, waiting on the 4G LTE upgrade? Or perhaps you don't care about 4G and are satisfied with the WiFi-only model which lists for the same price but with no contractual commitment.

    As is typical, Verizon's pricing on XOOM 4G LTE requires 2-year contract, and you'll pay dearly for the data: $30/month for 2GB; $50/month for 5GB; and $80/month for 10GB. The cheapest plans adds $720 to the cost of the tablet over 24 months.

    To a July post, commenter Xoom_user expresses: "I've had my Xoom since it was first released, and while I could be pissed about the delay in 4G, it really doesn't impact me much. I use my Xoom about 90 percent of the time via WiFi, 10 percent of the time on 3G. Given that Verizon has Draconian bandwidth limits on my Xoom contract, 4G service would only help me exceed my limit much sooner than I'd want".

    William Owen shares similar sentiment: "I purchased my Motorola Xoom at Costco on the day it was released, February 24, 2011, and have been very pleased with the device. I use it while doing cardio machines at the gym to check email or to listed to radio stations from throughout the world on TuneIn. Sure, I'm a bit disappointed that the 4G upgrade and SIM card capability did not happen 'within 3 months' as had been floated back in February, but 3G has worked well for me during those times when I don't have WiFi access".

    Is XOOM 4G LTE better late than never? You know where to respond.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/28/Amazon_lights_up_Kindle_Fire_advertising__video_'

    Amazon lights up Kindle Fire advertising [video]

    Publié: septembre 28, 2011, 10:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Amazon's new Kindle Fire tablet may be nearly two months from shipping, but that's not stopping the retailer from building buzz now. Amazon only just announced the Android 2.1-based tablet this morning, and the first commercials are ready to go. The 7-inch Kindle Fire goes on sale November 15 for $199. Wanna guess what the hot Christmas gift this year is gonna be? Hint: It ain't iPad 2.

    While geeks, tech writers and Apple fanatics will get all hung up on what's missing -- no camera, no Bluetooth, no 3G, no Android 3.x "Honeycomb" -- ignore their complaints. Amazon isn't selling techie features but a digital lifestyle -- that's crystal clear from this one video, and it resonates with marketing for Kindle ebook readers.

    I'll blog on what this means for iPad later, but briefly: Amazon is showing its retail prowess by prioritizing features and pricing that matter for living one digital lifestyle around its cloud-connected services, rather than offering the latest, hardware and software. Like Apple, Amazon is offering a stack of content and services that it controls.

    But it's apps versus the cloud, baby, and two integrated retail experiences -- one from an experienced online retailer and the other from a successful wannabe. Where the twain meet is marketing; there Apple has a long history of success, but Amazon has done surprisingly well with recent Kindle advertising.

    Just "Kindle it" is smart marketing. Some of the most successful products became verbs, with "Google" replacing "search" being one of the most current examples. In some international markets people "MSN" rather than instant message. "Kindle it" also captures the essence of the lifestyle Amazon is trying to sell -- finding the content that's important to you -- and you is very much a part of the lifestyle, as seen in earlier Kindle advertising.

    We live in a connected world, where the demands of always-persistent cell phones, social networking posts and email nag us to interact, interact, interact. But what about personal time? Your time. Time when you can disconnect. Kindle let's you get absorbed in a book -- or with Fire other content. That's a major part of the lifestyle Amazon is pitching.

    I'll be asking for a Kindle Fire this Christmas, and will prod my wife to preorder early. And you? Will Kindle Fire set your wallet ablaze?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/28/Microsoft_extracts_Android_tax_from_Samsung'

    Microsoft extracts Android tax from Samsung

    Publié: septembre 28, 2011, 5:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What's that saying about my enemy being my ally?

    Samsung has finally agreed to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for patents allegedly infringed by Android. I say, allegedly, since Microsoft accomplished this feat without firing one legal shot. It's a diplomatic agreement, of sorts, although the threat of patent warfare was always there. Perhaps Samsung has had enough fighting Apple patent and other intellectual property violation claims and didn't want to open yet another front on the battlefield. Or perhaps Samsung saw how many other phone manufacturers were cutting similar deals with Microsoft. Bottom line: Samsung will now essentially pay a licensing fee for Android, not to Google, but to Microsoft.

    The licensing deal offers four major benefits to Microsoft:

    1. It levels the competitive licensing landscape between Android and Windows Phone. Android is open source, and there are no licensing fees. But Microsoft charges for Windows Phone OS. The deal removes free as an advantage for Android, and Microsoft gets paid either way, whether patent licensing fee for the open-source software or usage fee for Windows Phone.

    2. Microsoft profits from Android, and in a big way. Rumors had Microsoft demanding $10 per Samsung Android phone if there was a cross-licensing deal that included Windows Phone commitment and $15 per device without it. Terms weren't disclosed. But Microsoft has now knocked off most of the major Android licensees. Should it get them all, the potential revenue opportunity, from a competing OS, is dizzying.

    IDC claims that Android and Windows Phone will be the first- and second-ranked smartphone operating systems in 2015, with 43.8 percent and 20.3 percent market share, respectively, based on unit shipments. The firm also predicts that 1 billion smartphones will ship that year, which makes for easy math -- Microsoft collecting some kind of licensing fee on as many as 641 million smartphones.

    Let's assume, for the sake of simple calculations, that Microsoft collects $10 per license. That works out to a cool $6.4 billion in licensing fees a year by 2015, for Android and Windows Phone. I believe the $10 estimate is a low, but workable figure since it's unclear how many of the nearly 40 Android licensees will pony up and the figure doesn't include tablets, which Microsoft can collect on, too. It's a helluva business opportunity.

    3. Patent cross-licensing protects Microsoft from future Samsung IP claims. An agreement like this is akin to a peace treaty, where both sides agree not to attack the other.

    4. Microsoft is assured that Samsung will continue licensing Windows Phone and developing handsets for the operating system. Right now, Samsung's most advanced cell phones all run Android, particularly the Galaxy S II line. This guarantee is more significant than it first appears. Samsung has a successful three-OS strategy. Home-grown Bada, which is hardly a year old, outsold Windows Phone in second quarter, according to Gartner.

    "Microsoft and Samsung see the opportunity for dramatic growth in Windows Phone and we’re investing to make that a reality", Andy Lees, Windows Phone Division president, says in a statement. "Microsoft believes in a model where all our partners can grow and profit based on our platform".

    That model Microsoft wants: Everyone pays for software, and if Google won't collect Android licensing fees, Microsoft is all too willing.

    "Through the cross-licensing of our respective patent portfolios, Samsung and Microsoft can continue to bring the latest innovations to the mobile industry", Won-Pyo Hong, a Samsung executive vice president, says in a statement. "We are pleased to build upon our long history of working together to open a new chapter of collaboration beginning with our Windows Phone 'Mango' launch this fall".

    Mango -- that is Windows Phone 7.5 -- released to existing WP device owners yesterday as an over-the-air update. As for the long history, Samsung was one of Microsoft's most loyal Windows Mobile licensees until it got all hot for Android.

    Samsung joins an increasing number of Android licensees agreeing to pay an Android tax to Microsoft. Casio signed an agreement last week, and Acer earlier in September.

    Photo Credit: d3images/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/28/Got_Windows_Phone_7.5__We_d_like_to_hear_about_it'

    Got Windows Phone 7.5? We'd like to hear about it

    Publié: septembre 28, 2011, 1:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I'm not one of the lucky people who owns a Windows Phone handset, so I'm calling on those of you who do to help me out and your fellow Betanews readers. Today, Microsoft started rolling out Windows Phone 7.5 to most people using a WP smartphone. If that's you, "Mango" is coming soon, as an over-the-air update, if you don't already have it.

    If you've got it, please share your first impressions about the software in comments. Or, better, contact me about writing a review. We love reader submissions. Last week, reader Joseph LoRe wrote a first-impressions review of the Epic 4G Touch, Sprint's variant of the Samsung Galaxy S II. Please email me if you're interested in reviewing Windows Phone 7.5: joe at betanews dot com.

    Meanwhile, I must heap some well-deserved praise on Microsoft, for doing to Windows Phone what it did with Zune: Put existing customers first, rather than compelling them to get something new. It's very unlike Apple, which pushes customers to the next thing (often with nothing more than clever marketing or introduction of a few new capabilities not backwards compatible with existing hardware).

    With Zune, Microsoft released new software that made existing hardware better, essentially rewarding existing customers for their loyalty. Today's update comes out ahead of the first wave of WP 7.5 smartphones going on sale, a big perk for existing customers. Watch to see how differently Apple manages next week's iPhone 5 unveiling.

    This is about where some hardcore Apple fan starts writing in comments about how Microsoft's business is different -- it only sells software, whereas Apple primarily profits from the hardware. Bandersnatch! Microsoft sold Zune hardware -- and whoa did it need to sell more against iPod -- and still put the customer first with its software updates. As for Windows Phone handsets, Microsoft needs to see more sales of those, too. How else can it keep WP licensees, when Android is free and doing way, way better? Android's US smartphone OS share is 41.8 percent, compared to Windows Phone's 5.7 percent, according to comScore.

    Microsoft shouldn't wait around for new phones to get to market to give loyal customers a taste of the future.

    There's another reason to release now and not wait around for new handsets: Marketing. People pining over their seemingly new phones will infect friends and coworkers with their enthusiasm. Those buyers don't need to wait around for new hardware to get the new software.

    Well, hell, I thought of one more thing. Next week, the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists will fill the InterWebs with buzz, buzz, buzz (God, get my chainsaw!) about iPhone 5 and iOS 5. Windows Phone 7.5 is better coming out on this side of Apple's October 4th announcement than the other. Hence, there's a bunch of Mango reviews from gadget sites today. If you'd like to be a Betanews star with your WP 7.5 review, don't wait until next week. It will be lost in the iPhone 5 cyclone -- eh, iCyclone 5.

    Brilliantly Played

    Microsoft's approach to Windows Phone has been remarkably sensible and painstakingly strategic. The company has been playing a shrewd chess game against competitors, sacrificing pieces early on to gain winning position. It's a board strategy that requires patience and stamina -- resisting the temptation to capture pieces now when the long play of exhausting opponents and catching them cocky and unprepared is way of winning the game. From the Windows Phone distribution deal with Nokia to fundamentally different approach to using and marketing the devices, Microsoft is changing the rules of engagement.

    The whole "glance and go" approach is sheer brilliance, and I'm convinced will pay off when married to Nokia hardware and its marketing approach. I'm still not buying IDC's Windows Phone forecast for 2015, but do see huge marketing and phone philosophy resonance between Microsoft and Nokia: The phone is a tool for living your life, not for consuming it.

    Today's update, going out to all, is part of that phone-as-a-tool approach. Microsoft started the update process at 1 p.m. PDT. The numerical designation for this one is 7720. Some people will get the update fairly quickly, while others will have to wait as much as four weeks. Microsoft's Eric Hautala asks: "Who’s first?" And answers: "This is a simultaneous, coordinated, global update that cuts across carriers, phone models, and countries. This time, almost everybody is going first"

    Why is Microsoft staggering the roll out? Hautala explains:

    Delivering Windows Phone 7.5 simultaneously to so many phone models and carriers requires the right engineering balance. Speed is a priority -- but so is quality. We’re not just delivering our new operating system but also new software supplied by individual handset makers. This 'firmware' is necessary so your phone -- and apps -- work with all the features of Windows Phone 7.5. But it essentially means that we’re supplying not just one update, but many different ones, given the variety of Windows Phones and carriers out there to choose from.

    The process also means, sadly for some existing Windows Phone owners, that they'll wait longer because there's still more work to do. AT&T subscribers are most likely affected. Microsoft has started the update process for WP smartphones on US carriers Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon. But on AT&T, "delivery has begun for the HTC Surround, LG Quantum, and Samsung Focus v. 1.3", according to Microsoft. "The HTC HD7S is currently 'Scheduling', while the Samsung Focus v. 1.4 is 'Testing' and the Dell Venue Pro is in 'Planning'". HD7S users will wait longer, Focus users longer still and it's anyone's guess if Venue Pro users will ever get the update. Microsoft works with the phone OEMs, not controls them. Sorry if you're among these unfortunate AT&T WP users. The update process also has started for "all other operators" and for "open market" phones, Microsoft says.

    You Don't Have to Wait

    But, c`mon, you're a gadget geek. You don't want to wait hours, days, or (gasp) weeks for a bite into Mango. Well, well, WPCentral has you covered. Today the site posted instructions on how you can use Zune software to get WP 7.5 now. Paul Acevedo shares what is surely a common sentiment among WP users about the four-weeks to update everyone: "That’s practically a month. I don’t know about you, but my go-go lifestyle doesn’t allow for that kind of waiting".

    Acevedo offers a 10-step process for forcing the update. Sorry, I won't cut and paste them here. He deserves your pageviews; I won't take them away. Obviously I can't test it, but WPCentral commenters confirm the shortcut works. (See, that's another way Microsoft rewards loyal Windows Phone users. What? You think Microsoft couldn't force the update to only be OTA? Those who tinker receive their bounty.)

    WPCentral comments show loads of excitement for WP 7.5:

    oasis1489: "I just may head out for a mango smoothie in celebration...especially since this update seems like its taking years to install. i guess 500 new features take their sweet time making their magical journey onto my HTC Trophy...Mango is now officially working on my HTC Trophy! And MAN it feels slick! Even the animations when scrolling through the alphabetical app list look awesome! Good luck everyone!"

    jchapman01: "This worked great!! First time I checked for an update Zune told me it had the latest version. Then I checked again and immediately hit my WiFi switch and KABLAM!! UPDATE AVAILABLE! Thanks WPCENTRAL! USING HTC SURROUND on AT&T".

    Not everyone is having such luck installing Mango, but surely persistence pays.

    Okay, now that you've read this far, please follow WPCentral's instructions, install Windows Phone 7.5 and come back and post comments here or contact me about writing that review.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/27/What_if_iPhone_5_isn_t_LTE_'

    What if iPhone 5 isn't LTE?

    Publié: septembre 27, 2011, 4:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Stated differently: what does Verizon know that you don't?

    I've been asking both questions after reviewing Verizon's legal filing supporting Samsung in its patent dispute with Apple. America's largest wireless carrier has asked a California judge to reject Apple's request to grant preliminary injunction against four Samsung 4G devices: Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1. Verizon's major argument, but not the only one, is that the injunction will hurt adoption of its next-generation 4G LTE network. Samsung's Droid Charge, which would be barred from US sales if the injunction is granted, is one of four LTE handsets that Verizon carries. Surely this close to launch Verizon knows whether or not iPhone 5 will support LTE. If iPhone is so important to Verizon, if iPhone 5 sales are expected to be huge (so say financial analysts) and if iPhone 5 could more than fill the void left by Droid Charge, why take a stance against Apple?

    There are other questions to ask: If iPhone 5 doesn't support LTE, will it matter? Will potential buyers even care?

    Verizon waited a long time to get iPhone 4. The carrier only started selling Apple's smartphone in February of this year -- three-and-a-half years after AT&T, which had exclusive US distribution. The legal filing supporting Samsung really is a stance taken against Apple. Why should Verizon risk that relationship, particularly if iPhone 5 will support LTE? It's about mitigated risk. By any reasonable analysts' sales estimates, and based on still strong iPhone 4 sales, iPhone 5 should be more important to Verizon than Droid Charge.

    Verizon offers four LTE smartphones, all running Android: Droid Bionic by Mototola, LG Revolution, Pantech Breakout and the aforementioned Samsung Droid Charge. That's another wrinkle asking the "why stand against Apple" question. Regardless of intentions, Verizon has taken a stand for Android by filing on Samsung's behalf. For good reasons, that's where the sales are. According to data Nielsen released yesterday, 56 percent of new smartphone acquirers bought a device running Android in August. An injunction would reduce the number by one quarter, leaving a huge hole in the lineup unless there was something to replace it -- like iPhone 5.

    From Verizon's legal filing:

    The motion to enjoin Samsung’s devices comes at a critical moment: when Verizon Wireless is expanding its LTE network to paying customers and right before the holiday shopping season. The proposed preliminary injunction would affect only Samsung devices that make use of wireless carriers’ next-generation networks...the proposed injunction would disproportionally affect the very devices that are most critical to adoption and expansion of Verizon Wireless’s next-generation network.

    Verizon says it has spent $65 billion on the LTE network, which includes $9.6 billion for spectrum purchased in 2008. According to the legal filing, the LTE network launched on Dec. 5, 2010 in 39 markets and will reach 175 markets -- and 185 million people -- by end of this year. Interesting, advertisements on Verizon's website say 26 markets. So how many really is it?

    Verizon sold 1.2 million LTE handsets during second quarter, but activated twice as many iPhones -- 2.4 million. If LTE is so important as Verizon contends and if iPhone 5 supports the 4G technology, surely Apple's handset would more than make up for the loss of Droid Charge?

    Which again raises question: Why would Verizon stand against Apple? There's another way to interpret Verizon's actions -- that it knows iPhone 5 LTE is locked and loaded. So Verizon risks little by backing one of its other major manufacturers and one that has been a partner a helluva lot longer than Apple.

    Ultimately only one thing matters. Do you care? Apple launched the original iPhone without 3G support at a time when it was becoming standard -- and still the smartphone sold well. The question: Just how much does LTE matter to you? Would it keep you from buying iPhone 5? No-LTE support certainly hasn't stopped millions of people from buying iPhone 4. Please respond in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/27/Verizon_stands_against_Apple_in_Samsung_patent_dispute'

    Verizon stands against Apple in Samsung patent dispute

    Publié: septembre 27, 2011, 4:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    You'd think that Verizon would show more gratitude. Everyone knows how important iPhone is to America's largest cellular carrier. We know because the rabble of pro-Apple bloggers and journalists (and, whoa, there are so many) told us so. Over and over and over again. But, no, Verizon isn't showing gratitude or loyalty to Apple at all. Last week, the carrier filed a legal brief with the United District Court for the Northern District of California asking a federal judge to reject Apple's request for preliminary injunction against four Samsung devices. A hearing is scheduled for the afternoon of October 13.

    The filing is really unsurprising when looked at rationally. Verizon has much more invested in Android than iPhone. The devices in question use Verizon's 4G LTE network. Holiday sales are another consideration. The latter two points are among the cornerstones of Verizon's arguments for why the judge should reject Apple's request for preliminary injunction. Then there is that pesky loyalty thing. iPhone 5's launch is imminent, and Verizon will be one of the major beneficiaries. So why risk the Apple relationship? If the judge doesn't wonder, perhaps you should.

    Apple is asking the court to issue an immediate preliminary injunction against four Samsung devices: Droid Charge, Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1. I've repeatedly observed that Apple's patent and other intellectual property claims are selective: Against devices that compete against iPhone. The three smartphones and LTE version of the Tab 10.1 all offer faster data bandwidth than does iPhone 4.

    Verizon offers two of the four products: Droid Charge and Tab 10.1, which both run on its LTE network. Only four of Verizon's smartphones are LTE; Galaxy Tab its legal filing as much about Android vs iPhone as anything else. Verizon has made tremendous investments in Android, particularly the Droid brand, which it controls. For example, Verizon launched the original Droid with a $100 million advertising campaign in autumn 2009.

    Whether or not its main goal, Verizon has taken a stand for Android by filing on Samsung's behalf. For good reasons, that's where the sales are. According to data Nielsen released today, 56 percent of new smartphone acquirers bought a device running Android in August. Just 28 percent bought iPhones.

    From Verizon's filing, about its LTE network:

    An injunction would prohibit some of the newest, most advanced wireless devices sold today and impede the growth of Verizon Wireless’s high-speed 4G network. The accused Samsung devices are among the few products that can access Verizon Wireless’s next-generation high speed network and, therefore, are among the most sought-after devices by early-adopting consumers -- a critical market segment in the industry. Verizon Wireless has invested and is investing billions in developing and deploying its next-generation Long Term Evolution (LTE) 4G network; that investment depends on consumers having access to devices that can make use of that network.

    How big an investment? Verizon says it has spent $65 billion on the LTE network, which includes $9.6 billion for spectrum purchased in 2008. The LTE network launched on Dec. 5, 2010 in 39 markets and will reach 175 markets -- and 185 million people -- by end of this year. By the way, that 39 markets is from the legal filing, but advertisements on Verizon's website says 26 markets.

    From Verizon's filing about its LTE devices:

    Samsung is one of only six manufacturers (including HP, HTC, LG, Motorola, and
    Pantech) that has developed and is offering a limited number of such devices today. Moreover, the motion to enjoin Samsung’s devices comes at a critical moment: when Verizon Wireless is expanding its LTE network to paying customers and right before the holiday shopping season. The proposed preliminary injunction would affect only Samsung devices that make use of wireless carriers’ next-generation networks.

    During second quarter, Verizon sold 1.2 million LTE devices. "The Samsung Droid Charge, one of the smartphones at issue in the motion, is one of the marquee products offered by Verizon Wireless to showcase its LTE network. Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, which is also the subject of the motion, is the first LTE tablet sold by Verizon Wireless". Verizon started selling the Tab 10.1 LTE on July 28.

    Verizon makes two major arguments about why an injunction would either be unfair or harmful. Why it's unfair:

    The utility patent at issue in the motion has nothing to do with the 4G network technology that makes the accused smartphones and tablet uniquely attractive to consumers. Instead, the patent covers the way documents can be viewed on the devices. There are nearly two dozen other devices accused in the current lawsuit that are not part of Apple’s preliminary injunction motion. But those devices are mainly older devices that are not designed to make use of Verizon Wireless’s and other carriers’ next-generation networks. Thus, the proposed injunction would disproportionally affect the very devices that are most critical to adoption and expansion of Verizon Wireless’s next-generation network.

    Why the injunction would be harmful, according to Verizon:

    The harm from a preliminary injunction would be substantial to both consumers and Verizon Wireless. Consumers cannot benefit from the billions of dollars that Verizon Wireless has invested in its next-generation network unless they can purchase and use 4G devices compatible with that network.

    Protecting against consumer harm is one of US competition law's primary objectives. I'm not a lawyer and don't feel competent to evaluate the likelihood the judge would accept this argument, particularly from a third-party with no real legal standing in the case.

    Additionally, Verizon asserts that an injunction against Samsung LTE devices would be devastating, because:

    • The carrier has so few other LTE devices available to use
    • Should Samsung re-engineer its LTE devices, they would return to market too slowly
    • LTE adoption is at the crucial early-adopter stage, where loss of the LTE devices would discourage adopters

    "An injunction that limited the availability of 4G devices in the market could substantially reduce the number of customers who could or would purchase those devices", Verizon's filing asserts. "Such a loss in sales of 4G devices, in turn, undermines the business justification for continuing to expand Verizon Wireless’s LTE network".

    More: "The rate of technological changes in the wireless industry further exacerbates the harm from impeding early adopters’ access to 4G devices. For example, analysts predict that consumers will replace 50 percent of their smartphones and 30 percent of their tablets within two years".

    I probably shouldn't start rumors, but...Surely Verizon must know by now if iPhone 5 will support LTE. Could it be inferred from this that iPhone 5 won't be LTE?

    Verizon also presents the holiday sales as another area of harm the preliminary injunction would inject:

    The harm from the proposed preliminary injunction would be increased if it issued during the holiday and year-end sales season. Holiday sales form a significant percentage of Verizon Wireless’s yearly revenue. Verizon Wireless has been preparing for the holiday period for months. Its build-up to this season has involved ordering smartphone and tablets, developing and launching new marketing campaigns, and training additional sales personnel. The holiday season will begin in November, with holiday commercials starting the first week of that month. If an injunction issued in the midst of the holiday season, after Verizon Wireless has begun its holiday sales campaigns, the time and money spent on those campaigns would be lost.

    Verizon then also claims that the injunction would have larger economic impact, which includes employment. That reads to me more like a political than legal argument. But it's timely nevertheless.

    That's the gist of the Verizon filing. I intentionally left out the legal nuances and case law. The purpose of this news report is presenting Verizon's rationale and its context. Something else: I'm more than a day late on this story because I chose to get the legal filing rather than cite FOSS Patents, as most of my peers did yesterday. I wanted to read and report on the original source material -- the legal filing -- rather than have it selectively filtered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller. Yesterday, on Google+ I wrote about the single-sourcing problem plaguing online news reporting today. Having actually read Verizon's filing, I must say that Mueller's analysis is unreasonably conspiratorial.

    Musical accompaniment while writing this story -- album "Torches" by Foster the People.

    Photo Credits: Verizon

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/26/56%_of_new_smartphone_buyers_choose_Android__only_28%_iPhone'

    56% of new smartphone buyers choose Android, only 28% iPhone

    Publié: septembre 26, 2011, 9:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, so much for Apple Fanclub antics a few months ago, when a wave of blog and news posts asserted that Verizon iPhone's launch had stalled Android sales and iPhone 5 would beat them back. It's more wishful thinking published as fact, that has spread yet another iPhone urban legend across the web. The truth is far different. Androids continue to gain massively against iPhone, according to data Nielsen released today. This isn't abnormality but a trend Nielsen has tracked for more than a year.

    Among new smartphone buyers -- "acquirers" in Nielsen perlance -- 56 percent chose an Android handset in August. Among all phone buyers: 43 percent. iPhone was 28 percent for both categories. "The preferences of these so-called recent acquirers are important as they are often a leading indicator of where the market is going", Don Kellogg, director of Telecom Research & Insights, explains in a blog post.

    By that reckoning, most of the market is going Android, which market share also grows unabated, while iPhone is consistently flat. In May, three months after the Verizon iPhone launched, iPhone share was 27 percent, compared to 38 percent for Android. Nielsen measures the data based on smartphone operating systems among US handset subscribers.

    "But those figures could change quickly in the months to come", Kellogg asserts. "Every time Apple launches a new iPhone or makes it available on a new wireless carrier, there is an increase in their sales". That's certainly true, but an increase in sales doesn't necessarily correspond to a bump in market share or massive change in overall new buyer purchases.

    During second quarter 2010, iPhone subscriber share among new acquirers was 23 percent -- down from 34 percent two quarters earlier, according to Nielsen. During the same time frame, Android share rose from 6 percent to 27 percent. iPhone 4 launched late in Q2 2010. At the end of August 2010, after more than two full months of iPhone 4 sales, iPhone share among new buyers had risen by only 2 points -- to 25 percent. By comparison, Android was 32 percent, so up 9 points.

    Market share among all US phone subscribers tells a similar story. At the end of Q2 2010, iPhone share among all phone subscribers was 28 percent, same as the end of August 2011, up just 1 percent from two quarters earlier. During the same time frame, Android share rose from 6 percent to 13 percent. A year later, it's the aforementioned 43 percent. At the end of August 2010, iPhone share was still 28 percent, while Android's had risen 6 points to 19 percent.

    The point: While iPhone is a hot-selling smartphone, it's not keeping pace with the rapidly growing US smartphone market. It's overall market share is flat and that among new buyers is nowhere near the hype. Among the reasons iPhone is running in place: The smartphone market is growing faster than Americans are buying iPhones. At the end of second quarter 2010, 25 percent of US cell phone subscribers had smartphones. It was 43 percent at the end of August and 58 percent among new buyers.

    I call all of thus out for two reasons: 1) Kelloggs statement is misleading about iPhone after the next-gen model ships, particularly in context of Nielsen's own data. 2) Numerous reports from the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists are claiming that iPhone's current market position is merely a calm before the storm, as buyers wait for the new model. Neither Nielsen's data nor that from Apple quarterly statements or other analyst firms support such supposition. In the United States, Apple share has been largely flat since second quarter 2010 -- and that despite the hugely successful iPhone 4 launch in June 2010 and its coming to Verizon in February 2011.

    You'll read lots of rhetoric and justification today about iPhone's position to Android and how the tide will soon turn. That urban legend is at least a year old now, and it still hasn't proved to be true. Fourteen months of Nielsen's data is consistent on two points: iPhone isn't gaining share among US cell phone subscribers, while Android grows leaps and bounds, particularly among new buyers.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/26/Samsung_launches_Galaxy_S_II_LTE'

    Samsung launches Galaxy S II LTE

    Publié: septembre 26, 2011, 3:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The day after revealing that 10 million Galaxy S II smartphones had sold (or is that shipped?) in five months, Samsung unveiled LTE models. S2 LTE and HD LTE smartphones will first be available in South Korea, where Samsung already has sold 3.6 million original S2s.

    The Galaxy S II HD LTE features a stunning 4.65-inch Super AMOLED display -- 1280 x 720 screen resolution. The 316-ppi pixel density is slightly less than iPhone 4, but the larger display, greater resolution and crisper contrast of the Super AMOLED screen should outshine Apple's smartphone. However, that Super AMOLED lacks the "Plus" screen found on other S2s, including the new LTE model.

    The S2 HD LTE should send geeks pining for the Nexus S successor into a tizzy. If not, here's a reason: Google's flagship stock-Android phone is due for an upgrade -- and, whoa, rumors are rampant that it will have a 4.65-inch display. Could it be that the Nexus Prime -- or whatever it will be called -- also will pack same high resolution, high pixel-density screen and LTE as the new Galaxy S II? Consider that gadget geeks before plunking down your hard-saved cash for AT&T's S2 when it goes on sale October 2.

    Samsung redesigned the case to keep the S2 HD LTE thin; the phone is just 9.5mm thick. The company is promoting the phone's screen as providing "HD Theatre in hand".

    The Galaxy S II LTE features a 4.5-inch Super AMOLED Plus display, like the US model shipping from Sprint and coming from T-Mobile. AT&T's S2 packs the same 4.3-inch screen as the original model shipping internationally.

    The upgrades don't stop with the screens or LTE. Both phones feature 1.5GHz dual-core processors; the non-LTE S2s have 1.2GHz dual-core processors. From that perspective, AT&T hasn't even started selling Galaxy S II and it's outdated. Welcome to the new PC era, folks. Like PCs in the 1990s, when something new and faster seemingly came along days after the next-best thing debuted, so are smartphone features advancing at fast click. Today's smartphone screamer is tomorrow's has been.

    It will be interesting to see how Apple alleges these new Samsung smartphones copy iPhone 4. Surely some lawyer will think of something.

    Yesterday afternoon, I stopped by a Sprint Store to look at the carrier's Galaxy S II -- the Epic 4G Touch. I was struck by how little it looks like iPhone 4. The Epic 4G is thinner; there's no metal band around the side; the display is huge by comparison; the screen is remarkably brighter with more vivid colors and better contrast; and TouchWiz UI behaves quite differently than iOS, among other attributes.

    By the way, the Super AMOLED Plus display is simply amazing. I nearly bought the Epic 4G on the spot, and I'm not a Sprint subscriber (which is what held me back).

    So, gadget geeks, I've got to ask: If considering one of the US Galaxy S II models, will you now hold out for the Nexus Prime (or whatever it's called) on the chance of faster processor, bigger, beefier display or LTE?

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/25/Not_everyone_is_waiting_for_iPhone_5__Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_sales_top_10_million'

    Not everyone is waiting for iPhone 5, Samsung Galaxy S II sales top 10 million

    Publié: septembre 25, 2011, 10:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Samsung announced the internal sales record today. But how many really depends on your definition of sold. Samsung certainly shipped 10 million Galaxy S2s since the smartphone's launch in April. But is that sold into the channel, or out to consumers? Samsung's self-congratulatory announcement suggests sales-in rather than sales-out.

    Still, the number is a stunning achievement for one of the best smartphones available anywhere and arguable top-of-class among Android handsets (I'm judging by the rave reviews, since I don't have the S2). Galaxy S II sales reached 3 million units during first the 55 days of sales and 5 million after 85 days. But because Samsung reiterated the 5 million number when announcing US availability on August 30, I asked if the company was being honest about the numbers. Today's announcement, really tomorrow in South Korea, puts the answer at yes.

    But there remains the cagey question of sold-in or sold-out of the channel. Samsung's disclosed sales figures answer that question, I believe. According to Samsung, Galaxy S II sales breakdown as:

    • South Korea: 3.6 million
    • Europe: 3.4 million
    • Asia: 2.3 million

    Perhaps my math skills are challenged, because I count 9.3 million units. So, either Samsung left some region out, sales aren't 10 million or the missing 700,000 represents sell-in to somewhere else. If Samsung didn't reveal all regional figures, sales would be more likely going out of the channel to consumers. If sales-in, those 700k units would be to stock the channel in a new market. Could that be here? In these old United States? Sprint started selling the Galaxy S II as the Epic 4G Touch less than 10 days ago, and AT&T's model goes on sale October 2.

    I don't have an answer, just speculation. But I have put the question to Samsung, which may not respond today. In the official statement released earlier Samsung says that "with this record, Galaxy S2 has become the fastest ten million sold Samsung phone in all time, breaking the records of the company’s previous international hit models Star Phone and Galaxy S which took 6 and 7 months respectively for ten million sales".

    The reviews of the international Galaxy S2 glowed. For example: "The finest Android phone we've seen so far, the Samsung Galaxy S II isn't just a competitor to the current iPhone. It competes with the next iPhone", writes Sascha Segan for PC Mag.com, giving the smartphone an "Editor's Choice" rating. That last statement is the clincher. Samsung already is one generation ahead of Apple.

    "The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular", writes Vlad Savov for Engadget. Praise continues -- from the "onscreen keyboard is terrific" to "general responsiveness is absolutely exemplary". Savov concludes: "It's the best Android smartphone yet, but more importantly, it might well be the best smartphone, period".

    The first reviews of the US models are just last week appearing. "The Super AMOLED Plus that comes with the Galaxy S II is simply stunning", Cory Gunther writes for SlashGear. "Between the brilliant display, fast and extremely fluid performance of the dual-core processor, and the overall sleek and thin design I can tell you from my initial hands-on I’m going to love this phone".

    Kevin Tofel, writing for GigaOM: "The phone is a speed demon; I haven’t yet used an Android phone this fast. You tap the screen, and the phone reacts". Betanews reader Joseph LoRe reviews the Sprint model, in an exhaustive first-look posted two days ago. He writes: "It is easy to see why Samsung sold 5 million Galaxy S IIs in 85 days in Europe and Asia. The phone, due to its size, speed, and screen quality, absolutely demands your attention. In fact, come to think of it, it demands your attention in a way that is different than the first time you laid eyes on an iPhone".

    Someone is paying attention. More than 4,300 people have responded to Betanews' poll asking "Will you buy Galaxy S II?" More than 80 percent of respondents say they will buy within 6 months -- 76 percent within 3 months.

    Will you be among them?

    Photo Credit: Samsung

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/25/Will_you_cancel_Netflix_'

    Will you cancel Netflix?

    Publié: septembre 25, 2011, 8:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's time to ask that question, following last Sunday's stunning news -- that Netflix would separate into two companies, one offering monthly streaming subscriptions and the other by-mail DVD rentals. Actually, I asked the question a few days ago, and 55 percent of you say you will "cancel account". But the number of respondents is too low to be reliable. Additionally, peoples' initial anger might subside after a few days. So I'm reposting the poll, to increase the sample and to measure response after a few days emotional cool down.

    Netflix will continue but as the streamer. The core DVD-rental business that made Netflix a household name will go to new company Qwikster. If I still rented DVDs, I would drop both because the companies will bill separately for services that were once one. I started renting from Netflix in February 1999, when watching DVDs, particularly on laptops, was sheer novelty. But long ago I stopped renting DVDs, switching to streaming instead. I'll keep Netflix for that. So there is one person's answer to prime your response to our poll and also to explain your reasons for yeah or nay in comments.

    So far, Betanews commenters have offered mixed reaction to Netflix/Qwikster, which is another reason to expand the poll's sample. "People are too easily inconvenienced", Renée Marrano writes. "We get DVDs. We get streaming. It's still a good deal".

    Jason 'Zeus' Brown: "Lack of integration means that there's no motivation for me to keep both. Most likely I'll drop Qwikster and use Redbox for movies that aren't available on Netflix. If I could expect the proposed game aspect to compete with GameFly I might consider dropping GameFly instead, but I expect it to be over-priced and under-featured, being new to the game side of things".

    "Netflix should keep the two together, separating is a big mistake", mshulman comments. "It certainly isn't something that would make me go back to either".

    Mark Young sees the split as further enabling the streaming business:

    This is indeed an odd move--inconvenient to customers who both stream and get discs (and Netflix still has a far larger title inventory of discs than streams), but it makes perfect sense if Netflix plans to sell off the DVD operations to raise cash to buy more streaming content; the two operations have to be decoupled to be able to sell one of them. I just don't think there will be a shutdown of the disc operations any time soon because one doesn't just suddenly cut off 14.2 million paying customers -- that's too much revenue to blindly ignore".

    But there's risk, too. I have AT&T, which recently instituted data caps. What happens if the broadband carriers turn against Netflix, demanding fees for carrying competing content across their networks?


    Netflix will separate into two companies -- original for streaming and the new Qwikster for DVD rentals. How will you respond?

    Bryan Lee will "probably keep subscribintg to DVDs via Netflix (or that silly name they'll switch it to which I won't type here). At least for now. I would have just used Netflix streaming by default too, but now that it's going to be a separate service, I might have to look into this Amazon Instant Video".

    Rusty Shano:

    Sticking with both for now (and I stress for now). Once our Qwikster queue is devoid of older TV series, etc., we'll have to evaluate if it's worth it. If it comes down to just new releases then Redbox will probably earn my business. I've read that video game rentals will also be available. I'm guessing it will be a miracle if that doesn't cost extra.

    Streaming just isn't up to snuff with new releases. It's been convenient for immediate gratification, but 9 times out of 10, a movie we're interested in watching isn't available. I see streaming being the future, BUT, it's still the present.

    PC_Tool is sarcastic: "Qwikster and Netflix should totally combine forces and become Qwikflix. Can you imagine both a DVD rental AND streaming provider? How awesome would that be?? it would be EPIC!"

    Please answer the poll(s) directly and explain your reasons in comments.

    Update:


    Did you cancel your Netflix account?

    Several commenters observed there should be an option in the poll for "already cancelled". Adding that now would ruin any validity to the results. So I've created a new poll, asking if you cancelled. The dates are deliberately chosen to coincide with recent Netflix events: Price increase announcement; price increase taking effect; Startz streaming contract cancellation (announced but not effective until February 2012); and split into two separate companies. Please spread the word, and take the new poll.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/24/Apple_patent_lawsuits_are_hypocritical'

    Apple patent lawsuits are hypocritical

    Publié: septembre 24, 2011, 4:27pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I've been fairly critical of Apple's recent patent bullying -- what I call innovation through intimidation/litigation. The Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists defend the company's patent and other intellectual property claims as protecting its innovations from copying, particularly by Samsung. But who's copying whom?

    As several Betanews commenters recently point out, Apple cofounder, current Chairman and former CEO Steve Jobs admits to the company copying from others. From a mid 1990s interview: "Picasso had a saying, he said: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal'. We have, you know, always, ah, been shameless about stealing great ideas".

    Jobs proudly proclaims that Apple steals great ideas. Shamelessly. I don't have a problem with that. I don't believe there are any original ideas, anyway, something that is becoming more apparent as social media services connect more people. We take cues from the natural world and the people around us. Innovation is a process not so much of creating something new but taking what we know and applying it in different ways or adapted to new situations.

    I remember when Apple introduced Mac laptops with backlit keys, which got rave (and deserved) praise from Mac fans and others. But light in darkness isn't a new concept, nor backlit keys. Look no further than your car's dashboard and radio when the headlights are on. Apple innovated in how it brought that concept to the Mac. But even then, the company worked with technologies already available. It's not like Apple engineers spent hundreds of millions of dollars producing a new light source for lighting laptop keyboards. I'm not trying to diminish Apple invention but look at it from a different viewpoint.

    Apple defenders don't see it that way. I hear it so often: "No one created touchscreen cell phones shaped like iPhone until Apple, then everyone copied". "Galaxy Tab looks like iPad 2 -- it's copying, stealing". But what's wrong with that? The cornerstone of patent law is limited monopoly. The government grants the inventor a limited-time monopoly on the invention in exchange for publishing it. The idea is to spur more invention by way of derivative works, and in a sense that's innovation by copying on the work of others. Society hugely benefits from this approach, as one inventor's creation leads someone else to make something else -- thus pushing technology's advance. Patents are supposed to spur innovation, not prevent it.

    Here's another-universe hypothetical: Apple owns rights to all the technologies in iPhone and its look and feel. The courts rule that no one else can create a touchscreen phone, use proximity sensors, gestures or other functions. As a result, Apple locks up the market for smartphones, and no one else can compete. What happens? Innovation stops. Without competition, Apple has little incentive to innovate. iPhone prices remain high, and the company seeks to protect its market and sales position rather than develop something new.

    That just about describes every monopoly that ever existed. Another reason for the foundational principles behind patent law and the granting of limited-time monopoly: Prevent real monopolies from forming like this hypothetical one.

    Instead, Apple files patent and intellectual claims with the International Trade Commission and the courts against competitors like HTC or Samsung. Apple uses the legal process to prevent others from innovating, by engaging in competition by litigation. The company's legal filings accuse competitors of copying its products.

    But who's copying whom? Jobs' 1979 visit to Xerox PARC, where he was introduced to the concepts of graphical user interface and mouse that he later incorporated into Macintosh, is legendary. Apple is a notorious copier -- granted taking others' ideas and doing something else with them, or something at all. Few months back, I identified five things iOS 5 copies from Android, for example. I could write a lengthy post on Apple's copying practices, there are so many examples.

    But that's okay. Building on the work of others is how societies benefit. It's cornerstone of concepts like public domain or even fair use, and absolutely how patents are meant to be used -- not to protect one's invention but to spur even more from others.

    Is there something hypocritical here? That it's okay for Apple to copy -- in Jobs' words steal -- but unacceptable for others to do the same or invent something new learned from Apple innovations? I pose the question to you.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/24/Be_careful__that_PDF_might_be_a_Mac_Trojan'

    Be careful, that PDF might be a Mac Trojan

    Publié: septembre 24, 2011, 2:04am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, hello Mac users! The 1 billion Windows users of the world welcome you to the wonderful world of malware. F-Secure has identified a new one, and like Mac Defender, this piece of nastiness borrows from malware already released for Windows.

    "We may have come across a Mac malware in the making. Detected as Trojan-Dropper:OSX/Revir.A, the malware disguises as a PDF file to trick user into triggering its payload", F-Secure warned earlier today.

    The fake PDF is not yet perfected: "As of this writing, the C&C of the malware is just a bare Apache installation and is not capable of communicating with the backdoor yet. The domain was registered on 21 March 2011 and was last updated on 21 May 2011".

    Mac security is a hot topic, in part because users are such passionate defenders of the platform. This despite clear signs that cyber criminals are bringing Windows malware software and techniques to Mac OS X. In February Sophos identified back-door Trojan BlackHole RAT, a variant of the free "remote administration tool" darkComet RAT for Windows. The Trojan was written in December 2010 and took months to spread, in beta, but posed no serious threat, even after version 2.0 appeared in April, because it wasn't stable.

    In May the first credible piece of Mac OS X malware ever documented started spreading around the Web. Mac Defender used a long-successful technique on Windows -- pretending to be antivirus software while instead infecting the computer. Cyber criminals poisoned search results with fake sites that prompted users with warning of virus infection. Following instructions to take action, they downloaded fake antivirus software to the Mac.

    Many Mac defenders (not to be confused with the malware) dismissed the security threat, and Apple with them. But as the number of infections increased, Apple finally acknowledged the problem -- three weeks after it started.

    Related: "Five things you need to know about Mac Security"

    The same day, new variant Mac Guard appeared in the wild, with the capability of downloading and installing without user interaction. The behavior mimicked the drive-by-downloads long part of the Windows landscape.

    I conducted polls to gauge just how unprotected are Mac users, and the results didn't surprise. Among Windows users, 86 percent of respondents said they have anti-malware software installed. Startling contrast: 82.74 percent of Mac users do not run anti-malware software. I've re-embedded both polls to see if the results have changed much. The Q: Are more Mac users protecting their computers, following the ruckus Mac Guard cased?



    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home computer?online surveys

     



    Is anti-malware software installed on your primary home Macintosh?customer surveys

    Mac users potentially are more vulnerable, because of behavior. Windows users are accustomed to malware trickery, often via phishing emails or bogus links from instant messaging or social networking services. Then there are the website pop-ups warning the PC is infected with a virus, like Mac Defender. The offered solution infects rather than cures the computer. It's an old tactic applied to a new platform.

    Many Windows users have also learned, well hopefully, to be wary of file attachments, like the fake PDF Trojan. Your risk to this piece of nastiness isn't the problem, but the one that comes next -- the Trojan capable of infecting tens of thousands of Macs. Apple has hardened Mac OS X pretty well, but the first line of defense is the user. That's you. Security is only as good as the person using the operating system. Ask this question: Is your Mac safe from you?

    Art Credit: Albert Ziganshin/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/22/Google_just_doesn_t__get_it_'

    Google just doesn't 'get it'

    Publié: septembre 22, 2011, 5:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Contrary to testimony given before the US Senate yesterday, Google has not learned lessons from Microsoft's antitrust case -- not enough of them, or the right ones. More importantly, Google is looking at the wrong company. It is Intel's dealing with the Feds that could help Google navigate the shark-infested regulatory waters before it.

    If the company fails to respond, and quickly, regulators will step in. Google can only avoid being eaten by way of contrition and compromise, and Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt didn't signal enough of either during his prepared statement or responding to questions that followed.

    Schmidt started out right, referring to Microsoft unnamed:

    Twenty years ago, a large technology firm was setting the world on fire. Its software was on nearly every computer. Its name was synonymous with innovation. But that company lost sight of what mattered. Then Washington stepped in. I was an executive at Sun and later Novell at the time. And in the years since, many of us in Silicon Valley have absorbed the lessons of that era. So I’m here today carrying a long history in the technology business and a very short message about our company: We get it. By that I mean that we get the lessons of our corporate predecessors.

    The reference to Novel and Sun is significant. Both companies filed cases against Microsoft, and it was Sun complaints that set off major antitrust investigations on two continents. Sun was first-mover in Microsoft's landmark US case. From Sun, to Novel, to Google, Schmidt had a front-row seat watching Microsoft's rise, competing against the company and watching its arrogant downfall before the US legal system. Microsoft wasn't contrite and took a no-compromise approach in its dealing with the government. I had a front-row seat, too, reporting on the US cases from 1997.

    Defiant Microsoft

    US trustbusters sought compromise. There were settlement talks at many junctures, even right before the Justice Department and (initially) 20 states filed the big case in May 1998. Microsoft wouldn't give ground. Then-Microsoft CEO Bill Gates was arrogant, and unwilling to bow before the government overlords. He took his lessons from a different monopolist. IBM battled the government in 40 antitrust investigations over two decades, losing but one case.

    Gates sat where Schmidt did yesterday -- in March 1998, just two months before the big case was filed. He was neither contrite or willing to compromise -- or to make changes that would quell the political winds on Capitol Hill. Politicians are publicity hounds, looking to at least appear to be doing the right thing for the constituents. Big senators wanted something from Microsoft, and many of the 20 state attorneys general had political ambitions. Richard Blumenthal is example, as he was Connecticut attorney general and one of the major players in Microsoft's antitrust case. Now he is a democratic senator for the state.

    In watching Schmidt testify yesterday, I was washed over by waves of déjà vu. It could have been Gates sitting in that chair. Schmidt spoke of learning lessons, but exhibited none of them in the questioning that followed. Herb Kohl, D-WI, probed Schmidt and other witnesses about monopoly -- whether Google was one and how dangerous. Mike Lee, R-UT, clearly had decided that Google is a monopoly and a dangerous one. His questions were searing, as were his comments. At one point he accused Google of cooking search results in its own favor.

    Blumenthal repeatedly looked for compromise, from Schmidt and in the advice of witnesses that followed. He clearly leaned towards Google's dominance being anticompetitive but sought voluntary changes rather than imposed ones. In statements made following the hearing, Lee also encouraged Google to make voluntary changes, too.

    Defiant Google

    Schmidt would have none of it, like Gates before him. What irony! That one of Microsoft's opponents on the monopoly front would stand before senators asking him about being a monopolist.

    Blumenthal was clear about the problem: "You run the racetrack, you own the racetrack -- and for a long time you had no horses. Now, you have horses, and you have control over where the horses are placed, and you're horses seem to be winning". The senator asked Schmidt if he could propose changes to "avoid government regulation". Schmidt's response: Google was already doing as much as it could, a stance he held to even as Blumenthal pressed further for some concession, or even contrition.

    The horse race analogy could easily apply to Microsoft, which started out making development tools and operating systems and then moved into applications, thus competing with its software developers and wooing them away from competing platforms. Many of the questions reminded of competitive concerns about Microsoft's monopoly, such as shutting startups out or bullying smaller companies.

    Perhaps we all misinterpreted Schmidt's "We get it", because the lesson I heard in his responses was defiance -- like Microsoft in the 1990s. He should look to Intel instead. By every measure, Intel has a monopoly, too. For more than a decade Intel fought off the government antitrust overlords through compromise and contrition. Antitrust complaints have dogged the chip maker since the 1990s, resulting in several investigations. Along the way, Intel appeased antitrust investigators.

    Of course, contrition and compromise can only go so far. Intel eventually, and only recently, got slapped around by the European Competition Commission and Federal Trade Commission for monopoly abuse. But its willingness to bow before government overloads -- or at least to appear such -- provided a get-out-of-jail card for more than a decade. Schmidt and CEO Larry Page would be wise to look to Intel and not Microsoft, before the FTC cracks the antitrust whip and forces Google to kneel before it. There's a difference between bowing politely and being forced to the ground.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/22/AT_T_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_arrives_October_2'

    AT&T Samsung Galaxy S II arrives October 2

    Publié: septembre 22, 2011, 4:29am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Finally, the news you've been waiting for from AT&T -- and it's not iPhone 5. The Samsung Galaxy S II goes on sale October 2 for $199.99 with 2-year contract and minimum $15/month data plan. No commitment price: $549.99.

    That works out to a two-week delay for all the folks (me among them) who were ready to buy, or tried to, just three days ago. Sprint started selling its version, the Epic 4G, on September 16. The question now: With rumors of iPhone 5 launch just two days later (October 4) and next Google Nexus smartphone running Ice Cream Sandwich coming as soon as late next month, do you buy the S2 now or wait? One option is to hold AT&T to that 30-day return policy by buying a week from Sunday and deciding later (it's closest to having your cake and eating it, too).

    The Galaxy S II is a late-comer to the United States, and even later thanks to the nation's second largest carrier and no show at the largest (Verizon has decided that Droid Bionic is good enough). Samsung announced the S2 in February and started sales pretty much everywhere else in late April. By July, even before debuting in China, Galaxy S II had set Samsung sales records. Samsung announced the US versions on August 30.

    "We consumers in the Australian Market have had access to this phone for a few months now and it is definitely miles ahead of the iPhone 4", Ishraque Siddiqui writes. "I can sympathize with you US folks. I suppose one way to look at it is it will be well worth the wait".

    Commenter Marvin couldn't wait:

    I'm on AT&T with an unlocked Galaxy S2 bought from Newegg. The phone and AT&T have exceeded my expectations since Sept 1, 2011. So far WiFi, GPS, speedy mobile web and email, clear phone calls and no bloatware have been great. Like many of you I read the glowing reports on this device from all parts of the world and had to have it. Currently, I'm on a monthly contract waiting to buy another S2 (from AT&T) and move entire family to this provider. I empathize with the everyone patiently waiting and trying to hold out with AT&T but there is another way --- Newegg for approximately $585.00 -- unlocked also. Waiting is frustating and unproductive and this postponement will resolve itself with time.

    US buyers will be rewarded for their patience. The Sprint S2 (and one coming from T-Mobile) have larger displays than the international models -- 4.52 inches. AT&T's model is 4.27 inches, like its international cousins, but a tad thinner -- 8.89mm (iPhone 4 is 9.3mm).

    The phones share some things in common: 1.2GHz Samsung Exynos dual-core processor (international variants use the Nvidia Tegara 2); Super AMOLED display (it's viewable in sunlight); Gorilla glass, 8MP rear-facing and 2MP front-facing cameras; 1080p video recording; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card); Android 2.3; and Samsung's TouchWiz UI -- plus all the expected stuff, like Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS, accelerometer, capacitive touchscreen, etc. There's 4G, via WiMax for Sprint and 21Mbps HSPA+ for AT&T.


    Samsung Galaxy S II is available internationally and goes on sale in the United States on 9-16-11. Will you buy Galaxy S II?

    When first announced, Samsung listed AT&T model's battery life as a pathetic 3 hours continuous talk time, but has since updated it to 8 hours -- same as the Epic 4G. I assume that corrects a major typo in the specs. Besides its ultra-slimness as differentiator, the AT&T model supposedly has near-field communications, a feature shared with the Samsung Nexus S.

    Customer anger at the delay is a measure of enthusiasm for the Galaxy S II.

    "I've been waiting for this phone for months and months", Jason Vickery comments. "The phone has everything I want in a phone and then some. And just when I thought I was finally going to be able to pick one of these bad boys up -- nope. Nothing, nada, zero, zilch! So yeah, I guess you could say I am really irritated by the failure to release when specified".

    KK Choi: "I've been waiting Galaxy S2 since May 2011. I couldn't wait anymore. Sprint, here I come".

    Another measure of enthusiasm: 76.94 percent of the 3,587 people who responded to our poll say they will buy Samsung Galaxy S II within three months. Will you? The poll is embedded above.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/21/Eric_Schmidt_to_US_Senate___We_get_it_'

    Eric Schmidt to US Senate: 'We get it'

    Publié: septembre 21, 2011, 9:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Google's executive chairman began his testimony before the US Senate by citing, unnamed, Microsoft and its dominance in the PC industry and how trustbusters stepped in to correct a company that had lost its way. "We get it", Eric Schmidt said. "We get the lessons of our predecessor". Schmidt testified before the Senate's antitrust subcommittee.

    Before Schmidt spoke, Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT, put forth that Google had become kind of a gatekeeper to the Internet, holding the fate of other companies by how they rank in searches. "The open Internet is the ultimate playing field", Schmidt answered during his opening remarks. "We don't trap our users".

    Not surprisingly, Schmidt claimed there is plenty of competition, referring to companies Apple and Facebook among others. "We welcome that competition", said Schmidt, who emphasized competition makes better products and benefits consumers.

    In questioning that followed, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI, quoted Google Marissa Mayer's 2007 statement about favoring Google Finance in search rankings. Kohl repeatedly pressed, asking if the statement contradicts what Schmidt had said about using more than 200 metrics when evaluating search rankings. Schmidt said that Google makes a choice to provide information quickly. He used the example of a stock quote, which Google displays immediately.

    In a second round of follow-up questions, Kohl pressed on the point of monopoly, whether or not Google had one. In pressing questioning, he got Schmidt all but to admit that Google is a monopoly. To be clear, monopolies aren't illegal in the United States. Abuse of monopoly power, such as foreclosing competition or fixing prices is illegal.

    Lee quite explicitly asked if Google uses a separate algorithm for its products and services. He showed a study of shopping searches. "You're always third...how do you explain that?" Lee and Schmidt bantered back and forth, with Google's executive Chairman saying there is a difference between shopping for products and shopping comparison sites. It's an "apples and oranges" comparison, he said.

    "You've cooked it so you're always third", Lee accused. "Senator, I can assure you we haven't cooked anything", Schmidt answered. In follow-up questions, Lee pressed harder. "I am troubled", Lee told Schmidt about what had been revealed during the hearing. Lee concluded that Google has "extraordinary advantage" over others by giving preference to its own services preference in search queries. Related to the advertising tie-in benefits, Lee alleged there is a "clear and inherent conflict of interest".

    Sen. Schiumer, D-NY, offered supportive words about Google. He said that in asking small businesses about the search giant, "four-fifths of them said that Google is a positive force".

    Sen. Al Franken, D-MI, is another supporter. "I love Google". But he went on to express concern about how Google might affect future innovation and wondered if it is playing fair. Franken expressed surprise that when asked earlier in the proceeding about Google's algorithm treating the company's products and services equally to others, Schmidt had answered: "I believe so".

    "If you don't know, who doesn't?" Franken said, probably meaning "does" instead. "That really bothers me. That's the crux of it, and you don't know".

    Franken moved on to Yelp, and accusations that Google was taking its smaller rival's content. He concluded by specifically asking if Google was using Yelp data with its own location services. "As far as I know -- not", Schmidt answered.

    In follow-up questions, Franken probed about Android, and how search works there and if handset OEMs could install there own apps -- to which Schmidt answered yes.

    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., offered Schmidt a chance to suggest voluntary changes that could avoid government intervention. "Making the Internet win guarantees strong competition", Schmidt responded. That didn't satisfy Blumenthal, who gave specific example of Google displaying information from its own services, like Finance and Maps, and asked how that might be changed. Schmidt answered that changing it would prevent consumers from getting the information they're looking for quickly.

    However, Schmidt's response contradicted the "We get it" that opened his testimony. Blumenthal was one of the main attorneys general supporting the US government's antitrust case against Microsoft, and he alluded to two things: Questions about the effectiveness of the antitrust intervention and the company's unwillingness to voluntarily make changes to avoid it. He again pressed Schmidt to suggest changes. The response: Google is already doing as much it should.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/21/Apple_will_unveil_iPhone_5_on_October_4_'

    Apple will unveil iPhone 5 on October 4?

    Publié: septembre 21, 2011, 4:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Let the iPhone 5 rumors begin in earnest now. All Things Digital, which has a pretty good track record reporting rumors right, says that Apple will hold a big media event on October 4, presumably to announce iPhone 5. Uh-oh, AT&T's unexpected and unexplained Samsung Galaxy S II delay could get ugly now.

    Predicting what the event means, assuming it's happening as rumored, is trickier than you might think. Apple has been holding October media events for years, usually to announce new Macs. This year is different. Apple didn't announced new iPods in September or iPhone in June, as is typical. So this event could be much bigger than iPhone 5 -- or not, if Apple chooses to announce iMacs and iPods as is seasonally typical -- and iPhone 5 later. Then there is Tim Cook's role as new CEO. This will be a big day for him, and, therefore, big for Apple.

    If launched October 4, then many people will ask when iPhone 5 will be available in stores? Apple 2.0 blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt has prepared a chart comparing launch dates to sale dates (now I don't have to). There have been rumors of October 15, which I discounted because it's a Saturday. Apple typically starts selling iPhone in stores on a Friday. My guess: Friday October 14 in stores, with preorders starting no later than October 7; if Cook is smart, sooner.

    That's the other challenge with this launch and why sooner is more likely than later, unless Cook wants some criticism for muffing it up. Holidays are approaching fast, and Apple needs to get this phone out the door globally as quickly as possible. That's nearly 230 carriers worldwide, which is a potential logistical nightmare as Christmas approaches. Well, perhaps Apple can scare up broad distribution for Halloween.

    LOL, maybe new CEO Cook has stage fright, and that's the reason for delaying everything. He does have big shoes to fill in Apple Chairman Steve Jobs, whose so-called "reality distortion field" spellbounds people listening to his product launches. Jobs has a unique way of highlighting products' benefits, mixed with charisma. I've often said that when Jobs is having an off day, people leaving his speech feel like their lives will be better if they buy product X, Y or Z. If Jobs is in the zone, people leave feeling that if they don't buy product X, Y or Z their lives will be worse.

    Sorry, but Cook simply doesn't have that kind of charisma. He's more soft-spoken, analytical. He is Spock to Jobs' James T. Kirk. So it will be interesting to see how Cook and company pull off what will be a massive product launch, whether measured by iPhone 5's introduction or launch of new products in three categories -- Macs, media players and smartphones. Five really, because of iOS 5 and Apple's further push into connected online services with iCloud.

    So those shoes aren't just big because of Jobs, but how much Cook must deliver, even if only iOS 5, iPhone 5 and iCloud. Isn't stage fright a bitch?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/21/Enterprise_cloud_email_and_collaboration_has_reached_the__tipping_point___or_will_in_2012__maybe_2014____well__someday'

    Enterprise cloud email and collaboration has reached the 'tipping point', or will in 2012, maybe 2014 -- well, someday

    Publié: septembre 21, 2011, 6:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The new math that analysts use to make predictions is sometimes amazing to comprehend. Gartner predicts that so-called cloud email and collaboration services (CECS) have reached a "tipping point" based on projected 10 percent enterprise adoption by 2014. So it's not even 10 percent yet, but, hey, that's okay, enterprises are rushing to the cloud. Or are they?

    I'm a big proponent of cloud computing, and have predicted the big push to cloud-connected devices for years. But even I have to gape in wonder at the concept of 10 percent in three years being a "tipping point".

    "Ultimately, we expect CECS to become the dominant provisioning model for the next generation of communication and collaboration technologies used in enterprises", Tom Austin, Gartner fellow, says in a statement. "However, it is not dominant today, it will not be the only model, and it will take a decade or more for the transition to play out. Right now, the list of reasons to move to CECS is long, as is the list of reasons to avoid it".

    So Gartner is doing some long math here, looking at investments made over the next couple years that will lead to a long transition to the cloud. But, hell, could Austin use enough qualifiers?

    But wait! This whole "tipping point" thing gets more other universe-like. Gartner previously predicted that 10 percent number would be reached by end of 2012. The analyst firm pushed out the forecast by two years. Is this "tipping point" more wishful thinking on Gartner's part?

    Austin acknowledges problems:

    The first is asset inertia. Organizations seek to extract maximum value from their investments in email, and switching early can be like trading in a 2-year-old, low-mileage automobile. Secondly, senior IT managers are much more focused on strategic initiatives that help them to grow or transform their enterprise's business, and moving to cloud-based or SaaS email services is generally viewed as a cost-saving move rather than a strategic initiative. Finally, the practical realities of the vendors' CECS offerings, when examined up close, are sometimes less compelling than the glossy stories they tell.

    Perception is another problem. Enterprises are used to paying an "early adopter premium" when adopting new technologies "ahead of the curve", Austin says. "However, cloud-based collaboration services appear to be forward priced and, while we do expect the cost of CECS to follow a cost-learning curve, the motive for much of the investment in CECS appears to be cost reduction. Thus, if CECS otherwise makes sense for an enterprise, it would be far better off proceeding now, while requiring that the CECS supplier guarantees to continue to reduce prices as prices in general fall in the market".

    The point: In the future, prices may rise as more enterprises adopt and become dependent on cloud email and collaboration services. Right now, service providers are aggressively pricing to woo enterprises into adopting.

    Of course, at the speed this "tipping point" is coming, higher pricing might be years -- who knows, even a decade -- away.

    Photo Credit: Alexander Kirch/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/21/Google__opens_to_all'

    Google+ opens to all

    Publié: septembre 21, 2011, 1:38am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's two days before Facebook's developer conference and one before Google Chairman Eric Schmidt gives his testimony on Capitol Hill. So it's good timing for a big Google+ announcement before there's competing big news. Yes, there's the new Hangout features that my colleague Tim Conneally wrote about earlier today. But this is better: Now most anyone can join Google+. Well, damn, there goes the neighborhood. :)

    Google+ has moved from field trial to public beta, whatever the hell that means. It's a big change for a social network just three months old and already 20-million-plus subscribers strong. The real test of Google's infrastructure comes now -- then there's the question about how the service will demographically change. Looking at my Circles, they're all geek to me. I don't know if there's a normal person on the service. Here they come!

    Earlier today, Vic Gundotra, Google senior veep of Engineering, blogged about the now 100 enhancements made since field trials began in late June.

    "For the past 12 weeks we’ve been in field trial, and during that time we’ve listened and learned a great deal", he writes. "We’re nowhere near done, but with the improvements we’ve made so far we’re ready to move from field trial to beta, and introduce our 100th feature: open signups. This way anyone can visit google.com/+, join the project and connect with the people they care about".

    Shameless Misinformation

    Public beta comes just as negative Google+ buzz intensifies. Five days ago, TechCrunch stirred up a hornet's nest in a stinging story about how no one is really using Google+ anymore. The stingers are still striking, as other blogs spread the buzz. Yesterday, the pests buzzed that Google's very own CEO doesn't use Google+. Bwahahaha. What idjuts.

    TechCrunch reported stats collected by 89n, using its ManageFlitter service. Analytics derived from one vendor's product shouldn't be measure of anything, but it's common for TechCrunch (and other blogs) to report them anyway. Based on a measurement of an average .40 public posts a day (between August 19-September 19), down from .68 posts a day (between July 19-August 19), 89n concluded that Google+ public posts declined 41 percent during the measurement period. Oh, the problems this simple analysis presents. Let me count the ways:

    • It's too small a measurement to draw real-world conclusions. Less than one-half posts a day!
    • The data only reflects the small number (compared to larger number of Google+) subscribers using ManageFlitter. How many: 7,280.
    • The data looks at public posts, which should decline over time. The whole point of Google+ is filtering -- using Circles to communicate with select groups of people.

    Cloud enabler 89n draws some big conclusions from a sample of 7,280 people using its service to connect Google+ and Twitter. Robin Wauters bought into it in TechCrunch post: "Raise your hand if you're still using Google+". I just put mine down so I could continue typing. "It’s now been a while since I’ve last visited or posted anything on Google+, but I figured that was just me. Turns out I might not be the only one after all", writes Wauters, who updated acknowledging -- er, defending -- the post. "Relax a little".

    Considering how widely the story was re-reported and peoples' ability to remember headlines -- or nuggets like Google+ posts are down by 41 percent -- "relax a little" should be a corrected, more accurate story. Next up came reports that Google CEO Larry Page hasn't posted publicly on G+ for a month. Which means what? There's very good chance he uses Google+ everyday, but to post privately to select Circles. That's the big benefit of Google+, compared to Facebook.

    So, welcome you newcomers to Google+. Ignore all the InterWeb's misinformation about this service. If it was doing so badly, why would Google invest so much in it -- the 100 enhancements in 90 days? I wouldn't be shocked to eventually learn when sound numbers are crunched that public posts declined 60 percent or more since the social network launched -- while private posts increased by a corresponding amount.

    AHMAD FAIZAL YAHYA/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/18/iPhone_5_has_a_big_problem'

    iPhone 5 has a big problem

    Publié: septembre 18, 2011, 6:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple has been doing a good job covering it up.

    As I've so often asserted: In business, perception is everything. Successful companies often create positive perceptions about their brands, products and business practices. But there also is the tactic of misdirection, of controlling perceptions by getting people to look somewhere else so that they miss flaws with the company's products or business strategies. Apple uses "magical" to describe some of its products. Magicians are all about getting people to look over there so they don't see the secret behind the trick over here. Apple's patent assault on Samsung, and even HTC, is very much misdirection, so that eyes turned away from iPhone 5 problems.

    I should have connected the dots sooner. About two weeks ago, I asked: "Is Apple engaging in innovation by intimidation?", where I explained the implications of Apple singling out Android creator Andy Rubin in a patent suit against HTC. Rubin worked for the Apple filers of an obscure 1994 patent part of the HTC case. The intimidating message: Anyone who worked for Apple could be guilty of intellectual property theft by association, and the companies now employing them.

    In August, I asserted that "Apple is a patent bully", as it's clear that legal attacks against HTC, Samsung and others aren't so much about protecting Apple intellectual property rights but asserting them as competition by litigation. Proof point: Apple's IP cases are focused at major competitors. Particularly, Apple has systematically increased legal attacks against Samsung, as its market success has grown. Apple isn't seeking damages so much as to stop Galaxy S II smartphone and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet from launching in many countries.

    Making Excuses

    But I failed to fully connect the dots, as Elias Samuel brilliantly has done in today's post: "Apple’s iPhone 5 Dilemma: Is it Samsung Galaxy S2 or Android OS?" Samuel puts the patent lawsuits in another context: Apple's late delivery of iPhone 5. Of course!

    "Backed by huge production of the upcoming iPhone 5 and cheaper iPhone 4S, Apple has revealed its fear of Samsung phones as they continue to sue them for patent infringements", he writes. Yes. Yes.

    Look at how things really are. The first four iPhones launched in summer -- July for the original model and June for the others. But June 2011 passed without a new iPhone. First there were rumors of August, then September, more recently October and now perhaps even later -- as new rumors (if you believe them) suggest a production delay. But if you take a close look at the rumors -- and leaks behind -- they are really a series of justifying excuses for why iPhone is shipping later and that it's okay.

    Let's be clear: Apple changed its delivery pattern for iPhone. It's a delay, and a big one. Potential buyers, carriers, peripheral partners, software developers and Wall Street analysts clearly expected summer launch before June's Worldwide Developer Conference when the company said that iOS 5, and presumably iPhone 5 with it, wouldn't ship until autumn.

    Samsung Rises

    Meanwhile, Samsung launched the hugely successful Galaxy S II, which has set sales records for the company and helped propel it to a close rivalry with Apple. During second quarter, Apple shipped 20.3 million smartphones, with Samsung following close behind with 19.2 million units, according to IDC. A year earlier, Samsung shipped just 3.1 million smartphones. Do the math -- that's 520 percent year-over-year growth.

    Samuel rightly concludes: "By suing Samsung, Apple has actually taken away the public attention from the problems the company is facing, of late. After Samsung Galaxy S2 was received with rave reviews, it looks like Apple, which usually launches the iPhone versions in June failed to introduce their next iPhone".

    Reviews are sizzling: "The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular", writes Vlad Savov for Engadget. Praise continues -- from the "onscreen keyboard is terrific" to "general responsiveness is absolutely exemplary". Savov concludes: "It's the best Android smartphone yet, but more importantly, it might well be the best smartphone, period".

    Another: "The finest Android phone we've seen so far, the Samsung Galaxy S II isn't just a competitor to the current iPhone. It competes with the next iPhone", writes Sascha Segan for PC Mag.com, giving the smartphone an "Editor's Choice" rating. That last statement is the clincher. Samsung already is one generation ahead of Apple.

    Apple's Indecision

    Samuel emphasizes:

    As most predictions point towards two models being produced -- iPhone 4S and iPhone 5 -- it is becoming evidently clear that the iPhone 4S which should have been introduced earlier would have lost the appeal of its iPhone fans had it been released along side Galaxy S2. Hence, Apple’s rampant rumor that the iPhone 5 prototype was lost in a bar and suing Samsung paved the way to deflect the public curiosity from the company’s actual issues.

    The IP attacks against Samsung make the South Korean electronics giant appear to be the bad guy -- a copycat of Apple's good work. But the lawsuits serve another purpose, generating news about Apple vs Samsung rather than Samsung the successful competitor vs Apple the suddenly indecisive. Seemingly every day, this misdirection keeps pageview-hungry blogs and news sites writing about the lawsuits rather than asking the big question: Why hasn't iPhone shipped yet?

    Apple is undergoing a major leadership change, which occurred during the late-stages of iPhone 5 development. What? You think Steve Jobs gave Apple's board or new CEO Tim Cook no advance notice? Surely, his eventual resignation, and ongoing health problems impacted his participation in the iPhone development process. Meanwhile, Samsung emerged as a sudden, unexpected competitor.

    The lawsuits are as much, if not more, about misdirection as they are enforcing Apple patent rights. Apple is grappling with co-related problems: A serious smartphone competitor's emergence and unfortunately-timed leadership change. iPhone 5 will be the first major Apple product launch of the post-Steve Jobs era. Is misdirection really the measure of executive execution?

    Photo Credit: Daniel Wiesheu

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/16/Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_8.9_preorder_is_pricey'

    Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 preorder is pricey

    Publié: septembre 16, 2011, 9:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    In child psychology there's a concept called the middle child syndrome, where the kid in-between feels unloved by the parents or jealous of attention given the older and younger siblings. Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9 might just be that middle child. I'm not loving it.

    Best Buy has started taking preorders for the tablet nestled between Tab 7/7.7 and 10.1 and for surprising price: $469.99 for the 16GB model, or just $30 less than the 10.1. From a price perspective, Best Buy isn't giving buyers much reason to choose Tab 8.9 over 10.1, other than smaller size. But is it really small enough for the price?

    I've yet to handle one -- hey, it is only preorder -- so can't make the most important comparison to Tab 10.1. But given just how thin and light is the larger tablet (which I am using), it's hard to see the benefits of an 8.7 inch tablet for 470 bucks when the bigger one is just $30 more.

    There's an art to product pricing, which Apple has refined to a science. Competing iPad 2 is good example. Apple differentiates iPad by storage capacity and wireless capabilities. WiFi-only models sell for $499 (16GB), $599 (32GB) and $699 (64GB). The same capacity models with 3G radios sell for $629, $729 and $829, respectively. The price move up from the entry model is $100 or $130 depending on whether 3G or increased storage matters more.

    A $399.99-priced Tab 8.7 would make more sense compared to $499.99 Tab 10.1. The larger cost gulf creates more value for both products, while making the 8.7 more affordable for more buyers. Affordability in a smaller tablet should be bigger priority.

    Samsung and its retail partners should take a cold, hard look at what happened to Research in Motion. Yesterday, RIM reported that BlackBerry PlayBook shipments declined from 500,000 to 200,000 over three months. Playbook packs a 7-inch display, smaller than iPad 2's 9.7 inches, but selling for the same price. Similarly, TouchPad flopped at 500 bucks, and HP killed the product after just six-weeks of sales, selling off remaining inventory for the Crazy Eddie price of $99.99 a piece.

    Simply stated: Best Buy will find that, for most shoppers, $470 will be too high a price for an 8.7-inch tablet. Consider that Amazon is expected to launch an Android tablet at any time. I'm expecting a price of around $200 (even $250) -- the same price as the Lenovo A1. The Samsung tablet has Android 3.1, which is an advantage over the A1's v2.3, but the price is right: $199.99.

    Then there is the Motorola XOOM, which Amazon has in the WiFi configuration and 32GB of storage for $449.99. The tablet supports Android 3.2, too!

    I do believe there is a market for an 8.7-inch tablet, and Samsung's model packs pretty much all the capabilities of its larger sibling, including 1080p video playback, but in smaller size. It's purse gear. But it's not that appealing for $469.99, WiFi-only and no 3G radio.

    Do you agree? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/16/Scan_your_brain_with_Nokia_N900__video_'

    Scan your brain with Nokia N900 [video]

    Publié: septembre 16, 2011, 7:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Oh, why did I sell my Nokia N900 smartphone last year? The N900 can now perform real-time brain scans right in the comfort of my home -- or yours. Seriously, it doesn't get much more geek than this. Watch the video, and you'll see.

    I loved the N900. It truly was a pocket computer and shows just how much innovation Nokia can produce -- or did before CEO Stephen Elop killed off what he called the "burning platform". A team from Technical University of Denmark has created what they call the Smartphone Brain Scanner, built around the N900 and wireless 14-channel EEG headset. Arkadiusz Stopczynski, Carsten Stahlhut, Michael Kai Petersen, Jakob Eg Larsen and Lars Kai Hansen developed the scanner, which they promote with clever tagline: "Holding your brain in the palm of your hand".

    Larsen posted the above video on September 8, but it's getting play today because of a story in New Scientist.

    "The smartphone provides a touch-based interface with real-time brain state decoding and 3D reconstruction", he explains. "Our system provides a fully portable EEG based real-time functional brain scanner including stimulus delivery, data acquisition, logging, brain state decoding and 3D activity visualization. The software is realized in Qt".

    Say, isn't the Qt development framework yet something else Elop would like to throw out (it will continue in open-source afterlife, surely).

    "The headset transmits the EEG data to a receiver module connected to a Nokia N900 phone", Larsen continues. "The binary data is decrypted directly on the phone, filtered and passed to the source reconstruction module that outputs the colors of model vertices for the visualization".

    Seriously this is so cool and is proof point for Americans obsessed with Apple's iOS and iPhone, there's cool innovations elsewhere -- and in this case with lots of help from open-source software and Volvo-like hardware.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/16/Investors_flee_as_RIM_burns'

    Investors flee as RIM burns

    Publié: septembre 16, 2011, 5:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    As if Research in Motion's co-CEOs haven't done enough, shareholders inflicted serious pain overnight and early today. RIM shares plummeted, following yesterday's dire earnings report -- by about 22 percent in after-hours trading.

    RIM opened at $22.89 this morning, off yesterday's close of $29.54. The stock is fairing better in mid-morning trading, well if down nearly 19 percent could be called better. Shares are down 66 percent from their February 52-week high.

    Investors are punishing RIM for what can only be called a disastrous quarter: PlayBook sales -- 200,000 units; year-over-year decline in BlackBerry shipments (after about a decade run of gains); 59 percent fall in profits (to $329 million); and 10 percent drop in revenue (to $4.17 billion). Rome is burning, as RIMs co-Neros are playing their fiddles.

    "Management remains in blatant denial, in our view", say sBernstein analyst Pierre Ferragu. "For instance, the co-CEOs do not recognize the failure of the Playbook and continue to sell its merits in terms of security. The tablet shipments fell from 500k to 200k units in one quarter...we expect investors to lose all confidence in RIM’s earnings power".

    Earlier this year, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop called Symbian a burning platform. But it's RIM's platform that is burning now, as Android competitors and Apple snatch users from BlackBerry. It can only get worse come iOS 5's release, when Apple unleashes its competitor to BlackBerry Messenger.

    One question lingering now: What will co-CEOs Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis do next? Already there is expectation RIM could follow HP down price-cut row. Last month, HP gave up on TouchPad after only six weeks of sales, cutting the price from $499.99 to $99.99 before exiting the WebOS tablet market altogether. RIM isn't likely to give up on tablets, but it also can't let all that inventory rot on store shelves.

    Earlier this week, IDC put RIM's global tablet share at 4.9 percent, which now looks to be roughly 50,000 units too high.

    But it is bad decision-making and increasing competitive pressure on BlackBerry that has set fire to RIM. BlackBerry shipments fell to 10.6 million units from 12.1 million a year earlier. While new BlackBerry OS 7 devices are off to a solid sales start, the company says, next-gen QNX won't be ready for new smartphones until some time next year. Meanwhile, Samsung's hot Galaxy S II smartphone goes on sale today from Sprint and on September 18 from AT&T. Then there is iPhone 5, which is sure to sock BlackBerry sales as much or more than the current model already has.

    Photo Credit: J. Helgason/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/15/Microsoft_s_antitrust_case_stifled_innovation'

    Microsoft's antitrust case stifled innovation

    Publié: septembre 15, 2011, 11:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer hit me with a club yesterday -- okay, figuratively, but it didn't feel that way. He boomed onto the BUILD developer conference Day 2 keynote stage with an unexpected message: Microsoft is re-imaging -- that is reinventing -- around Windows. Now that's talk I haven't heard from the big boss in about 10 years.

    "Our point of view is Windows is at the center", Ballmer told financial analysts a few hours later. The proclamation is stunning because of timing and what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. In mid May, US trustbusters finally ended oversight of Microsoft; the company plans to integrate into Windows 8 the kind of stuff it hasn't since, well, XP launched a decade ago next month.

    Case in Point

    Federal prosecutors, and their attorneys general partners, filed the antitrust case to prevent Microsoft from stifling innovation in the tech industry. However, government oversight failed to quash Microsoft's twin monopolies -- Office and Windows. The vast majority of x86 PCs still run Windows -- 90 percent or more, depending on the analyst crunching the numbers. In 2010, nearly eight out of every 10 dollars spent on a desktop or server operating system was for Windows, according to Gartner.

    As for the other monopoly, "Office is our biggest business", Ballmer told financial analysts yesterday. "Office is growing rapidly". The product now generates more revenue than Windows.

    By that measure, the antitrust case filed in May 1998, initially by the Justice Department and 20 state attorneys general, is a failure. But it succeeded in something else, which is worthy of debate particularly as Google's search monopoly comes under increasing antitrust and anticompetitive scrutiny: Stifling innovation at Microsoft.

    Windows innovation stagnated during the last decade, as Microsoft backed off the so-called middleware categories covered by the antitrust case and withheld integrating new technologies into the operating system that should have kept the platform vital and created more opportunities for third-party developers.

    Microsoft Imprisoned

    Ballmer's statement and Windows 8 plans revealed this week sound very much like Microsoft in 1999, before US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled the company had violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. Microsoft's behavior before, during and after government oversight makes clear the impact.

    Microsoft settled the antitrust case in November 2001, a month after Windows XP shipped. The company immediately began complying with the consent degree even though another year passed before being approved by Jackson's successor. Microsoft agreed to:

    * Hide access to four so-called middleware categories -- email, instant messaging, media playback and Web browsing -- and to provide a Windows utility for setting the default application for each.

    * License protocols -- to facilitate interoperability between third-party products and Microsoft desktop and server operating systems.

    * Treat all OEMs equally, by licensing Windows on the same terms to all.

    What happened afterwards is revealing. Microsoft stopped developing Windows Messenger and only lightly iterated Outlook Express -- applications that were later removed from the operating system. Microsoft abandoned Internet Explorer development and only resumed when the launch of Mozilla Firefox in late 2004 renewed browser competition. Windows Media Player got modest upgrades, but nothing on the order of the development that occurred before the antitrust settlement; later Microsoft released Zune software, which isn't integrated into Windows and clearly received more development priority.

    Microsoft gingerly advanced or passed on new technologies that made sense going into Windows or closely tied to it. For example, Microsoft released anti-malware software during the mid-Noughties but separately from Windows (and with antivirus vendors crying unfair competition about integration). Microsoft should have launched a Windows app store long ago -- hell, other vendors were doing it. Surely, Microsoft product managers and lawyers asked about everything related to Windows: "What if?" "What if we integrate this into Windows? Or that?"

    Taking the bars off Windows

    Now compare what happened before antitrust oversight to some of the announcements made this week:

    * Microsoft's antitrust problems started with Internet Explorer and its integration into Windows 98. The approach dissuaded developers from competing platforms, Justice Department lawyers argued. As aforementioned, Microsoft toned down IE development following XP's release. Now, with oversight over, the company is back making the browser a core development element of the operating system.

    * Related, Microsoft pushed the Active Desktop during the Windows 98 era, but gave up on it during the antitrust trial. Windows 8's Metro UI is all about active content, and developers using HTML5, JavaScript and native code to write apps and to support connected services.

    * At the turn of the Millennium, Ballmer trumpeted about a set of consumer web services codename HailStorm. Microsoft abandoned it. But this week, BUILD presenters showed how Live services, and, most importantly, synchronization services tightly tie to Windows 8 and Metro.

    * Coming into the new century, Microsoft planned to use Passport as a universal, single sign-on authentication system aligned with Windows. Following privacy group complaints, a Federal Trade Commission investigation and subsequent settlement, Microsoft backed off the authentication strategy. Yesterday, at BUILD, Microsoft showed off single sign-on capabilities that developers can add to their applications using the Windows Azure Toolkit.

    * As previously mentioned, during oversight Microsoft chose to release security apps separately rather than make them a core part of the operating system. Microsoft did venture as far as firewall but not to integrated antivirus. On Monday, BUILD demonstrators showed off Windows 8's built in anti-malware protection.

    Integration has long been a Microsoft development philosophy, and other platform developers do it, too. But Microsoft did it much less over the last decade, and in doing so made Windows a much less appealing product for consumers or platform for developers. Judging from this week's developer conference, Microsoft is ready to engage in the kind of platform innovation that someone felt necessary to hold back. Competitors like Google frequently filed complaints about Windows during the oversight period.

    "Windows Centered"

    Nothing is more revealing about what's different than Ballmer's fresh statements over the last two days about a "Windows centered" approach and re-imaging not just the operating system but the entire company around it.

    "Certainly I can read plenty of places where people will question whether that's a good idea or not", he told financial analysts yesterday. "I think it's an exceptionally good idea, and if you took nothing else out of BUILD, you certainly should have taken that Windows is front and center in our strategy.

    "As Steven Sinofsky said about Windows 8 on the client, we have to re-imagine Windows, we have to change Windows but there's absolutely no reason to build on the incredible technology strengths, the incredible base of applications and skills, the incredible brand strength in Windows".

    To be clear, US antitrust oversight didn't end and suddenly Windows became important again. The product development cycle leading up to BUILD long preceded the end of government scrutiny. But Microsoft's top brass knew it was coming years ago. They planned for it, and they're ready to make Windows a vital platform again.

    If you look carefully at Microsoft product development -- for Azure, Live services, Office and server software -- it has skirted around the core issues of antitrust oversight and limitations placed on Windows development. But also you can see how Sinofsky, who runs the Windows & Windows Live division, his team and Microsoft's top brass prepared for this time, when oversight was over.

    In December 2009, I described the first 10 years of the new millennium as "Microsoft's decade of shattered dreams". The dreamers are back to work and Windows innovation with them.

    Photo Credit: Liv friis-larsen/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/15/Bing_brings_voice_search_to_Xbox'

    Bing brings voice search to Xbox

    Publié: septembre 15, 2011, 12:29am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made absolutely clear today why the company continues to invest in search, even though it's a money-losing business and Google's market share is so big (and not really declining). He described Bing as a "fundamental set of core technologies" that Microsoft plans to leverage seemingly everywhere.

    Earlier in the day, during the BUILD developer conference Day 2 keynote, Server and Tools President Satya Nadella gave several examples how developers can incorporate Bing datasets into their applications development. Bing isn't just about search, but about information made available for third-party applications and services and for software development.

    The approach sets an absolute collision course between Google and Microsoft in a way that hasn't been much discussed. Google also leverages search and supporting data to third-party products and its own, too. But Microsoft is increasingly positioning search and related informational technologies as a development platform -- or at least an adjunct to its other development platforms.

    Ballmer gave one example how Microsoft will further search, by bringing Bing to Xbox for the the holidays. "We're trying to give the TV a new voice. Your voice", he said. Microsoft plans to greatly increase the amount of content available via Xbox. "It brings a new challenge", he observed. "How are you going to find things?" Microsoft's solution is combining voice commands with Bing search. "You say it, Xbox finds it", he said.

    While discussing Xbox, Ballmer said that Microsoft would also start to bring live TV broadcasts to Xbox, beginning during the holidays. I've got to ask: Is it live or is it Xbox?

    Ballmer also identified Microsoft's go-forward priorities:

    * Windows centered (hub for all-company strategy)

    * New hardware form factors (PCs and devices)

    * Natural user interfaces (such as Kinect)

    * Cloud (Azure, Office 365, hosted app servers)

    * Enterprise and consumers (consumer innovations filter down to businesses)

    * First-party applications (Microsoft's own software)

    He affirmed Microsoft's commitment and hope for Windows Phone. Ballmer acknowledged that first-year sales weren't what he would have hoped. But he praised the software's advance from version 1 to 2. (Isn't it really 1.5?) Ballmer emphasized the importance of bringing Nokia to Windows Phone as a dedicated hardware partner.

    Microsoft's CEO also spoke at length about the importance of acquiring Skype. The company, the technology, the customers and other relationships are essential for the future. Ballmer sees video as being a hugely important form of user-generated content and communications in the future.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/14/SharePoint_is__Facebook_for_the_enterprise_'

    SharePoint is 'Facebook for the enterprise'

    Publié: septembre 14, 2011, 11:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Make no mistake. Microsoft's big development push this week is around Windows, but Office and supporting software, such as SharePoint, are more important at the bottom line. During today's Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting, COO Kevin Turner said that the Business division "is 32 percent of the company". Windows is 27 percent and Server and Tools is 24 percent.

    Microsoft typically holds FAM during July, within weeks of closing its fiscal year on June 30. But this year Ballmer and his team delayed the annual event until this week's BUILD developer conference. That's smart, because Wall Street analysts have a chance to see some new Microsoft's products, Windows 8 in particular.

    During the Day 2 keynote, Ballmer made clear that Microsoft is in a process of reinvention around Windows. So the venue clearly is deliberate for financial analysts. But the pitch is interesting, considering Business division's role against Windows & Windows Live.

    Turner highlighted some milestones that marks the Business division success:

    * Office 2010 is the most successful version of the software.

    * SharePoint is the most successful Microsoft product ever -- "fastest to $1 billion" revenue, Turner said. He called it "Facebook for the enterprise". In the cloud, Microsoft has sold 5 million Office 365 seats, with more than half of them deployed.

    * Not surprisingly, businesses are Microsoft's most successful combined segment by revenue: Enterprise 37 percent; OEM 24 percent; 21 percent small and medium business.

    Turner said that in his six years at Microsoft, he has never spoken about "operating momentum" before, particularly as the company cuts costs and maximizes profits. Microsoft's revenue per head grew from $630,000 in fiscal 2009 to $744,000 in FY 2011.

    Microsoft operates in 191 countries around the world, supported by 690,000 channel partners.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/14/Windows_8_Developer_Preview_downloads_top_500_000'

    Windows 8 Developer Preview downloads top 500,000

    Publié: septembre 14, 2011, 7:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    "We still have a long ways to go with Windows 8", Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told BUILD developer conference attendees today. "We've got a lot of work to do". But the work is off to a good start, as he announced 500,000 downloads of the developer preview released last night at 11 p.m. ET.

    Yesterday, Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, described the "re-imaging" of Windows. Today, Ballmer went further, calling the strategy bigger -- the re-imaging of Microsoft. "We're all in. We're retooling all that we do" around all Microsoft's platforms.

    "Windows [is] at the center", he emphasized and that Microsoft's future and new products and services will "pivot around the changes we're making to Windows". Ballmer didn't diminish Microsoft's push to the cloud but put it in context of Windows. He emphasized that it's still "extremely early" for cloud services. So while many competing executives or developers talk about the cloud as the center, Ballmer made clear the importance of Windows -- whether on PC, phone or server -- as the hub.

    It's a sensible perspective for Ballmer, whose job is to maintain the relevance of Windows and PC software rather than letting relevancy shift to cloud-connected devices. Along that path and Windows supporting new chips, Ballmer told developers: "It's not going to be Intel or ARM, it's going to be Intel and ARM".

    "This year there will be 350 million Windows devices sold, and that creates opportunities for developers", Ballmer said. "There's never been a better time to have software development as a core skill". When Windows 8 ships, "there will be at least 500 million Windows PCs" that can be upgraded.

    "We want you to make money from the work you've done...that's super important to us", Ballmer told developers. To that end, Microsoft is improving the Windows platform so that developers can capture more capabilities while writing less code.

    "It's the day and age of the developer", Ballmer proclaimed. "It's the day and age of the Windows developer" -- to which the BUILD audience clapped.

    Ballmer wrapped up the Day 2 keynote. "Let's move forward together and seize the opportunity for: Developers! Developers! Developers!"

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/14/Microsoft_takes_Visual_Studio_and_Windows_8_Server_to_the_cloud'

    Microsoft takes Visual Studio and Windows 8 Server to the cloud

    Publié: septembre 14, 2011, 6:26pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, Microsoft dropped the other ball during the second big BUILD developer conference keynote. The company is releasing Visual Studio 11 Developer Preview and Windows Server 8 Developer Preview. The software will be available for MSDN subscribers.

    Yesterday, Steven Sinofsky, president of the Windows & Windows Live division, formally unveiled Windows 8, which is available in a developer preview you can download now. Today, Jason Zander, vice president for the Visual Studio team, connected the dots to developing apps supporting Azure services also connected to Windows Phone 7.5. He created the Windows 8 Metro-style game pictured above.

    Zander used Visual Studio 2011 Developer Preview, which features, among other things, a new visual image editor that supports Expression Blend.

    Microsoft is making available Visual Studio Team Foundation, running on Azure, which takes the software to the cloud as a service.

    .NET 4.5 Preview and ASP.NET MVC 4 Preview will also be available, supporting Microsoft's big emphasis on HTML5 and improved support for CSS3. Developers will also get jQuery, which when announced, generated clapping from the BUILD audience.

    Windows 8 Server is also getting more cloud capabilities. During today's keynote, Server and Tools President Satya Nadella described Windows 8 Server as the "most cloud optimized operating system".

    To support the new cloud capabilities, Microsoft today released the Windows Azure Toolkit for Windows 8, which is "designed to make it easier for developers to create Windows Metro Style applications that harness the power of Windows Azure Compute and Storage", according to the Windows Azure Team.

    Windows 8 also features the "web authentication broker", as described during today's keynote. This technology is part of the Windows Azure Toolkit. Microsoft is using Azure, the authentication broker and cloud sync to provide single sign-on for applications/services.

    The cloud announcements didn't stop there. Microsoft also announced Windows Azure SDK 1.5 and that the Windows Azure Marketplace is expanding to 25 countries next month.

    The marketplace is where developers can buy and sell cloud apps/services and data. Nadella used eBay as an example. In creating its Windows Phone app, eBay tapped into Bing for pulling in data for language support. He predicted that Bing would be "critical namespace" for developers taking advantage of the marketplace.

    Microsoft also announced updates to Service Bus.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/14/Steven_Sinofsky_is_the_new_Steve_Jobs'

    Steven Sinofsky is the new Steve Jobs

    Publié: septembre 14, 2011, 4:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Don't laugh. I'm quite serious.

    Yesterday during the Day 1 BUILD developer conference keynote, Steven Sinofsky delivered one of the most inspiring new Windows introductions ever. He was energetic and engaging. He honed in on key product benefits -- and that's tough to do with Windows because of the breadth of supporting third-party products and connection to Microsoft stuff like Windows Phone 7.5 or Live services. He spoke aspirationally and convincingly about Windows 8's benefits to developers and their customers. Apple Chairman Steve Jobs couldn't have done better. Whereas, Jobs casts the so-called "reality distortion field", Sinofsky brought reality into focus.

    Jobs is gone. He no longer is Apple's CEO. Jobs won't breathe into Apple the same kind of innovation and hands-on leadership that transformed a company near bankruptcy in 1996 to become hugely dominant in 2011. The new Steve is another Steve, strangely. Sinofsky is reinventing Microsoft's core product in ways unimaginable three years ago. He calls it the "re-imaging" of Windows, which he must say to keep enterprise customers and developers from having catastrophic heart failure. But it's the reinvention of Windows.

    No Microsoft executive has shown such good judgment or meaningful leadership since cofounder Bill Gates ran the company. But Sinofsky has something Gates lacked: Charisma, and that's in a way digressing from Jobs. Their keynote styles are quite different, but nevertheless compelling. More importantly, they both have shown real vision and assembled a core and loyal team of risk takers.

    The parallels between the two men are quite surprising.

    Unofficial leader. Jobs came back to Apple in late 1996 with the acquisition of his company NeXT. Apple bought NeXT for the operating system, but Jobs ended up running Apple as interim CEO, starting in September 1997. But he wouldn't take the title of CEO until January 2000.

    Sinofsky took over running the Windows division around the time Vista shipped. He was tasked with the responsibility of getting successor Windows 7 out the door and in good shape, which he did. After the operating system released to manufacturing, Microsoft named him president of the Windows & Windows Live division -- in July 2009.

    The ax-man. Jobs began his return to Apple by ending the Mac clone program and streamlining the company's product lines -- actions that received a fair bit of criticism at the time but in retrospect were quite sensible. Many people had viewed the clone program as essential to Apple's future and its ability to compete against Windows. Cancellation upset many Apple partners.

    Sinofsky has streamlined Windows code and now is in process of making major cuts on the development side -- stuff quite imaginable even three years ago. .NET and Silverlight are clearly on their way out -- or for .NET taking on a diminished role. Both technologies were supposed to anchor Windows and supporting services development for the foreseeable future. No longer. The eventual end or dramatic role change of .NET will upset many Microsoft partners who have committed to the technology.

    Provocateur of good taste. Jobs made his first big mark as iCEO with the introduction of the bondi blue, all-in-one, translucent-encased iMac in summer 1998. The original iMac marked a push by Apple to develop products that were as beautiful as they are functional.

    As Windows 7 development started, Sinofsky assembled a team charged with refreshing the look-and-feel of the operating system and to develop natural user interface motifs. The changes were less dramatic in Windows 7, because Sinfosky's core responsibility was to get a stable product out quickly, ensure enterprise customers of backwards compatibility and restore confidence in Windows. Still, Sinofsky's team incorporated touch capabilities and refined the UI. The big changes, with focus on functionality and fluidity is Windows 8's Metro motif.

    His team also worked with Acer to produce a thin-and-light laptop for PDC 2009 developer attendees. Yesterday at BUILD, developers got a Samsung slate running Windows 8 Developer Preview. Both computers are reference designs and development computers. Yesterday, he also clearly articulated a strategy of refining Windows 8 so that OEMs can produce more provocative PCs.

    Platform risk taker. In March 2001, Apple released Mac OS X, about a half year before Windows XP. Jobs couldn't have picked a worse time to make a major platform transition. Windows owned the PC and developers were preparing for Microsoft's big consumer OS. Meanwhile, Apple was asking them to port their apps to a whole new architecture, and not just software -- peripheral and other hardware makers, too.

    Mac OS X's launch proved disastrous, with no support for DVD drives shipping on Apple computers or many third-party devices. Major developers like Adobe and Microsoft didn't immediately update their applications. OS X really wasn't ready as a stable platform until v10.1 shipped in September 2001. Later, the platform switch proved instrumental in reviving the Mac ecosystem and being foundation for iOS that powers iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.

    Sinofsky is leading Windows through a major platform transition at the worst time. Microsoft has fallen behind Apple and Google in smartphone OS market and applications share and iPad has opened up the media tablet category in a huge way, so big as to cannibalize PC sales. One analyst told me yesterday that he sees tablets sapping 20 percent or more of PC sales over the next two years. Microsoft will ask developers to commit their applications to a dramatically new user interface and Windows architecture (emphasis on native code) at a time when developing for Android and iOS is so much more appealing, because the volumes are so big.

    But there's sense to the timing and where the risk can lead. By the time Windows 8 ships, the core of Microsoft's business customer base will recently have transitioned to v7. They won't be ready for Windows 8 and therefore be as threatened by architectural or user interface changes; v8 will prepare them for Windows 9. Meanwhile, Microsoft can get a leaner, meaner Windows for consumer devices. I fully expect to see ARM-base devices that run only Metro and the WinRT core announced yesterday. That's a huge divestiture from Windows legacy, but Sinofsky's way of providing a lifeline to customers and developers committed to Windows as it is while letting go the old code baggage for future PCs and mobile devices.

    Keeper of secrets. Jobs is renown for keeping Apple product development hush-hush. That approach gives the company more control over how information is disseminated, which is hugely sensible from market messaging and hype generation perspectives. Apple only communicates as much as it needs to developers and other partners -- at a fault. Product design changes often catch hardware partners by surprise.

    Sinofsky chose to do something surprising at BUILD: wrap it in a veil of secrecy. Attendees signed up without any knowledge of the full agenda or sessions. Microsoft disclosed no details on the BUILD website, nor in the initial packets of information given out when attendees registered. There wasn't even information on who would give the keynotes -- not that it was hard to guess. Microsoft distributed full agenda brochures concurrently with the Day 1 keynote.

    Microsoft took control over the messaging this way, but without being as overly secretive as Apple. Developers are receiving loads of information, and bloggers and reporters can attend sessions (unlike Apple's developer conference). This new-found secrecy is more like standard operations at the Office group (where Sinofsky also was leader). Development information is more need to know and controlled. Sinfosky has been blogging about Windows 8, but, like Jobs, he is the one delivering the big news.

    Don't be surprised if Sinofsky becomes Microsoft CEO someday.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/14/Hands_on_with_the_Samsung_Windows_8_slate'

    Hands on with the Samsung Windows 8 slate

    Publié: septembre 14, 2011, 1:33am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft is handing out 5,000 Samsung-manufactured tablets running Windows 8 Developer Preview here at BUILD, the company's developer conference. I spent some quality time with one this afternoon. While my overall impressions are good, I must say that Windows 8 demos better than using it. Perhaps I'd feel differently having used the Windows 8 slate for a longer time.

    Earlier today, Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, and several top lieutenants gave one of the best operating system demos ever. Not even Apple CEO Steve Jobs, in younger and healthier days, could have evoked such energy and enthusiasm as Sinofsky did today. It was infectious and aspirational in all the right ways.

    If Jobs had shown off Windows 8 instead, tech bloggers and journalists would have cooed like pigeons over their laptop keyboards about how Apple had done it again. Instead, one after the other -- and analysts, with them -- compared Microsoft's efforts to iPad, singing that "catching up is hard to do" song. I heard nothing more than muted enthusiasm, even among the group of reviewers who each yesterday got one of those Samsung tablets on three-day loan.

    You'd Want One

    The tablet is the event's big prize. Samsung manufactures the Windows 8 slate, which bears very little resemblance to iPad, for anyone asking. Analysts Gartner and IDC classify Androids and iPad as media tablets. The Samsung slate is a PC running full Windows. From the processor to ports, this tablet is as much PC as stereotypical tablet. It will run all the apps Windows users are accustomed to using.

    Core specs: 11.6-inch Super PLS display (1366 x 768 resolution); 1.6GHz Intel i5-2467M dual-core processor; 4GB of RAM, 64GB solid-state storage; Intel WDDM 1.2 integrated graphics; USB, microSD and HDMI ports; WiFi; and 3G -- 2GB/month free from AT&T for one year. Like Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Windows 8 developer tablet is longer and narrower in landscape mode than iPad -- and thicker, more like Motorola XOOM or Asus Transformer. Windows Experience Index is 4.3, because of graphics.

    The screen is overly reflective, which made taking photos uncharacteristically difficult. There is also high smudge factor -- about as bad as XOOM. Tab 10.1 smudges less easily, and iPad 2 is even more smudge resistant.

    Microsoft is right to put this machine in developers' hands, so they can experience Windows 8's Metro UI, code apps for it and use new tools. Updated versions of Blend and Visual Studio are installed on the tablet. But it's the new operating system that will interest them and many other people.

    Wake Me Up

    Windows 8 wakes nearly instantly, and it's a hugely important feature, because:

    * It makes a good impression. Slow startup contributed to Windows Vista's bad reputation. Many people will delight in instant-on capabilities.

    * Time is valuable, particularly on portable devices. Pull it out, do something quick and put it away.

    * Smartphones and media tablets start nearly instantly -- as does Apple's MacBook Air. These products create expectation that a computing device should start fast.

    Windows 8 is smooth and responsive to touch on the Samsung slate, as it should be with a PC processor inside. Touch sensitivity is excellent. You can feel the power, because of the tablet's heft (but not overly heavy) and fluidity of Metro UI.

    Beneath Metro is an updated version of the traditional Win32 desktop and file manager, which includes the Office Ribbon adapted for Windows. I found the older motif to be less responsive to touch. But it is beta software, after all, with the objective of introducing developers to Metro. Microsoft has plenty of time to get to fit and finish.

    The tile motif is immediately intuitive, like no other computing interface I have ever used. Microsoft has done a remarkably good job, even at this early development juncture, putting navigational elements alongside live content. Some tiles are for tasks, while others are active.

    I'm immediately reminded of Microsoft's attempts to bring live content to Windows 98 with the Active Desktop. It was a concept way ahead of its time. The strategy failed for many reasons, dial-up Internet connections being one of them. That vision is fulfilled in Windows 8's Metro UI.

    Metro, like the Windows Phone UI, looks nothing like competing motifs. Apple won't be suing Microsoft, like HTC or Samsung -- or if it does will reveal willingness to litigate to innovate. The tile concept is simply refreshing and suits the use of fingers and touch like no other UI I've seen.

    Little Letdown

    But I found using it to be a bit of a letdown, and perhaps my reaction would have been better if not for today's BUILD keynote demos. Sinofsky and his team did things with Windows 8 that I can't. The apps aren't there, or supporting Windows Live services -- at least in the same way. He showed off stuff not available to the masses, but that's to be expected this early in the development process.

    As for my peers, I don't share the sentiments of those asserting that iPad has won the tablet wars. It's still early days, and Windows 8 is much bigger than tablets. Microsoft is rightly focusing on all computing devices of many screen sizes and functions. The Windows ecosystem is larger, and Sinfosky made clear that developers and not Microsoft are in control of their destinies -- and that was an unsaid dig at Apple and the tight controls it places on iOS developers.

    BUILD Day 1 started off big. How can Microsoft possibly do better tomorrow? Well, Windows 8 slate is a gift that should get better from use -- better every day. If not, we'll see hordes of them on eBay. But I think not many. Some prizes you don't part with.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/13/Live_from_Microsoft_BUILD'

    Live from Microsoft BUILD

    Publié: septembre 13, 2011, 6:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    LIVE BLOG

    Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft's president of the Windows & Windows Live division, walked on the stage like a rock star this morning. "I'd like to invite everyone to Windows 8" Sinofsky says. He said that later this week, consumer usage of Windows 7 would exceed XP. Microsoft has sold nearly 450 million Windows 7 licenses. More than 500 million use Windows Live services.

    "We're going to re-imagine Windows", from the chipset (ARM support) to user experience (Metro UI), Sinofsky says. Windows 8 is at the developer preview stage, he notes.

    Julie Larsen-Green is on stage showing off Windows 8 Metro UI tiles. The fluidity and freshness of the presentation is breathtaking. Sinofsky steps in and describes the Start screen of tiles as a "unification" of programs, app launchers and widgets. It's all touch activated.

    Internet Explorer for Metro Style ships with Windows 8, Larsen-Green says. Sinofksy pipes in and observes that it's completely Chrome-less, referring to Google's browser. "There's nothing better than a Chrome-free browsing experience", he says.

    I'm immediately reminded of Microsoft's attempts to bring live content to the desktop during the Window 98 era. The strategy flopped for many reasons, limited bandwidth being one of them. That vision is fulfilled in Windows 8's Metro UI. The Internet is as much a part of UI as local file storage. For example, search works for file system and Internet. "It's webs and apps working together...a web of apps on your machine", Sinofsky says.

    Sinofsky is holding up an ARM-based tablet. "You are going to get so addicted to using this product", Sinofsky proclaims. He describes the UI as "fast and fluid", and I would agree.

    Now comes the developer nuts-and-bolts stuff. Windows 8 features the WinRT API, which is new and Sinofsky insists isn't something added on to the operating system. It is Windows. The new API will let developers write native code. I've got a slide showing the new Windows 8 architecture that I'll add to this post after the keynote.

    Antoine Leblond is on stage building an app. I'm not a developer so will highlight benefits from his demo. Without writing a line of networking code or calling the Facebook UI, Leblond creates app PhotoDoodle and connects to Facebook photo-sharing in Windows 8's built-in Socialite app.

    All this is being done in real time, using HTML5 and calling Windows 8 native code. This is what a platform is for, exposing capabilities that developers tap into -- reduce the amount of code they write. Leblond used 58 lines of code. This is one of the most impressive Microsoft developer demos I've seen in about 10 years (I'm ignoring the great stuff for Longhorn during PDC 2003 that never came to be).

    OMG. The version of Visual Studio LeBlond is using has a post to the Windows Store option. Developers will be able to package, upload and choose licensing rights for their apps. There will be an applications certification process, Leblond explains. That process is designed in part to keep customers "safe". Developers will be able to view their apps certification process, and see how close it is to appearing in the store. Microsoft will provide developers with compliance tools so they can check their APIs and code beforehand. That reduces likelihood an app would be rejected for some technical reason.

    The Windows Store will list Win32 and Metro-style apps. Microsoft will not impose its own licensing requirements but let developers with existing apps -- and maybe offering for download somewhere else -- to use their own licensing model. "We're giving these Win32 apps a free listing service", Leblond says.

    Sinofsky is back talking about hardware. Developers can expect "full platform support with these Metro-style applications". Write once and runs on X86 or ARM, or different form factors.

    Michael Angiulo is now demoing different computers. He's showing several systems booting nearly instantly. Microsoft is finally making anti-malware a part of the OS. Angiulo inserts a virus-infected USB key into a Windows 8 slate and starts up. The computer detects the malware and won't boot.

    Windows 8 supports up to 256TB drives. "It's like science fiction or something", Angiulo says. Can you say video storage?

    Windows 8 supports various screen sizes, which makes sense -- backward compatibility for Windows 7 systems and to support the various types of PC hardware styles Microsoft expects from OEM partners.

    Microsoft is carrying hardware-accelerated graphics from IE9 to Windows 8. Developers write the code and Windows provides the hardware acceleration to the apps.

    Windows 8 supports various motion sensors -- like gyroscope and accelerometer -- accessed from a single API written with three lines of code. These capabilities are essential for tablets.

    Angiulo and Sinfosky are showing off some pretty damn smoking Ultrabooks that aren't yet released. These are Windows 7 systems that I'd love to run v8 developer build on right now.

    Sinofsky just announced what was rumored earlier -- "the Samsung Windows Developer Preview PC". The portable has Intel i5 processor, 64GB SSD, 4GB of RAM and get this one year free AT&T 3G with 2GB data per month.

    Developers are managing to stay in their seats, rather than rush out for their Windows 8 slate. Sinofsky is back, showing off the new task manager. "It's been about 20 years...so let's give it a shot", he says referring to the makeover.

    In Control Panel is the new "refresh and reset" PC feature. Refresh reinstalls Windows 8, keeping Metro-style apps and files. Reset restores to factory state. The new Windows Assessment Console allows developers to test their apps in different hardware states.

    There's a new Metro-style Remote Desktop app. Sinofsky remoted into a touch PC. Slick. He is now showing Hyper-V running in the Windows 8 client.

    We're most of the way through the keynote, and Sinofsky is only now making the first real reference -- and that's in passing -- to the Ribbon. Is that because Microsoft wants developers focused on Metro apps or the negative reaction to the Office Ribbon coming to Windows 8?

    The keynote must be running behind because Sinofsky is talking super speed. He's showing off Metro-style IE10 again. The Windows 8 developer build includes Internet Explorer 10 Platform Preview 3.

    Windows 8 is designed for "everyone", Sinofsky says. He shows the digital keyboard with different installed language packs. Language can be changed in a tap or click.

    Finally, Microsoft does synchronization right. Personal settings roam with you from Windows Live. Chris Jones is demoing Live services, which are "rewritten in Metro-style" -- "all written in HTML and JavaScript". He emphasizes: "It's all written to be immersive". These Metro-style Live services make Google services look like something from the 1940s and Apple stuff from the 1970s. Apple hasn't even released iCloud yet, and it's antiquated.

    Sinofsky interrupts and says that all this is powered by WinRT. Jones is demoing photos, rendered spectacularly, from Windows Live SkyDrive. Whoa, he's pulling photos from a Windows PC in Redmond, Wash., across firewall there and firewall here all connected and authenticated using a Windows Live ID. Think about the implications of connecting simply around the ID without complicated third-party VPN software. "You can integrate SkyDrive storage into your apps", Sinofsky tells developers.

    Jones is showing the SkyDrive experience on a Windows Phone 7.5 HTC handset. It's impressive. For years I've said that sync is the killer app for the connected world. Finally Microsoft is going to deliver. Tough luck Apple and Google. Well, someday, "We're not releasing these applications today", Jones says. Since Windows 8 isn't available, of course not.

    Uh-oh, Sinofsky says all the apps shown today are just "samples". Samples? They were created by college interns. Sinofsky introduces 20 of them and now there's a video about their "summer of apps". Looking at the video, it's clear that the samples are different from some of the stuff shown here.

    Next milestone is Windows 8 beta, then release candidate, gold code and general availability. "We're going to be driven by quality not the date", Sinofsky says. Microsoft will update the developer preview using Windows Update -- to test that feature.

    Microsoft will post the Windows 8 Developer Preview online tonight at 11 p.m. ET. "No activation" is required, Sinofsky says. Download and run at your own risk. Get it here.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/13/See_the_Windows_8_slate__photo_'

    See the Windows 8 slate [photo]

    Publié: septembre 13, 2011, 6:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    This morning before the keynote started here at Microsoft's BUILD developer conference, I got a chance to handle a tablet running Windows 8.

    There you see it. Move over Apple and iPad. Microsoft has got a fluid and lively user interface, and Apple won't be suing Microsoft for patent infringement like it is seemingly everyone else.

    There's a new operating system in town folks. Windows 8 looks great.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/13/Who_will_buy_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_'

    Who will buy Samsung Galaxy S II?

    Publié: septembre 13, 2011, 2:44am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Close to 50 percent of respondents to a recent Betanews poll said they will buy Samsung's flagship smartphone within 6 months. But the majority -- 40.72 percent -- want the S2 sooner, opting to buy within 3 months. They won't wait much longer. Sprint's Galaxy S II version goes on sale September 16 and AT&T's two days later. I must admit to being tempted to buy myself.

    But I'm not enthused with the poll results, just 307 respondents as I post; so the poll is back for new readers to have their say about the other hotly-anticipated smartphone (see, there is mobile life other than iPhone 5). :) I'd like to see a bigger sample before making any grand predictions about who is going to buy this heaping beauty -- 4.3-inch display from AT&T and 4.5-incher from Sprint.

    The phones share some things in common: 1.2GHz Samsung Exynos dual-core processor; Super AMOLED display (it's viewable in sunlight); Gorilla glass, 8MP rear-facing and 2MP front-facing cameras; 1080p video recording; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card); Android 2.3; and Samsung's TouchWiz UI -- plus all the expected stuff, like Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS, accelerometer, capacitive touchscreen, etc. Samsung and the carriers are touting 4G, via WiMax for Sprint and 21Mbps HSPA+ for AT&T.

    According to Samsung, AT&T's S2 has battery life of (gasp) 3 hours continuous talk time. My God, could that be a typo? By comparison, the larger Epic 4G Touch from Sprint has 8.7 hours battery life with continuous talk time. Surely bigger screen means more battery consumption. But Sprint has chosen a substantially higher-capacity battery -- 1800 mAh, compared to AT&T's 1650 mAh.

    Sprint's model, the Epic 4G, sells for $199.99 with two-year contract. If AT&T has released pricing, I can't find it.

    Please answer the poll below (if you didn't two weeks ago) and explain your buying intentions in comments -- S2, iPhone 5, something else, nothing else, etc. I'll update poll results sometime in the next week or so.


    Samsung Galaxy S II is available internationally and goes on sale in the United States on 9-16-11. Will you buy Galaxy S II?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/12/Forget_2012_end_of_the_world__the_PC_apocalypse_comes_in_2015'

    Forget 2012 end of the world, the PC apocalypse comes in 2015

    Publié: septembre 12, 2011, 9:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Damn, if only some analyst firm other than IDC supported my long-standing position about cloud-connected mobile devices displacing PCs. After all, I dissed IDC's crazy forecast about Windows Phone being No. 2 smartphone OS in 2015. Now the firm is back with another 2015 prediction, which I must agree with.

    Spurred on by smartphone and media tablet adoption, more US Net users will access the Internet through wireless mobile devices than those wired to PCs; within four years. IDC predicts stagnation and then decline in number wired Internet users. Stated another way: Decline of the PC, since -- c`mon -- who really uses one without the Internet.

    "Forget what we have taken for granted on how consumers use the Internet", Karsten Weide, IDC research vice president, says in a statement. "Soon, more users will access the Web using mobile devices than using PCs, and it's going to make the Internet a very different place".

    Oh yeah? It's going to make the PC a very different place. IDC has lovely timing, dropping this atomic bomb on the eve of Microsoft's BUILD developer conference and coming out party for Windows 8. If tomorrow's keynote demos aren't all about tablets and mobile devices, there's still time to change them! Quick, somebody call Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinofsky off the stage. It's time to change the keynote rehearsal.

    Maybe I can disagree with IDC after all. How could it possibly take that long, given how many Americans already have smartphones, which require data plans. According to comScore, 82.2 Americans aged 13 or older had smartphones at the end of July -- that's 35 percent of all cell phone users. Perhaps it's really a question of replacement, when that tablet -- or, gasp, smartphone -- is good enough to displace your PC.

    On Halloween 2008, I asked in a Microsoft Watch post: "Will your next PC be a smartphone?" I've been on a tear about the PC era waning before the cloud-connected mobile device era for years. Feature phones and smartphones are much more personal than are PCs. In March 2010, writing about a prediction made by a Google employee, I followed up with, here at Betanews: "Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?" My answer was "Yes". Months later, I qualified it by adding tablets to smartphones replacing PCs, something that's already occurring, according to Gartner and IDC.


    When will smartphones and tablets displace the PC as primary computing device?

    Every time I broach this topic, commenters come out in droves. So to spice it up, let's do a poll to go along with your surely heated comments.

    Photo Credit: Lou Oates/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/11/There_was_no_Facebook__Twitter_or_YouTube_on_9_11'

    There was no Facebook, Twitter or YouTube on 9-11

    Publié: septembre 11, 2011, 7:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, around the globe, people are, sadly, commemorating the 10th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In posting my remembrance, I got to thinking how much has changed technologically and how much circumstances could have been different that day if the resources we take for granted now were available then.

    Advanced communications technology of the day was the cell phone, which people trapped in the Twin Towers used to reach family and friends. The cell phone helped warn passengers of United Airlines 93 about the other hijackings. The heroes of that flight sacrificed their lives to save many others. That couldn't have been possible without the cell phone. But what if the people living in 2001 could have used social services widely available today to warn others or offer dramatic, first-hand accounts, photos and videos of events as they unfolded. The historical record -- and tribute to the lives lost that tragic day -- would be much different.

    The most dramatic technological changes occurred not during the last 10 years but the last five. Consider YouTube, which is now very much a part of global culture. Its influence is seemingly everywhere. But YouTube only opened to the public in November 2005. Google bought YouTube about 11 months later -- less than five years ago. Twitter also debuted in 2006, but didn't reach mass awareness for another three years. Facebook opened to the public in 2006, as well. The majority of the most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last five years: Disqus, Google+, tumblr, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others.

    For all the babble about iPhone, it's a recent invention, debuting just four years ago. Apple's App Store came in 2008, as did Google's Android and Chrome browser. The list of services that people use to connect are, for the most part, just five years old. The first real sense of what the tools could mean for connecting people, getting out information and even how it's reported the world over came in summer 2009 -- just two years ago -- on the streets of Tehran. The best reporting on the Iranian protests wasn't from CNN or many news organizations but Flickr, Twitpic, Twitter and YouTube. Tweets, images and videos poured out in real time. Where did CNN get some of its best material? Citizen journalists, like this story and images from CNN’s citizen-driven iReport.

    But the videos, captured by compact digital cameras and cell phones, told the most dramatic stories. Example: This 40-second video of young woman, Neda Soltan, dying. It’s seared into my psyche, like the image of the student standing before tanks in Tiananmen Square a decade ago. The video is raw and unfiltered. It’s the kind of footage that only a few years ago professional news organizations could capture and broadcast, and there would have been tight control over when and how it was broadcast and copyrights against redistribution. Now, people can self-broadcast to YouTube.

    The recent wave of protests sweeping Northern Africa and the Middle East were similarly documented and even coordinated. Some countries shut down or sought to limit Internet access, in attempts to control information's flow and prevent protesters from communicating with one another -- in Algeria, Egypt and Syria, for example. Look how well-documented was the Japanese earthquake and Tsunami, such as these videos posted to YouTube.

    I can't help but wonder what the availability of these tools might have meant 10 years ago today. What if people trapped above the raging fires where the planes impacted the Twin Towers could have posted last-minute photos (via service like TwitPic) or videos (to YouTube). Messages to friends and family -- and to everyone trying to cope with national trauma. Forensic investigators could have used the videos to better reconstruct what happened to the towers and when, as they sought to understand what brought the towers down and what changes should be applied to future buildings.

    What if because of Facebook Wall Posts or tweets, more people rushed to get out of the towers faster. Confusion and miscommunications during the early minutes after each plane's impact kept many people in place. Sure there were text messages, but many Facebookers are obsessive about checking their mobiles. Many people follow breaking news events on Twitter. Many more lives could have been saved, if people had this information in hand on their mobiles.

    What ifs are pointless, I know. But they mean something for now and the future. I'm glad we have these social media tools. Humanity is closer because of them, and news of disasters or other important events travel faster now than five years ago and certainly a decade ago this on this tragic day.

    Photo Credit:  Ken Tannenbaum/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/11/A_9_11_remembrance'

    A 9-11 remembrance

    Publié: septembre 11, 2011, 6:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Ten years ago this morning, my wife remarked about the perfect fall day. Clear skies, low humidity and freshness in the air. Washington, DC hadn't seen such a refreshing day in months. The sweltering heat and humidity gave way to autumn's charms.

    Around 9:20 a.m. ET, I checked the headlines at Washington Post. I had been online for hours, but not looking at local news. I was writing a news story for CNET. Across the top of the page was a one liner about an airplane striking the World Trade Center. We naturally assumed a small plane had struck one of the towers. While I looked for more details online, Anne checked CNN and gasped in the living room. I walked out to see video of both towers aflame. This was no small plane incident.

    Events unfolded in rapid succession. Within minutes, the Pentagon was in flames; separately, the President talked about terrorist attacks. By the time we learned about the Pentagon, news reports clearly indicated that airliners had struck both towers. We figured this had to be the case in Virginia at the Pentagon. About 25 minutes after we first learned about the devastation at the Twin Towers, a plane crashed in Pennsylvania -- fourth highjack of the morning.

    I flipped from channel to channel, riveted to the news coverage, but found MSNBC to be most useful. We watched in awe and confusion when the first tower collapsed. “Oh my, God! It’s gone,” my wife gasped; she's a New Jersey native, and The World Trade Center had more personal meaning for her. Neither of us could believe the tower had collapsed. My stricken wife went out for a walk and so didn’t see the second tower fall.

    About a year earlier, a good friend of ours relocated from Takoma Park, Md. to northern New Jersey; he had taken a job with the Federal Communications Commission in  New York, where he worked at Seven World Trade Center. We called his wife and learned that he had left the building, which collapsed later that day, and started walking out of New York.

    I struggled to get work stuff done for about 10 days following the terrorist attacks. I wasn’t depressed or even frightened. I personally felt that death and devastation -- like the extension of a humankind psyche had been wounded. But something else: We knew people personally impacted both in New York and Northern Virginia.

    We really all are connected, in more obvious ways than we realize. There’s a concept called “six degrees of separation”, which Hungarian writer Frigyes Karinthy proposed in the 1929 short story “Chains.” The concept proposes that no two people are separated by more than five intermediaries, which works out to six degrees of separation. Long ago, I realized there is the "9-11 degrees of separation". You don't have to go too far from your circle of family or friends to find someone impacted by the terrorist attacks 10 years ago today.

    Photo Credit: US Department of Defense

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/10/5_Things_Microsoft_should_do_at_BUILD'

    5 Things Microsoft should do at BUILD

    Publié: septembre 10, 2011, 4:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Can you hear it? Can you hear it coming? Microsoft's Windows developer conference is almost here. BUILD kicks off September 13 in Anaheim, Calif., and it's going to be big, big, BIG. Microsoft will give Windows 8 its formal unveiling -- everything else before was just movie previews. No new Windows version is really official until Microsoft presents it to developers.

    But there's more. Microsoft moved its annual Financial Analyst Meeting from July to September, coinciding with BUILD. It's a colossally smart move. Wall Street geeks and technophobes will have chance to get caught up in the energy and enthusiasm of Windows 8 -- and Windows Phone "Mango", too. Microsoft really needs to energize analysts about these products and how they're not so much the past but vital forces for the so-called post-PC era.

    I present five things Microsoft should do next week. These aren't recommendations, since it's too close to BUILD for Microsoft to follow my lowly advice. It's what I expect from Microsoft, if the Windows operating system teams hope to churn up the kind of positive reaction that can ignite developers and spread the fire to Windows enthusiasts and customers.

    1. Give everyone Windows 8 slates. No developer, no financial analyst, no news media attendee should leave BUILD without an ultraportable or tablet PC running Windows 8 beta. Hell, Google gave participants to its I/O developer conference Samsung Chromebooks and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets. Microsoft should do even better.

    There's precedent. PDC 2009 developer attendees received free thin-and-light laptops designed by Microsoft and Acer. These portables were reference designs for developing apps. Microsoft should do at least the same next week.

    "Windows 8 slates are great". Now there's a slogan.

    2. Give all participants Mango smartphones. Why stop at ultrabooks or tablets? The first Mango smartphones are ready to ship, and Microsoft needs to rally developers. What? Microsoft should let its core use iPhones or Androids? Hell, no! Give developers phones and free cellular and data service for a year, if they personally use them. Make it hard to say no. Some wonky bloggers will scream "Bribery!" Frak them. Windows Phone is part of a larger Microsoft ecosystem of products and services (see #3).

    3. Introduce a new far-reaching strategy: "Three screens and a cloud" Catchy, eh? For years Microsoft has talked about its three-screen and cloud strategies, separately and loosely connected. With the development and platform changes coming next week, Microsoft should formally and exactly tie together three screens and the cloud.

    It's clear that when looking at XNA, HTML5 and other technologies, Microsoft is rapidly unifying development around Windows 8, Windows Phone, Xbox and its cloud services. The vision must be communicated with absolute clarity and certainty next week, as much for financial analysts as anyone else. They have to see the vision of the Microsoft connected lifestyle. Too many of them drank the Apple Kool-Aid. Don't believe that? Count how many analysts will be carrying iPhones and MacBook Airs or Pros next week.

    4. Unveil a unified Windows marketplace, one place for apps of all varieties -- cloud productivity, Internet Explorer 9, Windows Phone, Windows 7/8 and Xbox. Microsoft must present to developers and customers a connected business and personal lifestyle. A unified app store should be one of the experience's pillars. Developers get the convenience and assured revenue confidence/piracy protection from a single, unified market for all Microsoft platforms.

    5. Debut Metro OS. One of Windows 8's most exciting new benefits is the tile-like Metro desktop UI, which is optimized for touchscreens. But behind it remains Windows legacy code for the seemingly zillions of enterprises and developers needing support for existing apps. Why not break out Metro instead, as a separate operating system? It would be much more than a Windows lite or embedded but much less than the legacy operating system.

    Now that Windows will support ARM processors, Metro OS could be adapted for all kinds of touchscreen devices, everything from ATMs, to retail kiosks to tablets. Sure, Microsoft has Windows embedded, but Metro OS would be better because of the emphasis on touch. These third-party products could help sell Windows, too, because people would become used to the tile motif everywhere.

    Metro OS also could extinguish Chrome OS. Google's browser-based operating system has merit, but the motif is archaic in a touchscreen world. HTML5 already is core to Microsoft's development approach for Metro UI. How hard would it really be for Metro OS to push Chrome OS into the waste bin?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/09/I_survived_the_great_San_Diego_power_outage'

    I survived the great San Diego power outage

    Publié: septembre 9, 2011, 6:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What happens when there's no Internet?

    Yesterday, afternoon I feverishly worked on a commentary about Florian Mueller's ridiculous commentary (it doesn't qualify as analysis) on Google actions in relationship to Android OEMs, based on documents from a lawsuit with Oracle. I had real writing flow, likening Mueller to Santa Claus bringing Apple Fanclubbers and their anti-Google kin a heap load of presents. They've been blogging, tweeting and sharing about how evil is Google; they're giddy as can be. But I explained the bag contained nothing but coal, and that Mueller had cast a spell over them, as they were trying to do to others. I never finished that missive, and won't now. At 3:38 p.m. PDT, the electricity went out. The outage was massive -- parts of Arizona, New Mexico, Northern Mexico, all of San Diego County and sections of Orange County, which is just south of Los Angeles.

    No power meant no Internet, and I was working on the Samsung Series 5 Chromebook. Google's Chrome OS would preserve the work already done in the browser, but I dared not do anymore since persistent Net connection is recommended. So I fired up the laptop's built-in Verizon wireless 3G modem, which I had never used. One of Chromebook's benefits: Free 3G data for two years -- 100MB per month, with option to get more without contractual commitment. I managed to activate the modem but couldn't make another connection and wouldn't until 5 hours later.

    I hadn't ever worried about connecting Chromebook before should I lose Internet connectivity at home because 1) There was the 3G modem as backup and 2) WiFi is everywhere. But neither is anywhere when everywhere is powerless.

    Initially, there was cellular telephony and data, but only within the first 45 minutes after the power failed. That was enough time for me to use the Nexus S to post a notice on Betanews' group chat service and to Google+. Then data died. Three or four times during the outage Google+ and email notifications came through and one text message. But otherwise I had no Internet connection. My daughter, who has iPhone 4, was offline, too. But not my wife, who also has Nexus S but running on T-Mobile. She had data connection throughout most of the power outage (so much for #1 largest US carrier Verizon and #2 AT&T).

    Feeling Powerless

    She got online and started checking news headlines. A local Fox News affiliate reported first: The outage was widespread, with uncertain cause. We would later learn that 1.4 million were without power and every one of San Diego Gas & Electric customers. The company sent an email at 7:23 p.m. PDT acknowledging widespread outage related to a "widespread transmission issue on the grid that serves Western Arizona and Southern California".

    The only information I had at around 4:45 p.m. was what my wife got from her phone. I immediately asked her to rush to the local market for ice. Surely, the guy running it wouldn't let the power stop sales. Sure enough, he was taking cash, calculating tax in his head and writing down transactions on paper. My wife bagged two bags of ice, behind someone with 10. Minutes sale, the market sold out. That ice allowed us to save the food in our refrigerator.

    Later I drove to the local plaza, where there is a Ralph's supermarket and Trader Joe's. Both were closed. Outside the TJ's, employees sold water -- at the astronomical price of (get this) 50 cents a bottle. That's what it usually costs. Rather than gouge customers as someone else might have, these guys were fair; it's helluva great customer service and helped calm people frantic to stock up supplies. I bought five bucks worth as precaution.

    The power outage put our family, and I observed many others, at grave informational disadvantage. We were blind ducks quacking around for water, which had dried up and we didn't know why it was gone or when it was coming back. We don't have radios. Ours is an Internet household. We don't even watch news on TV. Without Internet, we had no source of news. Throughout the neighborhood, I spotted groups of people gathered around cars, SUVs and trucks listening to their vehicular radios. Most of the local stations weren't broadcasting because they had no power. The few on air had stopped all regular programming for blackout coverage.

    While driving to the local plaza, one news reporter interviewed people who had fled the freeway looking for gas, because their tanks were low. One guy didn't make it. He abandoned his vehicle. Others waited in a line of cars -- a "parking lot", the reporter said -- outside a closed gas station, where employees huddled close together inside in the dark. They dared not leave, and perhaps for good reason. The line of cars went on and on and on, the reporter said.

    Another reporter talked about the information crisis and how some people still had Twitter and that was the only way they got any news about the blackout. They had no radios, either. TVs were out, of course, because there was no power. But mainly people communicated by text message, which was the only sure thing still flowing across local cell networks.

    But for the most part, there was no Internet anywhere. Habits die hard. I walked outside my apartment complex and saw a couple young men, woman and dog hanging out by a truck listening to its radio. The guys had tuned in a sports game. The woman held her cell phone, screen lit up. "You have Internet?" I asked. She shook her head. She clearly was trying to get it but couldn't. My daughter commandeered my wife's phone, which had consistent flow of text messages and even Facebook access. Hey, she belongs to the connected generation. Losing the Internet is like cutting off a limb.

    I study people; it's one of the things that makes me good at my job. I observed startling changes throughout the neighborhood. People gathered outside in little groups on the grass, because it was too hot indoors. The power failed during a heat wave, one weather forecasters promised would break as early as overnight. But that was no respite yesterday afternoon. 

    I've lived here nearly four years and got to meet many neighbors for the first time. The sound of talk was everywhere. I saw pairs of people or groups walking around chatting away. Normally, I see individuals walking dogs or using smartphones or iPods. Suddenly people interacted with those closer to them rather than those far away on Facebook, text messaging or Twitter. It was a refreshing change.

    Goddamn DRM

    Back home, as darkness fell, my daughter settled down to watch a movie she had bought from iTunes years ago. I decided to read an ebook on the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet. But damnit, I hadn't downloaded most of my purchased books from Amazon. I remembered fetching them, but that must have been a mis-memory; I had done it for the cell phone, which power was near gone. That was my first bitter taste of digital rights management problems of the evening. Another soon followed.

    My daughter's aluminum MacBook battery had run down before the movie finished. No problem, my wife's computer has the same movie. I fired up iTunes and clicked the movie and got a username and password dialog. The computer hadn't been authorized to play the movie, which had been purchased on my daughter's iTunes account. No Internet. No authorization.

    No problem, still. I had purchased some movies, too. I switched to my account and clicked a film, only to get the same dialog box. WTH? I wasn't authorized, either! After the power resumed, I authorized the computer for my daughter's account and tried to do the same with mine. But iTunes brought up notice that the MacBook Pro already was authorized for my account. Lovely. Goddamn DRM.

    Around 10 p.m., I tried to connect up the Chromebook to Verizon's 3G network and did! Woo hoo! About 40 minutes later, the power came back on. Soon after, AT&T's data network started working again. So my wife asked for her smartphone. But my daughter wouldn't give it up. She complained that AT&T service wasn't working, but I could see that it was. I think my daughter liked the Nexus S, not that she might ever admit it.

    Soon as I got back online, I zipped over to Amazon. Everything had changed. Whoa! It's a site redesign. Then I ordered the radio that's been on my shopping list for more than a year: Grundig Satellit 750. I also looked over the Mueller commentary and decided I wouldn't have time to finish it. But there's a great response everyone should read: "The Bombshell That Wasn’t: FOSS Patents’ Android Scoop Misses The Mark" by Jason Kincaid for TechCrunch.

    Last night, around 11:30, my daughter popped out of her bedroom and warned: "Don't drink the water". "Why?" my wife asked. "It's contaminated", she answered. "How do you know?" "Someone put it on Facebook". There you go, the authority on everything. Eh?

    Photo Credit: TebNad/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/08/Mozilla_issues_ultimatum_to_Internet_certificate_authorities'

    Mozilla issues ultimatum to Internet certificate authorities

    Publié: septembre 8, 2011, 10:33pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Mozilla has decided that once broken trust isn't easily restored. Today, the open-source developer of Firefox issued an ultimatum to certificate authorities, in wake of the spreading damage caused by the DigiNor hack. Certificates like those DigiNor and other CAs issue are the backbone of Internet trust. That lock you see in the browser represents security and trust in the website where transactions occur. But third-parties issue the certificates, presumably being more trustworthy than your local bank or other online service.

    The hacker claiming to have broken into DigiNor, who goes by handle COMODOHACKER, also claims to have breached four other CAs and issued at least 531 rogue certificates. Major browser developers -- Microsoft among them have banned DigiNor and dispatched updates to block rogue certificates.

    Mozilla is going further, by demanding CAs provide certain assurances and also make changes to restore the organization's trust in them and the certificates they issue. Mozilla set a September 16 deadline. The aggressive posture is meant to restore trust, and for good reason. News about the DigiNor hacks increases every day. Once afraid, people aren't quite to trust.

    Kathleen Wilson, module owner of Mozilla's CA Certificates Module, writes in the letter:

    "Dear Certification Authority,

    This note requests a set of immediate actions on your behalf, as a participant in the Mozilla root program.

    Mozilla recently removed the DigiNotar root certificate in response to their failure to promptly detect, contain, and notify Mozilla of a security breach regarding their root and subordinate certificates. If you ever have reason to suspect a security breach or mis-issuance has occurred at your CA or elsewhere, please contact secur...@mozilla.org immediately.

    Please confirm completion of the following actions or state when these actions will be completed, and provide the requested information no later than September 16, 2011:

    1.  Audit your PKI and review your systems to check for intrusion or compromise. This includes all third party CAs and RAs.

    2. Send a complete list of CA certificates from other roots in our program that your roots (including third party CAs and RAs) have cross-signed. A listing of all root certificates in Mozilla's products is here.

    3. Confirm that multi-factor authentication is required for all accounts capable of directly causing certificate issuance.

    4. Confirm that you have automatic blocks in place for high-profile domain names (including those targeted in the DigiNotar and Comodo attacks this year). Please further confirm your process for manually verifying such requests, when blocked.

    5. For each external third party (CAs and RAs) that issues certificates or can directly cause the issuance of certificates within the hierarchy of the root certificate(s) that you have included in Mozilla products, either:

    a) Implement technical controls to restrict issuance to a specific set of domain names which you have confirmed that the third party has registered or has been authorized to act for (e.g. RFC5280 x509 dNSName name constraints, marked critical).

    OR

    b) Send a complete list of all third parties along with links to each of their corresponding Certificate Policy and/or Certification Practice Statement and provide public attestation of their conformance to the stated verification requirements and other operational criteria by a competent independent party or parties with access to details of the subordinate CA's internal operations.

    Each action requested above applies both to your root and to these third parties.

    Participation in Mozilla's root program is at our sole discretion, and we will take whatever steps are necessary to keep our users safe. Nevertheless, we believe that the best approach to safeguard that security is to work with CAs as partners, to foster open and frank communication, and to be diligent in looking for ways to improve. Thank you for your participation in this pursuit.

    Regards,
    Kathleen Wilson
    Module Owner of Mozilla's CA Certificates Module"

    Photo Credit: Lichtmeister/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/08/_Star_Trek__aired_45_years_ago_today__videos_'

    'Star Trek' aired 45 years ago today [videos]

    Publié: septembre 8, 2011, 7:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I know we're all supposed to be working, but you deserve a YouTube break. I took one preparing this post; so should you.

    Star Trek is 45 years old. The series was sold as "wagon train to the stars" at a time when Westerns dominated US network TV. I've pulled together some video spoofs and others for your viewing pleasure and some trivia -- all accurate from memory; I was a Trekkie in my youth. They're called Trekkers now, I believe.

    No television series predicted more future technologies than Star Trek -- everything from touchscreens to cell phones -- although much sooner than the 23rd century. It's the original series for gadget geeks. However, "Star Trek" got some things way wrong. Humanity has fled from the stars rather than reached out to them. When the series aired, the United States planned to put man on the moon by decade's end (and did). There's no space program at all today -- is there really?

    Trek Triva

    1. "Star Trek" debuted on NBC, Sept. 8, 1966; a Thursday, like today. There's some confusion about the network because CBS now owns the rights.

    2. CBS had a chance to take "Star Trek" -- creator Gene Roddenberry pitched there first -- but the network wanted just one Scifi drama, family-oriented "Lost in Space".

    3. The first episode to air was "Man Trap" about a creature capable of sucking all the salt from a human's body. But it wasn't the first episode filmed.

    4. Roddenberry filmed two pilots for NBC executives. While they were impressed with "The Cage", execs viewed it as too cerebral for viewers. So, in a first for television at that time, they requested a second pilot, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", which later aired as the series' third episode. The video below features the pilot's original opening that never aired.

    5. The original pilot featured actor Jeffrey Hunter as Captain Christopher Pike; the second pilot William Shatner as James Tiberius Kirk. In the series lexicon, Pike preceded Kirk, although he could have been the captain had NBC accepted the original pilot.

    6. "Beam me up, Scotty" is folklore. While the sentence is popular vernacular, no one spoke it during the series' three seasons on NBC. Captain Kirk said, "Beam me up, Mr. Scott".

    7. The first interracial kiss on television came during the third season of "Star Trek" (episode "Plato's Stepchildren").

    8. One of the series' best episodes -- "City on the Edge of Forever" was most disputed. Harlan Ellison's script varied dramatically from the one aired. Both are excellent works of art, but producers made the right call on the rewrite. Ellison disagreed and still fumes about it, in mid-1990s book The City on the Edge of Forever: The Original Teleplay that Became the Classic Star Trek Episode and a lawsuit filed two years ago against CBS. In 1967, the teleplay won a Hugo Award, Scifi's highest honor.

    9. Apple is having a merry-old time suing seemingly everyone developing a tablet, claiming the devises imitates iPad, but they first appeared on "Star Trek" 45 years ago.

    10. Amazon Instant Video now carries every episode from every Star Trek series -- free for Prime members. CBS started streaming the original series years ago.

    My Trek Tale

    I grew up in Aroostook County, sometimes referred to as the Crown of Maine, but commonly called "The County" statewide. Aroostook is the largest county east of the Mississippi River; it's one-fifth the state of Maine but has only one-fifth the population. During the 1960s only one US TV station served The County and had the unique distinction of being the only one anywhere permitted to be multiple network affiliates -- ABC, CBS and NBC. So the program director chose which programs on which networks would air. "Star Trek" wasn't one of them.

    One Sunday afternoon in December 1966, I flipped the channels and came across an exciting science fiction movie. Some guy had been zapped by some force that turned his ESP abilities into God-like powers. I was enthralled but disappointed when the movie ended, then excited: The announcer said: "Tune in next week for more adventures of "Star Trek". I was 7 years old. The episode: "Where No Man Has Gone Before".

    The CBC TV station across the border in New Brunswick, Canada, carried "Star Trek" but chose to air it Sunday afternoons at 2 p.m. Within weeks, the whole family would gather just to watch Trek. Hey, what else to do on snowy Sundays in Maine?

    Have you got a Trek tale to share? Please take a moment to do so in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/08/Will_Apple_steal_Windows_8_s_thunder_'

    Will Apple steal Windows 8's thunder?

    Publié: septembre 8, 2011, 12:30am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Microsoft's BUILD developer conference is almost here (save the date, September 13). It's going to be a big event for Microsoft and the official debut of Windows 8 (c`mon, you know there's going to be a developer beta).

    Apple could spoil it all, with one of its famously-timed leaks or official product announcements. With iPhone 5's launch expected as soon as October, timing would be right for an Apple spoiler. Blogger, news media and Wall Street obsession about Apple is sure to succumb to a competing gravity well that pulls attention and online posts/print stories from Windows 8 during its special week.

    Apple has skunked many competitors' events before. Windows 8 is ripe for the picking, because the user interface changes and support for tablets running ARM processors are simply so big. Then there's Windows Phone "Mango", which Microsoft will present to developers in a big way. BUILD is going to be an Apple compete-fest like Microsoft hasn't had in years. But wait! There's more. Microsoft's annual Financial Analyst Meeting takes place during the event, too. Apple's stock is high flying, while Microsoft's is laid low. How could Apple possibly resist?

    As a journalist covering BUILD, the last thing I want is another big distraction from "can't keep junk in its pants Apple". How many times must it show off the equipment as distraction to others' big things? But Apple has done it so many times before, I've got to wonder.

    Apple has refined the science of leaks and selectively-timed product announcements into an art form, and the Apple Fanclub of bloggers and journalists are so eager to oblige. Besides, people want to know. Curiosity draws attention and builds anticipation. Selective information release, by way of blogs or even leaks, generate buzz. Fanclubbers and others trip over themselves to post first and drive up pageviews, generating anticipation and providing Apple loads of free advertising.

    The examples are simply so numerous, I chose just use as few:

    * In an unprecedented move, Apple preannounced iCloud ahead of its unveiling by Chairman Steve Jobs during the Worldwide Developer Conference. I can't recall an example in recent history where Apple issued a press release announcing something before Jobs could do it himself. For all the talk of Apple innovation, Jobs and Company have yet to invent time travel. Computex and the D9 conference took place the week before WWDC; Jobs couldn't present ahead of them. I wrote about iCloud's preannouncement: "Surely Apple is looking to steal some thunder" from both events, which started the same day. Intel unveiled Ultrabook at Computex and Microsoft Windows 8's Metro UI at D9, and Apple stole attention from each show.

    * Verizon iPhone went on sale February 10, just as attendees and participants were arriving for Mobile World Congress 2011. Apple didn't participate, but its presence was everywhere.

    * Apple distracted from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's Consumer Electronics Show keynote -- and big Windows 8 news there -- by launching the Mac App Store. Suspiciously, many new product announcements came before CES started and Microsoft preempted its keynote, presumably as vendors sought to get ahead of Apple news.

    * Apple stole the thunder from other Consumer Electronic Shows -- rumors about the iPad during December 2009 ahead of its headline-stealing January 2010 announcement. Rumors about the original MacBook Air before its mid January 2008 debut. Who can forget iPhone, announced in January 2007 after weeks of rumors?

    There are many more examples of Apple's thunder-stealing ways, but these make the point. The company employs clever marketers who realize there's more to selling products than spending millions of dollars on advertising. Buzz is priceless. I've been saying for years that in business perception is everything. So is timing.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/07/Google_Offers_lights_5_more_cities__while_Groupon_burns'

    Google Offers lights 5 more cities, while Groupon burns

    Publié: septembre 7, 2011, 8:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Starting today, people living in Austin, Boston, Denver, Seattle and Washington, DC, can get local discounts from Google Offers. These five cities join New York, Portland, Ore. and San Francisco. The Groupon competitor may not have anywhere as much reach, yet, but Google Offers' expansion comes as concerns continue to rise about the category leader's longevity.

    Like Groupon, Google Offers provides daily deals with hefty discounts. For example, today's Seattle deal is half off a day pass to the local aquarium -- a fee that can be applied to a year's membership. Google plans to expand Offers to 27 more cities, including Atlanta, Baltimore, Houston, Miami, Pittsburgh and San Diego.

    What distinguishes Offers from Groupon or its competitors is Google's ability to leverage search, its existing network of services and mobile. More cell phones run Google's Android than any other mobile operating system in the United States. Offers are redeemable using Google Shopper 2.0 for Android.

    Google isn't the only big entrant Groupon should worry about. Living Social is considered to be the main competitor, but it's one of many. For example, several metropolitan newspapers have launched Groupon-like services, leveraging existing subscribers and locally-known brand names against the category leader. Among Groupon's big challenges: Acquisition and retention.

    About 10 days ago, Hitwise's Bill Trancer observed: "Overall visits to a custom category of Daily Deal & Aggregator sites were down 25 percent" from the second week of June through the third week in August. While deal fatigue is one culprit, Trancer focuses on another: "PriceGrabber released results from its Local Deals Survey in June, stating that 44 percent of respondents said they use or search daily deal Websites. However, 52 percent expressed feeling overwhelmed by the number of bargain-boasting emails they receive on a daily basis".

    But there is something quite shocking in Hitwise's look at web traffic (but not mobile). Trancer explains: "The drop-off in Groupon traffic this summer has been significant -- nearly 50 percent since its peak in the second week of June 2011... During the same time, Living Social has achieved 27 percent growth in visits to its site".

    Uh-oh, that's not good timing, given Groupon's IPO and cash burn rate. Groupon has been burning through venture capital and private investor cash like a California wildfire -- $117 million per quarter, spending $1.43 for every dollar of revenue. Spending on subscriber emails rose to $263.2 million last year from $4.5 million in 2009 -- granted on a huge influx of new subscribers. The number of Groupons sold per customer is down by one-third and revenue per subscriber is down by 37 percent.

    "While revenues grew by 2,000 percent last year, making Groupon one of the fastest growing companies in history, the cost of that growth was huge", writes Dan Solin, senior vice president of Index Funds Advisors. "The company's operating expenses increased by almost 6,000 percent".

    Groupon filed papers for the IPO in early June. The startup is looking to raise between $750 million to $1 billion, which would put the company's valuation at somewhere in the $15 billion to $20 billion range. But at the current burn, there has been increasing speculation among Wall Street watchers that Groupon needs the IPO because the burn rate will soon exceed what it can viably sustain from private investors.

    Groupon had hoped to hold the IPO sometime this month, but there are signals a delay is forthwith.

    Is that Groupon traffic drop-off a fluke? Or are there now plenty of alternatives to Groupon, Google Offers among them? Newer traffic data should answer both questions.

    Art Credit: Cartoonresource/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/07/Carol_Bartz_was_the_wrong_fit_for_Yahoo'

    Carol Bartz was the wrong fit for Yahoo

    Publié: septembre 7, 2011, 4:50am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    She has guts and character and should be CEO somewhere. Just not Yahoo.

    But Carol Bartz deserves better treatment than this, if the account of her dismissal is correct. "I’ve just been fired over the phone by Yahoo’s Chairman of the Board", she claims in an email sent to Yahoo employees. I believe it. This stinks of boardroom coup.

    Still, I'm not surprised at Bartz's sacking -- more that it didn't come sooner. In a scathing January 2009 commentary, I expressed strong misgivings about Bartz then becoming CEO, writing: "The media company is finished" and Bartz's "credentials are all wrong for Yahoo". More:

    "Yahoo is a consumer media company, but Carol is all enterprise cred. She led Autodesk and worked for both Digital Equipment Corporation and Sun Microsystems. DEC might as well be a segment on the VH1 show 'Where Are They Now?'...Sure, Autodesk is successful, but in a specialized, niche market. Going from Autodesk to Yahoo would be like changing from governor of Rhode Island to president of the United States".

    She quickly started remodeling Yahoo, cutting people and properties, which set off an exodus of hugely talented executives. In a stunning February 2009 reorganization, Bartz literally destroyed the technology and product division line of Yahoo. Among the many firings: CFO Blake Jorgensen. She promised then: "Look for this company's brand to kick ass again".

    That's the opposite of what I warned a month earlier: "If Carol cuts up Yahoo, its brand value must diminish".

    The chop-shop activities continued well into Bartz's second year as CEO. In March 2010, she dismantled Yahoo's mobile group, a stunning move considering the enormous popularity of cell phones (5 billion subscribers globally at the time) and the huge potential to sell advertising and deliver rich-media content. Within a month, Apple launched iPad. I pleaded: "Would someone please take away the axe from that woman!"

    In December 2010, Yahoo jettisoned 8 more web properties and identified nearly a dozen more as "sunset". While chopping Yahoo to pieces, Bartz bolstered some media properties, such as the May 2010 acquisition of Associated Content for $100 million. But chopping Yahoo to pieces defined her time running the media company.

    The greatest cut was by far the most long-term damaging to Yahoo, its media assets and brand. Bartz cut a deal with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to outsource search. I later wrote: "Yahoo is little more than a beloved brand without search, particularly with CEO Carol Bartz dismantling the company's other prized assets".

    Microsoft launched a $44-billion hostile takeover of Yahoo in early 2008, giving up a few months later. In May 2008, Ballmer expressed interest to acquire search only. I wrote:

    "How stupid, or perhaps desperate, do Microsoft execs think is Yahoo's board of directors? So let me try to understand: Yahoo wouldn't sell the whole company, but it would give up crown jewel search? Seriously, are Microsoft execs totally psycho? Delusional? Definitely, Yahoo's board would be nuts for taking this kind of deal...Yahoo is just going to let this crown jewel go? Yahoo started as a search company. Search is core to Yahoo's business, strategic and technological identity". I called the separation of search from Yahoo a "lobotomy".

    But stupid Bartz and Yahoo's board were, by outsourcing search to Microsoft and in process giving up future research and development. Search isn't just a hugely valuable asset because of what Yahoo was or what it could be -- or could have been: The future of search is mobile, which Google and Microsoft understand so well. Bartz sold the media company's future through the Microsoft search deal and mobile division reorganization. Microsoft and Yahoo announced the search outsourcing agreement in July 2009. Microsoft started serving up Yahoo search results in August 2010.

    Recent financials hint at Bartz's ouster. During second calendar quarter 2011, Yahoo revenue fell by 23 percent year over year, largely because of its search revenue-sharing agreement with Microsoft. Income rose by 9 percent. A quarter earlier revenue fell by 6 percent, but income by considerably more: 29 percent.

    It looks like some investors are giddy about Bartz's firing, which really should include the people doing the duty. Yahoo's board brought on Bartz and sanctioned her chopping the company to pieces and making that lobotomizing deal with Microsoft; who holds them accountable? Yahoo shares are up more than 6 percent in after-hours trading this evening.

    Photo Credit: Yodel Anecdotal/Yahoo Inc.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/06/AOL_will_ruin_TechCrunch'

    AOL will ruin TechCrunch

    Publié: septembre 6, 2011, 7:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Joe Wilcox argues that TechCrunch produces boatloads of original content using a method called process journalism. In counterpoint, "TechCrunch just exposed what is wrong with tech journalism today", Ed Oswald contends that the blog is rife with conflict of interest and questionable news reporting ethics.

    Have you been on the Internet long enough to remember Global Network Navigator -- yeah, that's GNN. It was the first web portal I used to get news and quick access to other useful sites. O'Reilly & Associates (now O'Reilly Media) launched the site in 1993. AOL bought GNN in 1995 and closed it in 1996, quite unceremoniously. The domain is still active and points to Huffington Post. Old-time Netters will remember GNN and a long list of other properties and products purchased by AOL that were later abandoned or closed -- all part of a decade-and-a-half plan to reinvent as a new media company.

    Another AOL acquisition is on the hit list. TechCrunch, rather than writing tech news, is tech news following several days of tumultuous commentaries both inside and outside the organization. The AOL property, acquired in September 2010 for $30 million, is ripe for major shakeup. What was good about TechCrunch could be gone by year's end; heck by the end of the week, if core staffers bolt or are canned. Love him or hate -- and there seems to be little between these emotions -- TechCrunch founder Michael Arrington is out, or soon will be in the inevitable AOL slaughter.

    Arrington's fate, and that of TechCrunch, was certain in February 2011, when AOL announced the $315 million acquisition of Huffington Post. It was never a question of if but when things would change. There isn't room enough for two big blog media personalities at AOL, particularly with such opposing worldviews about news acquisition.

    About 90 minutes after I posted, Arrington made a startling admission and demand of AOL:

    "I believe that AOL should be held to their promise when they acquired us to give TechCrunch complete editorial independence. As of late last week TechCrunch no longer has editorial independence. Some argue that the circumstances demanded it. I disagree. Editorial independence was never supposed to be an easy thing for AOL to give us. But it was never meaningful if it shatters the first time it is put to the test".

    Perhaps editorial independence looked easier 12 months ago, before AOL handed over control of its blogs to Huffington. Arrington:

    "We’ve proposed two options to AOL.

    1. Reaffirmation of the editorial independence promised at the time of acquisition. Given the current circumstances, that means autonomy from Huffington Post, unfettered editorial independence and a blanket right to editorial self determination. To put it simply, TechCrunch would stay with AOL but would be independent of the Huffington Post.

    or

    2. Sell TechCrunch back to the original shareholders.

    If AOL cannot accept either of these options, and no other creative solution can be found, I cannot be a part of TechCrunch going forward".

    My content below takes on richer context in light of Arrington's official response to AOL.

    The Huffington Way

    Ariana Huffington is the queen of news aggregation, and it is a heap successful business model that many long-time journalists loathe. Huffington also is queen of free; the site summarizes news content many other organizations pay some writer to produce. The practice is now widespread, as other sites imitate the aggregation-by-summarization model.

    By contrast, TechCrunch mostly produces original content, which is an increasing rarity on the web, particularly among blogs. There has been fierce debate about Arrington's ethics -- running a site that reports news about companies he invests in -- but few critics can legitimately argue that TechCrunch doesn't produce boatloads of original content. From that perspective, TechCrunch is a model of traditional journalism and values of in-depth, original reporting.

    But that's not the kind of content company AOL wants to be, and that's warning to other profile AOL acquired blogs -- Engadget and The Unofficial Apple Weblog. Already, Engadget had a mass exodus of senior staff, following the Huffington Post acquisition, to form a new tech news site. Engadget editor Paul Miller left within 10 days of the acquisition. The Huffington Postification of AOL media sites had begun.

    Last month, AOL CEO Tim Armstrong couldn't gush enough about Huffington Post, in the media company's second-quarter earnings press release and on the conference call. "The Huffington Post traffic surpassed The New York Times during the quarter and passes nearly 10 million monthly unique users", Armstrong said. AOL launched 17 new sites during the quarter, mostly from the Huffington Post Media Group. "In the consumer side area, we launched AOL Healthy Living, Huffington Post Canada and Huffington Post U.K., Huffington Post Women, Huffington Post Celebrity, Huffington Post Parent, Huffington Post BlackVoices", Armstrong said. "We've been very busy in the content business".

    The AOL Way

    Change is inevitable at AOL, which has been trying to reinvent as a media company since the mid 1990s. GNN was one of the earliest casualties. In her November 1996 SFGate.com news story on the closure, Julia Angwin wrote about the "little-known GNN": It "actually helped make the World Wide Web a household name". That's a fact. As did the more visible Netscape, which AOL bought and later killed, just as browser competition was starting to pick up again. The company has smart sense for good products or properties but often doesn't understand what to do with them, once it has them.

    Overnight, TechCrunch's MG Siegler wrote overly-whiny "TechCrunch may be over as we know it":

    "This is a post I never thought I’d have to write. Unfortunately, I do. And the worst part about it is that it should be Michael Arrington writing this post, not me. But he can’t. TechCrunch is on the precipice. As soon as tomorrow, Mike may be thrown out of the company he founded. Or he may not. No one knows...

    By now, if you read TechCrunch, you likely know about the nuclear situation that has exploded over the past several days. Mike unveiled an investing entity known as the 'CrunchFund' with full AOL support -- so much support, mind you, that they’re the largest backers of the fund -- only to have his legs kicked out from under him due to what can only be described as nonsensical political infighting and really poor communication. To make matters worse, some Journalists (with a big “J” and even bigger senses of entitlement) have".

    Siegler explains how he sees TechCrunch differences from traditional journalism in a personal blog post. He attributes the news blogs' success to its lose organizational structure.

    The Arrington Way

    I see more fundamental reasons for the site's success. By my observation of TechCrunch business practices, Arrington, who is an attorney by trade, applies lawyer’s ethics to the blogging operation. Lawyer principles seek to protect client relationships. Pretty much anything else is OK, except disclosing information clients share with the attorney. Journalists protect sources, which isn't so dissimilar, but are obliged by other ethical standards obligations -- like getting the facts straight. Lawyers are not bound by such principles and they often misrepresent things to benefit their clients. Lawyers are notorious for floating out trial balloons -- information, misinformation or rumors to gauge somebody’s reaction. TechCrunch regularly floats trial balloons by way of rumor stories. The blog uses rumors to advance the reporting process. The stories generate helpful comments and other leads.

    Traditional journalists are expected to get the facts right before a story is published. TechCrunch takes a different approach. "Stories evolve on our blog", Arrington explained in June 2009. "It can start with a rumor, which we may post if we find it credible and/or it’s being so widely circulated that the fact of the rumor’s existence is newsworthy in itself. But then we evolve a post to get to the truth".

    There's a name for it: process journalism, which Jeff Jarvis, associate professor of journalism at City University of New York, explained two summers ago. Print journalism is obsessed with perfection. A story isn’t ready until it is authoritatively written and fact checked, which makes sense when the medium is print. The story needs to be nearly as perfect as possible. Jarvis explains about the myth of perfection held by journalism and some other industries:

    "If you have just one chance to put out a product and it has to serve everyone the same, you come to believe it’s perfect because it has to be... Online, the story, the reporting, the knowledge are never done and never perfect. That doesn’t mean that we revel in imperfection…It just means that we do journalism differently, because we can. We have our standards, too, and they include collaboration, transparency, letting readers into the process, and trying to say what we don’t know when we publish -- as caveats, rather than afterward -- as corrections".

    For TechCrunch, the process can be surprisingly good reading. I haven’t done an official count, but I’d guess that TechCrunch posts more unfinished stories than the more complete kind published by, say, the New York Times. TechCrunch stories evolve -- and, I must assert, too often from unsubstantiated rumors. It’s a process I must grudgingly acknowledge that TechCrunch can be quite transparent about. The process, of the story unfolding over time, produces original content that often is interesting reading, and readers participate in that process, through comments and other social media tools.

    AOL puts that process at risk. Where Huffington Post processes news stories like pieces of coal moving down an assembly line, TechCrunch uses process journalism to produce diamonds. Which is more valuable? They both have their place, but as a journalist I'll take TechCrunch over Huffington Post every day of the year.

    Photo Credit: Joi Ito

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/05/Is_Apple_engaging_in_innovation_by_intimidation_'

    Is Apple engaging in innovation by intimidation?

    Publié: septembre 5, 2011, 6:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    "So the next day, my father went to see him; only this time with Luca Brasi -- and within an hour, he signed a release, for a certified check for $1,000...Luca Brasi held a gun to his head and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature, would be on the contract". -- Michael Corelone, "The Godfather" movie.

    There has been much debate about whether the recent rash of patent lawsuits will stifle innovation. Debate no more. In its patent claims against HTC, Apple is targeting Android creator Andy Rubin for work done for the Mac maker -- get this -- in the early 1990s. The message is clear: If you ever worked for Apple, we'll sue your new employer, too, simply because you were here when X, Y or Z patented software process or technology was developed.

    Consider HP. What if the computing giant viewed TouchPad as more trouble than it's worth, from an Apple patent lawsuit perspective, versus potential profits and marketing position. HP's decision to kill off TouchPad after only six weeks of sales is perplexing -- but perhaps more sensible in light of recent patent litigation. Jon Rubinstein helped Apple invent the iPod before going to Palm and later becoming CEO (June 2009). Palm hired Rubinstein to sprinkle some of that Apple-like magic into its products, and he did; webOS is easily the most fluid and synchronization-capable mobile operating system available today.

    Surely Rubinstein's work for Apple creates all kinds of potential patent problems for HP, whether webOS or TouchPad. The legitimacy of any patent claims is immaterial to Apple's willingness to sue and entangle any competitor in costly and distracting litigation.

    Then there's Amazon. Rubinstein joined Amazon's board of directors in December 2010, and the company is working on an Android tablet that many analysts are already calling iPad killer sight unseen. Why? Because Amazon proved its mettle jump-starting the long-languishing ebook market. Kindle and Kindle Store are huge successes -- the e-reader is category leader, based on shipments, according to IDC. Amazon also is expected to price its Android tablet well below iPad 2. Then there is its depth of retail experience, supporting digital stores (games, music and movies), Android app store and the likelihood Amazon retail shops will be a core part of the modified Android to consider. Yeah, an Amazon tablet could be heap loads of iPad competition.

    If you listen really, really carefully, you can hear Apple lawyers clamoring in the distance discussing the lawsuit. What will Apple allege Rubinstein learned about patented processes or technology while working there?

    Apple's Legal Strategy

    Rubin is the model for personal attacks against Rubinstein and other traitors -- eh, former Apple employees.

    Rubin was a "low-level engineer" at Apple, when his bosses developed one of the disputed patents in the case against HTC -- U.S. Patent No. 6,343,263:

    "A data transmission system having a real-time data engine for processing isochronous streams of data includes an interface device that provides a physical and logical connection of a computer to any one or more of a variety of different types of data networks. Data received at this device is presented to a serial driver, which disassembles different streams of data for presentation to appropriate data managers. A device handler associated with the interface device sets up data flow paths, and also presents data and commands from the data managers to a real-time data processing engine. Flexibility to handle any type of data, such as voice, facsimile, video and the like, that is transmitted over any type of communication network with any type of real-time engine is made possible by abstracting the functions of each of the elements of the system from one another. This abstraction is provided through suitable interfaces that isolate the transmission medium, the data manager and the real-time engine from one another".

    This "`263 real-time API patent" -- as intellectual property analyst Florian Mueller describes it -- was developed for products released in a different computing era for another operating system. Apple's iOS is based on Mac OS X, which foundation is NeXT, which the company purchased in late 1996. That's how cofounder Steve Jobs returned to Apple, 11 years after getting booted out in a boardroom coup -- NeXT's acquisition. The patent certainly could apply to iOS or other operating systems. I'm no patent attorney, of course, but there's two things obvious enough:

    * The description is overly broad and surely is overlapped by other patents held by other companies.

    * Apple filed the patent in August 1994, which shows just how far back the company is willing to claim infringement related to former employees.

    The US Patent and Trademark Office granted the patent in January 2002. James Nichols and John Lynch are listed as inventors. According to a recent Apple filing in the HTC lawsuit: "Mr. Rubin began his career at Apple in the early 1990s and worked as a low-level engineer specifically reporting to the inventors of the '263 patent at the exact time their invention was being conceived and developed...It is thus no wonder that the infringing Android platform used the claimed subsystem approach of the '263 patent that allows for flexibility of design and enables the platform to be 'highly customizable and expandable' as HTC touts".

    Warning to Former Apple Employees

    Mueller explains: "It's possible that [Rubin] then contributed to the implementation of the claimed invention". Much depends on whether Apple can convince the International Trade Commission or another legal entity that Rubin "willfully infringed" on a software process his former bosses worked on when he was a "low-level engineer" in the early 1990s.

    Mueller writes: "If the ITC upholds the initial determination that the '263 patent is valid and infringed by Android, Google should be very concerned. An ITC decision doesn't bind the federal courts, but the likelihood of Apple being able to enforce this patent -- and thereby have Andy Rubin declared a willful infringer of a patent developed at Apple while he worked there, by the very people he worked for -- would certainly be much greater than if the ITC decided differently".

    I ask then: What claims could Apple make against former high-level employees like Rubinstein or "low-level" employees who left and succeeded elsewhere?

    Apple has failed to compete successfully against Android, so the company has engaged a patent war -- innovation by intimidation. Android smartphone subscriber market share was 41.7 percent at the end of July, up 5.4 point in three months, according to comScore -- that's for the United States. By comparison, iPhone/iOS grew by 1 point to 27-percent share. Globally, Android smartphone share was 48 percent in second quarter, according to Canalys.

    At Apple, it has long been operating practice: our way or the highway (Just ask company partners and customers). Now Apple will run you down if you do. Or in going another way you challenge Apple to drag race (compete with it). Apple thugs (its lawyers) and cops (the courts) will take you to jail (block your product from shipping) for even thinking about dragging Apple. The company then wins by default and keeps its title of drag-race king.

    Does all this legal activity stifle innovation? That's a question for mobile and cloud startups or companies that employ former Apple employees to answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/03/I_shacked_up_with_Chromebook'

    I shacked up with Chromebook

    Publié: septembre 3, 2011, 8:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Earlier this week, writing for ZDNet, Scott Raymond proclaims: "Chromebooks are dead, they just don't know it yet". He makes a good argument, which I partly agree with regarding Android tablets. I'll get to that later. He also asks: "Why would I want to switch to a Chromebook when my MacBook Air runs OS X and Windows and is at least a pound lighter?" That's exactly what I did -- sold my MacBook Air and switched to Chromebook, which I used for the entire month of August; still today.

    Chromebook is an interesting invention, because of the concept: The browser is the operating system -- well, Chrome running on top of Linux. The browser is the user interface. There is no desktop, although file system and local storage are accessible. Acer and Samsung each make two models, both running Chrome OS, one with WiFi-only and the other with 3G, too.

    Sharp Edges

    To be clear at the outset, Chromebook isn't for everyone, and probably not for most people. Chrome OS has some sharp edges that will bleed the user experience for many, if not most, users. While enjoying the overall computing experience and finding plenty of performance and utility, I couldn't do video editing, and photo editing (using Picnik) requires some sacrifices (such as shooting in JPG rather than RAW). Some Web-based services are either torturous to use or behave badly. For example, AIM is dreadfully taxing on overall system performance and the group messaging service we use here at Betanews reports me as idle when I switch browser tabs. These are minor annoyances I can live with that others wouldn't.

    Adobe Flash plugin frequently crashes -- and that's not surprising -- as does Google Talk, which is unexpected. Browser tabs crash too often, as in sometimes on my Chromebook compared to almost never when using Chrome browser on Mac OS X. So there's no confusion: I've been getting Chrome OS updates through the regular release channel rather than the beta, which is an option, so that's not the reason for any crashes. The OS locked up only once during the 35 days I have used Chromebook as primary PC and later the only one.

    Benefit: crash recovery. However, Chrome OS recovers faster than any operating system I've ever used. Whenever I've had to reboot, mainly because Flash screwed up something, Chromebook powered off, powered on and returned to the previous state in typically less than 20 seconds. I should emphasize: Returned to previous state, meaning all tabs restored where they were with the writing or other work exactly how it was before the reboot. This amazing recovery capability is one of Chromebook's most differentiating benefits compared to Mac OS X or Windows 7. But by no means is it the only one.

    December to September

    I first used Chrome OS on Google's unbranded Cr-48 test laptop for 7 days in December. I had another 7-day go round in March, when my MacBook Air failed and Apple Store replaced the five-month old computer. I was so psyched by the quality of customer service, I bought an iPhone 4 that night and iPad 2 the next day, when it went on sale here in the United States. I sold all three Apple products in August, as part of a broader experiment -- to go all Google products and services. Next week, I'll start writing about that Google-only experience -- hopefully. I had expected to throughout much of last month, but typically slow news month August was anything but.

    I am using the Samsung Series 5 Chromebook with WiFi and 3G. Basic config: 12.1-inch LED display with 1280 x 800 resolution and 16:10 aspect ratio; 1.66GHz Intel Atom N570 processor; 2GB DDR3 memory (not expandable); 16GB solid-state storage; integrated NM10 graphics; ALC272 integrated audio; stereo speakers (which in my tests deliver surprisingly rich sound for the class of machine); internal microphone; 1-megapixel webcam; WiFi N; Verizon 3G (on higher-end model); headphone/Mic jack; two USB ports; 4-in-1 memory card reader (SD / SDHC / SDXC / MMC); and 6-cell battery (with stated life of 8.5 hours).

    This model lists for $499.99 but Amazon sells it for $50 less and the WiFi-only one for $399.99. The Acer model has similar specs but 11.6-inch glossy display; Amazon sells the WiFi model for $349.99 and the 3G cousin, which is backordered, for $429.99.

    Crappy Netbook?

    Chromebook critics often cite the need for constant Internet connection as reason -- the only one needed -- for why the portable is FAIL. Many of these people have never used Chromebook. We live in the connected era, where most everyone needs a network or Internet connection all the time. Air travel is one of the major exceptions. But even there Chromebook provides adequate offline access to Gmail, Google Calendar and Google Docs, as well as some applications. Hey, you can play Angry Birds if offline, baby.

    My Chromebook has a Verizon 3G cellular modem and 100MB free data per month; it's a benefit guaranteed for two years. I have yet to activate the service, because I've always been able to find a WiFi connection. Not once during the last month did I lose one second of productivity because the Internet wasn't available.

    Chromebook critics also often compare the laptop to netbooks for price, configuration and battery life, arguing that at least netbooks run a real operating system. Oh yeah? So what's Linux then? I would take Chromebook over a netbook running Windows 7 Starter Edition any day. At my daughter's high school, students use netbooks for a required college preparatory class. Considering they also use Google Docs and Search -- and many of them Gmail -- and spend most of their computing time in a browser, Chromebook would be better fit.

    Google has a subscription program for schools -- $20 per Chromebook per student per month. Earlier this week, Google spotlighted three schools that signed up for the program. One institution got 110 Chromebooks. For that $2,200 per month, Google provides tech support and Chromebook replacement/upgrades.

    Benefit: frequent updates: Google frequently updates Chrome OS, which removes a major administration headache, whether for these schools, businesses or the average Jane or Joe. Chrome OS development is closely aligned with Chrome browser, which is on a fast-track of six-week cycles -- generally with three different browsers at some stage -- during the time. Google has released four browser upgrades this year so far. My colleague Larry Seltzer argues this is a pain for IT; I won't disagree.

    But when it comes to Chrome OS, frequent updates are a benefit. I'm not exactly sure the count, but Chrome OS updated at least five times during the last 35 days. Each time, something got better. It's refreshing to get new features and see performance improvements on a regular basis rather than waiting for major updates for Mac OS X and Windows. My Chromebook is better today than it was last week. I can't complain about that.

    Switcher's Story

    I made Chromebook my primary PC on July 31. Because I was using Chrome on MacBook Air as my browser, moving was about as difficult as flipping a light switch.

    Benefit: easy setup. Chromebook boots up faster than any computer I've ever used, in about 13 seconds and 1.5 seconds from sleep. To set up Chromebook, I powered on, selected wireless network, entered Google account credentials and turned on browser sync. Within seconds of that last action, Chromebook synced tabs, web apps and other stuff from Google's cloud. That's it. My mom inherited the Cr-48, and setting it up was that easy. It's a truly amazing benefit. Because of Chrome sync, the experience follows me to other computers or should I switch Chomebooks.

    Benefit: guest users. Chrome OS supports multiple Google user accounts and there is a guest one, which is ideal for people who sometimes share their laptop. Say, kids, concerned Arnie or Abby will get your Facebook log in and ruin your reputation? Chromebook lets you log on without giving away your credentials left in cookies or password manager on your friends' accounts.

    During my first week with Chromebook, I used it about 90 percent of the time, falling back to my wife's MacBook Pro. It was easier to do some image capture and photo-editing tasks there, for example. I also needed my wife's computer to upload my library of about 11,800 songs to Google Music beta, which took the better part of 40 hours. Now I stream from my own library or from MOG. I spent $7.99 on music last month, a huge reduction from buying. That's the cost for streaming from MOG and downloading tunes to Samsung Nexus S for offline listening.

    Following BetaNews' relaunch on August 20, I finally moved to 100-percent Chromebook. There is nothing that I typically would do on MacBook Air I can't on Chromebook. I'll look at this in-depth user experience perhaps in a follow-up post.

    Google has done a remarkably good job connecting Chrome OS to its other services. For example, if I receive an email with Word file in .docx format, clicking the attachment opens Google Docs in view mode, and I have the option to edit the document. Another example: In file manager, if I highlight a photo, there is open to "send to Picasa".

    But some of the rough edges cut arteries. I recently received some .rtf files that couldn't be opened for editing in Google Docs. WTH? What's more basic than rich text format? I had to open the files on my wife's MacBook Pro in Apple Pages. Another: ZIP files. Unless the Chrome OS update received two days ago changed something, there's clunky support for ZIP files. Say, Google, this is Platform 101 stuff.

    Benefit: battery life. One of Chromebook's best benefits is battery life. I typically unplug from power around 4 p.m. and take the laptop out into our apartment complex's courtyard, where there is a set of table and four chairs I bought from Costco. The set is there for public use, but I'm its biggest user. I typically work there for three or four hours before shutting the lid for the night. Chromebook remains unplugged overnight before I resume work, back in the courtyard, around 6:30 a.m., where I stay until the mid-day sun or dead battery drives me out, which typically is between 11 a.m. and Noon. You do the math. I typically have no less than 10 tabs open. From full charge, the laptop claims about 8 hours battery time. That's typically the least I get.

    By comparison, the MacBook Air used before Chromebook typically delivered 4 hours battery life, sometimes a bit more. So unplugging on a full charge at 6:30 a.m., the Apple laptop rarely made it to 11 a.m. and more often an hour earlier. By measure of productive time when mobile Chromebook is an exceptional performer. Chrome OS is major reason. Rather than running bloated apps on the desktop, lighter apps or connected services run in browser tabs. If not for Flash's negative impact, battery life might be considerably better even.

    Android or Chrome OS?

    My big problem with Chrome OS is Android. Why have both? Android 3.x Honeycomb is visually more appealing than Chrome OS and there are many more useful apps. Do you really need one when you've got the other? I think not. Of the two, I would choose Android on a tablet over Chrome OS on a laptop, assuming all functionality was equal -- and it's not yet. The browser is the key.

    Scott Raymond writes: "Apparently the WebKit folks are working to consolidate the source code for WebKit and Chromium. The end result of this would be that the browser on Android tablets will eventually be replaced by a Chrome browser...if we had the Chrome browser on an Android tablet, why would we want a Chromebook? For the price of a Chromebook you could pick up an Android tablet with a keyboard that connects via dock or bluetooth. You would have the same functionality, plus the added capabilities of Android".

    I agree. The Android tablet gets my vote over Chromebook, much as I like it -- rough edges and all.

    I'm now debating what next? Should I continue using Chromebook through end of September (even longer), or switch to something else? While I've found using Chrome OS satisfying enough, I expect Microsoft to release some kind of Windows 8 beta around September 13, when the BUILD conference begins. Returning to MacBook Air is an option, which would let me run Mac OS X Lion, too. That's new enough to deserve more of my time, and perhaps a review. There are also plenty of enticing Windows laptops worth trying and reviewing. I'm taking suggestions for makes and models, if you've got one.

    Another option is to go Android tablet solo, even if just for a week. I replaced my mainstream laptop with Chromebook. Could I do the same with, say, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (which I have) or the Motorola XOOM (which I don't have)? I'm itching to find out

    Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/02/Android_makes_big_gains_in_the_post_Steve_Jobs_era'

    Android makes big gains in the post-Steve Jobs era

    Publié: septembre 2, 2011, 5:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Apple cofounder Steve Jobs has repeatedly talked about the post-PC era. But he resigned last week as Apple's CEO. The post-Steve Jobs era has come, and Android is doing just fine whipping iPhone in his absence. This week, comScore put Android's US smartphone share way up against iPhone's minuscule gains, and today Nielsen added supporting stats, including some startling buying intention trends.

    "What?" You ask. "Jobs has only been gone a week". Yes, but as I explained over the weekend, his influence waned long ago. Tim Cook, while only CEO since Thursday last, has been running Apple since January. How's iPhone doing against Android, during the Tim Cook era? Certainly not bad, but not as well as many people believe. I was talking with a neighbor tonight about phones and he was sure that iPhone outsells Android. I hear this often.

    The comScore and Nielsen data also impugns the Apple fanclub of bloggers and journalists who just months ago cried Android's doom based on wrong presumptions about Verizon iPhone. Late-June TechCrunch post "The Verizon iPhone Halted Android's Surge. The iPhone 5 Could Reverse It" reflects the kind of misinformation spread by Apple fanclubbers.

    Android gained a stunning 5.4 points of share sequentially, based on smartphone subscribers, during the three months ended July 31, according to comScore. By comparison, Apple's platform grew by 1 point of share. That puts iPhone share at 27 percent compared to 41.8 percent for Android. For the same three-month period, Nielsen put Android smartphone share at 40 percent and iPhone/iOS at 28 percent.

    Nielsen also measures buying intentions. Don Kellogg, Nielsen's director of Telecom Research and Insights, blogs:

    "Among those who say they are likely to get a new smartphone in the next year, approximately one third say they want their next smartphone to be an iPhone and one third say they want an Android device. However, among those who say they are usually the first to embrace new technologies, “Innovators” or the earliest of early adopters, Android leads as the “Next Desired Operating System” – 40 percent for Android compared to 32 percent for iOS. (Survey respondents were asked several questions to determine their attitudes toward new technologies.)".

    Android is unstoppable, unless something changes. Perhaps iPhone 5 will be so astonishing or people will find iCloud so remarkable, sales with soar. Cook could also show the kind of innovation in logistics that Apple showed in product design and marketing under his predecessor, such as take drastic pricing action when iPhone 5 ships. In May, I explained how Apple could stop the Android army's advances by cleverly pricing iPhone 4 after its successor ships. Follow the success of the iPhone 3GS, which AT&T sells for $49, and offer iPhone 4 or a 4S model for, say, $99. Globally. Free would be even better, with carrier subsidy, in some regions.

    That's the kind of risk Cook should consider during the early post-Steve Jobs era. It's a trade-off of margins for marketshare but would open new categories of buyers for Apple, particularly in emerging markets. With respect to pricing and margins, Apple has long played it safe. Is it time for change?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/02/Netflix_shares_plunge_after_Starz_ends_streaming_contract'

    Netflix shares plunge after Starz ends streaming contract

    Publié: septembre 2, 2011, 2:57am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Investors pounded Netflix in after-hours trading today, after Starz Entertainment cut off contract renegotiation. Netflix shares fell by 8.7 percent to $212.99. The stock had closed at $233.27. Starz content is a major anchor of Netflix's steaming service.

    "Starz Entertainment has ended contract renewal negotiations with Netflix", Starz CEO Chris Albrecht says in a statement. "When the agreement expires on February 28, 2012, Starz will cease to distribute its content on the Netflix streaming platform".

    While Starz is going it won't be gone for six months, so there's no immediate effect on Netflix or its customers.

    Starz may be looking at the success of HBO GO as a future direction. "This decision is a result of our strategy to protect the premium nature of our brand by preserving the appropriate pricing and packaging of our exclusive and highly valuable content", Albrecht says. "With our current studio rights and growing original programming presence, the network is in an excellent position to evaluate new opportunities and expand its overall business". Controlling the streaming experience like HBO does -- where the media player and content is available exclusively to subscribers -- would be one alternative.

    The timing couldn't be worse for Netflix, at least symbolically. Controversial price increases went into effect today. Netflix announced the price increases in mid July, and negative subscriber reaction was immediate.

    More than 4,200 people responded to a Netflix pricing poll conducted by BetaNews. We asked Netflix subscribers how they would respond to the price increases:

    * 58.44%: cancel account

    * 26.49%: go streaming-only

    * 8.38%: go DVD-only

    * 6.69%: go DVD and streaming

    Starz's exit could lead to even more people abandoning the service. I'll stick with Netflix steaming. Will you?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/01/Windows_8_has_a_split_personality'

    Windows 8 has a split personality

    Publié: septembre 1, 2011, 6:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The new operating system, which is expected in developer beta in about two weeks, will take not one but two approaches to main user interface. Windows 8 will come with the streamlined, touch-friendly Metro and quasi-traditional file system. It's quasi because Microsoft is replacing major elements of Windows Explorer with the Office Ribbon.

    Earlier this week I expressed my horror learning of the Ribbon's role in Windows 8, which quelled my excitement about the Metro user interface. But Microsoft has set the record straight, and I'm feeling good about Windows 8 again. You should too.

    Before continuing, an apology. Steven Sinofsky blogged about the two-UI approach about 27 hours ago. You should be reading this post on Wednesday. But in the aftermath of the atomic bomb dropped by the Justice Department yesterday -- its civil suit to block AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile -- I missed Sinofsky's post. I was behind writing and editing all day and didn't check my RSS feeds until late evening, when I saw his post.

    "We started planning Windows 8 during the summer of 2009 (before Windows 7 shipped)", Sinofsky writes. "From the start, our approach has been to reimagine Windows, and to be open to revisiting even the most basic elements of the user model, the platform and APIs, and the architectures we support. Our goal was a no compromise design".

    What Sinofsky means by "no compromise":

    1. Maintaining Microsoft's longstanding single-most important operating system design tenet: Backwards compatibility. That any new version of Windows must provide support for existing applications and APIs. The approach has long held back Windows, I contend. But Microsoft has a huge install base of customers, the majority businesses, for which dramatic platform changes can be costly and disruptive.

    Sinofsky writes: "The role of the Windows desktop is clear. It powers the hundreds of thousands of existing apps that people rely on today, a vast array of business software, and provides a level of precision and control that is essential for certain tasks. The things that people do today on PCs don’t suddenly go away just because there are new Metro style apps...We knew as we designed the Windows 8 UI that you can’t just flip a bit overnight and turn all of that history into something new. In fact, that is exactly what some people are afraid of us doing".

    2. Pushing Windows forward for newer-class devices, such as touchscreen tablets. Metro UI will be new, without all the legacy baggage for those customers looking to leap ahead. The approach is Microsoft's way of pushing the Windows experience forward while providing a safety net for legacy applications and processes. Customers can live in the future or the past, if they like -- or straddle between them. This is Windows 8's split personality.

    Sinofsky explains: "Why not just start over from scratch? Why not just remove all of the desktop features and only ship the Metro experience?...We believe there is room for a more elegant, perhaps a more nuanced, approach. You get a beautiful, fast and fluid, Metro style interface and a huge variety of new apps to use...If you want to stay permanently immersed in that Metro world, you will never see the desktop—we won’t even load it (literally the code will not be loaded) unless you explicitly choose to go there! This is Windows reimagined".

    3. Providing developers with tools necessary for both user experiences. I'll be watching the execution on this one, as surely will be many Microsoft customers and partners. Microsoft will have lots more to say about developing apps and how the two UI experiences will mess together at the BUILD conference, which starts September 13.

    Sinofsky briefly explains: "This is an ambitious undertaking -- it involves tools, APIs, languages, UI conventions and even some of the most basic assumptions about a PC...Developers can target the APIs that make sense for the software they wish to deliver".

    I'm truly excited about the Metro UI and see it as a potentially huge step forward in user interfaces. It's the kind of innovation that makes Apple's newest Mac OS version, Lion, and the forthcoming iOS 5 look dated. It's also the kind of innovation that would get huge blog and news media coverage if done by Apple but is too much ignored because Microsoft is the developer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/09/01/Will_you_buy_Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_'

    Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S II?

    Publié: septembre 1, 2011, 12:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Perhaps if you live outside the United States or are a US-based hard-core phone geek, you already bought Galaxy S II. But for the majority of us, the big chance to score one of these big-screen beauts will be September 16 or 18, when they go on sale at Sprint and AT&T, respectively.

    The United States is one of the last countries where the Galaxy S II launched -- Tuesday night. Heck, even China got the smartphone before us. But it's coming. Are you itching to get your grubby hands on one?

    There are lots of considerations. Verizon subscribers are shut out, as the carrier chose the Samsung Droid Charge instead. T-Mobile announced the phone but no price or launch date. Sprint released pricing -- $199.99 -- but not AT&T. Some Android enthusiasts might prefer to hold out for the rumored Nexus Prime (my choice) because they want the pure Google experience and latest Gingerbread (or Ice Cream Sandwich) version. Others might look at 4.3-inch or 4.52-inch screens as making the phones too big (my opinion).

    Then there is iPhone 5. Do you wait for it, or take the Galaxy S II right now? All three US variants are 4G -- iPhone might not be. There's Super AMOLED display, Gorilla glass, 8MP camera, 1080p video recording and microSD for expanding storage. Apple's next-gen smartphone is an unknown. Do you wait or throw the dice?

    You tell me. That's what this post is for. Before you respond, some existing owners have some advice for you.

    "My 2 months old Samsung Galaxy II is showing seriously low battery performance, now requesting a recharge before the end of the day, under light use", Pierre Dybman comments.

    Battery life has been a contentiously debated topic on support and other user forums. Most of the reviews I've seen either don't mention battery life or find it to be adequate. "The battery life is appalling, I can't believe reviewers ignore this or even praise its battery life", Betanews reader TomasF complains.

    According to Samsung, AT&T's S2 has battery life of (gasp) 3 hours continuous talk time. My God, could that be a typo? By comparison, the larger Epic 4G Touch from Sprint has 8.7 hours battery life with continuous talk time. Surely bigger screen means more battery consumption. But Sprint has chosen a substantially higher-capacity battery -- 1800 mAh, compared to AT&T's 1650 mAh.

    As a baseline, my Nexus S has a 1500mA battery. Samsung doesn't give talk time, but Google puts it at 6 hours. I certainly get 4 hours continuous talk, at the least, and for daily data and calling recharge about every 40 hours. For heavy use, I can get through a regular work day (for me typically more than 10 hours).


    Samsung Galaxy S II is available internationally and goes on sale in the United States on 9-16-11. Will you buy Galaxy S II?

    My guess: Sprint S2 buyers will be a whole lot more satisfied with battery life than those choosing AT&T.

    Size is another consideration. My Nexus S, which has a 4-inch screen, measures 63mm wide, 123.9mm high and 10.88mm thick and weighs 129 grams. Sprint's Epic 4G Touch is 69.6mm wide, 129.9mm high and 9.59mm thick and weighs 129 grams. The larger phone is thinner and weighs the same!

    "As for the size of the phone, it's light enough, but it is getting really wide, and people with smaller hands (like me) may find it a little uncomfortable, at least not fit anymore for one hand use in some cases", Dybman explains.

    Commenter Adamodeus looks forward to the larger size phone: "4.5 inches are a very welcome change from the puny screens of smaller phones. The days of 'the smaller the cooler' went the way of the dinosaurs when the Nokia 9210 Communicator was born and decimated the markets in its heyday. Today, we watch movies and play games on our phones, which is why the postage stamp iPod screens went the way of dinosaurs too".

    For you there remains the simple question: Will you buy Samsung Galaxy S II? Please answer in comments, and there's the poll above.

    Photo Credit: Marcus Carlsson

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/31/Social_CRM_is_a_sure_way_to_lose_money__for_now'

    Social CRM is a sure way to lose money, for now

    Publié: août 31, 2011, 10:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    That's the takeaway from Gartner, which has released a forecast for Social CRM. While the market is expected to generate $1 billion in revenue next year, there are more than 100 vendors competing, the majority of which are unprofitable or take in less than $1 million. The market is growing, but it's too small for the number of participants. Social CRM accounts for just 5 percent of the total client-relationship management market.

    The problem is customer adoption. "Until recently, many companies have treated social CRM as a series of experiments and tactical purchases", Adam Sarner, Gartner research director, says in a statement. "Few have a social CRM strategy or established metrics to measure its effect on hard business results. Different departments, employees and managers implement different types of applications for different purposes.

    "This lack of consistency among buyers keeps the market fragmented into at least three segments: sales, marketing and customer service, with many small vendors taking various approaches to address one area, approach or use case. The majority of vendors that survive and thrive in the mid-term will offer tools that can address multiple use cases in more than one department".

    Gartner identified five areas of predicted research and development:

    1. Social features integrated into traditional CRM processes (including traditional software and cloud services).

    2. New tools for measuring return on investment.

    3. Increased integration with popular social networking services, notably Facebook and Twitter.

    4. Greater adoption of analytics tools or services for measuring social interactions.

    5. New social CRM usage scenarios, which Gartner didn't specifically identify.

    "The need for integration will favor more-traditional CRM vendors that add social capabilities. Integration did not matter much when enterprises were just experimenting with social CRM" Sarner says.

    "However, companies are asking for the integration of social data with other customer data within sales, marketing and customer service processes, which will require the integration of social CRM with applications such as a knowledgebase for customer service, multichannel campaign management, sales force automation or e-commerce, Web content and Web analytic applications, master data management, and even back-office applications".

    Greater integration could benefit companies with existing CRM products, such as Microsoft, Oracle and Salesforce.com, further driving a wedge between the plethora of smaller vendors and future profitability.

    Photo Credit: S.John/Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/31/What_if_all_your_Facebook_friends_were_fakes___Infographic_'

    What if all your Facebook friends were fakes? [Infographic]

    Publié: août 31, 2011, 9:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    As the debate over whether or not Google+ should allow fake names continues, I've got a good reason why real names are better: Security.

    Today, security start-up Impermium released some startling statistics about scammers and spammers creating fraudulent accounts on social websites. There's a good chance that new Facebook friend is your worst enemy. Lonely hearts, beware! Impermium found that as many as 40 percent of users on some services are fraudulent accounts.

    "Scammers are registering accounts by the millions as they perpetrate fake 'friend requests', deceptive tweets, and the like, while the black market for bulk social networking accounts is growing exponentially," according to Impermium.

    Impremium describes one "coordinated attack by more than 30,000 fraudulent accounts, which lit up in a single hour and attempted to submit more than 475,000 malicious wall posts". Well, guessing which social network probably isn't difficult when referring to "wall posts".

    Days gone by (well, in Internet time), people had to hang around bad Net neighborhoods like porn sites to get drive-by malware or even scammed. Cybercriminals have gone mainstream. Hey, it's a volume business, and surely there's more people in safe Net neighborhoods. According to Impermium: "The top consumer categories for social web spam were fashion and electronics, which outperformed porno scams by 3x".

    Top-exploited brand in August surprised me: UGGs.

    The security start-up tracked 104 million social media transactions over 100 days to compile the data.

    Circling back to my opening sentence. Google has had enough trouble with spammers exploiting Blogger as part of their campaigns. The Google Profile approach, where real names is attached to services like G+, is sensible security.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/31/Is_Samsung_being_honest_about_Galaxy_S_II_sales_'

    Is Samsung being honest about Galaxy S II sales?

    Publié: août 31, 2011, 6:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Not by any math I reckon.

    In June and July, Samsung released some startling early sales figures about the Galaxy S II smartphone. During its first 55 days on the market, 3 million units sold. Thirty days later, on July 22, sales reached 5 million -- so after 85 days. Those figures are impressive, but they don't reconcile with Samsung statements made last night.

    "Five million Galaxy S II smartphones have been sold around the world and that number increases every day", Dale Sohn, president of Samsung Mobile, says in a statement. "We believe the cutting-edge design, features and user experience of this innovative device will share the same level of success in the U.S".

    Sohn made that numbers statement during the smartphone's US launch last night, six months after Samsung announced the Galaxy S II in February.

    If the "number increases every day" what about the 38 days between the 5-million achievement and yesterday's statement? They don't reconcile. What? Samsung sold no new Galaxy S IIs since late July?

    There are three plausible explanations:

    1. Samsung isn't revealing new sales figures, which doesn't make loads of sense given the high-profile US launch and with the past boasting. Surely Samsung would like to promote a bigger number. One explanation is ongoing litigation with Apple, and Samsung lawyers have instituted a clam-up policy.

    2. Sales collapsed. After an initial big run overseas (the S2 launched pretty much everywhere else in the world first), the smartphone isn't doing so well now.

    3. The sales figures were for shipments, which is the explanation that I see as most plausible. Samsung had to ship millions of phones into the channel to stock store and carrier shelves, which could be counted as sales; lots of other manufacturers, even Apple, do it that way. They report sales into the channel.

    So Samsung had a flood of shipments into the channel, which doesn't mean the same number going out to buyers. That Samsung didn't update the 5 million figure last night suggests that sell-through might not be anywhere as great as sell-in. Otherwise, Samsung would have shipped more Galaxy S IIs and reported that figure some time in the previous 38 days.

    There is no question that Galaxy S is Samsung's most successful smartphone ever. Even without it, the manufacturer is doing quite well in the United States. For the three months ending July 31, Samsung was the largest handset maker in the United States based on cellular subscribers -- 25.5-percent share, according comScore, which released the data yesterday. Android's smartphone share is 41.8 percent compared to 27 percent for iOS/iPhone.

    I asked Samsung for clarification about sales figures soon before posting. I'll update with any response I get.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/31/Finally__Samsung_Galaxy_S_II_is_here'

    Finally, Samsung Galaxy S II is here

    Publié: août 31, 2011, 1:42am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    For months Apple has been firing off patent lawsuits against Samsung's newest smartphone and tablet. Despite this barrage of mortar fire, early this evening Samsung landed the Galaxy S II on these shores.

    The smartphone many reviewers are calling the "iPhone 5 killer" debuts ahead of Apple's next-gen handset. If you're on AT&T, Samsung's beaut can be yours on September 18. Sprint subscribers can grab the smartphone two days earlier.

    Samsung saved the best for last, too. The US versions of the S2 from Sprint and T-Mobile have larger displays than their international cousins -- 4.52 inches vs 4.3 inches. AT&T's variant also is 4.3 inches, but thinner than them all -- 8.89mm, thinner than iPhone 4 (9.3mm). Interestingly, T-Mobile did not give launch date or even announce nomenclature.

    It's the Epic 4G from Sprint, by the way. The Sprint variant will sell for $199.99 with 2-year contract. The carrier is taking preorders with -- get this -- purchase of $50 gift card. Well, I presume customers can apply the 50 bucks to their phone purchase.

    The Specs

    The phones share some things in common: 1.2GHz Samsung Exynos dual-core processor (other variants use the Nvidia Tegara 2); Super AMOLED display (it's viewable in sunlight); Gorilla glass, 8MP rear-facing and 2MP front-facing cameras; 1080p video recording; 16GB storage (expandable to 32GB with microSD card); Android 2.3; and Samsung's TouchWiz UI -- plus all the expected stuff, like Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS, accelerometer, capacitive touchscreen, etc. Samsung and the carriers are touting 4G, via WiMax for T-Mobile and 21Mbps HSPA+ for AT&T and T-Mobile.

    Surely all that data speed will appeal to somebody. If there's no 4G iPhone, that's one differentiator these Android beasts will have. Beasts they are. I find 4.3-inch phones to be overly large -- 4.52 inches is insane. Is either size too much for you?

    Samsung also is touting features that will appeal to businesses. Can you say consumerization of IT? They are: ActiveSync v14 support; Cisco VPN; Sybase MDM; WebEx.

    Samsung introduced the US Galaxy S2 variants during a New York gala this evening. Ed Oswald is there representing BetaNews and will have some photos (and hopefully) video for later on. Watch for them.

    Samsung fibs Sales?

    "The unveiling of the Galaxy S II is a landmark achievement for Samsung, our carrier customers and consumers", Dale Sohn, president of Samsung Mobile, says in a statement. "Five million Galaxy S II smartphones have been sold around the world and that number increases every day. We believe the cutting-edge design, features and user experience of this innovative device will share the same level of success in the U.S".

    But is that sold or shipped? Samsung reached 3 million units after 55 days and 5 million after another 30. But that was 38 days ago. So what? Samsung hasn't sold any more Galaxy S IIs since July 22? The number makes sense if shipments, which would be high to fill the channel. What about sell-through? Based on the 5 million repeated today, actual sales to customers should be questioned.

    Samsung announced the Galaxy S II in February, but sales didn't start until about two months later. Six months from announcement to launch in the United States, the world's hottest smartphone market, is unfathomable in the fast-changing market -- and too close to iPhone 5's debut.

    For the three months ended July 31, Samsung was the largest handset maker in the United States based on cellular subscribers -- 25.5-percent share, according comScore, which released the data today. Android's smartphone share is 41.8 percent compared to 27 percent for iOS/iPhone.

    iPhone 5 Killer

    Reviews of the international S2 variants have been nothing less than glowing -- an iPhone 5 killer. "The finest Android phone we've seen so far, the Samsung Galaxy S II isn't just a competitor to the current iPhone. It competes with the next iPhone", writes Sascha Segan for PC Mag.com, giving the smartphone an "Editor's Choice" rating. That last statement is the clincher. Samsung already is one generation ahead of Apple.

    "The Galaxy S II's screen is nothing short of spectacular", writes Vlad Savov for Engadget. Praise continues -- from the "onscreen keyboard is terrific" to "general responsiveness is absolutely exemplary". Savov concludes: "It's the best Android smartphone yet, but more importantly, it might well be the best smartphone, period".

    For PC Authority, reviewers Jonathan Bray and Nic Healey glow: "The phone is nothing short of remarkable. Its power is unrivalled, its 4.3 inch [screen] is wonderfully bright and colorful, call quality is great and the camera is simply superb".

    Phone reviewers should find enough nuances to appreciate among the US models, such as the AT&T variant's slimness or the Epic 4G's larger display and beefier battery.

    Photo Credit: Ed Oswald

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/30/_Windows_Ribbon_is_like_an_overstuffed_refrigerator__a_maze_only_navigable_by_your_home_s_primary_cook_'

    'Windows Ribbon is like an overstuffed refrigerator, a maze only navigable by your home's primary cook'

    Publié: août 30, 2011, 5:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Daniel Havens shared that sentiment in a Google+ comment yesterday. His viewpoint reflects that of many others. The votes are in -- 1,204 as I post -- and the majority of respondents to our poll either hate or dislike the Ribbon.

    Yesterday, I expressed my strong negative reaction to something long rumored but definitely confirmed by Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, in a wave of usage statistics: Microsoft is bringing the Office Ribbon to Windows, as primary means of navigating the file system. Microsoft has its stats. We have ours. I posted a poll last night asking you about the Ribbon.

    Before sharing the results let me discuss the sample and its significance. Firstly, more than 1,200 respondents is an excellent number. Secondly, the poll was broadly available and responses are likely from more than just BetaNews readers. Finally, BN readers tend to be exactly the target market Microsoft wants to reach with Windows 8. Many are IT professionals.

    I asked: "Microsoft will make Windows 8's file system look more like Office 2010. Which best describes your feelings about the software's Ribbon motif?" To that question 41.53 percent of respondents answered "I hate it" and another 12.54 percent "I dislike it somewhat". So 54.07 percent of respondents either dislike or hate the ribbon. Just 26.16 percent "really like it" and other 10.05 percent "like it somewhat". So just 36.21 percent like or somewhat like the Ribbon. That's not exactly resounding endorsement.

    BetaNews readers post lively reaction to pretty much everything we write, and there is an influx of new commenters since the redesign launched about 10 days ago. One of our old-timers, Dave Lindhout, a software developer, writes: "Microsoft needs a way to make the Windows UI accessible to my fat finger. They have chosen the Ribbon. I don't see it either, Joe. I look at the Ribbon being displayed on a HD formatted tablet, and I don't see much room for my content. The Metro UI works because it's simple. Windows is way too complicated to access through Metro".

    Elitegangsta: "The Ribbon was a terrible idea from the start and should definitely not be included as a main focal point in Windows 8". "I have to say, I hate that ribbon -- I still use Office 2003 for that reason", Brian Butterworth writes. "The thing that really annoys me about the Microsoft W8 Engineeing post...is that the logic was all good as far as 'the top 10 commands represent 81.8% of total usage'. There is no logical step from saying that people use Paste (^V), Properties (alt+Enter), Copy (^c), Delete (Delete), Rename (F2), Refresh (F5), Cut (^X), CommandBar (F10) and New (no shortcut) to saying that the awful Ribbon should be used".


    Microsoft will make Windows 8's file system look more like Office 2010. Which best describes your feelings about the software's Ribbon motif?

    Ribbon's defenders opine, too. "Microsoft said while beta testing Office 2007 that the Ribbon UI interface would take a bit of retraining to get used to", Joseph DiDario comments. "Once people were comfortable with the Ribbon UI studies were done that concluded that the Ribbon UI was more effective at exposing features to end users and that once accustomed to it, improved the end user's efficiency. I believe that using the Ribbon UI in Windows Explorer is the next logical step and it will be as Microsoft has stated, the most riskiest version of Windows ever, because it changes how we all are accustomed to interacting with Windows".

    Christopher Gregory Wortman: "I have been wanting the Ribbon interface in Windows 7 since inception. I, for one, love it! At first in Office 2007/2010 it took some getting used to, but once I got the hang of it, I couldn't live without it. Give me the features, leave the simplicity for the idiots".

    One comment supposedly comes from the Windows 8 team: "Joe, no argument that simplicity is good. I see a lot of folks asking for more features--those features have to go somewhere".

    Should that somewhere be the Ribbon? I've embedded the poll here -- another chance for you to vote. If there's dramatic turnabout in the numbers, I'll check the IP addresses to see where voters are coming from. Let's keep a clean poll, folks, and please share more reaction in comments below.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/30/Microsoft_killed_my_Windows_8_enthusiasm'

    Microsoft killed my Windows 8 enthusiasm

    Publié: août 30, 2011, 1:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The cardinal rule in good user interface design: Keep it simple, stupid. Windows 8 will break that rule in the worst ways, unless Microsoft customers and developers knock some sense into the company's product managers. They'll have their chance next month, at the Windows BUILD conference.

    In early June, I sang Windows 8 praises, posting: "It took 4 min 34 sec to get me really excited about Windows again". The video introducing the new user interface stunned me, as it did many other people. Finally, Microsoft achieved the kind of simplicity, elegance and good taste more typically associated with Mac OS. But beneath the breathtaking desktop is a file-system nightmare: The Office Ribbon is taking over Windows.

    The Ribbon is one of the most cluttered, complicated user interface elements introduced by Microsoft or any other operating system developer. Looked at one way, the design element exposes deep-buried features people might want to use in Office they might never find. But the actual presentation is a cluttered, tightly-packed mess of visual cues and varying-sized objects.

    Love It or Hate It

    I was expecting that the Windows 8 UI demoed two months ago would be pervasive throughout the operating system. Today's blog post by Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, shows something else going on: The Officification, really the Ribbonification, of Windows.

    Sinofsky brilliantly managed Windows 7 development, and its successor was looking good, too. But Sinofsky is old-school Microsoft -- the generation of managers obsessed with Excel spreadsheets filled with statistics used to justify why choosing to do this instead of that. He presents seemingly good reasons, based on how people use Windows, for moving functions from, say, the right-context menu to the Ribbon. That fundamentally is what long has been Microsoft's problem designing user interfaces: Putting intellect before emotions about products people use or become attached to emotionally.

    The Windows UI shown off in June evokes a positive emotional response; praise was widespread nearly three months ago. The Ribbon evokes emotions, too, as seen from responses to it in Office 2007. People seem to either love it or hate it, with few in-between. Favorable feelings should be the only ones Microsoft should want. I'm not feeling too good about the screenshots. Are you? The Mac Fanclub of bloggers and journalists will be laughing at this turn of design events. Microsoft heaped some variant of the Ribbon motif onto Mac Office 2011, but users can turn it off. Office 2007 and 2010 users aren't so lucky.

    Officification of Windows

    The Ribbon becoming the main motif for interacting with the Windows file system has big implications. Julie Larson-Green, corporate vice president of Windows Experience, led the team responsible for developing the Ribbon for Office 2007. Soon after its launch, Sinofsky brought her to the Windows & Windows Live division (not its name then). The question everyone should ask: Is she going too far here? My answer is yes with the Ribbon and not far enough with the desktop UI previewed in June.

    For years, Office used the file system standard, logistically and visually, set by Windows. Now Sinofsky's team is making a radical change of putting Office in subjective position. Such action likely reflects a change in which product is seen as more important long term, Office or Windows. Some reasons:

    * Windows is subject to the whiles of the PC market. During second calendar quarter 2011, PC shipments were sluggish in mature markets but good in emerging ones, according to Microsoft.

    * Revenue for the Business division -- 90 percent of which comes from Office -- exceeded Windows & Windows Live by more than $1 billion in calendar Q2 ($5.78 billion to $4.74 billion, respectively). Income: $3.62 billion for Business and $2.94 for Windows & Windows Live.

    * Office fits into Microsoft's cloud, which has lots of growth headroom as customers swap out running their own servers for cloud datacenters or simply supplement functionality with them.

    I'm just dying to see how the cluttered Windows Ribbon is going to work on touchscreen tablets for navigating Windows. The tile desktop UI seems well-suited to a touchscreen, the Ribbon is much less so. (Want to see? Open Office 2010 on a Windows 7 slate.)

    Simplicity beats Uniformity

    Microsoft's other objective here is clear: To have uniform and fairly consistent motif across all its desktop products -- and so the Ribbon is popping up elsewhere, such as some Windows Live applications. But uniformity is impossible with the Ribbon. The motif is clearly designed to draw out features specific to the software application. Capabilities exposed in Word differ from those in Outlook, even, Windows Live Movie Maker or Windows 8 much more.

    Meanwhile, the added complexity shouldn't be that hard to see, particularly if contrasted against the breathtakingly simple desktop UI demoed in June. The Windows 8 Ribbon is a stunning return to complexity Microsoft had been moving away from and has been promising to abandon since its October 2003 developer conference.


    Microsoft will make Windows 8's file system look more like Office 2010. Which best describes your feelings about the software's Ribbon motif?

    Simplicity is the hallmark of good design, and it's the appeal of so many Apple products. Minimalism defines the approach of Jony Ive, Apple's chief of industrial design. In February 2005, I wrote for Betanews "iPod Shuffle: Apple understated". I cataloged how minimalist design -- from iPods to Mac laptops to retail stores -- is a defining characteristic of Apple products then, and it's still true today.

    Simple design often evokes good feelings. Most product decisions are based on how people feel about the thing, even if they start with rational reasons such as low price.

    Microsoft had me hooked on Windows 8 in early June. Today, my enthusiasm is, as they say, pushing up the daisies.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/29/Google___Where_everybody_knows_your_name__poll_'

    Google+: Where everybody knows your name [poll]

    Publié: août 29, 2011, 6:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    "Sometimes you want to go
    Where everybody knows your name, and they're always glad you came
    You wanna be where you can see, our troubles are all the same
    You wanna be where everybody knows Your name"
    -- Theme song from TV show "Cheers"

    Google+ real names policy continues to generate controversy. Last month I strongly urged Google to resist calls for pseudonyms or to allow people to be anonymous. The policy of using real names is sensible and the best approach long term. But, clearly, not everyone agrees. So it's time for a poll and to ask for more reader reaction.

    Argument repeatedly made against real names: Some people need to protect their identities. Perhaps they live in a country with oppressive regime, don't want to disclose gender choices or whistleblow on governments or their contractors, among other reasons. But I look at Betanews comments or other forums around the web, where trolls run wild. They hide behind anonymity and attack others. Their presence pollutes the discussion and makes forming real communities -- people who share common interest -- difficult, if not impossible.

    There are more people misusing anonymity than those who really need it. They can go elsewhere and find it. Services providing anonymity are plenty. Google+ is the rarity. There's an underserved majority of people who want to know who they are engaging with, want to build relationships with people they can identify.

    Over the weekend, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt made clear Google's policy, which strongly suggests it's not going to change. NPR's Andy Carvin asked Schmidt about it and paraphrases, appropriately on Google+:

    "[Schmidt] replied by saying that G+ was buil[t] primarily as an identity service, so fundamentally, it depends on people using their real names if they're going to build future products that leverage that information...Regarding people who are concerned about their safety, he said G+ is completely optional. No one is forcing you to use it. It's obvious for people at risk if they use their real names, they shouldn't use G+...He also said the internet would be better if we knew you were a real person rather than a dog or a fake person. Some people are just evil and we should be able to ID them and rank them downward".

    There's nothing much ambiguous in that, assuming Carvin correctly quoted Schmidt, which is what I would expect from someone working for NPR.


    Should Google+ only allow real names?

    Comments to Carvin's post cover a range of concerns and none at all. Brandan Molloy wonders: "You could have asked him why he doesn't have an account on G+. I'd love to hear that answer". I'll answer that one: Maybe Schmidt doesn't want to use his real name.

    "If people want to stay anonymous and stay private they need to stay off the Internet", writes Terri Knoll. "It's like standing in the middle of a big city hoping no one sees you. Pointless". Vic C Reyes: "Agree with Terri Knoll, you leave a lot of traces once you step onto the Net. A pseudonym or alias is a flimsy defense if you want to be untraceable".

    Lise Bjerregaard Nielsen: "I don't know what to say -- at least he is upfront about his answer. I just wish he wasn't such an evil genius about it, but it's very hard not to have to use google products when you're on the Internet".

    Jude Camwell makes a point that resonates with my own thinking and experience: "One personal observation from my experience with Google+, I have found that it seems easier for those not using their actual identity to make comments that I consider to be somewhat unkind. I believe, when we are speaking from our true identity, we are more likely to be civil to one another. I believe the internet (and social media communications in general) could stand to benefit from people proud to be who they are and say what they believe in a civil and productive way".

    Extropia DaSilva disagrees: "Jude, as a digital person my existence is entirely dependent on my ability to maintain a presence on social networks. Therefore, I would argue I have the greater interest in maintaining a positive Web presence, a good reputation, thereby minimizing my chances of being cut off from the network. Of course, there is not much I can do against those who are just prejiudiced against the likes of me and would eraze us no matter how we behave".

    Over the weekend, I posted: "I lost my passion for Apple". As I post there are 235 comments. In Google+ Ray Ebersole observes:

    "Just wanted to point out that the interaction here on Google+ is very positive and constructive in regards to the article and the topic. I just went back to the original on BetaNews where a majority of the comments have nothing to do with the post and everything to do with bashing you. Just shows the different level of people that are here and at BetaNews. Please keep posting your articles here too so that we can enjoy a good discussion on what you write".

    The big difference: Anonymity vs real names.

    Why shouldn't Google build the rarity of social networks: A place like the bar "Cheers", where people can kick back with folks they can see (well, digitally) -- where everybody knows your name. Do you agree? Disagree? Comments await your (sadly mostly anonymous) responses. There's the poll, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/28/Steve_Jobs__health_is_a_private_matter'

    Steve Jobs' health is a private matter

    Publié: août 28, 2011, 9:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Now that he's no longer Apple CEO, it is.

    During Jobs' two medical leaves, starting in early 2009 and 2011, I argued that his health was not a private matter. Apple is a public company, majorly owned by shareholders -- not Jobs, the company's board or any other executive or employee. In Jobs' role as chief executive, and as someone so closely identified with Apple, health impacted his ability to perform daily duties and, therefore, could affect Apple operations and financial performance. Jobs is no longer chief executive. He remains an Apple employee, according to a recent 8-K filing but in unspecified role, and is Chairman of the Board. But he is no longer directly responsible for Apple operations.

    I took lots of flack from the Apple Fanclub regarding my previous "health is a public matter" position. I wholly stand by it. The president of the United States gets a yearly checkup and discloses the state of his health (maybe someday "her", depending who wins some future election). It's part of the president's responsibility serving the public. CEOs serve the shareholders, who are any public company's real owners. I don't suggest chief executives should get yearly checkups and disclose health information -- although considering their high salaries, there is good argument for it. They should disclose anything that might jeopardize their ability to perform their duties, particularly compromised health.

    Apple fanclubbers rallied against such position when I stated it more than two years ago, with some saying the US Securities and Exchange Commission doesn't require such disclosure (Or does it under the new law passed last year, and I don't know about it; please correct me in comments if there is a change). The recent financial reform law does put a CEO to a shareholder vote, and state of health is information that should be available to them. Emphasized: CEOs work for shareholders, not boards of directors.

    To Repeat, and Again...

    Since Jobs is no longer Apple's chief executive, he should be regarded as a private citizen again. That makes his health a private matter. Jobs' health is none of your damn business, nor paparazzi stalking him. Assuming that Jobs is fighting off cancer again, or the effects from it, he has enough emotional stress -- and that includes resigning as CEO last week. Paparazzi photos make matters worse.

    On Friday, TMZ published a photo of a gaunt Jobs in a parking lot, presumably outside some medical treatment facility. The photo's legitimacy has been disputed, which is immaterial to whether or not any should be published. If Steve Jobs is a public figure, he's fair game for paparazzi, which rely on the First Amendment to protect them.

    Does being Apple's cofounder make Jobs a public figure? I say no, particularly how private he keeps his personal life and how is public appearances typically, but not exclusively, have been Apple related. CEO of the world's largest company, by valuation at Friday's market close, is a public figure. That's Tim Cook's role.

    The legal nuances about privacy rights of public figures vs private citizens are beyond my scope of expertise. I am not a lawyer. But I am an editor and long-time journalist. Most reputable news organizations refrain from publishing paparazzi photos of private citizens for ethical reasons (yeah, we have some) and also to avoid civil lawsuits.

    California is unique in the public-vs-private issue because of Hollywood celebrities. The distinction between public figure and private citizen doesn't necessarily matter, under the law. California Civil Code Section 1708.8 states:

    "A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used".

    It seems to me that a private citizen undergoing cancer or cancer-related treatment meets this legal definition. Health privacy is cherished in the United States and firmly protected under HIPAA.

    Legal issues aside, give Jobs a break, and some dignity as he fights for his life. C`mon do you think he would have resigned from Apple otherwise?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/27/I_lost_my_passion_for_Apple'

    I lost my passion for Apple

    Publié: août 27, 2011, 9:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Earlier this month I sold my 11.6-inch MacBook Air (using Samsung Series 5 Chromebook now) and iPhone 4 (switched back to Google Nexus S). I don't miss either Apple product. Not the least bit. In reflecting, I realize that the spell is broken. Without Apple Chairman Steve Jobs driving innovation or inspiring passion -- the oft-called "reality distortion field" -- my Apple enthusiasm is gone. Perhaps it's return to sanity.

    I should have connected the dots sooner, but often people don't easily apply even basic math to emotional matters, because the nuances move swiftly on the surface with many slower currents and fast-churning eddies below. The ocean is an excellent analogy. Yesterday, in viewing Nate Mook's slideshow of 20 products introduced by Jobs, and resurfacing emotions about the different launches, I had an epiphany. I could see how much Jobs' passion infected mine -- his ability to inspire about what Apple products offered.

    I used to joke about the Steve Jobs spell: During one of the product launch speeches, if he was having an off day, people left feeling like: If I buy this thing my life will be better for it. If Jobs was in the zone giving the preso, people left feeling if they didn't buy the new thing their lives would be worse.

    Jobs' cast a big spell, but it was more than the pitch -- there are aspirational qualities built into Apple products. Jobs is the rarest of business leaders: He has good taste and the ability to inspire people working with him to put it into high-tech stuff. Related: Design priorities put features that are most useful at the top, packaged such that there is balance among them -- none takes away from overall functionality. Additionally: Simplicity is a defining Apple design characteristic, or was.

    As I explained here at BetaNews in February 2005 post "iPod Shuffle: Apple understated": "The company has turned a knack for the understated into a marketing machine that touches virtually every Mac product, including iPod Shuffle...Understated often means uncomplicated. And sometimes that means cutting back consumer choices, as Apple did with iPod Shuffle. Less really can be more...Competitors really need to study what Apple is doing right and how to incorporate a similar approach into their product designs and marketing".

    Complication Creep

    But on reflection, I now see how much simplicity, one of Apple products' best attributes, is giving way to complication creep. Mac OS X 10.7 Lion and iTunes 9 and 10 are glaring examples of increased complexity, as are iOS 4 (and soon v5), Safari 5.1, iLife `11 and most other Apple software.

    Even Apple Store. I wrote in 2005: "Apple retail stores are remarkably understated. The only bright colors are found on marketing material placed throughout the store. Otherwise, the tasteful stores are quite stark, so that the shoppers' eyes are drawn either to the colorful marketing posters and signs or to the products on sale". The stores are no longer as tasteful, and the new iPad product information displays create clutter and complexity.

    Still, where Steve Jobs' influence still touched so did simplicity remain, which iPad 2, MacBook Air and Mac App Store imbue. But other recent attempts at simplicity have failed, with Final Cut Pro X example of increased complexity coming from an attempt to make video production simpler. Many of Apple's elite customers complained about the product, and there was even a petition to bring back the old version! Could such a thing really have happened with Steve Jobs hands-on at Apple?

    When Passion Fades

    Steve Jobs unexpectedly resigned as Apple CEO two days ago, and the Board of Directors immediately chose Tim Cook, then chief operating officer, as replacement. Much of the punditry about the transition is similar: Apple will remain the same Apple under Cook. This is misguided, wishful thinking.

    Apple will change under Cook's leadership. Actually Apple already has changed. For about three years now, Jobs' influence on product development and marketing is less than it once was. The Apple faithful will slam me in comments or elsewhere for speaking such blasphemy. But, c`mon. The man is terribly ill -- clearly fighting for his life throughout much of 2009 and 2011.

    As I more seriously review the 2.8 years since Jobs' January 2009 medical leave started, it's clear the aforementioned qualities are missing and other less-desirable ones present in Apple products. This reflects the limits of Jobs' involvement in the process -- at least the way he was able to be when in more robust health. There is a vitality gone from Apple's cofounder that many recent Apple products reflect, even as the company reaches its highest pinnacle of success ever. It's a cruel circumstance that a man who has had so much positive influence should be ravaged from the effects of cancer while still in his prime.

    Kirk and Spock

    Jobs and Cook couldn't be more different leaders. They're complimentary: The inspired visionary looking to bring good taste and understated design to otherwise complex products and the man responsible for getting them to market. Like James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock from "Star Trek". Kirk is the leader, the charismatic one. Spock is the empowering sidekick but not as effective leader. That's how I see Jobs and Cook.

    Cook will competently lead Apple, as he has done for the better part of two years. He's honed Apple's supply chain to a science. Apple is a self-propelling machine now. But like Spock, Cook won't have the passion of Kirk. This will affect his ability to hold onto the team core to Jobs, such as product design genius Jony Ive.

    Apple won't find feature compromises -- the kind good for keeping them in balance -- as easy in the post-Jobs-CEO world, either. Response to Final Cut Pro X is one example of that. Jobs had a knack for making people believe in his company's products, for clearly calling on real-world passion while making anyone and everyone willing to listen to feel good about Apple stuff. Apple products evoke emotional response, like few others in techdom. They are imbued by Jobs' passion and his ability to inspire others to design greatness or to give someone like Jony Ive freedom to bring true design genius to market.

    Apple feels quite different to me now in 2011 than it did in 2008. It's all corporate now. Just dollars and cents on a ledger. What Jobs imbued already is gone, at least for me. I predict it will fade for many technophiles. But not anytime soon for the mass market of buyers, who are more influenced by what their friends and family use than by the aura of Steve Jobs.

    His legendary "one more thing" was one last thing long ago.

    Photo Credit: 1000 Words / Shutterstock

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/27/Apple_CEO_Tim_Cook_gets__384M_payday'

    Apple CEO Tim Cook gets $384M payday

    Publié: août 27, 2011, 5:48am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Well, so much for Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' infamous $1 pay.

    Just two days after taking the chief executive's chair from Jobs, Tim Cook received a stunning 1 million shares from Apple. It's restricted stock -- meaning shares won't vest for years --- but it's big money, about $383.58 million at today's closing price of $383.58. Thank you Apple for making the math easy for the end of another shockingly busy tech news week. Whatever happened to August vacations and no big biz activity until after Labor Day?

    Huge stock awards aren't unusual, particularly for incoming CEOs. Boards of directors use restricted shares as incentives for CEOs to do well and to stay with the company. Not that it often matters. Exiting CEOs, particularly from a company of Apple's size and stature, often walk away with severances in the tens of millions anyway. Cook will make out. By how much depends on how long he stays with Apple.

    According to an Apple 8K filing, Cook must wait until 2016 for half the shares and 2021 for the remainder. Of course, with this week's hurriquake on the East Coast, other natural disasters, solar flares and anomalies, none of us may make it past Dec. 21, 2012. Oh, those Mayan predictions!

    Cook's salary as chief operating officer was just over $800,000 in fiscal 2010, with a $5 million bonus and more than $59 million in restricted stock. By comparison, Apple paid Jobs $1, with no bonus, but reimbursed him $248,000 for air travel. However, Jobs' stock holdings are substantial, making him a billionaire.

    The amount of executive pay reveals something about the personality of the two men -- the one inspired by passion, good taste and innovation and the other by the logistics of running a business. What? You think Cook will work for a buck a year?

    Photo Credit: Valery Marchive

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/25/How_does_an_earthquake_affect_Internet_traffic_'

    How does an earthquake affect Internet traffic?

    Publié: août 25, 2011, 9:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    What's the first thing you think about when the ground shakes. "Run!" Right? Earthquake means get out and away from falling buildings. The folks over at comScore react differently, and in doing so have compiled some fascinating data from this week's 5.8-magnitude quake starting in the Mid-Atlantic region. Dan Piech writes:

    "Maybe we’re complete data geeks, but as we evacuated comScore’s headquarters in Reston, Virginia, a mere 72 miles from the epicenter of the largest earthquake to hit the region in 67 years, the first thing on our minds was wanting to understand the quake’s quantifiable impact on Internet usage...

    Upon re-entering the office following our evacuation, we immediately kicked off a number of scripts to begin aggregating the Internet usage data into usable insights. As we brainstormed, we came up with our newest comScore creation – the “Internet Seismometer” – which is an animated look at U.S. Internet usage by minute between the hours of 1:40 pm and 3 pm [August 23] for computer vs. mobile-based traffic."

    The charts are fairly self-explanatory and not surprising in that Internet and mobile traffic spiked highest close to the epicenter. But this finding says much about the state of modern communications: "The Internet facilitates lightning-fast mass communication. Tweets from DC reached New York before the tremors did", something we first reported here at Betanews.

    Piech continues: "Within less than 20 minutes, Internet traffic had spiked on the West coast to its highest levels. Most people who were using the web because of this event were doing so within twenty minutes. That’s the time it took civilization to get an urgent message to the next town a mere century ago".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/25/Apple_CEO_Tim_Cook___Our_best_years_lie_ahead_'

    Apple CEO Tim Cook: 'Our best years lie ahead'

    Publié: août 25, 2011, 6:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The Steve Jobs era is over, no matter what new Apple CEO Tim Cook may assert in an email sent out to employees today. The memo comes courtesy of ArsTechnica. Jobs resigned yesterday.

    Cook assures employees that "Apple is not going to change", which isn't true. The company already has dramatically changed under Cook's eight-month stewardship while Jobs was on medical leave -- and, frankly, for two years before. A quick look at Apple's performance since Jobs' January 2009 medical leave tells the story.

    Cook took over as chief operating officer in 2005, efficiently running logistics throughout. But his more extraordinary influence started once cancer survivor Jobs handed over day-to-day operations more than two-and-a-half years ago -- and by all appearances continued that role since. The chart above tells a story. Apple revenue grew from $8.3 billion in calendar second quarter 2009 to $28.6 billion two years later.

    Apple's new CEO -- the first change since Jobs' return to Apple with "interim" title in 1997 -- is a very different kind of leader than was Jobs. His behind-the-icon influence cannot be overstated. Cook's memo:

    "Team:

    I am looking forward to the amazing opportunity of serving as CEO of the most innovative company in the world. Joining Apple was the best decision I've ever made and it's been the privilege of a lifetime to work for Apple and Steve for over 13 years. I share Steve's optimism for Apple's bright future.

    Steve has been an incredible leader and mentor to me, as well as to the entire executive team and our amazing employees. We are really looking forward to Steve's ongoing guidance and inspiration as our Chairman.

    I want you to be confident that Apple is not going to change. I cherish and celebrate Apple's unique principles and values. Steve built a company and culture that is unlike any other in the world and we are going to stay true to that—it is in our DNA. We are going to continue to make the best products in the world that delight our customers and make our employees incredibly proud of what they do.

    I love Apple and I am looking forward to diving into my new role. All of the incredible support from the Board, the executive team and many of you has been inspiring. I am confident our best years lie ahead of us and that together we will continue to make Apple the magical place that it is.

    Tim"

    I want to believe Cook when he tells Apple employees that "our best years lie ahead". But given the phenomenal growth of the past two years, is there much more up before Apple comes down? Please offer your answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/24/Remembering_Windows_XP'

    Remembering Windows XP

    Publié: août 24, 2011, 8:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    First in a series. It was an innocent time. There was fun, fanfare and pride. Thousands of people worked together to complete something that would affect billions of lives -- that would be the most successful product of its kind. Ever. Eighteen days later the world they knew changed.

    Ten years ago today, Aug. 24, 2001, in Redmond Washington, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and Jim Allchin, then vice president of the platforms group, officially released to manufacturing Windows XP. The RTM marked a huge achievement for Microsoft, which finally had a consumer operating system based on the NT kernel. Windows XP marked the end of the DOS/Windows 9x legacy and the beginning of a new lineage of Microsoft operating systems, continuing the path paved by Windows 2000 some 18 months earlier.

    Dark clouds hung over Windows XP, however. In April 2000, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered Microsoft to be broken into separate desktop software and operating systems companies. A year later, an appeals court rescinded the breakup order but returned the case to a new judge. Some kind of penalty awaited Microsoft.

    Meanwhile, the United States was griped in recession, following the dot-com collapse and Enron debacle. PC sales plummeted. If Microsoft was looking for about the worst time conceivable to launch Windows XP, this was it. Gartner sales projections for Windows XP were downright glum, for example.

    Microsoft's Pride

    But on this sunny day, one where stereotypical Seattle rain threatened to ruin festivities, those dark clouds seemed distant. Gates and Allchin gathered with other Microsoft employees, OEM partners and loads of journalists (Bloggers? Forbid! Not in 2001!) -- there was the ceremonial signing of gold code, placed in a briefcase and flown off by helicopter. Gates and Allchin looked hopeful during the RTM event, like proud fathers sending children off to the first day of school.

    Timing was not coincidental. Microsoft had drawn a straight line from August 24 to September 24 to October 25 -- the latter two dates, respectively, when the first Windows XP PCs would go on sale and the software would officially launch in a big gala. That's right, new XP PCs preceded the official release by a month.

    Microsoft and its partners planned to spend $1 billion promoting Windows XP. There would be multiple launch events around the globe, with the main one in New York City.

    But darker clouds loomed unseen. On Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists flew highjacked jetliners into the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and into the US Pentagon. The collective American psyche entered a period of shock and mourning. An economy already ravaged by recession tumbled into despair. Microsoft couldn't respectively or in any way conceivably continue the big Windows XP launch event as planned.

    Event organizers wisely chose to keep New York as launch venue. Mayor Rudolph Giuliani welcomed Microsoft warmly. The city needed something to cheer the gloom, and revenues and tax sales dollars couldn't hurt either. So Giuliani joined Gates on Oct. 25, 2001, to officially launch Windows XP. There was a muted and respectful celebration. Microsoft's most important operating system ever debuted in the midst of uncertainty -- about America's future, the state of its economy and even Microsoft's fate before US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.

    A Reliable, Workhorse

    Windows XP wasn't an exceptional operating system so much as reliable one. Particularly after the release of Service Pack 2, which was more new release than update, XP found its place as the world's workhorse operating system. SP2 appeared in early August 2004, nearly four years after Windows XP RTM.

    "Old Reliable" brought tremendous stability to the PC marketplace. No Microsoft operating system stayed in service so long without a replacement. Two-and-a-half years would pass before successor Windows Vista launched, in separate November 2006 and January 2007 events. By then, Windows XP was so widely used, so widely supported by applications, peripherals and other third-party products, Vista struggled to find support from anybody.

    Microsoft made architectural changes that required developers to adapt their applications, but few seemed interested. Why should they? Windows XP's install base was enormous -- the OS paid the bills. Windows Vista was a marketing disaster, and for many reasons, but one of the most overlooked is Windows XP's success. The operating system had achieved the so-called "good enough" threshold, which coupled with the stable ecosystem created a competitive barrier for Vista like earlier Windows versions posed to other developers' operating systems. How ironic!

    When Windows 7 shipped in September 2009, more than 80 percent of Microsoft's desktop OS install base was on XP. A stunning achievement.

    All this started 10 years ago today.

    Here at BetaNews we stop to celebrate Windows XP and to remember this remarkably successful workhorse OS. Today and over the next few, we will share recollections of Windows XP. Some are ours, some are yours and others'. If you have a Windows XP memory to share, there's still time -- in comments to this story or by emailing joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/24/_I_think_we_just_had_an__earthquake_in_va__my_house_was_shaking_'

    'I think we just had an #earthquake in va, my house was shaking'

    Publié: août 24, 2011, 12:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Twitter user NeimanMarcus757 is the first person to tweet using the #earthquake hashtag about today's 5.8-magnitude quake originating in the Mid-Atlantic region. He tweeted less than a minute after the quake started, which was 1:51:04 p.m. EDT.

    Other people might have posted sooner, but NeimanMarcus757 used the hashtag, which gives him distinction of being first.

    Social media played a huge role following the quake, with the Internet keeping people connected when cellular phone and data services could not. The first tweets about the quake reached New York before the earth shook.

    There are so many wild reports coming in, they're best captured by reactions expressed in social media. But Twitter is surprising me, and that says something about the 140-character restriction. Many tweets are humorous -- making fun of the situation, and I wonder if that reflects more the narcissistic quality of tweeting or that the news reports are way overblown. I tend to think the former.

    Paul Avarali (Twitter): "Overheard in the stairwell during office evacuation: the stairs? but i'm wearing RL Collection heels #earthquake".

    JesseCFriedman (Twitter): "I saw the tweets from DC about earthquake, then 15 seconds later felt it in NYC. Social media is faster than seismic waves!"

    Robert Scoble (Google+): "Wow, earthquake! Get ready for Facebook news in two minutes!"

    Steve Williams (Twitter): "Apparently, the Washington Monument is now tilted. Italy is reportedly suing America for copying the idea from the Leaning Tower of Pisa".

    To be clear, the National Parks Service later determined that the Washington Monument had not in fact titled. Be it's sure to be a social media meme.

    Alex de Soto (Google+): "It's amazing how our cellular infrastructure buckles when there's an emergency. As usual, SMS is a good alternative when cellular networks are congested. Twitter was slow but awesome".

    Bud Caddell (Twitter): "Lesson from the Earthquake, it doesn't matter the severity of the event, just how widespread it was felt".

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/23/Ultrabook_can_t_beat_MacBook_Air_pricing'

    Ultrabook can't beat MacBook Air pricing

    Publié: août 23, 2011, 3:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Intel has a big problem, and senior executives know it. Ultrabooks running its processors and Windows cannot compete with MacBook Air on price. There's a strange offing coming, when Macs, which for so long cost more than Windows PCs, will be the value choice -- that's assuming Apple chooses to pass savings on to customers rather than be extra greedy about margins.

    Wintel OEMs can't compete on price because Apple realizes cost advantages inherent to its end-to-end development, manufacturing and distribution model. These smaller powerhouse laptops aren't cheap to produce, but it's two secret ingredients in Apple's recipe that will prove decisive.

    Thin is In

    Intel unveiled the Ultrabook concept three months ago at Computex. Ultrabooks are meant to be thin and light, measuring less than 20 mm (0.8 inches) thick and selling for less than $1,000. By thickness (16.3mm), the Samsung Series 9 fits the category definition but, at the time, cost considerably more, starting at $1,299.99. Not surprisingly, MacBook Air is similar size -- in fact a tad thinner.

    The first ultrabooks are scheduled for the holidays, but there already are signs of trouble at good ship Intel. Ultrabook partners have mutinied -- demanding 50-percent price cuts, which Intel won't give so as to preserve its lucrative margins. According to DigiTimes: "As for Ultrabook CPUs, Intel is only willing to provide marketing subsides and 20 perent discount to the first-tier players, reducing the Core i7-2677 to US$317, Core i7-2637 to US$289 and Core i5-2557 to US$250".

    The chips cost too much for many Ultrabook OEMs to meet those lower price goals. Among the current crop of hot, Wintel thin-and-light laptops pricing typically exceeds -- or in a few instances equals -- entry-level MacBook, which sells for $999. That's ahead of the real ultrabooks coming to market. Take the svelte Series 9 laptop, which until recently cost $200 more in the 11.6-inch entry configuration than same screen-size MacBook Air. Actually, Samsung's website still lists the $1,199.99 price for the 64GB model, which is comparably configured to $999 MacBook Air. By my math, since launch, Samsung slashed prices by $300 to achieve parity with MacBook Air, but at what cost to margins?

    Where are They?

    Intel isn't exactly abandoning OEM customers, but its response to them foreshadows trouble. Earlier this month the chipmaker established the $300 million Intel Capital Ultrabook fund for investing in ultrabook research and development. The funds creation suggests that ultrabook development isn't moving fast enough.

    Intel partners are talking about Ultrabook but they're not quickly walking them to market. Acer and Asus are competing to get out ultrabooks fast, but larger OEMs are slower moving. During last week's Lenovo earning's conference, COO Rory Read expressed commitment to ultrabook, but in rather vague terms. He spoke in hints about achieving "mainstream prices", which could mean sub-$1,000, but he didn't exactly say that. Product arrival talk -- "I wouldn't say by the end of the year necessarily" -- hinted at 2012 but amorphously.

    Intel and its partners must contend with two related problems competing with Apple, which is able to aggressively price MacBook Air while keeping its overall margins above 35 percent. The first is here and now, the other is expected as soon as the next generation MacBook Air launches. Apple has successfully leveraged its large volume business from iPhone and iPod to gain favorable component pricing compared to many competitors; I've read plenty of commentary about that. But there's something else: Apple doesn't license software.

    Unlike Wintel competitors, which license Windows and other software, Apple develops its own. As such, Apple largely absorbs the cost of the software as part of research and development. The company does defer some revenue from its computer sales, because of accounting related to Mac OS X and iLife updates. But that's a deferral not a hefty, separate licensing fee. Customers receive the benefits of core software designed specifically for the hardware, too.

    Apple's Advantage

    Recently, there have been rumors that Apple might move from Intel processors to its own A chips, like those used in iPad and iPhone. Yesterday in an interview published at CNET, Greg Welch, Intel ultrabook chief, says: "We hear the same rumors and it would be remiss of us to be dismissive. We endeavor to innovate so they'll continue to look to us as a supplier".

    The next-gen A6 processor would take away Intel chips as another crucial component cost Apple wouldn't have to pay, which its Wintel competitors have to. Based on various industry estimates, Intel processor, Windows and additional software easily exceeds 40 percent of a computer's total cost -- likely considerably more when looking at ultrabook and that coveted sub-$1,000 sell price. Of course, A6 wouldn't make the processors free but Apple would control costs and, presumably, they would be considerably less than buying them from Intel.

    Asus UX21 Ultrabook is expected by the end of September for around $1,000 or a little less. But sub-$1,000 isn't good enough. MacBook Air is there today, and an A6 switch would give Apple plenty of room to cut prices further while preserving margins. My audacious headline is based on several assumptions, any of which could change:

    1. That Intel won't dramatically cut CPU prices for Ultrabooks.

    2. That Apple will move MacBook Air to A6 processors.

    3. That Apple will undercut competitors because it can do so without sacrificing margins.

    I think MacBook Air will demonstrate in the coming months, even more than it does now, the cost advantages of Apple's end-to-end product design, development and distribution methods.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/23/2017__When_PCs_go_the_way_of_the_dinosaur_'

    2017: When PCs go the way of the dinosaur?

    Publié: août 23, 2011, 12:16am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Today, In-Stat predicted that the global tablet market will reach 250 million shipments by 2017. It's a seemingly big number, but its real significance is bigger: How much will tablets displace PC sales?

    Right now the global install base of PCs is about 1 billion units. Shipments have been above 300 million PCs per year, but they're way down in mature markets, still strong in some emerging markets and losing sales to tablets, according to both Gartner and IDC. Is there market sustainable enough for 300 million PCs and 250 million tablets? I'm the wrong person to answer, having already proclaimed -- to the chagrin of many Betanews commenters -- that the "PC era is over."

    The synopsis to In-Stat's report -- "The Reality and Ramifications of Tablets" -- focuses more on how consumer electronics devices are impacted. In-Stat sent me data sheets with no data, but questions and other info that let me see the report doesn't take the PC into the equation.

    It is the PC that will matter more to many Betanews readers managing IT departments.
    Two months ago, I asked: "Are tablets a fad?". In-Stat's data surely suggests otherwise. Then there are Gartner and IDC, which, respectively, forecast 69.8 million and 53.5 million this year.

    Much depends on overlap. How much can tablets replace PCs? Many of our readers don't see that happening. Maybe, but Windows 8 is coming, and I'm expecting a juicy developer beta to drop during next month's BUILD conference. Microsoft is clearly targeting Windows 8 for tablets as well as desktop and portable PCs -- and it's what analyst firms Gartner and IDC consider a "full" OS rather than a mobile.

    In context of Microsoft entering the tablet market in a big-OS way and with its core market being businesses, there's good reason to rethink the PC's future -- not just in the hands of Apple or Android tablets but Microsoft leading businesses down a hybrid path. Whatever, tablets are maturing fast and the overlap with PC functionally can only get greater (with Windows 8 part of that equation).

    I don't see enough room for both tablets and PCs in 2017. Something has to give. Either tablets must cannibalize PC sales or a hybrid product emerges, something that absolutely could happen in a post-Windows 7 world, with Windows 8 driving new form factors. That 250 million is a mighty big number. But many analysts made big predictions about netbooks, which sales have collapsed before tablets. It may be that Microsoft and its hardware partners can similarly upset the current tablet market with Windows 8. If not, we have a date, or thereabouts, for PC's obsolescence: 2017.

    In the here and now, In-Stat sees tablets encroaching on consumer electronics devices. "The tablet market and its associated ecosystem are still evolving. Over the next few generations we will see more differentiation between devices that are targeting different market segments and usage models. In addition, competitive device and service pricing will bring tablets into the mainstream consumer and enterprise markets", Jim McGregor, In-Stat chief technology strategist, says in a statement.

    "Tablets are joining an array of smart-connected devices that allow users almost unlimited access to content and communications", he continues. "These new devices mark a significant change in the value change of the electronics industry where the content and applications are now the key differentiators and innovation drivers".

    In-Stat sees Android and iOS coming to dominate 90 percent of the tablet market during the forecast period, with Windows pulling up the rear. Tablets 9 inches to 11 inches will make up 56 percent of the total tablet market in 2017.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/22/Got_HP_TouchPad_but_want_Android__Touchdroid_is_coming'

    Got HP TouchPad but want Android? Touchdroid is coming

    Publié: août 22, 2011, 7:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    I failed to snag TouchPad, when HP was practically giving them away this weekend -- $99 for the 16GB model and $149 for the 32GB one. Like many other attempted or successful buyers, I was thinking: "Wouldn't it be great if this tablet ran Android?" Perhaps it will.

    There's already a project underway to port Android to the TouchPad, which is sure to delight lots of people who wanted the hardware but couldn't care less about WebOS or don't see much future in it. HP insists WebOS will continue, but, c`mon, who will develop apps if there are no devices?

    The project, Touchdroid, is assembling a team of developers. From the Touchdroid Wiki: "First going to build with Gingerbread and be AOSP based. After we are able to successfully boot Android, we are going to move to a CM7 base. Once we reach what we deem a 'stable' beta, we will continue to provide bug fixes for Gingerbread build, but also begin working on a full Honeycomb port. If ICS is released before or during our development of the Honeycomb port, we will stop and begin work on ICS. (Please be October…)".

    So your HP TouchPad could have a Gingerbread (Android 2.3.x) or Honeycomb (Android 3.x) future. If you want one.

    "If a stable porting option is available to us Touchpad owners, then we just purchased a brilliant device at one hell of a steal," capncoad comments to an earlier TouchPad story. "From what I've read, there is a project being developed called TouchDroid to allow Android on the device. We will have to wait and see".

    "The Android port announcement came via Twitter, with Erik Hardesty, a Cyanogen contributor saying that; '[...]I plan on doing an AOSP port to the TouchPad, not Honeycomb'", commenter ilev responded. (I sure hope we get more real names with Betanews switch to Disqus.)

    "I purchased three", David Carroll comments to a different TouchPad story. "I'll run WebOS till it's outdated, then put a stable Android on it".

    Betanews reader Nikolay Kolev is clear about his reason for buying HP TouchPad: "To install Android on it, of course".

    Will you?

    Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/22/BlackBerry_users__would_you_pay__5_a_month_for_50_songs_'

    BlackBerry users, would you pay $5 a month for 50 songs?

    Publié: août 22, 2011, 4:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    It's a strange question given the alternatives, but it must be asked. All Things Digital's Peter Kafka reports $5/month for 50 songs will be the going rate for Research in Motion's rumored BlackBerry Music Service.

    You can stop laughing now. Please. Someone will hear.

    Kafka asks: "So why would anyone pay $5 a month to get 50 songs on their phone, when they can pay $10 a month and get an unlimited number of songs, that work on lots of different devices, from services like Rdio and Rhapsody?" How about MOG, which I use to stream to my Chromebook and to download to my Nexus S. Or Spotify? There are so many cheap or free alternatives, the plan is mind-boggling.

    What? Has there been a reversal in the exchange rate with the Canadian dollar (going up in value)? Is RIM management so incompetent it couldn't negotiate better terms from the music labels? Is same management so inept as to think BlackBerry users will pay a premium price for music? Or perhaps you would, which is one reason for the question posed by the headline.

    I'm not a big fan of rumors, but Kafka has an exceptionally good record of being right about them. So as unbelievable as this story seems, it's more likely true than not.

    So, what's your answer? If it's no, do you use a music service now? Which one(s), and how much do you pay? Comments await your answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/20/Where%e2%80%99s_the_HP_TouchPad_fire_sale_'

    Where’s the HP TouchPad fire sale?

    Publié: août 20, 2011, 6:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    The InterWebs buzzed last night with excitement about TouchPads selling for $99 and $149 — that’s for the 16GB and 32GB models, respectively. These prices make Border’s bankruptcy liquidation look pathetic. Suddenly, TouchPad is the Lamborghini of tablets for 30 year-old VW bug prices. Yeah, but where do you get such a steal? Not where I expected.

    Last night, Amazon and Best Buy still offered TouchPad at full retail prices here in the United States. Best Buy Canada, among a handful of other retailers, offered the discount prices yesterday — that’s $300 and $350 off. Today. The WebOS tablet is gone from both US retail Websites, and that’s not because they’re sold out. I called three East Coast Best Buys this morning and got the same response from all. If they carried TouchPad, it would still be for the higher prices. HP has recalled the tablet, and Best Buy has none to sell.

    Well, damn, and I was ready to haul ass over to my local San Diego Best Buy this morning to buy one. I don’t need a TouchPad, but, hell, for 100 bucks my wife could use it to surf the web and check email while watching TV or working on jewelry.

    Before answering the “Where can you get it?” question, let’s deal with those folks who bought one and now might feel more than a little pissed at HP and retailers. For anyone having vacationed on a remote Pacific island or spent that last three days in an out-of-body state, there’s shocking news: After just six weeks of sales, HP killed of TouchPad and other WebOS devices and is taking a $100 million charge to liquidate inventory. Presumably that money will go to selling off existing inventory and something else — refunds to aggrieved buyers. HP dropped the bomb two days ago, and shareholders bombed the stock, which fell about 23 percent in early trading on Friday, closing at $23.60, or down by 20 percent.

    “Best Buy is extending its return/exchange policy on the HP TouchPad and all HP TouchPad accessories to 60 days. Come into a Best Buy store and we will help you find another tablet to fit your needs or issue you a refund”. That’s according to a notice on the company’s website. Return policy is typically 14 days. So if you bought a TouchPad — and now seeing the product is dead want a refund — you can get one, presumably. Best Buy started taking preorders more than 60 days ago, but availability falls within the return window.

    So that leaves the question of where to get this great deal on TouchPad? The answer should be HP, but both tablets are listed as “out of stock”, on the order page. That’s a situation possibly to change as retailers such as Best Buy return tens of thousands of TouchPads to HP. Something else: HP’s SMB store shows both models available, but for the higher prices. This SlickDeals Wiki is a good resource for finding TouchPad. I’m still holding out for local retail stores, which haven’t yet opened here on the West Coast.

    So should you buy TouchPad for the ridiculously low price? Hell, yeah. WebOS is delightful, and HP sent out a memo to developers yesterday hinting there’s still a future ahead. To where, it’s anyone’s guess right now.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/19/Did_HP_do_the_wrong_thing_by_killing_off_TouchPad_'

    Did HP do the wrong thing by killing off TouchPad?

    Publié: août 19, 2011, 8:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    HP TouchPad for sale

    HP is taking a beating for its decision to kill off WebOS devices, including TouchPad, and shopping around its PC division, which could be spun off or sold. Shares fell nearly 23 percent — that’s about a six-year low! — in early trading today.

    Betanews readers, who are an opinionated lot, are figuratively shaking their heads in dismay, too.

    In midday trading, HP shares were at $23.55, down slightly from the opening of $23.60. Yesterday HP closed at $29.51. Around this time yesterday, HP’s market cap was $61.27 billion. Midday today: $48.55 billion.

    Here at Betanews, there has been fractious debate about HP’s plans. I’m in the minority camp seeing yesterday’s stunning announcement negatively — that it creates bad perceptions about HP management and its fairly new chief executive. HP named Leo Apotheker CEO in September 2010. TouchPad had no time to find footing in the market, and HP is No. 1 PC maker. Others here see HP smartly pruning low-margin businesses and refocusing on its core competency — the enterprise.

    Whomever is right — and maybe none of us — shareholders are responding negatively to the news. I had wondered if the stock might rise on news of the PC businesses’ sale, which would support the pruning is good theory. Clearly not.

    HP killed TouchPad just six weeks after hitting retail here in the United States. But that wasn’t everywhere. “This had only been released in Australia on Monday of this week”, explains Mark Rixon. “The princely total of 4 days before being taken off shelf”.

    Other Betanews readers express strong negative reactions. ”HP I had hope in you!” reader Cool Guy exclaims. “Why are you doing this?? If you are reading this, please do not cancel WebOS and at least make it open source. WebOS has great potential”.

    “Geez talk about giving up! 6 weeks!” writes Betanews reader Nicholas Gerstenberger . “That’s it?! Seriously?! And they JUST dropped the price of the tablet too. So what? Are they gonna give up WebOS too? Maybe somebody else should’ve bought palm. Sounds like they just wanted a quick way to get a tablet out, nothing more. HP needs to seriously ‘invest’ into WebOS if they want it to stand a helluva chance!”

    Commenter Pre Post: “If Apotheker wasn’t European I’d say trying to pull off inventing a WebOS tablet against iOS and Android was typical arrogant American ignorance. I was baffled all along”.

    “It is obvious that this new CEO did not share Mark Hurd’s vision for buying Palm and the WebOS”, commenter gmadrigal writes. “I just can’t believe how smartphones are ditching their OS. First Nokia killing the symbian and the MeeGo. Now HP killing the WebOS. Well anyways, I just purchased a 32GB brick for $300. I hope I dont regret it, I still like the tablet and its functionality”.

    “I really believe that WebOS was/is a viable alternative to the staid and restricted Apple platform or that other thing — the Google Android system”, reader Stephen Green opines. “The HP tablet is miles ahead of Apple in its implementation”.

    Michael Beckerman sees things differently:

    This move illustrates two very big mistakes on HP’s part:

    1. Buying Palm. Why would you buy a dying platform that was obviously on the way out and had not chance at all of standing up against it’s massive competitors?

    2. Launching the TouchPad.

    Why would you roll out a table using an OS that no one had any interest in, when your two very well established major competitors (iOS and Android), that already had 90-percent plus of the tablet market wrapped up? Had HP not made those two huge mistakes, one right after the other, they would be a very different company today and would be in a very different position than they are today. Now, you can peel that onion back even further if you like and look at other previous major missteps on their part if you like (Compaq merger/buyout) which don’t seem to be such smart decisions today, in retrospect. It seems like the list of bad decisions at HP just keeps getting longer and longer.

    “WTF? The thing hasn’t been on the market long enough to judge”, Bill Gibson opines. “The back-to-school season isn’t over and they haven’t had it even been through a holiday season. I don’t think it would have ultimately over taken Apple or Android, but it could be a decent 3rd place. RIM [Research in Motion] has less of a chance, IMHO, and they’re still trying. At the very least, they should keep WebOS as a quick boot option for laptops”.

    Would you like to add to the discussion. For me the question is the debate we’re having here at Betanews. Has HP given up the future — end-to-end software, hardware and services on mobile devices — for the post-PC era? Or is HP reaching for the future, by dumping low-margin products and divisions and refocusing on the enterprise? Please answer in comments.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/19/You_bought_HP_TouchPad__it%e2%80%99s_discontinued__now_what_'

    You bought HP TouchPad, it’s discontinued, now what?

    Publié: août 19, 2011, 1:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    TouchPad Brick

    Six weeks after the first TouchPads reached retail and two months after preorders started, HP killed the tablet. That’s right — in a stunning announcement made just a few hours ago.

    What we want to know: Did you buy TouchPad? Are you willing to admit it? What do you plan to do with it? What do you think of HP’s decision to ice TouchPad — your tablet — in less time than European summer vacations? Please tell us, in comments or email joe at betanews dot com.

    In my 17 years writing about tech, I can’t recall anything quite as shocking as today’s announcement. HP spent $1.2 billion to buy Palm and release a charming tablet, only to screw tens of thousands — hopefully not that many — of customers six weeks later. I can get a brick from the Home Depot without spending 500 bucks. Geez Louse.

    During today’s earnings conference call, HP executives strongly communicated that TouchPad sales were downright awful. Too bad, over at Best Buy, users give the 16GB model 4.1 starts and 32GB 4.6 stars — hardly signs of dissatisfaction. By comparison, iPad 2 16GB is 4.2 stars and 32GB 4.6 stars.

    Over at Amazon, there are 113 5-star reviews. Writes one buyer on July 2 — one day after sales started: “From a dedicated Apple fan, this is a good device”. Writes another: “Finally I have my own tablet to keep. After months of researching and trying out devices, I have settled on the HP TouchPad”.

    Companies should pay attention when customers are hugely satisfied. Based on these sample reviews, TouchPad users are damn happy with their devices, and many are likely to be damn mad after learning what HP did today. In that scenario, the once satisfied customer can become a company’s greatest liability.

    I’m of the opinion HP should have given TouchPad more time — certainly more than six weeks of sales before killing it off. But I didn’t buy one, although it was high on my consideration list. If you did, now’s the time to share your pain.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/18/iPad_kills_HP_TouchPad__is_BlackBerry_PlayBook_next_'

    iPad kills HP TouchPad, is BlackBerry PlayBook next?

    Publié: août 18, 2011, 9:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    HP Touchpad

    One day after reports that HP TouchPad was selling poorly at Best Buy, the world’s No. 1 PC company discontinued the product. It was an unexpected announcement among others. HP also is looking to ditch its PC division.

    In a press release, HP says “it plans to announce that it will discontinue operations for WebOS devices, specifically the TouchPad and WebOS phones. HP will continue to explore options to optimize the value of webOS software going forward”.

    The decision is nothing short of stunning. HP only unveiled the TouchPad in February, 10 months after buying the underlying technologies, including WebOS, in its $1.2 billion acquisition of Palm.

    During today’s earnings conference call, HP CEO Apotheker remarked: The “‘tablet effect’ is real…sales of the TouchPad are not meeting our expectations”.

    To Market, To Market

    The media tablet was first available for pre-order on June 19 and went on sale the first of July. It is the first non-phone device to be powered by WebOS. TouchPad marked HP’s late-entry to the much-lauded media tablet market, where Apple’s iPad is overwhelming leader. So two months after pre-orders started and less than 50 days after hitting retail stores, TouchPad is dead and WebOS looks to have no future ahead.

    TouchPad is an appealing product, in part because of WebOS, which is refined and fluid compared to Apple’s iOS and offers much better and broader sync capabilities. But launching a new platform isn’t easy, particularly when there is a successful incumbent with huge market reach, big brand awareness, boatloads of developers and 100,000 native apps. TouchPad probably needed more time, something HP wasn’t willing to give, which is surprising given the investment made buying Palm, developing TouchPad and bringing it to market.

    TouchPad’s death removes a dangerous competitor form Apple’s path. HP is one of the few companies with the manufacturing, distribution and research and development capabilities to to take on iPad. As I explained in January, iPad hugely benefited from infrastructure Apple already had in place for iPod and iPhone. The company launched its tablet with huge manufacturing, distribution and third-party support, something it didn’t have with iPod and less of with iPhone. Purely from that perspective, and discounting design or technical merits, Research in Motion and Samsung are strategically in best competitive ecosystem positions to release viable iPad competitors. As was HP.

    There HP has unique capabilities. It’s dealer and retailer channel is enormous, and it sells a broad range of PCs, peripherals and printers that’s reach spreads the brand everywhere. But bringing potential to market took more than HP was willing to give TouchPad. Actually it required more than HP was able to give.

    When HP announced the merger, I warned that it could only go badly. HP doesn’t understand consumers:

    Anyone thinking HP can do much right by Palm should look no further than the waylaid Compaq brand, current HP PDA/phone lineup or disastrous iPod distribution deal. What? You don’t remember that HP once sold iPod, right alongside Apple? HP is a great technology company, as is Palm. HP needs to jumpstart its handset strategy, and Palm needs a white knight. In fairytales, the princess must kiss a frog for him to become her prince, her white knight. In fairytale mergers, the princess’ kiss turns one — or both – into a frog.

    The frog princess is dead.

    Now What?

    Still, HP had the right idea at the right time, to enter the smartphone and tablet markets with end-to-end hardware, software and services — just like Apple. And iPad’s stunning success showed there is a viable market for media tablets. Analyst forecasts range from about 54 million to 70 million media tablets sold this year, with iPad share expected to remain between 60 percent and 70 percent. In second calendar quarter, Apple shipped 9.25 million iPads.

    But competitors aren’t doing nearly as well. Motorola expects 1.5 million XOOM tablet sales for this year — or did a few months ago. Research in Motion’s BlackBerry tablet as is struggling for numbers, too, and its future, already in question, looks perhaps bleaker now. Last week, RIM and Sprint mutually cancelled the 4G PlayBook on the network. If HP can’t compete against Apple, how can RIM?

    HP CFO Cathie Lesjack spelled out just how poorly during today’s conference call. WebOS’ division lost $322 million during fiscal third quarter. “We would expect an even larger loss for webos in Q4″, she said. “Essentially, TouchPad and WebOS phones have not met our financial targets”. She added: “With such a young ecosystem and poorly received hardware, we were unable to meet our target”; she called further investment in WebOS hardware a “risk without clear returns”.

    Questions still remain about WebOS’ future. “The software was met with strong reviews, but sellthrough was not met”, Lesjack said, which could indicate HP isn’t yet done with WebOS.

    In March, HP revealed plans to put WebOS on every one of its PCs by 2012. It’s simply unthinkable. HP is — or perhaps was — Microsoft’s strongest Windows partner. Is that plan scrapped now? That might depend on what HP does with the PC division (e.g., Personal Systems Group) and whether or not WebOS goes with it.

    Referring to Google’s plans to buy Motorola Mobility, Cera Technology CEO Michael Mace quipped: “Let me get this straight — Google is now a hardware company, and HP is now a software company. So, maybe Facebook will open a hotel chain?”

    “WebOS would be an interesting hedge against Google/Moto, but I doubt anyone will give it a third chance”, Avi Greengart, Current Analysis research director, remarked.

    Maybe HP sees something better and can’t talk about it. Microsoft plans to formally unveil Windows 8 during next month’s BUILD conference. The tablet is one of the new operating system’s most-important targeted devices. Windows 8 is expected to be a full desktop operating system on tablets, which would resonate much better with HP’s enterprise focus.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/18/Is_Windows_8%e2%80%b2s_app_store_better_late_than_never_'

    Is Windows 8′s app store better late than never?

    Publié: août 18, 2011, 8:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    Steven Sinofsky

    I sure hope so, but Microsoft should have done this in 2006.

    Perhaps in an alternate universe Microsoft shipped Windows Vista with an app store and leveraged it to Windows Mobile. In that universe Microsoft’s app store revived developer excitement about Windows; helped them to make more money (by diminishing piracy); gave businesses, consumers and developers an exciting reason to commit to Windows Mobile smartphones (with apps scaled from PC to mobile to Xbox); and made it nearly impossible for Apple to succeed in the smartphone market. Over there, Microsoft, and not Apple, is the cherished consumer brand. But, alas, we live over here.

    Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live president, officially confirmed the app store off-handedly in a blog post introducing the Windows 8 team. Some reaction from the post’s comments: ”App Store? Microsoft, I salute you. Congratulations”, writes Thomas. ”For the App store, it will be awesome if the developpers and the consumers can communicate direcly together in order to improve the applications (blog,review,comment,etc..)” Sylvan writes. “In fact its one feature i think that could make Windows app store different and much better than the other app stores”.

    It’s about time — and too long coming. I first recommended an app store to Microsoft product managers about 7 years ago, when working as an analyst for JupiterResearch. To me, it was a no-brainer because of Windows Update and product activation. Microsoft could offer the same rights protection to its developers, a huge captive audience of users and a way to update those apps. I don’t recall a whole lot of enthusiasm for the idea, which wasn’t exactly rocket science.

    Microsoft still could have seized the initiative by putting an app store into Windows 7. Apple showed the way with the iOS App Store in summer 2008 (Win7 shipped in autumn 2009). Instead, Apple released the Mac App Store first — as add-on to Snow Leopard — and later built-into Mac OS X 10.7 Lion. Microsoft already had apps and other downloadables for Xbox, so surely the concept wasn’t new and certainly there must have been server farm infrastructure in place. There simply wasn’t the company commitment.

    Windows 8 app store is the right thing to do, particularly if apps scale from PC to tablet to smartphone to game consoles. Among the benefits:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices.

    2. Developers can scale their applications across devices, supporting Microsoft’s three-screen strategy.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they will be paid; the app store would deter piracy.

    4. Developers would be able to sell their apps from within Windows — and that’s better than any retail shop.

    5. The store would make applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    6. Applications could be kept up to date, automatically, which would benefit both developers and buyers.

    7. If Microsoft leverages technologies like HTML5, Silverlight and even XAML, it could help developers blur the line between local applications and cloud services while enhancing Windows appeal.

    That’s a short list. It’s about time this universe gets the app store the other one has enjoyed for so long.

    My question for developers: How interested are you to develop for a Windows app store? Please answer in comments, or email joe at betanews dot com.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/18/Rocky_stock_markets_shake_tech_stocks'

    Rocky stock markets shake tech stocks

    Publié: août 18, 2011, 6:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    cash

    It’s another day of insanity on Wall Street, as fear grips investors. The Dow dropped by more than 500 points in early trading. Tech stocks couldn’t escape gravity’s pull downward.

    These cycles of mayhem are becoming all too familiar as the market takes on greater cycles of increasing manic activity, with the Dow way up one day and down the next. Suddenly I feel good for not being an investor.

    But for those who are, tech stocks on Nasdaq took yet another beating today — that after seeing a recovery following last week’s meltdown.

    Here’s how some prominent tech companies are fairing:

    Apple. Down 3 percent to 4 percent. Apple opened at $370.70, off Wednesday’s close of $380.44. Late-morning trading: $368.76. Market cap: $341.87 billion.

    Cisco. Down 4 percent to 5 percent. Cisco opened at $15.39, off Wednesday’s close of $15.85. Mid-day trading: $15.17. Market cap: $83.11 billion.

    Dell. Down 4 percent to 5 percent. Dell opened at $13.86, off Wednessday’s close of $14.20. Mid-day trading: $13.62. Market cap: $25.7 billion.

    Google. Down 4 percent to 5 percent. Google opened at $524 off Wednessday’s close of $533.15. Mid-day trading: $512.50. Market cap: $165.48 billion.

    HP. Down 5 percent to 6 percent (later spiked to over 3 percent, then fell again). HP opened at $29.86, off Wednessday’s close of $31.29. Mid-day trading: $29.72. Market cap: $61.27 billion.

    IBM. Down 4 percent to 5 percent. IBM opened at $166.32, off Wednesday’s close of $171.48. Mid-day trading: $162.95. Market cap: $194.61 billion.

    Intel. Down 3 percent to 4 percent. Intel opened at $20.14, off Wednesday’s close of $20.67. Mid-day trading: $19.92. Market cap: $104.59 billion.

    Microsoft. Down 1 to 2 percent. Microsoft opened at $24.56, off Wednesday’s close of $25.25. Mid-day trading: $24.94. Market cap: $208.95 billion.

    Oracle. Down 8 percent to 9 percent. Oracle opened at $26.46, off Wednesday’s close of $27.47. Mid-day trading: $25.24. Market cap: $127.85 billion.

    Yahoo. Down 3 percent to 4 percent. Yahoo opened at $13.01 off Wednesday’s close of $13.47. Mid-day trading: $13.01. Market cap: $16.42 billion.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/18/Office_365_becomes_Office_364_with_Wednesday_outage'

    Office 365 becomes Office 364 with Wednesday outage

    Publié: août 18, 2011, 12:55am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Less than two months after launching, Microsoft's hosted productivity suite went down today in North America.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/17/Can_Google_Motorola_Mobility_bring_stability_to_the_Force_'

    Can Google-Motorola Mobility bring stability to the Force?

    Publié: août 17, 2011, 8:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs and his cabal of Jedi lawyers brandish patents like light sabers. But if Verizon's general counsel is right, Google will end the patent-clone wars after completing the Moto acquisition.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/17/Think_eBay_is_the_top_retail_or_auction_site__You_d_be_wrong'

    Think eBay is the top retail or auction site? You'd be wrong

    Publié: août 17, 2011, 5:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Amazon leads globally followed by eBay. Big surprise: Apple is No. 4. ComScore released the data today, for June.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/17/Samsung_SSD_s_speed_up_with_new_830_series'

    Samsung SSD's speed up with new 830 series

    Publié: août 17, 2011, 3:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Samsung Electronics unveiled its next-generation solid-state drives, which go on sale in October. Pricing isn't immediately available, but performance claims are: Double the bandwidth of the 470 series.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/17/iPhones_are_for_the_rich__Androids_for_the_rest_of_us__Infographic_'

    iPhones are for the rich, Androids for the rest of us [Infographic]

    Publié: août 17, 2011, 12:33am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPhone users are 67% more likely to have household incomes of $200,000 or more while Android users are 24 percent more likely to earn between $50k-$100k. You won't believe the other differences.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/16/Finally__Firefox_for_Android_is_stable_and_primed_for_tablets'

    Finally, Firefox for Android is stable and primed for tablets

    Publié: août 16, 2011, 10:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's a solidness about the browser that makes it ready, finally, for prime time. Firefox fans, this is the one you've been waiting for.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/16/Real_people_react_to_Google_s_Motorola_Mobility_acquisition'

    Real people react to Google's Motorola Mobility acquisition

    Publié: août 16, 2011, 3:38am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, the responses are about as real as the geekfest of commentary going at Google+. We've got journalists, IT admins, Android enthusiasts and mobile gearheads piping in; surprisingly, or perhaps not because of the social venue, they're enthused.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/15/Apple_lied_to_get_that_injunction_against_Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_'

    Apple lied to get that injunction against Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1?

    Publié: août 15, 2011, 9:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    According to research conducted by Webwereld.nl, Apple's evidence against Samsung was doctored, changing the Galaxy Tab 10.1's aspect ratio and shape to look like iPad 2.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/15/Larry_Page_has_got_some_kind_of_balls_to_buy_Motorola_Mobility'

    Larry Page has got some kind of balls to buy Motorola Mobility

    Publié: août 15, 2011, 7:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's CEO proved his mettle today, just four months after assuming the role from Chairman Eric Schmidt. The acquisition is bold for its risks, which are no less great than the benefits.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/12/Microsoft_backed_group_goes_after_Google_search__claims_unfair_competition'

    Microsoft-backed group goes after Google search, claims unfair competition

    Publié: août 12, 2011, 11:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In the 1990s, Microsoft competitors ganged up to form or support so-called independent groups that cried monopoly abuse outside the courthouse and in the court of public opinion. Now the company is member of lobbying group doing the same, and to Google. Is this ironic or what?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/12/5_things_my_wife_likes_about_Nexus_S'

    5 things my wife likes about Nexus S

    Publié: août 12, 2011, 6:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last week, Joe Wilcox gave the Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured smartphone to his artist wife. She loves Nexus S, but loathes iPhone. Isn't it a stereotype that artists and Apple go together like organic gumballs in a bag?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/12/Apple_is_no_longer_the_world_s_most_valuable_company'

    Apple is no longer the world's most valuable company

    Publié: août 12, 2011, 4:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Exxon Mobile has retaken the lead from the most valuable tech company, but narrowly keep it at market close on Friday. Exxon's market cap was $350.07 billion compared to $349.50 billion for Apple.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/11/Crimey__I_can_watch_Netflix_on_Chromebook'

    Crimey, I can watch Netflix on Chromebook

    Publié: août 11, 2011, 8:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google updates Chrome OS fairly often. It's refreshing to get new features and performance improvements regularly rather than wait for major OS X or Windows updates. My Chromebook is better today than it was last week, says Joe Wilcox.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/11/Samsung_s_Bada_outsells_Windows_Phone_in_Q2'

    Samsung's Bada outsells Windows Phone in Q2

    Publié: août 11, 2011, 5:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's smartphone OS sales share plunged from 4.9 percent to 1.6 percent, according to Gartner, falling behind Bada, which many analysts or reviewers wouldn't put in the same league.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/10/It_s_official__Apple_is_the_world_s_most_valuable_company'

    It's official: Apple is the world's most valuable company

    Publié: août 10, 2011, 11:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Exxon is king no more. Now that Apple is the world's largest company as measured by market cap, when is someone going to hold it accountable like one?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/10/Apple_intimidation_drives_developer_innovation'

    Apple intimidation drives developer innovation

    Publié: août 10, 2011, 8:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mark this day -- Aug. 10, 2011 -- on a calendar, for it may be remembered as a turning point for Apple, when it finally claimed and maintained largest market capitalization and the beginnings of a developer revolt broke iOS mobile apps dominance.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/10/Windows_7_stomps_on_Mac_s_feeble_market_share_gains'

    Windows 7 stomps on Mac's feeble market share gains

    Publié: août 10, 2011, 5:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Gartner predicted -- and, frankly, it's no shocking palm reading -- that Windows 7 will become the "leading operating system" this year.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/09/Not_even_Huffington_Post_or_TechCrunch_could_save_AOL__which_value_plummeted_over_25%_today'

    Not even Huffington Post or TechCrunch could save AOL, which value plummeted over 25% today

    Publié: août 9, 2011, 11:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    While other tech stocks rallied, AOL delivered dismal second-quarter earnings results on a day when shareholders were unforgiving following yesterday's tortuous day of trading.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/09/German_court_bars_Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_sales_in_European_Union'

    German court bars Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales in European Union

    Publié: août 9, 2011, 8:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gasp. You read the headline right. Today, Apple won a preliminary injunction against major rival Samsung. Is this competition by litigation rather than innovation?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/09/Apple_HTC_patent_dispute__Dark_Side_of_the_Force_'

    Apple-HTC patent dispute: Dark Side of the Force?

    Publié: août 9, 2011, 6:41pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Recently, Apple has brandished its patent portfolio like a light saber, trying to cut competitors to pieces. But is the Force with CEO Steve Jobs and his cabal of Jedi lawyers? ITC has taken up the cause with new HTC investigation.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/08/Apple__Google__Microsoft_and_other_techs_close_way_down_following_massive_sell_off'

    Apple, Google, Microsoft and other techs close way down following massive sell-off

    Publié: août 8, 2011, 11:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nervous investors punished everyone today -- even the tech sector's most cherished companies. The Dow lost 635 points, while Nasdaq was down 6.9 percent. It was a bloodbath, but nowhere as severe as September 2008.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/08/How_does_the_US_downgraded_credit_rating_compare_to_major_tech_companies_'

    How does the US downgraded credit rating compare to major tech companies?

    Publié: août 8, 2011, 7:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft is higher, while most every other -- even Google -- is lower. So why is everyone crying over AA+?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/08/Market_sell_off_slams_tech_stocks'

    Market sell-off slams tech stocks

    Publié: août 8, 2011, 4:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Investors aren't reacting well to Standard & Poor's downgrading the US credit rating. Turbulence on Wall Street is shaking the tech sector, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/08/We_want_your_Windows_XP_memories'

    We want your Windows XP memories

    Publié: août 8, 2011, 4:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    August 24th marks the tenth anniversary of Windows XP's release to manufacturing. Betanews asks readers to share their recollections about the operating system for a special series of stories publishing later this month.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/07/My_problem_with_Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_10.1'

    My problem with Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1

    Publié: août 7, 2011, 4:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox can't apply updates to the tablet, which is basic functionality in 2011. An iPad 2 he could take to the local Apple Store -- a competitive advantage that simply cannot be understated.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/05/Developers_say_Google__can_catch_up_to_Facebook_in_social'

    Developers say Google+ can catch up to Facebook in social

    Publié: août 5, 2011, 6:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    According to an IDC survey, two-thirds of developers see Google+ closing the distance on Facebook. Among their reasons: Innovation and leverage off products like Android and Search.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/05/Want_to_know_why_cellular_carriers_are_throttling_your_data_'

    Want to know why cellular carriers are throttling your data?

    Publié: août 5, 2011, 5:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There are so many mobile connections -- 5.6 billion this year, reaching 7.4 billion in 2011, according to Gartner. Revenue won't keep pace, however, and you can blame your smartphone, tablet and mobile apps for that.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/05/Android_growth_surge_pushes_US_smartphone_OS_share_above_40%'

    Android growth surge pushes US smartphone OS share above 40%

    Publié: août 5, 2011, 1:48am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    ComScore's newest handset data shows Google's mobile OS growing by 5.4 percentage points compared to 1.1 percent for Apple's platform. Say, in what universe did Verizon iPhone stall Android?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/04/Apple_is_a_patent_bully'

    Apple is a patent bully

    Publié: août 4, 2011, 5:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Competition by litigation defines Apple's response to Android. The company is using its patent portfolio as a weapon of mass destruction against competitors licensing the open-source operating system. The fallout will kill innovation in mobile devices.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/04/Developer_interest_in_Android_increases__approaches_iOS'

    Developer interest in Android increases, approaches iOS

    Publié: août 4, 2011, 12:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Despite ridiculous commentary about Android being dead or soon to be, the platform is winning developers. But tablets are holding back greater gains.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/03/Get_Google_Nexus_S_for_free__right_now'

    Get Google Nexus S for free, right now

    Publié: août 3, 2011, 7:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Best Buy's deal of the day, August 3, is the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Nexus S for free with two-year activation. It's about as sweet a deal as you can get on the "pure Google" smartphone.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/02/Is_iCloud_sync_done_right_'

    Is iCloud sync done right?

    Publié: août 2, 2011, 6:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's cloud synchronization service is now available to developers. With iCloud, Apple can resume sync leadership in the earlier Noughties it gave up later in the decade.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/01/Android_is_No._1_in_35_countries__approaches_50%_global_market_share'

    Android is No. 1 in 35 countries, approaches 50% global market share

    Publié: août 1, 2011, 9:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Canalys issued its final second-quarter smartphone shipments data today -- and, whoa, by that measure Android is doing exceptionally well. Year-over-year growth was a stunning 379 percent.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/08/01/Will_you_wait_for_iPhone_5_'

    Will you wait for iPhone 5?

    Publié: août 1, 2011, 5:26pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster claims that 64% of new handset buyers will get iPhone 5 based on responses from 216 people in Minnesota. Hell, we can get a larger and more reliable sample than that. Start the new month by taking our poll and answering the headline's question.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/29/Apple__Samsung_battle_for_smartphone_supremacy'

    Apple, Samsung battle for smartphone supremacy

    Publié: juillet 29, 2011, 11:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nokia the smartphone king is dead. Long live Apple and Samsung. But can Apple keep its global newly-acquired crown?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/29/Who_killed_Google_TV_'

    Who killed Google TV?

    Publié: juillet 29, 2011, 1:19am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Was it you? Your neighbor? Or me? No one. Rumors of its death are greatly exaggerated.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/28/Mark_Russinovich_and_Aaron_Margosis_introduce__Windows_Sysinternals_Administrator_s_Reference___video_'

    Mark Russinovich and Aaron Margosis introduce 'Windows Sysinternals Administrator's Reference' [video]

    Publié: juillet 28, 2011, 6:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you've got time this morning, the Channel 9 video is a great introduction to the book and real geekfest for Windows administrators.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/27/Tough_luck_Symantec__McAfee__Trend_Micro__IBM__CA'

    Tough luck Symantec, McAfee, Trend Micro, IBM, CA

    Publié: juillet 27, 2011, 5:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The five companies controlling the security software market have lost dramatic combined share compared to four years earlier, says Gartner. Get this: Microsoft isn't given as reason -- competition is.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/26/Galaxy_Tab_10.1_4G_LTE_cuts_early_XOOM_buyers_on_the_bleeding_edge'

    Galaxy Tab 10.1 4G LTE cuts early XOOM buyers on the bleeding edge

    Publié: juillet 26, 2011, 9:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This can't possibly be the right way to endear geeks to Honeycomb. Early adopters buying Moto's tablet looked forward to LTE upgrades. But buyers who waited will get faster wireless first.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/26/Have_you_bought_then_returned_an_Android_phone_'

    Have you bought then returned an Android phone?

    Publié: juillet 26, 2011, 5:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox asks you, because of a seemingly misleading post at TechCrunch that uses a single, unnamed source to claim Android phone return rates are a shocking 30%-40%. Is the stat credible?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/26/Mozilla_boots_to_promises_with_browser_OS_proposal'

    Mozilla boots to promises with browser OS proposal

    Publié: juillet 26, 2011, 2:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do we really need another browser-based operating system? Mozilla developers think so. Problem is timing. There's no way to bring the project to market fast enough. Wouldn't it make more sense to step up FIrefox Mobile development instead?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/26/Is_connecting_to_WiFi_from_Windows_really_as_hard_as_MacDonalds_claims_'

    Is connecting to WiFi from Windows really as hard as MacDonalds claims?

    Publié: juillet 26, 2011, 1:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A McDonalds Australia instruction sheet supposedly shows eight lofty steps for XP and Vista and three easy ones for Macs. OK, Windows users, here's your chance to set the record straight.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/23/Are_you_one_of_the_20_million_Google__users_'

    Are you one of the 20 million Google+ users?

    Publié: juillet 23, 2011, 12:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google+ has done in about three weeks what took Facebook years -- reach 20 million (presumably) active users. Can the service reach critical mass? You may have the answer.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/22/I_ll_tell_you_something_about_Windows'

    I'll tell you something about Windows

    Publié: juillet 22, 2011, 8:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft must move beyond Windows, as clearly seen in fiscal 2011 fourth quarterly and yearly results, announced late yesterday. Its future is a nameless utility supporting applications and services that obscure the operating system.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/22/1_million__users__download_Mac_OS_X_Lion'

    1 million 'users' download Mac OS X Lion

    Publié: juillet 22, 2011, 3:30am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's new operating system leaps and roars to a big number of buyers during its first 24 hours of availability.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/21/Microsoft_Q4_2011_by_the_numbers___17.37B_revenue___5.87B_profit__69_cents_EPS'

    Microsoft Q4 2011 by the numbers: $17.37B revenue, $5.87B profit, 69 cents EPS

    Publié: juillet 21, 2011, 10:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft closed its fiscal year on a high note, despite globally slow PC sales that weighed down Windows division sales.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/21/Windows_Phone_transition_is_killing_Nokia'

    Windows Phone transition is killing Nokia

    Publié: juillet 21, 2011, 9:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Smartphone sales fell by nearly a third since the Microsoft deal was announced, Apple is now tops in the category and the handset maker is losing massive market share. Oh yeah, losing money, too.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/21/AT_T_compatible_Google_Nexus_S_arrives_next_week'

    AT&T-compatible Google Nexus S arrives next week

    Publié: juillet 21, 2011, 7:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Is better late than never really applicable in the rapidly-changing smartphone market?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/21/Mobile_money_is_hot_commodity_but_cooler_than_it_should_be'

    Mobile money is hot commodity but cooler than it should be

    Publié: juillet 21, 2011, 5:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Global mobile payments will generate $86.1 billion in revenue this year, Gartner forecasts today. That's up 75.9 percent from 2010. But technology and behavior are limiting adoption.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/20/Mac_OS_X_Lion_is_here__and_I_don_t_like_it'

    Mac OS X Lion is here, and I don't like it

    Publié: juillet 20, 2011, 7:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's newest operating system, released today, imposes usability changes on users, who will be forced to adapt their behavior. Lion reflects a world view about iOS devices and putting connected apps before web browsers.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/20/10_things_you_need_to_know_about_Apple'

    10 things you need to know about Apple

    Publié: juillet 20, 2011, 2:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's record-breaking fiscal 2011 third quarter is chock full of surprises -- in the results and from the earnings conference call. For example, iPads outsold Macs to K-12 schools. There are nine more for your eyes to feast.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/Apple_Q3_2011_by_the_numbers___28.57B_revenue_and__7.31B_profit'

    Apple Q3 2011 by the numbers: $28.57B revenue and $7.31B profit

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 10:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple beats Wall Street consensus by more than $3 billion revenue and close to $2 earnings per share. iPhone sales grow by 142% and iPads by 183%.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/Windows_Phone_7_users_sure_are_satisfied'

    Windows Phone 7 users sure are satisfied

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 9:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    According to ChangeWave, Windows Phone 7 users are more satisfied than are Android users. Successful products are made from numbers like these.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/Now_you_can_Google__on_iPhone'

    Now you can Google+ on iPhone

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 8:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's invite-only social network is now available from the iOS App Store. Are you any more likely to sign up for or use Google+ because of the app. Please tell us.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/Dissatisfied_with_Facebook__You_re_not_alone'

    Dissatisfied with Facebook? You're not alone

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 6:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Only 14 companies -- the majority airlines -- rank lower than Facebook on this year's American Customer Satisfaction Index. The new report sees Google+ as possible contenter for social network throne.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/The_irony_and_infamy_of_LulzSec_s_Rupert_Murdoch_attacks'

    The irony and infamy of LulzSec's Rupert Murdoch attacks

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 3:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    LulzSec members' sent a perplexing message today-- they're justified to break the law but no one else. How ironic. It's bad for newspapers to wiretap, but OK to hack them. Is it? You tell us: Does one criminal act justify another?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/19/Will_iPhone_5_bring_the_perfect_storm_'

    Will iPhone 5 bring the perfect storm?

    Publié: juillet 19, 2011, 12:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's a good question to ask now that ChangeWave claims that 46 percent of 4,163 consumers surveyed plan to buy iPhone within 90 days. Apple is expected to release iPhone 5 within that time period.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/15/Which_matters_more_to_you__Android_or_iOS___poll_'

    Which matters more to you, Android or iOS? [poll]

    Publié: juillet 15, 2011, 11:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Flurry claims "Android has lost developer support to iOS". Joe Wilcox doesn't buy it based on broader market perspective and ways developers juggle priorities. Please clear up this dispute by answering the headline's question and taking our two polls?

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/15/Forget_FarmVille__now_you_can_play_Google_News'

    Forget FarmVille, now you can play Google News

    Publié: juillet 15, 2011, 7:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    You could spend real money for virtual goods on the farm, or earn merit badges from Google for being an informed citizen instead. For free.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/15/Google_shares_soar_in_early_trading__up_more_than__70'

    Google shares soar in early trading, up more than $70

    Publié: juillet 15, 2011, 5:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Record-breaking Q2 results, CEO Larry Page earnings-call performance, 10 million Google+ users and 550,000 Android activations per day make an impression on investors.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/14/You_can_t_trust_rumors_about_Apple'

    You can't trust rumors about Apple

    Publié: juillet 14, 2011, 9:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Once again, rumors about a big new Apple product launch prove to be unfounded. Have you seen Mac OS X Lion today or new MacBook Airs? Neither have I. But you'd not know that reading about their July 14 releases.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/14/Media_tablets_kill_netbooks__lift_Apple_PC_market_share'

    Media tablets kill netbooks, lift Apple PC market share

    Publié: juillet 14, 2011, 5:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    PC shipments declined during second calendar quarter, as vendors and retailers cleared out excess netbooks and made room for Galaxy Tab 10.1, iPad 2, XOOM and other tablets.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/14/Nearly_60%_of_Netflix_customers_plan_to_close_their_accounts__poll_results_'

    Nearly 60% of Netflix customers plan to close their accounts [poll results]

    Publié: juillet 14, 2011, 1:05am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    More than 1,600 people responded to the Betanews Netflix poll. Not only are customers ready to quit the service, only about 14 percent say they'll stick with DVDs.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/13/One_of_75_new_Microsoft_stores_is_coming_to_a_mall_near_you'

    One of 75 new Microsoft stores is coming to a mall near you

    Publié: juillet 13, 2011, 11:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Remember the whacko rumors from April about Microsoft backing off its retail store strategy? Today, COO Kevin Turner made clear more stores are coming. Lots of them.

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/Android_Market_gets_a_smart_new_look'

    Android Market gets a smart new look

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 11:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google redesigned the store client to make finding and buying apps easier and for developers to better present their apps and cross-sell when something is purchased.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/How_much_more_are_you_willing_to_pay_Netflix_'

    How much more are you willing to pay Netflix?

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 9:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Netflix is separating its streaming and DVD rental plans, which means most subscribers wanting both will pay more. Will you go with both options, or choose one over the other? Please tell us.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/Google_extends_Offers_to_New_York_and_San_Francisco'

    Google extends Offers to New York and San Francisco

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 6:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google Offers is available in three US cities with five more coming soon. The service is now part of Google Shopper 2.0 for Android, too. Groupon shouldn't worry, yet. But perhaps soon.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/Could_Google__reach_10M_users_today__20M_by_the_weekend_'

    Could Google+ reach 10M users today, 20M by the weekend?

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 4:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Now Facebook cofounder Mark Zuckerberg should worry. Google+ is scarcely two weeks old and invite-only but growing like a weed. Ancestry.com founder Paul Allen predicts the numbers using a cunning surname analysis.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/_Mobile_malware_is_the_new_frontier_of_cybercrime_'

    'Mobile malware is the new frontier of cybercrime'

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 3:17am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This news story started out as a look at a security consultant's blog for McAfee. But Joe Wilcox found that huge portions of post were lifted from an earlier McAfee press release. The real malware is something else -- a public relations Trojan.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/12/Apple_tops_US_smartphone_rankings'

    Apple tops US smartphone rankings

    Publié: juillet 12, 2011, 1:53am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple rises above Research in Motion in OEM market share. But how much does the super-cheap $49 iPhone 3GS account for sales. We may sound know.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/09/I_m_a_Google_geek_now'

    I'm a Google geek now

    Publié: juillet 9, 2011, 3:02am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox is trying a new experiment -- replace most of the digital products or services he now uses with those from the search and information giant. The goal is to answer question: What is the Google lifestyle?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/08/Are_tablets_a_fad_'

    Are tablets a fad?

    Publié: juillet 8, 2011, 7:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's good reason to pose the question again. Media tablet shipments plummeted 28 percent sequentially during Q1. Even iPad missed expectations, says IDC.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/08/Do_9_out_of_10_Apple_App_and_iTunes_store_account_holders_own_iOS_devices_'

    Do 9 out of 10 Apple App and iTunes store account holders own iOS devices?

    Publié: juillet 8, 2011, 1:12am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple says there are 200 million iOS users and 225 million store accounts with credit cards attached. By that reckoning, 89 percent of iOS users would have an Apple account.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/07/Google_cleans_up_YouTube__and_it_looks_really_good_'

    Google cleans up YouTube, and it looks really good!

    Publié: juillet 7, 2011, 9:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The world's most popular video streaming service is getting a makeover, starting with crowd-sourced experiment "Cosmic Panda". Finally YouTube feels fluid, modern.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/07/Is__People_Staring_at_Computers__performance_art_or_criminal_act___video_'

    Is 'People Staring at Computers' performance art or criminal act? [video]

    Publié: juillet 7, 2011, 7:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Artist Kyle McDonald captured shoppers' photos from Macs inside New York Apple stores. Secret Service confiscated his own computers today. Should his work be protected as free speech, or did he go to far? You tell us.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/07/Wow__Apple_s_App_Store_tops_15B_app_downloads__but_are_they_new_'

    Wow, Apple's App Store tops 15B app downloads, but are they new?

    Publié: juillet 7, 2011, 5:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That works out to 1B additional ones since early June, or 5 apps per iOS device. From that perspective, the number isn't nearly as big, and it's smaller should Apple count updates or redownloads.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/07/Patent_trolling_with_Microsoft'

    Patent trolling with Microsoft

    Publié: juillet 7, 2011, 6:01am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The software giant is dipping dough from two barrels -- licensing fees collected for Windows Phone and patent licensing fees extracted for Android, all from the same handset makers. Revenue potential is a staggering $6.4 billion a year in 2015, by one estimate.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/06/Mark_Zuckerberg_unveils_Facebook_Video_Calling'

    Mark Zuckerberg unveils Facebook Video Calling

    Publié: juillet 6, 2011, 8:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Skype will connect people without their ever having to leave the social network. But group video isn't available, which is good for Google+.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/06/Facebook_has_750_million_users'

    Facebook has 750 million users

    Publié: juillet 6, 2011, 7:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the number during a live event early this afternoon.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/06/Did_Google_hand_China_to_Microsoft_'

    Did Google hand China to Microsoft?

    Publié: juillet 6, 2011, 7:30am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Some companies will make sacrifices to do the right thing, while others take the money and run.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/05/Are_you_one_of_the_two_in_three_Americans_who_still_doesn_t_use_a_smartphone__What_a_shame'

    Are you one of the two in three Americans who still doesn't use a smartphone? What a shame

    Publié: juillet 5, 2011, 11:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    ComScore says you're still the majority, but maybe not for whole lots longer. Not sure if that's you? Do your fingers go clickety-clack across just nine numeric keys? If yes, then you don't have a smartphone.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/05/Moving_to_Google___Facebook_won_t_let_you_go'

    Moving to Google+? Facebook won't let you go

    Publié: juillet 5, 2011, 9:15pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Who owns your friends and the personal information they share? Your answer is the crux of a debate regarding utilities for scraping and exporting FB friend data -- in this case to a new, rival social network.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/05/You_can_thank_smartphones__FarmVille_for_game_spending_surge_____74B_this_year'

    You can thank smartphones, FarmVille for game spending surge -- $74B this year

    Publié: juillet 5, 2011, 5:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Online/social gaming is the fastest growing category, in part spurred on by mobile devices.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/05/Spam_your_Facebook_friends_with_fake__25_iTunes_offer'

    Spam your Facebook friends with fake $25 iTunes offer

    Publié: juillet 5, 2011, 4:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's so easy. Just accept the bogus Wall post is real, send the message to your buddy list, take a survey and win absolutely nothing.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/04/Forget_iPhone_5__Samsung_sells_3_million_Galaxy_S_IIs_in_just_55_days'

    Forget iPhone 5, Samsung sells 3 million Galaxy S IIs in just 55 days

    Publié: juillet 4, 2011, 6:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    You want to know why Apple is so hellbent on stopping Samsung selling smartphones in the United Sates? Reread the headline.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/04/No_one_shot_President_Obama__Fox_News_Twitter_account_hacked'

    No one shot President Obama, Fox News Twitter account hacked

    Publié: juillet 4, 2011, 3:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Script Kiddies, which claims to be part of the AntiSec movement, initially claimed responsibility for the fake tweets. The president is safe.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/03/Google__is_a_marketing_sensation'

    Google+ is a marketing sensation

    Publié: juillet 3, 2011, 6:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Finally techdom is talking about something other than Apple, and probably it's more important.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/02/I_tried_to_free_myself_from_Google_and_failed'

    I tried to free myself from Google and failed

    Publié: juillet 2, 2011, 6:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Three months ago, Joe Wilcox asked "Can you give up Google?" He tried and now admits failure, after finding at least two services to be absolutely indispensable.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/02/Celebrate_the_Fourth_of_July_with_Google_s_data_declaration_of_independence__video_'

    Celebrate the Fourth of July with Google's data declaration of independence [video]

    Publié: juillet 2, 2011, 2:41am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The Data Liberation Front has an important message for you about Google Takeout. Freedom is first item on the menu.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/02/Google_Might_buy_Hulu__Make_it_TiVo__too'

    Google Might buy Hulu? Make it TiVo, too

    Publié: juillet 2, 2011, 12:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The search and information giant is rumored to be in early talks to acquire the streaming service. Why stop there? The DVR pioneer would be great addition.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/01/Internet_Explorer_usage_is_a_falling_rock'

    Internet Explorer usage is a falling rock

    Publié: juillet 1, 2011, 6:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    But can IE9 and Windows 7 help defy gravity?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/01/Google_cleans_up_Gmail__and_it_looks_really_good_'

    Google cleans up Gmail, and it looks really good!

    Publié: juillet 1, 2011, 3:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Late today Google released two new Gmail themes that preview a fresher, less-cluttered look coming to the service. The makeover meshes with the clean appearance of Google+ -- the currently invitation-only social networking service.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/07/01/RIM_under_fire__company_reviewing_future_of_co_CEOs_as_employee_criticism_circulates'

    RIM under fire: company reviewing future of co-CEOs as employee criticism circulates

    Publié: juillet 1, 2011, 3:22am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Except for perhaps a complete collapse of its share value or meteor striking its headquarters, Research in Motion couldn't have had a more troubling day.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/30/Wow__Twitter_reaches_200_million_tweets_per_day__and_the_service_isn_t_all_that_popular'

    Wow, Twitter reaches 200 million tweets per day, and the service isn't all that popular

    Publié: juin 30, 2011, 11:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Think about it. One billion tweets every five days or 6 billion every 30 days. Suddenly, 140 characters seem like more.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/30/Android_is_unstoppable'

    Android is unstoppable

    Publié: juin 30, 2011, 8:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Despite claims by Needham, Nielsen, TechCrunch and others, the Android Army is not retreating before the iPhone Idolators. Sales of handsets running Google's OS are as strong as ever, dwarfing those of Apple's mobile.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/30/Amazon_terminates_Associates_Program_in_California_over_tax_law'

    Amazon terminates Associates Program in California over tax law

    Publié: juin 30, 2011, 4:49am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Thousands of affiliates are collateral damage in a row over sales tax. The state government wants to collect, and the online retailer doesn't want to pay.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/30/You_want_to_know_how_Nokias_are_better_than_iPhones_'

    You want to know how Nokias are better than iPhones?

    Publié: juin 30, 2011, 2:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Winner of the Nokia Shorts 2011 contest shows the very best of the N8 smartphone's video capabilities. Filmmakers used the Finnish-phone maker's gear long before there was an Apple mobile.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/29/Is_Google__social_done_right_'

    Is Google+ social done right?

    Publié: juin 29, 2011, 4:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google+ wraps social around search and mobile, both areas where the web giant dominates -- and with control over who you share what with. Search + mobile = leverage.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/28/How_do_you_know_a_platform_has_made_it__Angry_Birds'

    How do you know a platform has made it? Angry Birds

    Publié: juin 28, 2011, 11:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Barnes & Noble announced availability of exclusive Angry Birds unlockables, including Mighty Eagle, free for Nook Color. Consumers need three things: The tablet, game app and to be physical present in a Barnes & Noble store. Amazon doesn't have the shops, and Kindle doesn't have Android chops.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/28/Google_responds_to_Office_365__Help_us_compile_365_reasons_Apps_is_better'

    Google responds to Office 365: Help us compile 365 reasons Apps is better

    Publié: juin 28, 2011, 10:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Is Google desperate or undertaking some smart cloud-sourced marketing?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/28/Want_to_pay_three_times_more_than_Google_Apps__Office_365_is_for_you'

    Want to pay three times more than Google Apps? Office 365 is for you

    Publié: juin 28, 2011, 7:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Office 365 is live. Larger businesses will find savings compared to what they pay Microsoft now for PC software but hefty overhead compared to Google's hosted productivity suite.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/28/Uh_oh__Google_Apps__Office_365_launches_in_40_countries'

    Uh-oh, Google Apps, Office 365 launches in 40 countries

    Publié: juin 28, 2011, 4:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Microsoft made official its most important push into the cloud, ever, with release of Office 365. Plans range from $4 to $27 per user/per month.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/28/When_was_the_last_time_you_heard_about_customers_turning_against_Apple__How_about_today_'

    When was the last time you heard about customers turning against Apple? How about today?

    Publié: juin 28, 2011, 2:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    More than 1,650 people have signed a petition claiming "Final Cut Pro X is not a professional application". They're demanding Apple bring back the old version or sell the code. Maybe they should separate reality from the fantasy in films they edit.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/27/If_a_college_graduate__older_than_30__wealthy_and_Hispanic__you_probably_own_an_e_reader'

    If a college graduate, older than 30, wealthy and Hispanic, you probably own an e-reader

    Publié: juin 27, 2011, 9:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nearly a quarter of US adults with household income of $75,000 have ebook readers. By ethnicity, Hispanic Americans lead other races.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/26/If_you_re_a_video_junkie_buy_iPad_2__because_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_isn_t_for_you'

    If you're a video junkie buy iPad 2, because Galaxy Tab 10.1 isn't for you

    Publié: juin 26, 2011, 6:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Say, how about sitting back with a cold one and streaming an action flick from Netflix? Or Hulu? Don't get too comfy if using Samsung's Android 3.1 "Honeycomb" tablet.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/26/What_is_LulzSec_afraid_of_'

    What is LulzSec afraid of?

    Publié: juin 26, 2011, 3:22am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Or stated differently: Have the ill-winds of fate caught the Lulz Boat's sails? Has perhaps the captain peered through his telescope and spied warships on the horizon and chosen to take safe harbor?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/25/Google_s_antitrust_defense_sounds_like_Microsoft_s'

    Google's antitrust defense sounds like Microsoft's

    Publié: juin 25, 2011, 7:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The FTC's investigation into Google business practices has already generated a response -- the company touting how its products provide choice. It's eerily familiar, because we've heard it before.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/25/Why_Nokia_picked_Microsoft__Windows_Phone_7_s_20_000_apps_and_counting'

    Why Nokia picked Microsoft: Windows Phone 7's 20,000 apps and counting

    Publié: juin 25, 2011, 4:32am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, the Ovi Store offers as many as 200 apps for MeeGo, Nokia's flagship mobile operating system. Wow, that's quite the groundswell of developer interest.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/25/Conan_s_punchline_is__Final_Cut_Pro_X__and__oh__what_a_stinker__video_'

    Conan's punchline is? Final Cut Pro X, and, oh, what a stinker [video]

    Publié: juin 25, 2011, 12:45am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Politicians and celebrities are used to being mocked during late-night talk show monologues or skits. But computer software -- and, gasp, made by the entertainment industry's beloved Apple? Quick, call the "Adjustment Bureau".



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/24/LulzSec_outdoes_WikiLeaks_in_stunning_disclosure_of_Arizona_documents'

    LulzSec outdoes WikiLeaks in stunning disclosure of Arizona documents

    Publié: juin 24, 2011, 4:42am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Using the state's controversial immigration law as excuse, LulzSec chose a target sure to divide public opinion. Is this a hacktivist/ anarchist group of do-gooders or terrorists?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/24/Mac_OS_X_10.6.8_is_out__and_you_need_it_for_Lion'

    Mac OS X 10.6.8 is out, and you need it for Lion

    Publié: juin 24, 2011, 1:54am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple releases the last update for Snow Leopard, once again improving defenses against the MacDefender Trojan and prepping Mac App Store for OS X 10.7 distribution.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/24/What_if_Apple_released__799_MacBook_Air_'

    What if Apple released $799 MacBook Air?

    Publié: juin 24, 2011, 1:07am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple laptop margins would likely fall, but MBA could rapidly gain share in the hot thin-and-light laptop category before the first Windows Ultrabooks ship in volume. Would you buy one for that price?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/23/You_can_text_the_globe_with_DeLorme_inReach'

    You can text the globe with DeLorme inReach

    Publié: juin 23, 2011, 3:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The satellite and GPS communicator lets athlegeeks message from just about anywhere. The device runs Android and connects with Android phones for additional capabilities.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/23/Should_I_renew_my_Skype_number_'

    Should I renew my Skype number?

    Publié: juin 23, 2011, 12:06am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    While I was busy working and not paying attention to nag mail, my Skype number expired this week. I could reactivate and get another three months. Would you?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/22/The_real_reason_Nokia_can_t_beat_Apple'

    The real reason Nokia can't beat Apple

    Publié: juin 22, 2011, 5:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nokia marketing is good to a fault. Product promotion is among the best in techdom, but the long time between new smartphone announcements and release exhausts buyer interest. It's an old story, and we know the ending.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/22/Final_Cut_Pro_X_is_Mac_App_Store_s_top_seller__but_buyer_reviews_are_scathing'

    Final Cut Pro X is Mac App Store's top seller, but buyer reviews are scathing

    Publié: juin 22, 2011, 4:55am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The video-production application sold well on its first day of release at substantially lower price. Too bad the majority of buyers give the software a single-star rating.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/22/76%_percent_of_you_use_Windows_7'

    76% percent of you use Windows 7

    Publié: juin 22, 2011, 2:53am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That's the tally, after 2,000 votes to Betanews' operating system poll. We asked readers to identify their primary OS, and Microsoft's flagship won by a landslide.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/21/Final_Cut_X_Pro__Apple_uses_carrot_and_stick_to_drive_Mac_OS_X_upgrades'

    Final Cut X Pro: Apple uses carrot and stick to drive Mac OS X upgrades

    Publié: juin 21, 2011, 6:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Massive price reduction, just $299.99, will attract buyers. But they'll need Snow Leopard (or Lion) to purchase or use the video-editing app.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/21/What_a_waste__Nokia_launches_hot__MeeGo_smartphone'

    What a waste, Nokia launches hot, MeeGo smartphone

    Publié: juin 21, 2011, 4:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nokia deserves the award for most mixed-marketing messaging, by today announcing the luscious N9. What a beauty, too. Just one problem: It runs MeeGo, which is effectively DOA with Windows Phone becoming primary OS.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/21/Groupon_may_not_have_a_viable_business_model__but_it_has_a_twisted_sense_of_humor'

    Groupon may not have a viable business model, but it has a twisted sense of humor

    Publié: juin 21, 2011, 1:04am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The startup finally speaks about its upcoming IPO by invoking the so-called "quiet period" -- granted with some wit. One problem: There is no quiet period, according to the SEC.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/18/Last_minute_shopping_for_dad__Here_s_what_I_d_buy'

    Last-minute shopping for dad? Here's what I'd buy

    Publié: juin 18, 2011, 7:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox suggests some pricey (and hard to find) Father's Day presents. Any of these will keep dad's arms (and wallet) open to you for years.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/17/Take_the_IE9_Mobile_Test_Drive'

    Take the IE9 Mobile Test Drive

    Publié: juin 17, 2011, 9:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    But don't crash your phone along the way.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/17/LulzSec_reveals_the_stupidest_passwords_on_the_planet'

    LulzSec reveals the stupidest passwords on the planet

    Publié: juin 17, 2011, 7:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The hacktivist group ended a busy week of activity, including CIA and US Senate hacks, by releasing 62,000 username and password combinations. It's a list of shame you don't want to be on.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/17/Kid_dances_with_Rihanna_at_Microsoft_Store__video_'

    Kid dances with Rihanna at Microsoft Store [video]

    Publié: juin 17, 2011, 3:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft has embarked on a surprisingly different approach to retailing. At Microsoft Store you are the window display. Watch the video to see how.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/17/Will_Pandora_s_share_price_collapse_burst_the_IPO_tech_bubble_'

    Will Pandora's share-price collapse burst the IPO tech bubble?

    Publié: juin 17, 2011, 3:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The stock plunged 24% today. Investors opened Pandora's box, but they didn't like what they saw inside. What they let out may be as big as the despair loosed in the greek myth.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/17/RIM_ships_half_million_PlayBooks_during_first_quarter'

    RIM ships half million PlayBooks during first quarter

    Publié: juin 17, 2011, 12:28am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Research in Motion seemingly took forever to ship its first BlackBerry tablet. None too soon. PlayBook was one of the few bright spots during a quarter that foreshadows a grim year ahead.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/16/Apple_offers_stingier_back_to_school_promotion'

    Apple offers stingier back-to-school promotion

    Publié: juin 16, 2011, 3:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Students buying a new computer get a $100 gift card for Mac App Store. Last year, Apple offered 8GB iPod touch, valued at $199. Which promo appeals more to you?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/16/What_s_this_sudden_uncertainty_about_Google_Chromebook_'

    What's this sudden uncertainty about Google Chromebook?

    Publié: juin 16, 2011, 3:38am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Over just 7 hours, responses to our Chromebook poll dramatically changed -- the number of respondents answering "No" dropped significantly, while the yeses and maybes are way up. What does it mean?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/15/When_do_you_want_Windows_8_'

    When do you want Windows 8?

    Publié: juin 15, 2011, 11:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There are some rumors about when Microsoft might ship its next major operating system. We're asking readers to answer when would be the right time for you. Tomorrow? 12 months? Longer?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/15/You_probably_won_t_buy_Google_Chromebook__but_should_reconsider'

    You probably won't buy Google Chromebook, but should reconsider

    Publié: juin 15, 2011, 8:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today begins the great Google experiment -- Chromebook is available for sale. Will people really buy into the cloud? Most Betanews readers won't. They don't know what they're missing.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/15/Want_a_site_attacked__Call_the_LulzSec_request_line'

    Want a site attacked? Call the LulzSec request line

    Publié: juin 15, 2011, 4:27pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    LulzSec dubbed yesterday's log-in server DDoS attacks against gaming sites "Titanic Takeover Tuesday." Now the group is taking requests by phone to a 614 area code.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/15/Say__what_s_Google_s_progress_solving_that_Android_fragmentation_problem_'

    Say, what's Google's progress solving that Android fragmentation problem?

    Publié: juin 15, 2011, 12:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Only 9.2% of the install base is on the newest version -- nearly 7 months after release. With 400,000 new phone activations a day -- and the majority for older Androids -- whoa, that can't be good.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/14/AMD_APU_ignites_new_chip_war_with_Intel'

    AMD APU ignites new chip war with Intel

    Publié: juin 14, 2011, 9:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Taking digs at Intel's Sandy Bridge processor, AMD officially launches its scifi-sounding A-Series APU (Accelerated Processing Unit). Will the processor's rise against Intel chips be fact or fiction?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/14/Apple_and_Nokia_settle_patent_dispute__but_who_wins_'

    Apple and Nokia settle patent dispute, but who wins?

    Publié: juin 14, 2011, 3:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Nokia announced that it had resolved all patent claims with Apple, which will pay on-going royalties to the Finnish phone maker. Apple also will make a one-time payment to Nokia. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/14/Samsung_Series_5_Chromebook_first_impression_review'

    Samsung Series 5 Chromebook first impression review

    Publié: juin 14, 2011, 6:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The first Chrome OS laptops go on sale June 15. Should you get one? Joe Wilcox is satisfied with Samsung's offering, except for the trackpad. Key benefits: instant-on, instant setup and instant update.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/13/Google__gimme_native_screen_capture_for_Android'

    Google, gimme native screen capture for Android

    Publié: juin 13, 2011, 8:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Frak, do I have to root every friggin' Android device just to take screenshots?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/13/The_Netbook_is_dead__Long_live_media_tablets_'

    The Netbook is dead! Long live media tablets!

    Publié: juin 13, 2011, 6:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gartner's PC shipment revision downward (again) forebodes more sales disruption ahead as consumers delay purchases for tablets and give up on netbooks. The personal computer market is undergoing dramatic changes.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/13/11_things_Microsoft_did_right_in_fiscal_2011'

    11 things Microsoft did right in fiscal 2011

    Publié: juin 13, 2011, 5:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If there was an award for most unpopular CEO, Steve Ballmer just might win it. He deserves more credit. Ballmer and his executive team delivered one of Microsoft's best years ever, strategically, mostly within the last six months.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/12/Why_did_Apple_choose_Twitter_over_Facebook_'

    Why did Apple choose Twitter over Facebook?

    Publié: juin 12, 2011, 10:33pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Twitter will be deeply integrated into iOS 5, bit not Facebook. Why? There are surprisingly many answers. Among them: Apple and Facebook have contradictory priorities for customer content, and they are increasingly app platform competitors.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/10/Is_Apple_recalling_some_iPad_2s_'

    Is Apple recalling some iPad 2s?

    Publié: juin 10, 2011, 11:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The web is abuzz with rumors about problems Verizon iPad 3G radios. Joe Wilcox called 10 Apple retail stores; only one knew anything. Has the rumor mill gone crazy again? Yes it has.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/10/IDC_should_stop_swelling_Steve_Ballmer_s_head_for_things_he_hasn_t_done'

    IDC should stop swelling Steve Ballmer's head for things he hasn't done

    Publié: juin 10, 2011, 7:37pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For the second time in less than 48 days, IDC has forecast that Windows Phone will be No. 2 in smartphone operating systems in 2015 -- all based on the Nokia deal, which hasn't produced even one WP7 handset.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/10/Why_is_T_Mobile_so_much_cooler_in_Europe_'

    Why is T-Mobile so much cooler in Europe?

    Publié: juin 10, 2011, 7:09am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Meanwhile here in the United States the ads are so lame. Watch the videos and you tell me, because I can't figure it out.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/09/Will_you_buy_Google_Chromebook_'

    Will you buy Google Chromebook?

    Publié: juin 9, 2011, 11:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Cloud-dependent laptops running Google's Chrome OS go on sale next week, but Amazon and Best Buy are taking preorders now. Will you or won't you? We want to know.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/09/Microsoft_loses_i4i_patent_case_before_U.S._Supreme_Court'

    Microsoft loses i4i patent case before U.S. Supreme Court

    Publié: juin 9, 2011, 7:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft failed in its attempt to fundamentally change the standard by which courts evaluate patents. Today's loss preserves the status quo. The software giant wanted to make it easier to invalidate patents.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/09/Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_first_impression_review'

    Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 first impression review

    Publié: juin 9, 2011, 7:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox offers his initial reaction to the first mass-market tablet running Android 3.1. Is it as good out of the box as iPad 2?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/08/You_can_still_get_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_early__but_hurry'

    You can still get Galaxy Tab 10.1 early, but hurry

    Publié: juin 8, 2011, 9:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you're a geek living in New York City, there's no longer a line at Best Buy Union Square, but hurry. The tablet is selling fast. If you bought one, please tell us about it.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/08/Yes__Microsoft_should_launch_a_branded_tablet'

    Yes, Microsoft should launch a branded tablet

    Publié: juin 8, 2011, 4:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    DigiTimes claims Microsoft is "considering" its own branded tablet. Don't consider, just do it, Microsoft, says Joe Wilcox. Don't lie like a dog before Apple's iPad.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/07/What_happens_when_you_download_iTunes_past_purchases_with_a_different_account_'

    What happens when you download iTunes past purchases with a different account?

    Publié: juin 7, 2011, 10:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple locks up your past purchases for 90 days, and you can forget that Monopoly game get-out-of-jail free card. But that's OK.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/05/I_gave_away_7_Samsung_Galaxy_Tabs_last_night____did_you_get_one_'

    I gave away 7 Samsung Galaxy Tabs last night -- did you get one?

    Publié: juin 5, 2011, 3:28am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox declares that enthusiasts are the best marketers after attending the Galaxy Tab 10.1 meetup on June 3. More techs should host events like this one.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/02/AmazonLocal_brings_daily_deals_to_Boise__Idaho__but_not_to_you__yet_'

    AmazonLocal brings daily deals to Boise, Idaho, but not to you (yet)

    Publié: juin 2, 2011, 8:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Can a day go buy without someone offering a Groupon-like business? Amazon is the new giant to join, with daily deals aggregated from LivingSocial.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/02/Chromebook_presale_already_sold_out__but_there_s_a_wait_list'

    Chromebook presale already sold out, but there's a wait-list

    Publié: juin 2, 2011, 7:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's team up with Gilt Groupe for early Samsung Series 5 Chrome OS portable sales isn't over, but there's nothing left to sell. Can you wait until June 15 for the big launch?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/02/Live_in_New_York_City__Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_could_be_yours_next_week'

    Live in New York City? Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 could be yours next week

    Publié: juin 2, 2011, 5:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In a smart, and perhaps risky, marketing move, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 will be available early -- that's June 8 -- at one store in the United States. Otherwise, the tablet goes on sale June 17 nationwide. Will the Android Army line up for the Tab? Samsung should hope so.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/02/It_took_4_min_34_sec_to_get_me_really_excited_about_Windows_again'

    It took 4 min 34 sec to get me really excited about Windows again

    Publié: juin 2, 2011, 6:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows 8 is fluid and modern, says Joe Wilcox. Apple unveils Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" in four days, and it's antiquated before release. Microsoft takes the freshest approach to user interfaces since Macintosh in 1984.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/02/BUILD_It_for_Windows_8'

    BUILD It for Windows 8

    Publié: juin 2, 2011, 3:40am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows isn't the only makeover going on at Microsoft this week. Alongside today's Windows 8 preview, Microsoft also announced the BUILD conference, what had been PDC 2011. The verb has stellar marketing potential.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/01/Google_begins_killing_off_support_for_older_browsers____well__not_that_old'

    Google begins killing off support for older browsers -- well, not that old

    Publié: juin 1, 2011, 11:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On August 1, Google web services will no longer support Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 7 or Safari 3. New browsers would join every few months. Oh, Firefox 4, we hardly got to know you!



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/01/Google_Offers_beta_should_scare_the_crap_out_of_Groupon__other_startups'

    Google Offers beta should scare the crap out of Groupon, other startups

    Publié: juin 1, 2011, 5:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do you remember the days when every startup had to ask: "If we're successful, will Microsoft move into our market?" With its new Groupon competitor, time has come to ask the same about Google.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/01/Eric_Schmidt_talks__gang_of_four__platform_companies_at_D9'

    Eric Schmidt talks "gang of four" platform companies at D9

    Publié: juin 1, 2011, 4:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's Executive Chairman took the hot seat this evening before journalists Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. He identified Amazon%



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/06/01/This_time_Apple_public_relations_has_gone_too_far'

    This time Apple public relations has gone too far

    Publié: juin 1, 2011, 1:22am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple claims that "Pages is the most beautiful word processor ever designed for a mobile device." Is that a fair or outrageous claim? You tell us.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/31/Perhaps_Microsoft_didn_t_overpay_for_Skype_after_all'

    Perhaps Microsoft didn't overpay for Skype after all

    Publié: mai 31, 2011, 7:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A new Pew Internet study shows that 2 out of every 10 American adults has made an online phone call. Microsoft couldn't ask for better timing or validation for its $8.5B Skype deal.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/31/Test_CyberLink_PhotoDirector_2011_beta__get_final_code_for_free'

    Test CyberLink PhotoDirector 2011 beta, get final code for free

    Publié: mai 31, 2011, 5:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There are few stories more appropriate for Betanews readers than this one. Offer feedback about beta software and get the shipping product for free. Doh. Why aren't more software developers making such offers?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/31/Apple_looks_to_steal_Computex_and_D9_thunder_with_iCloud'

    Apple looks to steal Computex and D9 thunder with iCloud

    Publié: mai 31, 2011, 4:17pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As two major industry events debut, Apple feeds the buzz mill by announcing its new cloud service will be unveiled next week by none other than CEO Steve Jobs. Rumors are sure to overshadow news from the other venues.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/31/Intel_tries_to_redefine_mobile_computing__again__with_Ultrabook'

    Intel tries to redefine mobile computing (again) with Ultrabook

    Publié: mai 31, 2011, 7:07am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Now that iPad and other tablets are killing off the netbook category, Intel is looking to start another -- the thin-and-light Ultrabook -- and move 40% of laptops to the category by end of 2012.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/29/Could_70_percent_of_you_be_running_Windows_7_'

    Could 70 percent of you be running Windows 7?

    Publié: mai 29, 2011, 4:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A recent poll about Internet Explorer 10 suggests that most Betanews readers run Windows 7. We'd like to find out. Please answer our operating system poll.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/27/The_meat_Mark_Zuckerberg_eats_is_you'

    The meat Mark Zuckerberg eats is you

    Publié: mai 27, 2011, 9:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Facebook's CEO says he will only eat meat from animals he kills. But this is nothing new. Zuckerberg has been on the hunt for years, killing and consuming mores and rules for social interaction. It's cannibalism, really, since you are the game.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/27/The_Mac_malware_problem_is_bigger_than_you_think'

    The Mac malware problem is bigger than you think

    Publié: mai 27, 2011, 3:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A startling chart posted by security software vendor McAfee shows a dramatic increase in rogue Mac malware during May. Is a trend or something passing?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/27/Why_can_you_download_Office_for_Mac_2011_from_Amazon_but_not_Apple_'

    Why can you download Office for Mac 2011 from Amazon but not Apple?

    Publié: mai 27, 2011, 1:02am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you were Microsoft, would you want to compete with Apple products at Mac App Store and give up 30 percent of sales price? Amazon's new Mac Software Downloads store is pure retail.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/25/Do_you_want_the_skinny_on_Windows_Phone__Mango__development_tools___video_'

    Do you want the skinny on Windows Phone 'Mango' development tools? (video)

    Publié: mai 25, 2011, 7:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Over at Channel 9, Microsoft has posted three insightful videos (so far) about WP 7.1 development tools. They're worth 30 minutes (combined) of your day.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/25/Apple_finally_admits_Mac_Defender_malware_is_for_real'

    Apple finally admits Mac Defender malware is for real

    Publié: mai 25, 2011, 6:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The denial is over. Apple publicly acknowledges that not only is Mac OS susceptible to malware but the same kind of drive-by-tactics used against Windows.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/25/A_mini_review_of_Opera_Mini_6_for_iPad'

    A mini review of Opera Mini 6 for iPad

    Publié: mai 25, 2011, 5:22am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Opera Mini 6 for iPad is by no means perfect, but it offers real competitive choice to Apple's mobile Safari. The alternative browser is quirky and charming, says Joe Wilcox



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/24/In_the_battle_of_mobile_apps__it_s_Apple_s_500_000_to_Microsoft_s_18_000'

    In the battle of mobile apps, it's Apple's 500,000 to Microsoft's 18,000

    Publié: mai 24, 2011, 8:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows Phone is so far behind iOS, it's inconceivable Microsoft could ever catch up with Apple. But a new infographic gives some hope.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/24/See_Windows_Phone_7.5__Mango__in_action__video_'

    See Windows Phone 7.5 'Mango' in action (video)

    Publié: mai 24, 2011, 6:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Did you miss today's Windows Phone VIP event, where Microsoft showcased upcoming features for "Mango,' codename for the next version? We've got you covered -- as does Microsoft -- in this video overview presented by Joe Belfiore.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/24/Nokia_will_ship_Windows_Phone__Mango__but_not_this_year'

    Nokia will ship Windows Phone 'Mango' but not this year

    Publié: mai 24, 2011, 6:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's announcement might suggest to some people that the first Nokia Windows Phone handsets will ship in late 2011, since the operating system is scheduled to. That's not what Microsoft said today.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/20/Can_Apple_stop_the_Android_Army_s_advances_'

    Can Apple stop the Android Army's advances?

    Publié: mai 20, 2011, 6:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple can still win the mobile platform wars, but it needs to make a risky strategic move: Globally offer iPhone 4 for $99 following release of iPhone 5.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/20/Microsoft_jumps_ahead_of_Apple_with_big_back_to_school_promo'

    Microsoft jumps ahead of Apple with big back-to-school promo

    Publié: mai 20, 2011, 3:27am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Starting May 22nd, students spending at least $699 on a Windows 7 PC get a free Xbox 360. No matter what Apple offers (likely iPod touch with new Mac), students will have to spend hundreds more.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/19/Android_conquers_the_world____tough_luck_Apple'

    Android conquers the world -- tough luck Apple

    Publié: mai 19, 2011, 6:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Gartner reported that Android passed Symbian for first-quarter smartphone shipments and market share. That's sooner than some analyst forecasts, while later than others. Meanwhile, the lead over iPhone increases.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/19/Xbox_update_adds_PayPal__hopefully_no_bricks'

    Xbox update adds PayPal, hopefully no bricks

    Publié: mai 19, 2011, 4:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As part of the Xbox 360 system Spring update rolling out starting today, Microsoft is making PayPal available internationally for buying stuff through Xbox Live. Additionally, a new disc format capability seeks to crush game piracy.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/18/Which_Windows_8_version_will_you_buy_'

    Which Windows 8 version will you buy?

    Publié: mai 18, 2011, 7:07pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That's a question many customers may ask, if a report from Bloomberg proves to be right: There will be at least five Windows 8 editions -- four for ARM processors. Is that a sound marketing strategy?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/17/Chrome_OS_is_only_a_failure_to_people_living_in_the_past'

    Chrome OS is only a failure to people living in the past

    Publié: mai 17, 2011, 8:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In the second of two posts about Google's cloud-connected operating system and Chromebook, Joe Wilcox argues that PC defenders are an unimaginative lot clinging to 1980s-era computing concepts. He refutes Larry Seltzer's morning commentary.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/17/How_would_you_like_to_party_with_Betanews_and_Samsung__and_win_Galaxy_Tab_10.1_'

    How would you like to party with Betanews and Samsung, and win Galaxy Tab 10.1?

    Publié: mai 17, 2011, 7:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Samsung is throwing a party for 400 readers in San Francisco to preview its new Android tablets, and we would like to invite you to attend. Oh, did we forget to mention the door prizes - five Tabs and five Galaxy S smartphones?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/17/The_Qik_and_the_dead'

    The Qik and the dead

    Publié: mai 17, 2011, 3:45am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's Skype purchase may leave behind collateral damage -- mobile video broadcast service Qik, which Skype acquired in January. Microsoft's acquisitions trail is littered with the debris of discarded products like this one.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/15/What_was_the_first_Apple_Store_like_'

    What was the first Apple Store like?

    Publié: mai 15, 2011, 8:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On May 15, 2001, Apple gave journalists a tour of its first retail shop, which opened four days later. Joe Wilcox presents photos of the Tysons Corner Center store debut and describes what is was like to be there.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/15/Happy_day__Playstation_Network_is_back_up____well__almost'

    Happy day! Playstation Network is back up -- well, almost

    Publié: mai 15, 2011, 5:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony has started partial, phased PSN restoration, ending a 24-day self-inflicted outage. The network is back up in some places and still down in others. Will Sony regain subscribers' trust?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/13/Don_t_believe_the_hype__PS3_users_aren_t_switching_to_Xbox_360'

    Don't believe the hype: PS3 users aren't switching to Xbox 360

    Publié: mai 13, 2011, 10:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Based on a large poll conducted by Betanews and random calls to a half-dozen GameStops, there is no evidence of mass consumer exodus from PlayStation 3 to Xbox 360 -- at least in the United States -- contrary to other reports.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/13/Who_is_dropping_Dropbox_over_terms_of_service_changes_'

    Who is dropping Dropbox over terms-of-service changes?

    Publié: mai 13, 2011, 6:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    71 percent of people responding to a recent Betanews poll are unhappy with Dropbox ToS changes that give cops access to user files. Now we ask: Will you drop the service?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/13/Chrome_OS__The_ghost_of_Netscape_rises_to_haunt_Microsoft'

    Chrome OS: The ghost of Netscape rises to haunt Microsoft

    Publié: mai 13, 2011, 1:36am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Chromebook's debut couldn't have been more timely, for its irony -- one day before today's expiration of Microsoft antitrust oversight that allowed Google to do what Netscape wanted: To build a browser-based platform rivaling Windows.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/12/YouTube_100__Chart_with_professional_musicians'

    YouTube 100: Chart with professional musicians

    Publié: mai 12, 2011, 8:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today Google launched a music chart for videos -- the YouTube 100 -- that empowers Jack and Jane Wannabe to stand tall with the likes of Lady Gaga or, gasp, Justin Bieber.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/12/Microsoft_could_lose_billions_in_sales_to_Google_s_Chromebook'

    Microsoft could lose billions in sales to Google's Chromebook

    Publié: mai 12, 2011, 3:03am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's $28/month per user Chromebook subscription plan could accelerate movement to Google Apps, pulling away $1 billion Microsoft revenue per year, initially.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/11/Google_Chromebook_coming_June_15__with__20_and__28_student_and_business_monthly_subscriptions'

    Google Chromebook coming June 15, with $20 and $28 student and business monthly subscriptions

    Publié: mai 11, 2011, 8:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Chrome OS got a big coming out party today at Google I/O. The cloud-based operating system has new offline features. Meanwhile, the first Chromebooks launch next month with a twist. You can buy or subscribe.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/11/Want_Google_Music__You_could_buy_XOOM'

    Want Google Music? You could buy XOOM

    Publié: mai 11, 2011, 1:22am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today at Google I/O, the search giant's long rumored music locker service debuted in beta. It's available by invite only with preference for I/O attendees and XOOM tablet owners (the app is part of Android 3.1).



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/10/Why_is_Microsoft_buying_Skype_'

    Why is Microsoft buying Skype?

    Publié: mai 10, 2011, 7:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    CEOs Steve Ballmer and Tony Bates say the deal is about synergy around personal communications -- for work and home -- and the direct sales and potential advertising possibilities, particularly video.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/10/iPad_isn_t_hurting_PC_sales__claims_NPD'

    iPad isn't hurting PC sales, claims NPD

    Publié: mai 10, 2011, 4:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The retail analyst firm takes a contrarian view about the impact Apple's tablet is having, or not, on U.S. PC sales. Do you believe it?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/10/Microsoft_snags_Skype_for_a_hefty__8.5B'

    Microsoft snags Skype for a hefty $8.5B

    Publié: mai 10, 2011, 4:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The deal is simply stunning, for the potential brand reach Microsoft will gain, the boost to its real-time communications strategy and the potential for empowering Windows Phone-powered handsets with robust video communications.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/10/Microsoft_will_squeeze_juicy_new_features_from_Mango_on_May_24'

    Microsoft will squeeze juicy new features from Mango on May 24

    Publié: mai 10, 2011, 12:35am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The next version of Windows Phone is starting to rippen, as Microsoft prepares a special VIP event and as new features are revealed early.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/08/When_will_PlayStation_Network_be_back_up_'

    When will PlayStation Network be back up?

    Publié: mai 8, 2011, 5:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony's continued promises about when are like the kid who incessantly promises to clean his room and never does. PSN is still down, and subscribers grow impatient -- 73 percent answering our poll are ready to switch to Xbox 360 and Xbox Live.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/06/Are_you_one_of_the_two_out_of_10_U.S._tablet_owners_who_doesn_t_have_iPad_'

    Are you one of the two out of 10 U.S. tablet owners who doesn't have iPad?

    Publié: mai 6, 2011, 5:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do you feel like an individualist, who refuses to be one of the sheep? Or are you embarrassed to take your tablet out for fear the pad people will scoff at you?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/06/Apple_could_pass_Nokia_as_smartphone_leader_this_year'

    Apple could pass Nokia as smartphone leader this year

    Publié: mai 6, 2011, 2:53am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    During Q1, only 5.5 million units separated top-ranked Nokia and No. 2 Apple, down from 12.8 million a year earlier. It's a horse race now. Anyone want to give odds?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/05/Fujifilm_FinePix_X100_first_impressions_review'

    Fujifilm FinePix X100 first impressions review

    Publié: mai 5, 2011, 7:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox started using one of the most-anticipated, and in-demand digicams on May 4. The Fujifilm FinePix X100 is retro, innovative and not for everyone. Could it be for you?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/05/Are_you_a_Windows_expert_'

    Are you a Windows expert?

    Publié: mai 5, 2011, 1:32am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If the answer is "Yes," mosey on over to MIcrosoft's enthusiast community site. Its creation is appropriately timed as the huge XP install base moves to 7.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/04/If_Android_wins_Asia__will_it_take_the_world_'

    If Android wins Asia, will it take the world?

    Publié: mai 4, 2011, 8:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Asia-Pacific is now the leading region for smartphone shipments, where Nokia struggles to hold market share while Android mobiles pick it away.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/05/01/PlayStation_Network_will_be_back_up_this_week__with_subscriber_freebees'

    PlayStation Network will be back up this week, with subscriber freebees

    Publié: mai 1, 2011, 7:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On May 1, Sony issued an official statement that PSN would soon resume gaming, music and video services. As compensation, users will receive free downloads and 30-days of Plus and Qriocity.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/30/With_PlayStation_Network_still_down__will_you_switch_to_Xbox_'

    With PlayStation Network still down, will you switch to Xbox?

    Publié: avril 30, 2011, 6:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's time to publicly pose the question that many of PSN's 77 million subscribers must be asking privately -- with the service down now for 10 days and Sony admitting hackers stole personal data.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/29/Nokia_s_problems_are_a_whole_lot_worse_than_you_think'

    Nokia's problems are a whole lot worse than you think

    Publié: avril 29, 2011, 5:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    First quarter 2011 handset shipments show an acceleration of smartphone sales. Nokia is caught between its larger number of feature phones and transition to Microsoft's Windows Phone. It's a grim outlook.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/28/Microsoft_Q3_2011_by_the_numbers__Record__16.43B__Windows_revenue_declines'

    Microsoft Q3 2011 by the numbers: Record $16.43B, Windows revenue declines

    Publié: avril 28, 2011, 10:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The gravity of slowing PC sales hurt Windows during the quarter, while Office lifted Business Division sales revenue by 21 percent.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/28/10_things_you_can_do_while_PlayStation_Network_is_still_down'

    10 things you can do while PlayStation Network is still down

    Publié: avril 28, 2011, 8:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As the PSN outage enters its eighth day, some online gamers must be asking "What now? What can I do?" Surely there is more to life than online gaming. Isn't there?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/28/Chart__Apple_s_amazing_year_of_iOS'

    Chart: Apple's amazing year of iOS

    Publié: avril 28, 2011, 4:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's last five quarters chart simply stunning growth. Revenue nearly doubled, as did net profit, during calendar 2010. Mobile devices running iOS generated $43.79 billion, or about 57 percent of revenues.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/28/Sony___We_know_you_are_upset__that_PlayStation_Network_is_still_down'

    Sony: "We know you are upset" that PlayStation Network is still down

    Publié: avril 28, 2011, 5:28am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony is trying to quell fears about the privacy risk posed to as many as 77 million PSN subscribers. While credit card numbers were encrypted, most other personally identifying information wasn't. Partial network restoration could begin by early next week.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/28/Nearly_8_out_of_every__10_spent_on_operating_systems_goes_to_Microsoft'

    Nearly 8 out of every $10 spent on operating systems goes to Microsoft

    Publié: avril 28, 2011, 4:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Update] Windows accounted for $23.85 billion out of the $30.35 billion generated by PC and server operating systems in 2010, for 78.6 percent share.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/27/Is_Apple_tracking_you_'

    Is Apple tracking you?

    Publié: avril 27, 2011, 5:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That's the question the company is trying to answer "No" today, with a 10-point FAQ. Apple describes an iPhone location-tracking file as a "bug." What? It's not a necessary feature for providing fast, location-based services?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/27/Will_you_buy_white_iPhone_4_'

    Will you buy white iPhone 4?

    Publié: avril 27, 2011, 4:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    High tech is as much about fashion, what it says about you, as utility. Wouldn't it be funny if millions of people held back buying iPhone 4 because they wanted white? You tell us. Sales start March 28.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/26/Thanks_for_giving_up_my_identity_to_hackers__Sony'

    Thanks for giving up my identity to hackers, Sony

    Publié: avril 26, 2011, 11:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox says that he is likely one of the possibly 70 million people affected by the PlayStation Network data breach that occurred between April 17-19 but was only disclosed today. He's mad. Are you?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/26/50%_of_new_smartphone_buyers_choose_Android'

    50% of new smartphone buyers choose Android

    Publié: avril 26, 2011, 9:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google' smartphone OS continues to make impressive gains, according to Nielsen. However, the analyst firm's claim of "dramatic change" is pure BS. Trends are ongoing and consistent for Android, BlackBerry and iPhone.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/26/How_much_is_fragmentation_hurting_Android_'

    How much is fragmentation hurting Android?

    Publié: avril 26, 2011, 5:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you believe IDC and Appcelerator, developers are losing interest in Android tablets. But Joe Wilcox interprets the data differently, reaching a contrary conclusion that shows what kind of problems emerge from analyst-vendor co-authored reports.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/24/Where_is_my_ala_carte_cable_TV_'

    Where is my ala carte cable TV?

    Publié: avril 24, 2011, 7:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's long past time that television service providers let subscribers choose their own bundles -- only the networks or TV shows they want to watch. Providers should be part of the future, not chain customers to the past.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/24/PlayStation_Network_still_down__Sony_says_task_of_bringing_it_back_up_is__time_consuming_'

    PlayStation Network still down, Sony says task of bringing it back up is 'time consuming'

    Publié: avril 24, 2011, 8:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    PS3 users around the globe are asking the same question: "Is PlayStation Network still down?" Sony say it's sorry, but doesn't give a timeframe for service restoration -- as the outage moves into a fourth devastating day.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/23/Firefox_4_downloads_top_100_million'

    Firefox 4 downloads top 100 million

    Publié: avril 23, 2011, 6:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Firefox 4 achieved a stunning milestone during its first month of availability. But are downloads, even 100 million, best measure of success?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/22/Will_you_drop_Dropbox_over_terms_of_service_changes_'

    Will you drop Dropbox over terms-of-service changes?

    Publié: avril 22, 2011, 6:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox asks, after 70 percent of readers responding to a poll said they were dissatisfied with ToS changes.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/21/Will_Microsoft_s_new_employee_compensation_plan_be_the_bomb__or_will_it_just_bomb_'

    Will Microsoft's new employee compensation plan be the bomb, or will it just bomb?

    Publié: avril 21, 2011, 11:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    To avoid a brain drain and make up for moribund stock, Microsoft will give employees more cash incentives and simplify performance evaluations. Too bad Microsofties will wait until September to receive the benefits..



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/21/AT_T_and_Verizon_iPhone_sales_are_nearly_the_same____40_000_per_day'

    AT&T and Verizon iPhone sales are nearly the same -- 40,000 per day

    Publié: avril 21, 2011, 5:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Based on activations, the two carriers had nearly equal iPhone sell-through during first quarter 2011.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/20/Apple_Q2_2011_by_the_numbers__Record__24.67B_revenue_and_95%_profit_growth'

    Apple Q2 2011 by the numbers: Record $24.67B revenue and 95% profit growth

    Publié: avril 20, 2011, 10:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple shipped 4.69 million iPads and 18.65 million iPhones. Revenue and profit blew past Wall Street consensus -- by $1.33B and $1.04 EPS, respectively.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/20/3.6_million_AT_T_iPhone_activations_debunk_claims_subscribers_are_fleeing_to_Verizon'

    3.6 million AT&T iPhone activations debunk claims subscribers are fleeing to Verizon

    Publié: avril 20, 2011, 5:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For all those prognosticators predicting a huge exodus of iPhone users from AT&T to Verizon, Joe Wilcox offers a big, wet, splatter-in-your face raspberry.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/20/Moleskine_for_iPad__Write_at_your_own_risk'

    Moleskine for iPad: Write at your own risk

    Publié: avril 20, 2011, 8:04am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The iconic journal comes to iPad (and iPhone), but it's just a so-so first edition, says Joe Wilcox. What would Ernest Hemingway say?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/18/Steve_Ballmer_has_restored_my_confidence_in_his_leadership'

    Steve Ballmer has restored my confidence in his leadership

    Publié: avril 18, 2011, 5:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In June 2010, Joe Wilcox said he had lost confidence in Microsoft's CEO; the company had made too many mistakes during his tenure. But something is different now about Ballmer and the direction he is taking Microsoft. This old dog is learning new tricks.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/15/Who_is_cutting_cable_for_Hulu__Netflix_and_OTA_'

    Who is cutting cable for Hulu, Netflix and OTA?

    Publié: avril 15, 2011, 9:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    We started the week by asking "Would you cut cable for Netflix?" We end it with your responses to the question. By year's end, 2 million U.S. households will be cable free. Some Betanews readers will be among them.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/09/Is_Microsoft_dead_meat_without_a_tablet_'

    Is Microsoft dead meat without a tablet?

    Publié: avril 9, 2011, 1:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's iPad and other tablets are headed to the enterprise. Meanwhile, Microsoft has seemingly no strategic respond to Android or iOS devices. Or does it? The answer may surprise you.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/08/AdMob_survey_shows_28%_of_tablet_owners_use_device_as_primary_PC'

    AdMob survey shows 28% of tablet owners use device as primary PC

    Publié: avril 8, 2011, 6:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As startling: 77 percent use their desktop or laptop PC less after buying a tablet. Welcome to the post-PC era.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/08/Bing_for_iPad_rocks'

    Bing for iPad rocks

    Publié: avril 8, 2011, 1:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Search is suddenly beautiful -- there's not much better way to describe it. Bing for iPad is so delish this reviewer could lick the screen.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/07/Doh__of_course_Microsoft_should_open_lots_more_retail_stores'

    Doh, of course Microsoft should open lots more retail stores

    Publié: avril 7, 2011, 9:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A report from former analyst Matt Rosoff claims that Microsoft's leadership is divided about opening more retail stores. That would be tragic, if true. Microsoft Store is a sound brand and markering investment.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/07/You_can_t_trust_Gartner_s_smartphone_OS_forecast__or_any_other'

    You can't trust Gartner's smartphone OS forecast, or any other

    Publié: avril 7, 2011, 6:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Another analyst firm makes bold predictions about the future of Android and Windows Mobile -- 50 percent smartphone market share for the one next year and No. 2 spot for the other in 2012. Are these predictions credible?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/06/Microsoft_will_take_Toyota_cars_to_the_cloud'

    Microsoft will take Toyota cars to the cloud

    Publié: avril 6, 2011, 11:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In the "Back to the Future" movie series, cars can fly in 2015. Likely not, but they will go to the cloud. Today, Microsoft and Toyota announced a telematics deal connecting electric and hybrid vehicles to Azure services.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/06/100_000_Motorola_XOOMs_sold_isn_t_bad__it_s_good'

    100,000 Motorola XOOMs sold isn't bad, it's good

    Publié: avril 6, 2011, 8:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Pundits panning early XOOM sales are clueless. Given higher pricing and Verizon attachment for most of the first two months, the tablet had a surprisingly strong sales start.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/06/Can_Mozilla_shame_Firefox_developers_to_do_better_'

    Can Mozilla shame Firefox developers to do better?

    Publié: avril 6, 2011, 5:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Praise is the carrot. Shame is the stick. Mozilla's list of slow-performing Firefox add-ons is simply brilliant. Other browser developers should copycat this one.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/05/_Apple_s_lead_will_be_very_difficult_to_beat_'

    'Apple's lead will be very difficult to beat'

    Publié: avril 5, 2011, 6:12pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Gartner piped in on the fierce debate about media tablet platforms, by giving huge nod to Apple. The message is intended for CIOs, whom the analyst firm also encouraged to begin supporting tablets now -- and that really means iPad.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/05/Can_you_give_up_Google_'

    Can you give up Google?

    Publié: avril 5, 2011, 1:45am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Joe Wilcox will stop using as many Google products or services as he can during April. He's not embarking on an anti-Google rage, but seeing what can be reasonably replaced -- to assess just how dominant the company really is. First in a series.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/04/AT_T_makes_you_pay_even_more_for_iPhone'

    AT&T makes you pay even more for iPhone

    Publié: avril 4, 2011, 7:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The rumors are true. AT&T has raised prices on iPhone and other smartphones by 50 bucks for people who don't yet qualify for standard subsidized offers.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/04/There_s_a_new_sheriff_at_Google'

    There's a new sheriff at Google

    Publié: avril 4, 2011, 5:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today cofounder Larry Page officially resumes the role of chief executive, a position he abdicated to Eric Schmidt 10 years ago. Schmidt remains as chairman, in part as Google's ambassador and as grandaddy to Page and other cofounder Sergey Brin. The question: What next for Google?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/04/Can_Android_be_stopped_'

    Can Android be stopped?

    Publié: avril 4, 2011, 1:56am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the question to ask following the release of surprising data from ComScore: One in three U.S. smartphone owners use Android. That's up from 21.4 percent six months earlier.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/01/Microsoft_should_make_Google_the_April_Fool'

    Microsoft should make Google the April Fool

    Publié: avril 1, 2011, 11:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's recent retreat form "open" makes Android suddenly exposed to competitive attack. Opportunities like this just don't come `round often enough, or so well timed. It's play the fool, or be one.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/01/Spam_accounts_for_124%_of_email__spammers_complain'

    Spam accounts for 124% of email, spammers complain

    Publié: avril 1, 2011, 5:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    According to a new report, the amount of spam now exceeds the volume of all other email. This surge, fed by the global economic crisis, is increasing unwanted competition among spammers.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/04/01/Hey__Google__Microsoft_payback_is_a_bitch'

    Hey, Google, Microsoft payback is a bitch

    Publié: avril 1, 2011, 3:12am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Two years ago, Joe Wilcox warned Google that anticompetitive accusations it made against Internet Explorer would someday be returned about search. What goes around comes around, and Microsoft proves the point by filing an antitrust complaint against Google in Europe.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/31/Craig_Mundie_questions_whether_tablets_have_a_future____does_he_or_Microsoft_without_them_'

    Craig Mundie questions whether tablets have a future -- does he or Microsoft without them?

    Publié: mars 31, 2011, 3:02am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The man who predicted that the PC's successor would be a "room" wonders if tablets are just a fad. Is he nuts or prescient?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/30/iPad_generated_nearly_100%_of_media_tablet_revenues_in_2010'

    iPad generated nearly 100% of media tablet revenues in 2010

    Publié: mars 30, 2011, 11:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, competitors did collectively make $34 million, based on new data from Gartner compared to Apple financial statements.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/30/Enterprises_will_increase_spending_on_media_tablets_in_2011__and_that_s_really_good_for_iPad'

    Enterprises will increase spending on media tablets in 2011, and that's really good for iPad

    Publié: mars 30, 2011, 7:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Hells, bells, iPad might be Apple's backdoor to the enterprise, after all -- and, whoa, that can't be good for Windows PCs. Enterprise spending on media tablets will boost hardware purchases this year.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/30/Android_Market_finally_gets_in_app_billing'

    Android Market finally gets in-app billing

    Publié: mars 30, 2011, 4:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Less than a week after opening the service to developer testing, Google turned on an important catch-up feature with Apple's App Store -- in-app billing.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/29/If_Windows_Phone_is_No._2_by_2015__I_ll_kiss_Steve_Ballmer_s_feet'

    If Windows Phone is No. 2 by 2015, I'll kiss Steve Ballmer's feet

    Publié: mars 29, 2011, 9:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, IDC predicted Microsoft's mobile OS will trump BlackBerry and iOS in four years. There is no way that the analyst firm, which can't even get numbers right for three months, can accurately make such a bold prediction.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/29/Hands_On_with_Amazon_Cloud_Player'

    Hands On with Amazon Cloud Player

    Publié: mars 29, 2011, 6:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Amazon started offering your music from the cloud -- in a web browser or through an Android app. Joe Wilcox reviews the new music streaming service, which gets high marks for ease of setup and low ones for uploading music.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/29/Apple_shouldn_t_rush_iPhone_5__and_neither_should_you'

    Apple shouldn't rush iPhone 5, and neither should you

    Publié: mars 29, 2011, 1:47am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's rumors Apple won't debut iPhone 5 in June as many people expect should surprise no one. Apple can't meet iPhone 4 demand. The goose is laying golden eggs -- don't disturb it. Let people buy the current model much longer.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/25/Did_you_miss_CTIA_Wireless_2011__We_ve_got_you_covered'

    Did you miss CTIA Wireless 2011? We've got you covered

    Publié: mars 25, 2011, 11:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The second really big wireless tradeshow of the year concluded yesterday. But the gadget news lives on, recapped and linked for those sorry sods who missed it.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/25/Android_in_app_billing_coming_next_week'

    Android in-app billing coming next week

    Publié: mars 25, 2011, 7:04pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Let the preparations begin. Developers can test in-app billing ahead of the feature's availability. But hurry.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/25/Honeycomb_tests_Google_s__Open_Principles_'

    Honeycomb tests Google's 'Open Principles'

    Publié: mars 25, 2011, 3:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's decision to withhold releasing Android 3.0 as open source seemingly defies the company's longstanding position on open systems and information. Is Google doing evil to make money?



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/24/Happy_Birthday__Mac_OS_X_'

    Happy Birthday, Mac OS X!

    Publié: mars 24, 2011, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Ten years ago today, Apple gave birth to new operating system Mac OS X 10.0. But it spent six months in an incubator, having been born prematurely -- missing features and short of applications. Still, some children are born for greatness.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/24/3_things_missing_from_CTIA_Wireless_2011'

    3 things missing from CTIA Wireless 2011

    Publié: mars 24, 2011, 4:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, one of the largest wireless tradeshows anywhere comes to a close. But CTIA Wireless doesn't feel as exciting as it should during a year when smartphones and tablets are such hot commodities.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/24/Six_must_see_Sony_Ericsson_Xperia_Play_videos'

    Six must-see Sony Ericsson Xperia Play videos

    Publié: mars 24, 2011, 1:28am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    These marketing videos are among the best seen in a long time. They're sassy and fun. If they can't help sell Xperia Play, Sony Ericsson should pack it up and go away.



    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/23/Firefox_4_takes_back_the_web_from_IE9____6_million_downloads_in_first_24_hours'

    Firefox 4 takes back the web from IE9 -- 6 million downloads in first 24 hours

    Publié: mars 23, 2011, 3:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Suddenly, IE9's 2.35 million downloads in 24 hours doesn't look so impressive. It's not as many as Firefox 3's debut, but still damn good. Number of downloads exceeded 7.1 million when this story posted.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/22/Will_HTC_EVO_3D_and_EVO_View_4G_be_worth_the_wait_'

    Will HTC EVO 3D and EVO View 4G be worth the wait?

    Publié: mars 22, 2011, 9:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    HTC and Sprint debuted two of the coolest connected devices at CTIA Wireless on March 22nd. But they're not shipping until summer, and the competitive landscape could dramatically change sooner.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/22/You_can_stop_waiting_for_BlackBerry_PlayBook__finally'

    You can stop waiting for BlackBerry PlayBook, finally

    Publié: mars 22, 2011, 4:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The oft-promised BlackBerry PlayBook is finally coming, April 19. You can believe Research Motion this time, because retailers like Best Buy are taking preorders.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/21/Do_you_like_Google_s_new_Chrome_logo_'

    Do you like Google's new Chrome logo?

    Publié: mars 21, 2011, 10:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Many an online social mob has forced vendors to give up a new logo or other branding change. Remember last year's online revolt against the new Gap logo? Chrome has a new logo. Do you want Google to keep it, go back to the old one or to start over?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/21/Google_Voice_and_Nexus_S_Sprint'

    Google Voice and Nexus S Sprint

    Publié: mars 21, 2011, 6:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Google and Sprint made two significant announcements ahead of tomorrow's official opening of the CTIA Wireless trade show: Nexus S 4G and Google Voice integration are coming to Sprint.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/18/AT_T_slashes_64GB_1st_gen_iPad_3G_price_by__300'

    AT&T slashes 64GB 1st-gen iPad 3G price by $300

    Publié: mars 18, 2011, 9:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Holy wholesale pricing, Batman. AT&T is having a fire sale on first-generation iPads. The formerly $829 high-end model could be yours for just $529.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/18/Who_will_pay__600_for_XOOM_with_WiFi_'

    Who will pay $600 for XOOM with WiFi?

    Publié: mars 18, 2011, 8:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Motorola's hot, Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablet goes on sales next week -- heck, some retailers are already taking preorders. Amazon has it for $599, Costco $589.99 and Staples $599.98. Betanews readers say whether or not they'll pay.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/18/Apple_must_stop_iPad_2_scalpers_NOW'

    Apple must stop iPad 2 scalpers NOW

    Publié: mars 18, 2011, 4:55pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's time Apple put people who want to buy and use iPad 2 ahead of those who want to profit from shortages they help create. It's really simple: Put customers before profits. We offer five suggestions how.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/17/Microsoft_small_business_server_software_now_widely_available'

    Microsoft small business server software now widely available

    Publié: mars 17, 2011, 9:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows Small Business Server 2011 Standard Edition is now available through all Microsoft channels, including OEMs and volume licensing. The company announced all-channel availability earlier today.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/17/Is_Microsoft_more_ethical_than_Apple_or_Google_'

    Is Microsoft more ethical than Apple or Google?

    Publié: mars 17, 2011, 7:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft joins Ethisphere's list of "Most Ethical Companies," while Google falls off and Apple is consistent no-show. Is Microsoft ethical? You tell us.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/14/Profiteers_feed_off_iPad_2_shortages'

    Profiteers feed off iPad 2 shortages

    Publié: mars 14, 2011, 9:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The iPad 2 aftermarket is already in motion, as resale parasites -- looking to profit from shortages -- sell iPad 2s they snatched up before genuine buyers could get them from Apple stores. There's hot trade on eBay today, with the 32GB WiFi white iPad 2 selling in the mid $700s.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/13/Who_bought_iPad_2_'

    Who bought iPad 2?

    Publié: mars 13, 2011, 7:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Not as many people as wanted to. Apple's second-generation is largely sold out. Many Betanews readers would purchase the tablet if they could get it, while others would kiss the devil before buying iPad 2.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/12/Did_you_buy_iPad_2_'

    Did you buy iPad 2?

    Publié: mars 12, 2011, 8:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Late yesterday, Apple and AT&T retail stores started selling iPad 2. Joe Wilcox shares his story waiting to buy the Apple tablet. We'd like to hear your story and answer to question "did you buy?"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/11/My_shocking_visit_to_the_Apple_Genius_Bar'

    My shocking visit to the Apple Genius Bar

    Publié: mars 11, 2011, 5:43pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For the second time in nearly three years, Apple Store gave me a new computer to replace one recently purchased but malfunctioning -- each a MacBook Air. Is it good customer service or faulty products?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/10/iPad_market_share_plunged_20_percent_in_Q4_2010'

    iPad market share plunged 20 percent in Q4 2010

    Publié: mars 10, 2011, 8:46pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    IDC released tablet shipment data a day before iPad 2 goes on sale. But something doesn't add up -- iPad's market share as previously stated for Q3 compared to newer data, raising doubts about share declines.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/10/Which_is_the_more_popular_web_browser_'

    Which is the more popular web browser?

    Publié: mars 10, 2011, 5:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, Joe Wilcox asked "Which web browser do you use?" So many readers responded, we just had to present some of their responses. But the answer to which is "more popular" will surprise some people.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/10/Which_web_browser_do_you_use_'

    Which web browser do you use?

    Publié: mars 10, 2011, 12:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    So far in March, there has been major news about 6 different browsers. It's a browser war, and you're the battlefield. We'd like know if you use Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari or something else.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/09/How_could_Steve_Ballmer_screw_up_Microsoft_s_HP_partnership_'

    How could Steve Ballmer screw up Microsoft's HP partnership?

    Publié: mars 9, 2011, 10:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    HP's plans to ship WebOS alongside Windows turns a strategic partner into a competitor. It's an unthinkable circumstance that Microsoft could have prevented.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/09/Chrome_10_seeds_Google_s_Cloud_OS_ambitions'

    Chrome 10 seeds Google's Cloud OS ambitions

    Publié: mars 9, 2011, 7:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Chrome 10 is by far Google's most cloud-services ready version of the browser. The search and information giant is preparing businesses, consumers and developers for its next big cloud push and Chrome OS' release.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/08/Are_mobile_developers_violating_open_source_licenses_'

    Are mobile developers violating open-source licenses?

    Publié: mars 8, 2011, 10:48pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Seventy-one percent of Android and iOS apps failed to meet open-source license requirements, by varying degrees, according to OpenLogic. The most egregious violators placed copyrights where they shouldn't be. Android GPL/LGPL license compliance was 0 percent.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/07/Google_removes_Android_malware_so_you_don_t_have_to'

    Google removes Android malware so you don't have to

    Publié: mars 7, 2011, 4:51am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Android handsets infected with malware are getting a cleaning job from Google. On March 2nd, Google removed 21 apps from the Android Marketplace that contained malicious code. Now Google is "remotely removing the malicious applications from affected devices" and "pushing an Android Market security update to all affected devices that undoes the exploits to prevent the attacker(s) from accessing any more information from affected devices," according to a blog post by Rich Cannings, Android security lead.

    Whoa. That's scary reassuring: Knowing Google can reach down to Android handsets to swat malicious code and undo its impact and simply that Google can reach down into devices at all. I mean whoa. "This remote application removal feature is one of many security controls the Android team," Cannings writes. Last year he defended the remote removal feature after Google nixed some applications. "This remote removal functionality -- along with Android's unique Application Sandbox and Permissions model, over-the-air update system, centralized Market, developer registrations, user-submitted ratings, and application flagging --provides a powerful security advantage to help protect Android users in our open environment."

    I've got mixed feelings about the remote removal capabilities, which gives me mixed feelings of security and sense of Big Brother watching. So I ask: What's your feeling about Google's remote zap feature? Please answer in comments, or email joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    On the evening of March 1st, Google became aware of the malicious apps, which were removed from the Android Marketplace "within minutes," Cannings writes. The 21 malicious applications exploited known Android vulnerabilities in some, but not all versions of the mobile operating system. Devices running Android 2.2.2 or higher aren't affected. Google believes that the malware only harvested IMEI/IMSI codes.

    "If your device has been affected, you will receive an email from android-market-support@google.com over the next 72 hours," Cannings writes (he posted today at about 1 a.m. ET). "You will also receive a notification on your device that 'Android Market Security Tool March 2011' has been installed. You may also receive notification(s) on your device that an application has been removed. You are not required to take any action from there; the update will automatically undo the exploit. Within 24 hours of the exploit being undone, you will receive a second email."

    Cannings didn't reveal the number of infected handsets and made nondescript promises about preventing something similar from happening again. "We are adding a number of measures to help prevent additional malicious applications using similar exploits from being distributed through Android Market and are working with our partners to provide the fix for the underlying security issues." Which means what?

    Did you download an app from the Android Marketplace that affected your computer? Unsure whether your phone is infected? "A user can determine if their device has been affected by visiting Settings > Applications > Running services and look for 'DownloadManageService' in the list of running services," according to a Google security notice. If you were infected, please share your story in comments, or email joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/06/5_lessons_tablet_competitors_should_learn_from_iPad_2'

    5 lessons tablet competitors should learn from iPad 2

    Publié: mars 6, 2011, 9:03pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPad 2

    Last week's iPad 2 debut offered few surprises, other than Apple's new tablet not living up to out-of-control rumors -- and still there is endless cacophony on the InterWebs. By measure of noise, there is seemingly no other tablet worth purchasing. But, of course, that's not the case. Perception isn't always reality. But from iPad 2 hype and perceptions, there are five lessons competitors can learn.

    I present them in no particular order of importance with recommendations competitors should consider adopting.

    1. iPad 2 hype is out of control. Make no mistake about it. Look at the ridiculous number of rumor blog posts or stories ahead of the launch, and the even larger number from March 2nd onwards. That's worth tens of millions of dollars in free marketing to Apple. Betanews posted just five iPad 2 stories from launch day (six, counting impact on Samsung), and traffic was lower than usual for nearly all other posts expect those about Apple's tablet. Earlier this afternoon, three of the top-five anchor stories at Google News Sci/Tech were about iPad 2.

    Apple feeds the hype machine by announcing a product one week but waiting until another to begin sales. CEO Steve Jobs announced iPad 2 on March 2nd, but the tablet doesn't go on sale until March 11th. It's a tried-and-true Apple tactic for feeding pageview-hungry blogs and news sites. The Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists eat the hype dripping right from Apple's hand.

    To combat the hype, tablet competitors need to seriously invest in all-media-outlets advertising. Verizon's Droid campaign -- $100 million of it -- is the model. If you look at Android smartphone shipment growth, a large spike started in fourth quarter 2009, when Verizon launched Droid, backed it by huge ad spending and offered limited-time two-for-one offers. Verizon already is fairly aggressively marketing the Motorola XOOM tablet -- I see TV commercials in prime time most every evening. Verizon advertising clearly targets male gamers, which is a risky approach (see #4).

    Tablet competitors should get their products to key influencers for extended loans. Start with influential bloggers and developers in the Android community and then gadget geek writers or vloggers who pine for the newest thing or who write neutrally about tech. Forget Apple fan club bloggers like TechCrunch's MG Siegler. They're lost causes that will nitpick your product's every perceived shortcoming against iPad 2.

    2. Perception is everything. Many prominent bloggers are writing like Apple has already won the tablet wars, when they're really just starting a new round. Yes, Apple sold nearly 15 million iPads during its first 9 months on the market, but early lead is no certainty of anything. The tech industry is a graveyard of early innovators crushed by imitators -- Betamax, HD-DVD, Lotus 123, Netscape, Tablet PC and WordPerfect, among many others. Funny, the voices crying certainty also proclaimed the coming of the Jesus phone, but Apple's handset market share retreats before the great Android god. But iPad doesn't have to be a winner to be a winner, it just needs to be perceived so. In business and branding, perception is everything.

    The perception isn't just about the device but iOS as a platform. If iOS is perceived to be the winner, device buyers, OEM manufacturers, peripheral providers and software and services developers will self-fulfill that perception. For Android, Google needs to deal with the perception problem. Android 3.0 -- Honeycomb -- is a good start, but it's not nearly enough. Google mobile operating system fragmentation is now worse, with forked Android development -- 2.x for phones and 3.x for tablets -- and the forthcoming Chrome OS. Fragmentation will feed negative perceptions about Android.

    Unifying Google operating systems is just a start. In January I asserted: "The most important tablet is missing from CES, and it's not iPad 2." Google should do for Android tablets what it did with smartphones: Release a branded device (or even two -- in different sizes) that is reference design for manufacturers and always has the lastest Android software for developers. Otherwise, Android tablets have little to no chance competing with iPad. The market of Android competitors is simply too fragmented.

    In #1, I asserted that Verizon Droid advertising greatly benefited sales for all devices -- that is for the United States. Google's release of the Nexus One in January 2010 was as significant and likely greater inflection point. That smartphone, as OEM reference design and developer standard, was the equivalent of falling stones setting off an avalanche of Android phone releases and enormous market share gains throughout 2010. No one should underestimate the power of Google's brand on a tablet, or the positive perception created by Google taking more ownership over Android platform development.

    3. Distribution is everything else. Apple didn't bring iPad to market in a vacuum. As I explained in January, iPad benefited from manufacturing and retail logistics put in place for iPod and applications platform distribution created for iPhone. I already explained the importance of distribution in separate January and February posts (please read them). This distribution advantage is often overlooked in analyses of iPad's success. The tablet was available in 46 countries during calendar fourth quarter, when Apple shipped 7.33 million units.

    Manufacturers that can't get shelf space where consumers shop the most will be crushed by iPad 2 competition, directly from the device or other tablets. Of course, with shelf space there should be lots of advertising (see #1).

    4. Apple presents a compelling digital lifestyle. It's broad, too. Rather than target male, gadget geeks, Apple is going after everyone. From iPad 2's design, to the promoted apps to the colorful smart covers, Apple marketing targets women and teens as much as it does men. Additionally, the company smartly shows the benefits of using iPad with its own services, such as iTunes, or others, like Netflix. Something else: Apple's digital lifestyle marketing is as much about technology fashion as it is mobile computing.

    Verizon's XOOM marketing is too male-oriented. It's a long-term losing campaign. Motorola's XOOM marketing is much better: "Tablet Evolution" or "Empower the People" videos are more aspirational and appeal to a broader audience. They tell stories, too. By comparison, Samsung is doing some really smart, aspirational marketing around Galaxy Tab and also its Galaxy S II smartphone. Some examples, from Samsung Mobile's You Tube channel: "Galaxy Tab Stories: Jesse Kamm" or official US commercial.  The "Letters from the World" marketing video for Galaxy S II is exceptional, aspirational marketing and approach I strongly encourage Samsung to apply similar marketing approach to Galaxy Tab. Tagline: "Don't contain yourself. Who knows how far one can really go."

    Marketers should take cues from film directors like James Cameron, whose stories appeal to men and women. Marketing tech products should be no different.

    5. For now, competition is about winning second place. I'm not convinced iPad can win the tablet wars. Perception isn't reality. But given the hype, the positive perceptions, the power and lower component pricing of Apple's manufacturing and distribution channels, the effectiveness of the company's digital lifestyle marketing and crowded field of tablet competitors, the initial shakeout will be among the contenders. They'll be fighting one another for second place.

    However, the ultimate and more important winner won't be the device but tablet platform. Android can easily erode iOS' early lead if, say, tablets running Honeycomb could capture the next 5 or 6 places behind Apple in market share. As Android demonstrated on smartphones, there's strength in aggregation. Google can help by better resolving fragmentation problems and taking the aforementioned ownership over tablet development by releasing a reference design.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/04/Chrome_OS_update_makes_Google_Cr_48_worthy_cloud_PC_alternative'

    Chrome OS update makes Google Cr-48 worthy cloud PC alternative

    Publié: mars 4, 2011, 10:03pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Cr-48

    This week, I unexpectedly started using Google's Cr-48 notebook running Chrome OS as my production system. On Monday, my 11.6-inch MacBook Air fatally crashed, leaving no real alternative since a friend has my Windows laptop. So I fired up the Cr-48, which I reviewed in December in seven parts. It has been a great week that got better after installing yesterday's Chrome OS update -- "0.10.156.46 (Official Build caa798a8)."

    I started using the Cr-48 full time a second time with sense of urgency. I couldn't fall back to MacBook Air. It was sink or swim. Treading water wouldn't be good enough. Swim I did: As a work replacement PC, the Cr-48 has proved its worthiness, with Chrome OS obviously being major reason; Google synchronization is another. This second week's use also has me reconsidering the merits of the browser as a user-interface motif.

    Some quick background: In early December, Google launched a pilot program distributing 60,000 Cr-48 laptops, with 12.1-inch screen, 1.66GHz Intel Atom processor, 2GB RAM, 16GB SATA SSD, WiFi and Verizon 3G. Chrome browser is the user interface, and the computer requires a persistent Internet connection. My biggest usability gripe was the trackpad, which proved to be unresponsive and prone to clicking on the wrong place. There were other quirks, such as slow-connecting WiFi, which just didn't seem right for a PC requiring constant IP connection. Audio fidelity also was subpar, although I didn't understand how much until applying the newest update.

    Sizing up Chrome OS Experiences

    Chrome OS proved capable for my work needs this second week using Cr-48 full time. But Google's cloud most certainly isn't for everyone. My work doesn't require using Microsoft Office documents or specialized local applications. I've been doing all my writing in a browser for years. Also, I have a fast Internet connection. No connection would grind most work to a halt, if using the Cr-48. That said, how often does the corporate network or Internet connection go down (and for long periods)? Please feel free to answer about your company in comments.

    However, personal productivity would be more challenging, as much now as three months ago. For example, I shoot photos in my digicam's RAW format. I have yet to find a reliable browser-based photo-editing service that would meet my RAW editing needs; there are plenty of online JPEG-editing options, however. Also, I would find audio or video editing difficult, whether for personal or professional purposes.

    Using Cr-48 has not converted me to Google Docs, which I don't really need more than Microsoft Office (which I also don't need). But other Chrome OS pilot testers have different experience. A Betanews reader who goes by the handle bbq (would you people please use real names) writes in comments: "I'm on week 12 with the Cr-48, and I've grown my use of Google Docs exponentially. In any given week now I use it to collaborate with work colleagues on documentation, prepare lectures for a one-night-a-week class that I'm teaching, maintain student grades and most spreadsheets all on Google Docs. I've given several public presentations using the VGA output from the Cr-48, and it is all in the cloud."

    I've been pondering switching completely over to the Cr-48 and selling the MacBook Air. Last night I delivered my MBA for repair. The Apple Genius who first inspected the laptop concluded that the flash memory had failed. That was something I would never have expected from sold-state storage. But, hey, motherboards fail and they've got no moving parts. My local Apple Store received the 128GB flash drive yesterday, and now sometime in the next few days some Genius will replace the defective part. This is the third Air I owned where the drive failed, which is one reason I'm thinking about selling. The satisfying week using the Cr-48 is another reason.

    But as aforementioned, the cloud isn't good enough, yet, at least on Chrome OS. I would occasionally need to borrow my wife's MacBook Pro, a strategy that works for Betanews reader bbq: "What's really been a wake-up call for me is how effortlessly that choice lets me use the best machine for the purpose: if I need some fancy graphic from a massive Windows workstation app, I generate it there and add it to my document from that machine. If I'm out and about I use the Cr-48, and if I'm at home I'm starting to use it more too just because it's quieter than my overclocked Ubuntu box."

    This week, one of Betanews' oldest registered users, who goes by handle Digital Sin, comments about using iPad and Cr-48:

    It just so happens that I received the Google Cr-48 laptop around the same time as my iPad, so it's interesting to see how they kind of compete with one another. The Cr-48 is so light and good on batteries that it just floats around the house from room to room depending on who had it last and what they needed it for. But so does iPad, though the Cr-48 feels a little less fragile since I didn't have to pay for it, so I'm a little more discerning about where iPad ends up, Usually when it's all said and done, the iPad is what gets used more since it has a little better design and is just friendlier and a bit more inviting (I don't hold that against the Cr-48 since it's just for testing).

    The Browser is My Bond

    I really enjoyed working in Chrome this week, much more so than during the seven days in December. Before yesterday's Chrome OS update, the Cr-48's trackpad performed horribly. I hadn't understood how badly the trackpad impaired my user experience until coming back and using a mouse. With a functional cursor, I truly experienced the browser UI and appreciated its benefits more fully. Now, post-update, with the trackpad working like it should, I don't really need the mouse anymore.

    The browser motif helped me to see how exhausting is the more traditional desktop user interface, including elements Mac OS X's Dock or Windows' taskbar. Whether desktop, Dock or taskbar, the user moves the cursor across vast areas of screen, even when using keyboard shortcuts. These movements create distraction I now recognize disrupts concentration and workflow. I couldn't appreciate this before because of the Cr-48's irregular trackpad movements.

    In Chrome OS, the browser fills the screen; there is no desktop. Most of the movement takes place across the top of screen, moving from browser tab to tab. Some readers will surely observe that the Windows taskbar can be placed along the top of the screen, as could be a browser toolbar. These actually add distraction. They're not as tidy or contained as the tabs. Anyone could mimic such behavior by running the Chrome browser full screen on a PC and using only cloud services and Web apps. Try for a week and see if you find it a less-distracting, less-time wasting way of working.

    Working on MacBook Air, I would listen to music in iTunes, reduced to the mini player and floating above other applications. While writing this post, I used the MOG Web app open in a tab streaming music -- Brand New, Broken Bells and The Arcade Fire. I can still look up to the tab to see what's playing, without any distractions from the desktop.

    Additionally, I found the browser UI to be responsive, and the fonts render beautifully. Video streaming still drops too many frames, but that's presumably an issue with Adobe Flash, as YouTube HTML5 streams are delicious by comparison.

    Good is Now Lots Better

    Yesterday's Chrome OS update offered up some mighty big fixes. According to Google's Chrome Releases blog:

    • 3G modem activation fixes
    • 3G connection to the carrier fixes
    • Wi-Fi connectivity/Out of the Box fixes
    • New trackpad and sensitivity setting adjusted
    • Auto update engine and debugging improvements
    • Power optimizations
    • GTalk video/chat optimizations
    • Audio CPU utilization improvements
    • Improved on screen indicators: brightness, network status, update

    I've already attested to the enormous difference in using the trackpad. Google should never have shipped Chrome OS on Cr-48 without adequately functioning trackpad. As I reported above, I have a much better reaction to the browser motif with functional cursor than I did in December. The audio improvement simply stunned. Audio is louder and there is noticeably better fidelity listening to streamed music as before -- as good as locally played tracks to my audiophile ears. WiFi now connects instantly when I lift the lid and near instantly when disabled and reenabled. The update is a helluva way to end another full week using Chrome OS and Cr-48 notebook.

    I was feeling pretty good about the cloud PC earlier in the week, but even better now. For context, here's what I wrote in December:

    1. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 1: Getting acquainted"

    2. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 2: Becoming a cloud citizen"

    3. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 3: Living with Flash"

    4. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 4: Who is the cloud for?"

    5. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 5: My life in the cloud"

    6. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 6: Adopting a new lifestyle"

    7. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 7: Settling in for the long haul"

    If you've got the Cr-48, please share your user experience in comments. Better: email joewilcox at gmail dot com. Even better: email to discuss writing a review. Betanews loves reader submissions for their authenticity and closeness to the entire audience.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/04/Yawn__Android_beats_iPhone_and_BlackBerry_again'

    Yawn, Android beats iPhone and BlackBerry again

    Publié: mars 4, 2011, 5:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    ComScore Smartphones 1-11

    I know that yesterday Apple CEO Steve Jobs proudly proclaimed 100 million iPhone shipments, which is a darn big number. But iPhone isn't winning the smartphone wars, a story that's getting tired to write (Apple could still win the mobile platform wars). Today, ComScore and Nielsen separately released new US smartphone data that puts Android ahead of Research in Motion's BlackBerry and Apple's iPhone. It's quickly becoming an old story.

    In January, Android handsets accounted for 31.2 percent of the US smartphone market, up from 7.1 percent a year earlier, according to ComScore. BlackBerry held the second position, after a devastating, steady decline -- 30.4 percent down from about 44 percent in January 2010. Meanwhile iPhone share remained flat, in the 25 percent range, for all of last year. US market share was 24.7 percent in January 2011.

    Nielsen measured smartphone operating system market share from November 2010 to January 2011 -- Android 29 percent and BlackBerry and iOS tied at 27 percent. Thirty-two days ago, Nielsen called a three-way tie -- iOS 28 percent and Android and BlackBerry 27 percent each. When the data is cut by device and operating system that 27 percent tie puts Apple and RIM way ahead of competitors (HTC follows with 12 percent share).

    Nielsen Smartphones 1-11

    The Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists keep writing like the smartphone war is over and iPhone won. Here's some sobering perspective, which someone will refute as meaningless in comments: Apple took 3.9 years to ship 100 million smartphones. According to Gartner, Nokia sold more smartphones (100.3 million) just in 2010. Since January 3, I've written this Android shipments are soaring story 10 times:

    1. "Stunning Android growth visualized in new video"; February 24

    2. "Gartner: Android smartphone sales surged 888.8% in 2010"; February 9

    3. "[This is getting boring -- iPhone US smartphone share remains flat while Android soars]"; February 7

    4. "It's a photo finish: Android, BlackBerry and iOS are tied in US smartphone share"; February 1

    5. "Canalys: Android tops Symbian in smartphone shipments -- twice as many units as iPhone"; January 31

    6. "IDC: Developer interest in Android nearly equals iOS"; January 25

    7. "ComScore: Verizon iPhone is likely bad for AT&T, probably not for Android"; January 14

    8. "Canalys: Verizon iPhone won't slow Android growth even the slightest"; January 14

    9. "[Can you feel the noose, Apple? Android gains against flat US iPhone market share]"; January 7

    10. "[41% of new smartphone buyers choose Android]"; January 3

    There are two others worth calling out, in context of Jobs' 100-million boasting: "Verizon's iPhone 4 public relations damage control says it all" and "Say, whatever happened to that 1 million Verizon iPhones sold announcement?" Apple and Verizon have yet to announce iPhone 4 sales, since last month's launch. If they were good, surely Apple would boast; like Jobs did about the 100 million number, which is a nice distraction -- using cumulative data as opposed to sales that are more immediate and people have asked about. Last week, Apple 2.0 blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt quoted Jobs, from 2009 sniping about Amazon not releasing Kindle sales: "Usually, if they sell a lot of something, you want to tell everybody." That's right. If Verizon had sold a lot of iPhones -- at least a million -- "you want to tell everybody."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/03/You_can_blame_Apple_and_China_for_slowing_PC_shipments'

    You can blame Apple and China for slowing PC shipments

    Publié: mars 3, 2011, 9:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPad 2 facetime

    A year ago, PC shipments were on the rebound. The recovery is over for consumers, according to Gartner, which today lowered its global PC forecast for this year and next. PC shipments aren't going to be bad, just not as good. You can blame Apple and China.

    Gartner lowered 2011 PC shipment growth by about a third -- 10.5 percent down from 15.9 percent. The analyst firm now predicts 387.8 million PCs shipped globally this year. Gartner expects 440.6 million PC shipments in 2012, with growth lowered much less -- 15.9 percent to 14.8 percent.

    Fourth-quarter 2010 PC shipments foreshadowed today's forecast change; global PC shipments fell below Gartner and IDC expectations. Both analyst firms identified tablets, which really meant iPad, as a contributing factor during Q4. Gartner reiterated demand for non-PC devices as a factor negatively affecting 2011 shipments. Slower sales in China is another.

    "These results reflect marked reductions in expected near-term unit growth based on expectations of weaker consumer mobile PC demand, in no small part because of the near-term weakness expected in China's mobile PC market, but also because of a general loss in consumer enthusiasm for mobile PCs," Ranjit Atwal, Gartner research director, said in a statement.

    Portable PCs, netbooks as well as notebooks, have driven PC shipment growth for about half a decade. Now suddenly, other mobile products are competing with portable PCs. For example, smartphone shipments exceeded PCs in fourth quarter --  100.9 million to 92.1 million, respectively, according to IDC.

    "We expect growing consumer enthusiasm for mobile PC alternatives, such as the iPad and other media tablets, to dramatically slow home mobile PC sales, especially in mature markets," George Shiffler, Gartner research director, said in a statement. "We once thought that mobile PC growth would continue to be sustained by consumers buying second and third mobile PCs as personal devices. However, we now believe that consumers are not only likely to forgo additional mobile PC buys but are also likely to extend the lifetimes of the mobile PCs they retain as they adopt media tablets and other mobile PC alternatives as their primary mobile device. Overall, we now expect home mobile PCs to average less than 10 percent annual growth in mature markets from 2011 through 2015."

    Like I asserted last month: "The PC era is over." It's not like the PC goes away, just that its computing and informational relevance diminishes before cloud-connected mobile devices. The process starts with people buying a smartphone or tablet to augment an existing PC rather than to replace it.

    What does all this mean for Microsoft, which fortunes are steadfastly tied to personal computers? Enterprises are still replacing older PCs running XP with Windows 7. That's the good news. The bad: "However, even in the professional market, media tablets are being considered as PC substitutes, likely at least delaying some PC replacements," Raphael Vasquez, Gartner senior research analyst, said in a statement.

    Gartner raises a question without answering it. The analyst firm revised its PC forecast in part because of the influence of tablets -- consumers buying them or "taking a wait-and-see attitude" before choosing new portable PC or tablet. So if media tablets are suddenly so important to consumers, what does that mean for another Gartner forecast? Last month, its analysts said that in 2011 consumers are more likely to buy a smartphone than any other device. Tablets ranked sixth, behind ebook readers, in Gartner's study of Americans' buying intentions. Portable PCs were second. The point: As the transition between the PC and cloud-connected device eras proceeds, forecasting shipments will be increasingly harder. My rule of thumb: Assume PCs shipments will be forecast too high and smartphones and tablet forecasts will be too low.

    I first asked the PC cannibalization question in April 2010. There's little doubt now that iPad has cannibalized PC sales or at least delayed consumer (and even some business) purchases. Remember, cannibalization doesn't necessarily mean replacing an older PC but replacing a newer PC purchase with cloud-connected device.

    So I have to ask Betanews readers: Will your next computing purchase be PC, smartphone or tablet? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/03/iPad_2_wasn_t_Apple_s_big_March_2nd_announcement'

    iPad 2 wasn't Apple's big March 2nd announcement

    Publié: mars 3, 2011, 7:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPad 2

    It was the software -- FaceTime, Garage Band, iMovie and Photo Booth -- and the colorful Smart Covers. I kid you not. There are good reasons why so much of yesterday's launch event focused on software -- hell, Apple even made a video about the new covers; now what does that you tell you?

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs officiated yesterday's launch event, which spent surprisingly little time on iPad 2 -- and that may have confounded some people, given the huge amount of hype about the tablet. But as I explained yesterday, Apple typically iterates rather than innovates hardware on a new category's successor product. I have laid out five reasons why the other stuff -- new software features and applications and even the colorful cases -- are more important.

    1. The platform is a continuum. There has been much debate about whether or not iPad is a PC. On February 21st, I took the position that iPad is not a PC. From Apple's perspective, iPad's classification -- PC or tablet -- is irrelevant. During yesterday's launch event, Jobs repeatedly positioned iPad 2 as a post-PC era device. The emphasis reminded of Jobs calling Macintosh a "digital hub," starting at the turn of the century. There are similarities in the messaging content and style.

    From an operating system perspective, iOS derives from Mac OS X, which with next-release 10.7 (aka Lion) will inherit some iOS-like features. The platform is a continuum from the cheapest iPhone to the most expensive Mac. Yesterday's software announcements further close what Apple software applications/features users get on iOS devices versus Macs. Similarly, price is also a continuum from the $49 iPhone 3G to the $2,499 17-inch MacBook Pro, as I first explained 13 months ago; iPad fills the gap from $499 to $829, bracketed by $399 iPod touch and $999 MacBook or MacBook Air.

    There are increasingly fewer differences in uses among Apple hardware products along the spectrum. The iOS and Mac OS products have wireless capabilities, surf the Web, run applications (including traditional productivity suite apps) and consume or produce digital content. The range of hardware capabilities is limited by size, processing speed, storage capacity, etc., but not really software as Apple offers more of the same applications or features across the entire continuum. Apple is seeking to offer single-user experience across all its devices, regardless of hardware features. It's sensible, and there is precedent. Apple offers the same software for all its Macs, but there is a range of capabilities based on processing speed, graphics capabilities and other hardware attributes.

    2. Single-user experience generates more product sales. As a marketer, Apple long ago perfected the art of the upsell, largely through effective pricing. The 8GB iPod nano costs $149, or you could get double the memory for just $30 more. Or wait, for another 50 bucks you could get a music player that runs iPhone applications -- the 8GB iPod touch. Each step up in price offers a little something more and a little less something else. The iPod nano price jump gives the buyer 16GB of storage, while the move to iPod touch means less storage but larger touchscreen user interface.

    What Apple really wants is to extend the continuum to additional product purchases, something that is easier if basic features and Apple software are available across the entire line. The Mac owner using Garage Band or iMovie might be more likely to buy iPad, or the iPad owner to purchase a Mac for even more capabilities with both software applications. Then there is the communications aspect, where FaceTime is now available across the continuum -- iPod touch, iPhone, iPad and Macintosh.

    Apple's App Stores are part of that continuum across devices.

    3. Color is a differentiator. I want to briefly digress from software and explain why Apple's iPad 2 cases are so important, even as some geek snobs snub them. The cases add dramatic color -- and personality -- to iPad 2, broadening its appeal, particularly to younger buyers (see #4). Apple has first-to-market advantage over third-party case makers, and stamps its trademark color approach on iPad 2. Apple design chief Jony Ive has long used color as a differentiating feature, going back to the translucent iMac line of the later 1990s.

    Color has a long design tradition. For example, in 1927, Kodak commissioned Walter Dorwin Teague to design a new line of cameras. Kodak wanted to increase its cameras' appeal to women. Teague presented the diminutive Vest Pocket line in five distinct colors. Nearly 80 years later, Ive applied the same five-color concept to iPod Mini. Similarly, like Teague presented a smaller camera, Ive designed a smaller music player. Apple has since kept the colors coming, and they're important for broadening product appeal beyond stereotypical male gadget geeks to women and to younger buyers, especially teens.

    Apple's approach to color also recognizes the importance of technology fashion. In a blog post today, Gartner analyst Mark McDonald writes: "As technology becomes consumer technology it also becomes fashion. The technology you own is now part of your persona rather than the toolset you use to be productive. Just look at the plethora of iPad accessories, covers, etc."

    4. Tomorrow's market is today. Last week, Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, told me that "about 50 percent more 18-34 year olds own a tablet than over 55 year olds -- despite the high price that normally scares away the younger consumer." That's a key market segment. The younger age that people buy into a brand or platform, the more likely they are to stay with it. A whole generation of consumers who bought DOS/Windows PCs and applications in their youth continued doing so as adults, feeding Microsoft's ecosystem with sales; consumers are also business decision makers, choosing what software or IT systems to buy.

    The tail end of the Millennials generation bought iPods, later Macs and now iPads. By extending the user experience across the continuum of its products, Apple is more likely to capture a generation of users, particularly with creative and fun applications like FaceTime, Garage Band, iMovie and Photo Booth. Fun is the ingredient often missing from enterprise developers' approach to business software (yes, companies like Microsoft and Oracle). People crave joy and happiness, something kids and teens seem to understand much better than many adults. The teens and young adults Apple locks in today are the business decision-makers of tomorrow.

    Something else, more subtle: Younger people are growing accustomed to Apple's user interface approach, which, again, increasingly spans the continuum of products. Perhaps mom owns an iPad or iPhone and buys games for her child to play. From a young age that child is exposed to an Apple experience -- and Apple user interface -- to which he or she grows accustomed. It's like an earlier generation that grew up with monitor, keyboard and mouse. Apple's UI approach increasingly is about touch -- direct manipulation with fingers and hands.

    Apple isn't alone understanding the importance of younger buyers or offering products that cater to their needs. Last week, I attended a Sony Electronics event, where president Phil Molyneix said: "We're really focused on the youth market and the opportunity that presents to us in the future." He used as example Sony's PIIQ line of headphones. "The youth today will become the mainstream market of the future." He's right about that.

    5. Creativity knows no bounds. Apple products have long been about creativity. During the late 1980s, the Macintosh set off a revolution in desktop publishing. Since resuming CEO responsibilities in 1997 (interim, at first), Jobs has made creativity a priority, something first emphasized in 2000 with Macintosh "digital hub" marketing and two years later bolstered by the iLife suite. The digital suite, which includes Garage Band and iMovie, has been one major reason people buys Macs.

    One measure of the suite's success is journalism school. Many J schools now recommend, or even require, students to use Macs because of iLife. For example, the Missouri School of Journalism:

    The faculty has designated Apple Computer as its preferred provider for two primary reasons: (1) Apple's OS X operating system is based on Unix, which makes these computers far less susceptible to viruses than other computers. Viruses are a serious problem on university campuses. (2) Apple MacBook and MacBook Pro computers come bundled with iLife, a suite of applications ideal for learning the basics of photo editing, and audio and video editing. We'll use those programs in several classes. Incoming students will receive information on recommended models and pricing in February of each year.

    In 2009, the J school required that all incoming freshmen have a "Web-enabled audio-video player. This requirement is best met by purchasing the Apple iPod Touch." The iPad and iPhone also meet the requirement.

    When journalism schools push Macs, in large part because of creative software, they facilitate a generation's adopting Apple products over others. Now Apple is extending its creative software reach across the continuum -- for example, iMovie available for iPod touch, iPhone, iPad and Macintosh. If you give people the tools to express their creativity, some of them will use them -- younger users being most likely.

    In conclusion, yesterday's big announcement was less about iPad 2 and more what people can do with it or why they might buy it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/02/Why_is_iPad_2_so_much_like_last_year_s_model_'

    Why is iPad 2 so much like last year's model?

    Publié: mars 2, 2011, 9:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPad 2

    Today's iPad 2 launch came with a couple surprises: Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who is on medical leave, officiated the media event. It's a smart way of quelling rumors about his health, without ever having to disclose any real information. The other surprise: The new iPad isn't remarkably different from the 1st generation model. Like many other second generation Apple products, the iPad 2 is evolution not revolution, a pattern of product development Jobs instituted long ago.

    Apple typically develops its products incrementally, starting with a showstopper that Jobs often calls "one more thing." There is a consistent pattern: "One more thing" debuts with modest hardware features but something else nevertheless killer -- something people want, or think they do. During the launch event, Jobs performs his marketing magic, demonstrating how this "one more thing" will make peoples' lives better. Often the product lacks something compared to competing wares but offers something more elsewhere.

    People pay more to be Cool

    Once Apple releases that "one more thing," the company then iterates -- incrementally improves -- the product over time. The process is essential to Apple maximizing margins. "One more thing" products typically have initial higher selling prices or same as the replaced product(s). They're cool. People are willing to pay more, and Apple certainly doesn't discourage them from doing so.

    "One more thing" is very much about selling the coolest thing. Plenty of buyers demand the newest, coolest product, and they're willing to pay a premium price to get it. To many of these buyers, the tech gadget is as much an accessory -- statement of their coolness, superiority -- as useful product. Apple engages in a tried-and-true retail practice. It's good business. Clothing stores take a similar approach. There are teens who must have the newest wears from Aeropostale, American Eagle, Gap or Hollister at full price; they can't wait for sales. They want to be cool. Apple sometimes charges more for fashion, just like clothiers. Remember the black MacBook, which cost $150 more than the white model, simply for the color?

    However, as a product's lifecycle progresses and Apple maximizes margins at the front end, incremental improvements begin. The company typically starts by offering better hardware for the same price. Later, Apple adds substantially better hardware or features and cuts the price. Eventually, Apple retires the product and introduces another "one more thing."

    The iPhone is a good example of this process. The iPhone 4's design somewhat differs from the "one more thing" model that went on sale in June 2007, but the user interface, basic features and most functions have only incrementally changed since. The original iPhone lacked 3G, video and MMS, but offered slicker user interface, a capacitive touchscreen, more enjoyable media playback and better calling features than comparable handsets. The iPhone was less and more comparatively, then. But buyers paid. Apple and AT&T sold the 1st generation iPhone for $499 or $599 at launch; Apple lowered the price to $399 a few months later. New models brought lower prices -- $199 and $299. The older 3GS is still available, now for 50 bucks. Apple has already maximized margins on the 3GS, which now exists to capture buyers unwilling or unable to pay more.

    When Change isn't Enough to "Wow"

    The iPad 2 clearly follows the approach of incremental development, by offering small improvements with substantial benefits, without dramatically changing basic form and function. The new model is 33-percent thinner than its predecessor but basically same height and width, but lighter (1.3 pounds). However, battery life is comparable, Jobs claims. LED screen size and resolution are unchanged from the original model. Apple's newest tablet packs a dual-core processor, which matches the trend among Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablets. There is now a gyroscope, two cameras and extra-cost accessory for connecting to HDMI cables. Apple also made many software tweaks, such as offering FaceTime video streaming and Mac OS X's Photo Booth feature, both supporting the addition of cameras. Apple also introduced some new apps, most notably Garage Band.

    There are plenty of incremental tweaks, which as a whole should improve the overall user experience but not dramatically change it. If I were in the market for an iPad, I would take the original model at $299 (16GB WiFi) or $399 (32GB WiFi), if Apple were to offer such prices. Update: After I posted, Apple started offering 1st gen models for $399 and $499, respectively (they're not cheap enough). Hey, this incremental approach is why Apple can still successfully sell the iPhone 3G, even though it lacks hardware features found on iPhone 4.

    Keeping with this incremental approach and maximizing margins upfront in the product development and distribution cycle, Apple kept the price for iPad 2 models the same as the originals -- from $499 to $829. I would expect any price cuts to come with the next product release, which likely will more dramatically improve features and functionality -- keeping with Apple's incremental design approach.

    Measuring iPad 2's Incremental Improvements

    How does the new iPad, which goes on sale March 11, compare to some other tablets?

    iPad: 1GHz A4 processor (single core); 9.7-inch LED display with 1024 by 768 resolution; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB internal memory; accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; WiFi; 3G (on some models); iOS 4.2.

    iPad 2: 1GHz A5 dual-core processor; 9.7-inch LED display with 1024 by 768 resolution; front-and-rear facing cameras; 16GB, 32GB or 64GB internal memory; 720p video recording; accelerometer; ambient light sensor; compass; gyroscope; WiFi; 3G (on some models); iOS 4.3.

    Galaxy Tab 10.1: 1GHz dual-core processor; 10.1-inch TFT display with 1280 by 800 resolution; two cameras -- rear-facing 8-megapixels with LED flash; front-facing 2MP; 16GB or 32GB internal memory; Flash 10.1; 1080p video recording; WiFi; 3G, with support for HSPA+ 21Mbps networks; GPS; Android 3.0.

    HTC Flyer: 1.5GHz processor; 7-inch display 1GB of RAM; 32 GB of internal storage, expandable with microSD to 64 GB; a 5-megapixel back-facing and 1.3-megapixel front-facing cameras; light sensor; velocity sensor; digital compass; Bluetooth 3.0; GPS; Android 2.4.

    Motorola XOOM: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; accelerometer; barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.0.

    Which would you buy, if any of them?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/02/Who_loves_or_loathes_iPad_'

    Who loves or loathes iPad?

    Publié: mars 2, 2011, 3:58pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    While geekdom holds its collective breadth waiting for Apple's 1 p.m. ET "special event," presumably the iPad 2 launch, I thought it would be interesting to see how people use the original model. Yesterday I asked "Do you still own iPad?" because I keep meeting people who sold or passed along to family their Apple tablets. Betanews readers certainly had answers. Either you love or loathe iPad; there is little response between the extremes.

    "Nope, gave it away after a couple of months," Anthony Scott answered in comments. "The size was nice, but the performance was poke out my eyes slow. Grabbing an old netbook, that has about the same weight/size and battery life and running Excel at 100x the performance of the iPad Spreadsheet, is sad how underpowered Apple made the iPad."

    This is sweet (and I'm not being sarcastic): "I bought one for my mother and she uses it constantly," FalKirk writes in comment. "When the new one comes out, I'm almost sure to buy one for the kids. More important than the unreliable anecdotal evidence that you're soliciting is the polling data which shows that 95% of owners are satisfied with their iPads (72 percent very satisfied, 23 percent somewhat satisfied). The iPad is not going away, Joe, no matter how fervently you and some of your readership wish that it would."

    Oh? Who said anything about iPad going away? The ridiculous number of iPad 2 rumors coming into today's Apple event shows there is huge interest in Apple's tablet(s). I asked sincere questions to iPad owners. What should go away: Overly zealous Mac defenders who assume anyone who doesn't agree with their point of view is anti-Apple.

    "I still have mine and will be getting the iPad 2 when it comes out," writes Jack Brown in comments.

    "I own it, but rarely use," Frank Wick writes in comments. "I played Angry Birds this morning at Starbucks so I guess I still use it sometimes. The iPad has become a babysitting device at my house. I NEVER NEVER NEVER do work on it. The mail client is a pain. Safari is a horrible browser. blah blah blah. I have buyer's remorse and I expensed the thing!"

    Rick Favaloro writes via email: "What I love my iPad for: plopped on my sofa reading books, writing books (you'd see incoherent blathers, I see exactitude-challenged Pulitzers in progress), watching video, making video animations, playing games, viewing paintings, drawing my own big weird zoomable things and everything else."

    Commenter littlecay called the original iPad "an expensive paperweight -- no USB connectivity, no SD slot, no undo, terrible cut/copy/paste interface, no video out. I thought it was weird when I learned that I could add a lot of missing functionality by jailbreaking it. What?"

    Commenter Digital Sin writes:

    I've had mine for a couple of months now. Interestingly, I use it for mostly different reasons than I thought I would when I bought it. I expected I'd watch movies on it and listen to music, but I do neither of those. I also thought I'd bring it to work, maybe to take out during a meeting to take notes. I don't do that either. I thought I'd use it to read during my 4 hours of commuting each day, but I don't...

    So does it lie around collecting dust? No way. I love this thing. I share it with my wife, and though it was a hard sell to get her to be on board with me plunking down the dough for it, she loves it. She uses it while in the kitchen for recipes and watching cooking videos while she's cooking. We both play games on it, and we both really enjoy reading on it. Also, we're both taking classes and use it quite a bit for studying. My son loves the interactive books on it and I love that he's not on my computer anymore. I feel like it's a lot safer (for both him and my computer) for him to use iPad for browsing and playing games on.

    Mark Finch mainly uses his tablet for reading: "So my iPad sits next to my favorite chair at home, and I use it to read in the morning while having coffee and in the evening while having wine. In between times (and depending on what I want to accomplish) I use either a desktop Mac, a MacBook, an Ubuntu-powered Dell netbook or my Motorola Droid. My music lives on a desktop computer and also on an iPod; my photos are on a desktop computer and on a MacBook. For what I do with it, my iPad is perfect. It's just another appliance that makes certain things more convenient. Similarly, I don't really need a toaster or a gas grill -- I could make toast and cheeseburgers in my oven if I wanted to -- but I sure am glad I have them, and use them frequently."

    Commenter mpuvvula: "I bought an iPad and returned it in 2 weeks (before the re-stocking fees applied). Its simply a brick! It didn't print, it was awkward to handle and it had no compatibility with MS Office (to do any real work). I couldn't play any media other than iTunes (VLC & Flash were removed). It was as bad as the iPhone. I figured its for people who love Apple, BMWs & Jaguars! I ended up with Inspiron DUO, WIN 7, 2 GB! Its not as snazzy as iPad, but it plays any video you throw at it on a flash drive (Divix, MPEG4, Netflix etc)."

    "I got an iPad for XMas and use it a lot," commenter smist08 writes. "Best device for flying can do all the things you mention and is the right size for easy viewing and fitting in the space you have in economy class. Also ideal for meetings, don't have to lug my laptop anymore for reference and notes. I also like having it handy when watching TV for looking things up and social networking."

    Commenter rhonin "bought an iPad via a special promotion for a cheap price (about 50 percent off retail). Not returnable. I have tried to make it more than an occasional media consumptive device. Sigh................ After a few months it has become the quintessential dust gathering paperweight I occasionally charge and use. To many of the posters here, I wanted a more PC-centric device."

    The most unexpected response comes from Diane Carpenter: "[I] encourage anyone abandoning their iPads to donate them to a child or adult with autism. I wrote the attached story about buying my severely autistic adult daughter an iPad."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/03/02/Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop_saved_my_butt'

    Google's Chrome OS laptop saved my butt

    Publié: mars 2, 2011, 4:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google Cr-48 laptop

    My March started off badly today.

    When I was a school kid in Maine, teachers said that if March roared in like a lion, meaning snowy stormy, it would go out like a lamb -- and vice versa. I got the storm in a faulty Snow Leopard rather than the Lion. This morning my 11.6-inch MacBook Air crashed and wouldn't reboot. If not for moving my computing life to the cloud, I would have lost an important day of productivity and lots of valuable data.

    My problems started five days ago. Before driving up to the North County area of San Diego for a Sony event, I did something rare: Turn off my computer rather than put it to sleep. When I later hit the power button, I observed something not seen since the hard drive failed in a first generation MacBook Air -- June 2008: A grey screen with Apple logo and progress bar indicating a file system/disk check/repair. The Mac took about five minutes to boot up, because of the check, rather than the more typical 13 seconds.

    Of Air and Clouds

    Real trouble started a day later and escalated, through several stages of disturbing quirky behavior. Twice during the weekend, the computer shut down without warning; there was no Kernel panic. My main application, Chrome 10 beta, began behaving badly. Early on, tabs would crash, then the problem spread to the whole browser, which by Monday crashed quite frequently. Yesterday I tweeted: "I've never had a beta browser crash as often as Chrome 10. Anyone else? It's horrible on a Mac." But Chrome wasn't the problem.

    By yesterday afternoon, other programs crashed, over and over. Everything about the problems felt like a drive failure. But how could that be? The Air has flash memory; there are no moving parts. This morning, I awoke the Air, quickly edited an informative Larry Seltzer story about QuickBooks and prepped it for posting. When I clicked the media pop-up window to add a photo, the computer locked up, except for the mouse/trackpad cursor. It was a frightening déjà vu experience. Before the 1st gen MacBook Air drive failed nearly three years ago, the computer exhibited similar quirky behavior, program crashes and fatal crash with the cursor remaining the lone function. Once again, just like the 1st gen Air, the 11.6-inch model booted to that grey screen and progress bar that failed to finish. It was 6:25 a.m. PT (-8 GMT).

    In December 2010, I tested Google's unbranded Cr-48 laptop running Chrome OS. I used it for seven days, and wrote about the experience in seven parts. Since then, I only had used the laptop occasionally. This morning, the beta product saved my butt. When testing the laptop nearly three months ago, I moved most of my data either to an external drive or to the cloud. All my email is stored on servers, so I lost nothing there. More importantly, because of Chrome's data sync feature, I could work on the Cr-48 largely like I would the Air. All my bookmarks appeared where I needed them, for example. Despite the setback, which required putting Larry Seltzer's story back in the publishing system, I posted his story about 30 minutes after the Air fatally crashed. Before the morning was over, I had edited and posted another Seltzer missive and a great read by developer and Betanews reader Robert Johnson: "10 things I would like Steve Ballmer to do in 2011." I managed to post something myself -- "Do you still own iPad?"

    Maybe it's time to update my original seven days stories with something new. Coming back to the Cr-48 is suddenly much better than using it the first go-round. I guess crisis will do that. It helps that I had bought, but not unboxed until today, a Logitech mouse. The Cr-48's trackpad is simply horrendous.

    Air Asphyxiation

    By comparison, the 11.6-inch MacBook Air is a brick. Despite being convinced by all the marketing and other hype about flash memory never failing (Hey, Titanic was unsinkable, too), I deferred to logic and experience. Everything about the crash felt like a drive failure. So I hauled the Air brick over to the local Apple Store for servicing. The Genius ran a check-disk utility that failed. He also booted up from an external drive so that I could recover any data from the ailing Air; I brought a 16GB thumb drive. But the Air was slow, copying sluggish and copying of any folder failing about halfway through.

    Something else: The recovery utility delivered a cryptic -- at least to the Genius and his buddies -- error message: "AppleMCP89TMS:PowerGatingDown." He Googled the error, which brought back results for sites in Japanese and Norwegian. I later used Google Translate to wriggle English out of the Norwegian site. Apple replaced the motherboard on one computer giving this error. Another poster indicated drive problems. The Genius decided that the flash drive had in fact failed. The store didn't have one in stock (128GB), so it must be ordered before there can be in-warranty repair.

    I chose the MacBook Air for two major benefits: portability and reliability -- particularly storage. With no moving parts, I expected the drive would last for years, worry-free. I now will likely sell my Air. The drive failed in my 1st gen Air after two months use. Apple Store replaced the whole computer. The hard drive failed in that MBA in September 2010; I replaced the drive with a 64GB SSD. So here I am on my third MacBook Air drive failure, which is about two too many.

    Meanwhile, I'll be using Google's Chrome OS laptop as my production machine. I happen to be between Windows laptops right now. My regular Windows 7 machine is out on loan (some friends need a little experiential prodding to get off Windows XP). So it's the Cr-48 or swiping my wife's laptop. I best let hers be. :)

    Google's cloud and Chrome OS saved my butt today. Where do you keep your data?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/26/Servers_made_huge_rebound_in_2010__but_sales_will_be_slower_this_year'

    Servers made huge rebound in 2010, but sales will be slower this year

    Publié: février 26, 2011, 3:51am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Perhaps Apple chose the wrong time to get out of the server market. The company stopped selling Xserve at the end of January. Now the 2010 server numbers are in, and they're looking pretty good. Server shipments grew 16.8 percent during 2010 and revenue by 13.2 percent, year over year, according to Gartner. It was a remarkable turnaround compared to 2009, when shipments and revenue fell 16.6 percent and 18.3 percent, respectively. Manufacturers shipped 8.8 million servers for the year, generating $48.8 billion in revenue.

    Gartner largely credited the rebound to x86 server upgrades delayed by the economic crisis set in motion by the September 2008 stock market crash. "2010 was a year that saw pent-up x86-based server demand produce some significant growth on a worldwide level," Jeffrey Hewitt, Gartner research vice president, said in a statement. "The introduction of new processors from Intel and AMD toward the end of 2009 helped fuel a pretty significant replacement cycle of servers that had been maintained in place during the economic downturn in 2009."

    Blade server revenue rose by 29.5 percent and shipments by 12.6 percent. HP and IBM led shipments, with 47.3 percent and 25.4 percent market share, respectively. In the broader server market, IBM and HP fought for revenue leadership, both topping $15 billion, with 31.4 percent and 30.8 percent share, respectively. However, HP revenue growth more than doubled IBM's. That said, IBM had much better margins, shipping fewer servers (1.16 million) than HP (2.8 million). HP ended the year at No. 1 in shipments and revenue -- 31.7 percent and 31.4 percent, respectively.

    Fourth Quarter 2010

    On the other hand, perhaps Apple got out of the server market in the nick of time. While Gartner expects server shipments to grow in 2011, the pace will be slower. The analyst firm estimates that the replacement cycle peaked in 2010. Fourth-quarter shipments foreshadow the trend. Shipments grew only by 6.5 percent, although revenue rose a more robust 16.4 percent. Manufacturers shipped 706,202 servers during Q4, generating $4.3 billion in revenue.

    Still, the market may not yet have pushed through its growth potential. "We also need to recognize that the market is still in a fairly tentative recovery mode," Adrian O'Connell, Gartner research director said in a statement. Many companies are still in cost-containment mode and, although 2010 growth levels were strong, we're still some way off the revenue highs that we saw in 2007."

    Dell and IBM had strongest revenue growth -- 26.4 percent -- during fourth quarter. Shipments rose 3.8 percent and 6.9 percent respectively. IBM ranked No.1 in revenue share (35.5 percent), while HP lead in shipments (32.1 percent) -- another sign of IBM's higher margins.

    Every region brought double-digit growth but Japan, where server shipments declined by 4.4 percent, during Q4. Asia-Pacific: 22.4 percent. EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa: 10.4 percent. Latin America: 12.3 percent. North America 24.5 percent. But, again, most of the growth came in x86 servers.

    As it typically does, Gartner singled out EMEA, where HP's huge success is upsetting RISC and Unix server shipments. HP had a colossal 43.6 percent share of server shipments (307,959 units) -- or more than the rest of the top-5 combined. "The x86 market is becoming ever more critical to the overall server market," O'Connell said in the statement, emphasizing that in fourth quarter, x86 revenue accounted for two-thirds of total server revenue.

    With x86's rise came legacy servers' demise, with RISC and Itanium Unix system revenues falling 19.3 percent year over year. "These weak results are compounded by product transitions but are also indicative of the positioning difficulties that Unix vendors are facing," O'Connell explained. "The challenge remains for Unix vendors to move upstream and fight for mainframe business, whilst also defending against Windows and Linux encroachments into their own installed bases."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/25/Sony_Electronics_CEO_Phil_Molyneux_defies_the__sea_of_sameness_'

    Sony Electronics CEO Phil Molyneux defies the 'sea of sameness'

    Publié: février 25, 2011, 7:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony Electronics CEO Phil Molyneux

    Yesterday, during an exclusive press briefing that was also available by invitation-only webcast, Sony Electronics CEO Phil Molyneux detailed how the company would embrace the connected anytime, anywhere and on-anything era. He also addressed, and not necessarily answered, questions about Sony's Internet TV and tablet strategies. If one word defines his plan for the consumer electronics company: Differentiation. I attended the event at Sony Electronics' corporate headquarters in northern San Diego, which is about a 30-minute drive from my apartment. Sony Electronics is the largest of Sony's six US organizations.

    Molyneux, a 24-year Sony executive, assumed his current responsibilities just six months ago. During his first two months Molyneux traveled to 15 states, visiting 250 retail stores. He wanted to understand Sony's retail situation in the United States. "You can go pretty much into any retailer in the US and you'll be faced with this wall of LCD TVs. I call that the 'sea of sameness.' From a consumer's perspective, you look at that wall and this line of LCD products...how can you decide which product to purchase?"

    To Molyneux, Sony Electronics' challenge is clear -- to "differentiate and value out the message of our products. We have great products, but unless we tell consumers about them, they're not going to learn." The problem he identified is typical of companies like HP, Samsung or Sony that sell many products that work loosely or tightly together. There are benefits to be gained when using Product A with Product B, C or D, but these typically need to be demonstrated. That's something Sony Electronics isn't getting from the "sea of sameness" in, say, Best Buy stores.

    Carving out the "Golden Space"

    Sony Electronics is embarking on something I've seen other tech companies do before, what Molyneux described as the "golden space." It's essentially a stand-alone space inside the retail shop. "We place TVs there, Sony Bravia TVs, and we also have audio -- surround-sound systems -- with it. And it has a module that comes up on a screen where the consumer can select the configuration of TV, home audio and various content they want to play with." He described the experience as a "simulation" of what they might experience at home. "We take the LCD off the wall, off the sea of sameness, and we place it in this unique environment where the consumer can interact, play, listen and see."

    It's an interesting concept, but an experience already available. During the holidays -- and maybe still today -- my local Best Buy had a Google TV kiosk showing off Sony Internet TV and Logitech Revue. It was highly interactive and took place around Sony televisions.

    Another part of the strategy includes what Molyneux described as a "channel rebalance." Sony Electronics' new CEO recognizes that different retail stores have different kinds of customers. "Our product set as well as our communication centered around the product can be tuned effectively to engage the consumer," he said. Changes also will be made to Sony Style stores, which are laid out in a "SKU arrangement" now. He said that the "layout of the store and how you flow through the store as a consumer will be very engaging in the future."

    My local mall here in San Diego is unique for having Apple, Microsoft and Sony branded stores. If I look back three years, the Sony Style store felt consistently and remarkably empty compared to Apple Store. But by early 2010, something dramatic happened -- the Sony Style shop got consistently busy. Perhaps that's reflective of changes already underway. "The last few years, Sony could have been a little bit slow in some cases," Molyneux said. "But we worked extremely hard as a corporation to transform ourselves and become more agile, more up to date and engaging of the consumers."

    Molyneux couldn't say enough about the importance of retail to Sony Electronics' 2011 strategy. "This year we will contribute around 40 percent of our advertising and promotion funds to improving the shop-front presence of Sony as well as the message around the great products we have." The investment will be made "across the complete retail landscape," not just Sony Style stores.

    Shoppers can expect to see even more color (have you seen those blinding keyboard covers) and splash as Sony courts younger buyers. "We're really focused on the youth market and the opportunity that presents to us in the future," Molyneux said. He used as example the PIIQ line of headphones. "The youth today will become the mainstream market of the future."

    Sony's goal is to be No. 1 in the consumer electronics industry by 2013. Well, Samsung might have something to say about that.

    3D, Internet TV and Tablets

    I asked Molyneux if Sony planned to demonstrate the value of using different products together as part of its strategy of improving the shop-front experience. I got an unexpected answer -- about 3D, a technology around which the company's commitment borders on obsession. "We're the only company that has the complete 3D ecosystem. We call it 'from the lens to the living room.'" He observed that Sony sells broadcast cameras that capture video in 3D, sister company Sony Entertainment produces 3D movies, 3D games are available for PlayStation 3, consumers can shoot 3D video on some Bloggie videocams and Blu-ray drives play back 3D content, which can be watched on Sony TVs. "We're building that 3D world."

    Maybe, but is the consumer market ready to live in that 3D world? I'm not convinced, but obviously Sony is committed. Molyneux observed that HD took 30 years from inception to broad acceptance by consumers. By comparison, 3D has "accelerated that number to 18 months." Molyneux emphasized: "We're very happy and confident with the development that we've seen." I see 3D glasses to be a barrier to adoption, but Molyneux said that "consumers don't want to wait" for something better." Wait they would have to otherwise. "At CES we demonstrated glassesless-free 3D...where that technology is today, it's in a demonstration mode. But commercialization of glassesless-free 3D is a long way off."

    While Sony isn't waiting on 3D, its strategy around another hot, consumer electronics category is nebulous. "That's a very interesting topic," Molyneux said about the tablet market. "At CES we announced that we are pursuing a tablet range that we will bring to market." He observed that about 100 tablets were announced during the trade show in January. "We know for sure that to stand out from the crowd -- we must stand out -- that we have to have, deliver a differentiated entertainment experience to consumers. We're very focused on that." He wouldn't give a timetable for release. "Today, that's all I'll say. You have to wait a little bit longer for more information."

    It's anyone's guess, how Sony could differentiate a tablet, but it's a sensible approach. I should point out that like Apple and Samsung, Sony has the manufacturing and, more importantly, distribution mechanisms to bring a competitive tablet to market. But soon enough?

    Molyneux touted Sony's first-to-market position with Google TV. "We're very proud of that," he said. "Sony Internet TV is just one example of how we bring new innovations to the market." He strongly expressed Sony's commitment to Google TV, which offers a different Internet experience than Sony's Bravia connected TVs. Both product lines offer many of the same content types, although Sony's Google TV product can't yet access Hulu Plus. For Sony Internet TV, the main advantage is being able to watch television and use the Web simultaneously, Molyneux emphasized.

    Google TV runs Android, as do some newer Sony Ericsson phones. Molyneux put the Google operating system in context of Sony's own software development. "This is a movement around the globe for many manufacturers," he said about Android. "It's bringing consumer benefits -- we're leveraging that where it's applicable and where we see that it fits to the consumer's needs." Elsewhere, Sony will develop its own software. "It's all about an open world. We want to deliver the best experience to our consumers, and allow them to access content anyplace, anytime, anywhere."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/25/Sony_Electronics_president_Phil_Molyneux_defies_the__sea_of_sameness_'

    Sony Electronics president Phil Molyneux defies the 'sea of sameness'

    Publié: février 25, 2011, 7:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony Electronics CEO Phil Molyneux

    Yesterday, during an exclusive press briefing that was also available by invitation-only webcast, Sony Electronics president Phil Molyneux detailed how the company would embrace the connected anytime, anywhere and on-anything era. He also addressed, and not necessarily answered, questions about Sony's Internet TV and tablet strategies. If one word defines his plan for the consumer electronics company: Differentiation. I attended the event at Sony Electronics' corporate headquarters in northern San Diego, which is about a 30-minute drive from my apartment. Sony Electronics is the largest of Sony's six US organizations.

    Molyneux, a 24-year Sony executive, assumed his current responsibilities just six months ago. During his first two months Molyneux traveled to 15 states, visiting 250 retail stores. He wanted to understand Sony's retail situation in the United States. "You can go pretty much into any retailer in the US and you'll be faced with this wall of LCD TVs. I call that the 'sea of sameness.' From a consumer's perspective, you look at that wall and this line of LCD products...how can you decide which product to purchase?"

    To Molyneux, Sony Electronics' challenge is clear -- to "differentiate and value out the message of our products. We have great products, but unless we tell consumers about them, they're not going to learn." The problem he identified is typical of companies like HP, Samsung or Sony that sell many products that work loosely or tightly together. There are benefits to be gained when using Product A with Product B, C or D, but these typically need to be demonstrated. That's something Sony Electronics isn't getting from the "sea of sameness" in, say, Best Buy stores.

    Carving out the "Golden Space"

    Sony Electronics is embarking on something I've seen other tech companies do before, what Molyneux described as the "golden space." It's essentially a stand-alone space inside the retail shop. "We place TVs there, Sony Bravia TVs, and we also have audio -- surround-sound systems -- with it. And it has a module that comes up on a screen where the consumer can select the configuration of TV, home audio and various content they want to play with." He described the experience as a "simulation" of what they might experience at home. "We take the LCD off the wall, off the sea of sameness, and we place it in this unique environment where the consumer can interact, play, listen and see."

    It's an interesting concept, but an experience already available. During the holidays -- and maybe still today -- my local Best Buy had a Google TV kiosk showing off Sony Internet TV and Logitech Revue. It was highly interactive and took place around Sony televisions.

    Another part of the strategy includes what Molyneux described as a "channel rebalance." Sony Electronics' new president recognizes that different retail stores have different kinds of customers. "Our product set as well as our communication centered around the product can be tuned effectively to engage the consumer," he said. Changes also will be made to Sony Style stores, which are laid out in a "SKU arrangement" now. He said that the "layout of the store and how you flow through the store as a consumer will be very engaging in the future."

    My local mall here in San Diego is unique for having Apple, Microsoft and Sony branded stores. If I look back three years, the Sony Style store felt consistently and remarkably empty compared to Apple Store. But by early 2010, something dramatic happened -- the Sony Style shop got consistently busy. Perhaps that's reflective of changes already underway. "The last few years, Sony could have been a little bit slow in some cases," Molyneux said. "But we worked extremely hard as a corporation to transform ourselves and become more agile, more up to date and engaging of the consumers."

    Molyneux couldn't say enough about the importance of retail to Sony Electronics' 2011 strategy. "This year we will contribute around 40 percent of our advertising and promotion funds to improving the shop-front presence of Sony as well as the message around the great products we have." The investment will be made "across the complete retail landscape," not just Sony Style stores.

    Shoppers can expect to see even more color (have you seen those blinding keyboard covers) and splash as Sony courts younger buyers. "We're really focused on the youth market and the opportunity that presents to us in the future," Molyneux said. He used as example the PIIQ line of headphones. "The youth today will become the mainstream market of the future."

    Sony's goal is to be No. 1 in the consumer electronics industry by 2013. Well, Samsung might have something to say about that.

    3D, Internet TV and Tablets

    I asked Molyneux if Sony planned to demonstrate the value of using different products together as part of its strategy of improving the shop-front experience. I got an unexpected answer -- about 3D, a technology around which the company's commitment borders on obsession. "We're the only company that has the complete 3D ecosystem. We call it 'from the lens to the living room.'" He observed that Sony sells broadcast cameras that capture video in 3D, sister company Sony Entertainment produces 3D movies, 3D games are available for PlayStation 3, consumers can shoot 3D video on some Bloggie videocams and Blu-ray drives play back 3D content, which can be watched on Sony TVs. "We're building that 3D world."

    Maybe, but is the consumer market ready to live in that 3D world? I'm not convinced, but obviously Sony is committed. Molyneux observed that HD took 30 years from inception to broad acceptance by consumers. By comparison, 3D has "accelerated that number to 18 months." Molyneux emphasized: "We're very happy and confident with the development that we've seen." I see 3D glasses to be a barrier to adoption, but Molyneux said that "consumers don't want to wait" for something better." Wait they would have to otherwise. "At CES we demonstrated glassesless-free 3D...where that technology is today, it's in a demonstration mode. But commercialization of glassesless-free 3D is a long way off."

    While Sony isn't waiting on 3D, its strategy around another hot, consumer electronics category is nebulous. "That's a very interesting topic," Molyneux said about the tablet market. "At CES we announced that we are pursuing a tablet range that we will bring to market." He observed that about 100 tablets were announced during the trade show in January. "We know for sure that to stand out from the crowd -- we must stand out -- that we have to have, deliver a differentiated entertainment experience to consumers. We're very focused on that." He wouldn't give a timetable for release. "Today, that's all I'll say. You have to wait a little bit longer for more information."

    It's anyone's guess, how Sony could differentiate a tablet, but it's a sensible approach. I should point out that like Apple and Samsung, Sony has the manufacturing and, more importantly, distribution mechanisms to bring a competitive tablet to market. But soon enough?

    Molyneux touted Sony's first-to-market position with Google TV. "We're very proud of that," he said. "Sony Internet TV is just one example of how we bring new innovations to the market." He strongly expressed Sony's commitment to Google TV, which offers a different Internet experience than Sony's Bravia connected TVs. Both product lines offer many of the same content types, although Sony's Google TV product can't yet access Hulu Plus. For Sony Internet TV, the main advantage is being able to watch television and use the Web simultaneously, Molyneux emphasized.

    Google TV runs Android, as do some newer Sony Ericsson phones. Molyneux put the Google operating system in context of Sony's own software development. "This is a movement around the globe for many manufacturers," he said about Android. "It's bringing consumer benefits -- we're leveraging that where it's applicable and where we see that it fits to the consumer's needs." Elsewhere, Sony will develop its own software. "It's all about an open world. We want to deliver the best experience to our consumers, and allow them to access content anyplace, anytime, anywhere."

    [Editor's Note: Phil Molyneux title corrected. He is president and COO not CEO.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/24/Stunning_Android_growth_visualized_in_new_video'

    Stunning Android growth visualized in new video

    Publié: février 24, 2011, 8:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's new to me, anyway. The Android Developers created video, which posted three days ago, uses maps to show how Google's mobile operating system grew from its release in October 2008 through January 2011. I wonder how an iPhone 4 visualization would compare. Earlier this month, Gartner reported that Android sales increased 888.8 percent year over year in 2010. This video is what that growth looks like. Credit where due, I spotted the video on CoolSmartphone.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/24/Google_launches_its_next_assault_on__cumbersome__legacy__Microsoft_Office'

    Google launches its next assault on "cumbersome, legacy" Microsoft Office

    Publié: février 24, 2011, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In the race to offer Microsoft Office functionality in the cloud, Google has beaten its rival getting a product out of development beta and into production release. Today Google announced global availability of Google Cloud Connect for Microsoft Office, which went into beta late last year. The technology builds off Google acquisition of DocVerse.

    Microsoft is working on its own solution, Office 365, which is beta testing and is expected to go v1 sometime this year. For now, Google can claim first to market advantage as it looks to convert more Office users to its cloud services. The cloud is increasingly important to Microsoft. Last year, COO Kevin Turner said that 70 percent of cloud wins are new customers.

    In a November 2010 statement, Stephen Prentice, a Gartner vice president said: "Cloud computing heralds an evolution of business -- no less influential than the era of e-business -- in positive and negative ways." Microsoft's challenge is keeping Office relevant in the cloud-connected era of anytime, anywhere and on anything computing. Both Google and Microsoft emphasize the importance of collaboration in their respective Office-to-cloud offerings.

    Google Cloud Connect for Microsoft Office is essentially a plugin for Windows versions of the productivity suit (2003, 2007, 2010). "The plugin syncs your work through Google's cloud, so everyone can contribute to the same version of a file at the same time," Shan Sinha, Google Apps product manager, explains in a blog post. The plugin isn't available for Macintosh Office. Sinha explains in another blog post: "Many of you have also asked about availability for Macs. Unfortunately due to the lack of support for open APIs on Microsoft Office for Mac, we are unable to make Google Cloud Connect available on Macs at this time. We look forward to when that time comes so we can provide this feature to our Mac customers as well."

    Additionally, Google announced a 90-day trial for Appsperience. In what I can only call as a deliberate dig, Sinha describes Appsperience as "a way for companies that currently use cumbersome legacy systems to see how web-powered tools help their teams work together more effectively."

    That's not a free trial, by the way. "A nominal fee covers 90-day access to Google Docs, Google Sites, Google Cloud Connect and more, as well as assistance from Google experts to help coworkers quickly become more productive together," Sinha writes. What is nominal? Google recommends two configurations for $7,000 or $15,000. The lower priced option is for 50 to 500 users and the other for more than 500 users. The costlier option also includes "single sign-on or password sync integration" and "collaboration champion training."

    Well, it's not exactly try before you buy, is it? Microsoft typically doesn't charge customers to evaluate its software or services.

    Google's new assault on Office comes as Microsoft's Business division emerges as the company's strongest performing group, suggesting cloud alternatives have yet to have any more bite than bark. During fiscal 2011 second quarter, revenue rose 24 percent to $6.032 billion from $4.864 billion a year earlier. Net income rose to $3.965 billion from $2.947.

    Is your business ready for the productivity suite cloud? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/24/Apple_celebrates_Steve_Jobs__birthday_with_dual__and_quad_core_MacBook_Pros'

    Apple celebrates Steve Jobs' birthday with dual- and quad-core MacBook Pros

    Publié: février 24, 2011, 4:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iCore MacBook Pros

    Today, Apple finally brought MacBook Pro up to speed with Windows laptops. After skipping the last generation of i Core chips, Apple adopted new Intel "Sandy Bridge" processors for some MacBook Pro models. In a surprising, but rumored move, Apple swapped out nVidia graphics for integrated Intel and AMD graphics. Apple updated all three MacBook Pro lines -- 13.3-inch, 15.4-inch and 17-inch. Apple also introduced a new peripheral port called "Thunderbolt."

    The new configurations represent hefty upgrades across the board -- for example, bumping up storage capacity in the entry level MacBook Pro from 250GB to 320GB and doubling the memory on some other models. However, in a disappointing move, Apple did not upgrade 13-inch models' display resolution from 1200 x 800 to match MacBook Air's 1366 x 768.

    The move to Intel graphics is surprising. Apple stunned some Apple Watchers by choosing older Intel dual-core processors for new MacBook Air models released last year. Many analysts cited graphics as major reason -- that Apple preferred nVidia discreet graphics to Intel's integrated option. Now, suddenly, Apple has switched to get i Core processors.

    Apple apparently chose Intel's Thunderbolt over some other connectors, including USB 3.0, for which peripherals already are available (I own a LaCie USB 3.0 external drive). Apple and Intel claim bi-directional throughput of 10Gbps. The port also can connect to HDMI, DVI and VGA displays.

    Like before, the 13-inch model is available in two configurations, selling for $1,199 and $1,499. The lower-cost model comes with 2.3GHz Intel Core i5 processor (dual core); 13.3-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 4GB of DDR3 memory; 320GB 5400-rpm hard drive; SuperDrive (DVD combo); Intel HD 3000 graphics; two USB, one FireWire 800 and one Thunderbolt port(s); SDXC card slot; 802.11n WiFi; Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR; FaceTime HD Webcam; Mac OS X "Snow Leopard;" and iLife `11. The higher-end model swaps out the processor for 2.7GHz Intel Core i7 (dual core) and bumps storage to 500GB. Apple also offers 128GB, 256GB and 512GB solid-state storage options. Which, respectively, add $200, $600 and $1,200 to the purchase price. Additionally, buyers can bump memory to 8GB for $200 more.

    The two 15.4-inch MacBook Pro models sell for $1,799 and $2,199. The lower-cost model comes with 2GHz Intel Core i7 processor (quad core); 15-inch display with 1440 x 900 resolution; 4GB of DDR3 memory; 500GB 5400-rpm hard drive; SuperDrive (DVD combo); Intel HD 3000 and 256MB AMD Radeon HD 6490M graphics; two USB, one FireWire 800 and one Thunderbolt port(s); SDXC card slot; 802.11n WiFi; Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR; FaceTime HD Webcam; Mac OS X "Snow Leopard;" and iLife `11. The higher-end model swaps out the processor for 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 (quad core) and bumps graphics memory to 1GB with AMD Radeon HD 6750M chip and storage to 750GB. Apple also offers 128GB, 256GB and 512GB solid-state storage options. Which, respectively, add $200, $600 and $1,200 to the purchase price. Additionally, buyers can bump memory to 8GB for $200 more.

    The single 17-inch model, selling for $2,499, comes with 2.2GHz Intel Core i7 processor (quad core); 17-inch display with 1900 x 1200 resolution; 4GB of DDR3 memory; 750GB 5400-rpm hard drive, SuperDrive (DVD combo); Intel HD 3000 and 1GB AMD Radeon HD 6750M graphics; two USB, one FireWire 800 and one Thunderbolt port(s); SDXC card slot; 802.11n WiFi; Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR; FaceTime HD Webcam; Mac OS X "Snow Leopard;" and iLife `11. Apple also offers 128GB, 256GB and 512GB solid-state storage options. Which, respectively, add $100, $500 and $1,100 to the purchase price. Additionally, buyers can bump memory to 8GB for $200 more.

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs turns 56 today. Happy birthday, Mr. Jobs.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/24/Is_News_Corp._s__The_Daily__giving_you_more_blues_than_news_'

    Is News Corp.'s 'The Daily' giving you more blues than news?

    Publié: février 24, 2011, 12:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The Daily

    Every single person I know with an iPad who has used News Corp.'s "The Daily" complains about persistent crashes and really, really, really, slow update times. Now PaidContent reports that the initial two-week free introduction promotion is going on and on and on, kind of like those wait times for news content to download. The Daily Publisher Greg Clayman says a decision on when to end free access has yet to be determined. Say, wasn't News Corp. planning to charge for this thing? You know, 99 cents a week -- better value than McDonalds' Dollar Menu?

    The Daily launched on February 2nd in New York City, with News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch leading off the event. It's a digital newspaper initially available for iPad, but a version for Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablets could release as soon as a few months. Some advice to News Corp.: Launch the Android version sooner as beta and shake out the nastiness before going v1. Hey, the thing is a mobile application, after all. Why not treat its development that way?

    A buggy launch is really a bad way to win new subscribers. That's something Microsoft learned from early negative buzz that stunted Windows Vista adoption. Vista wasn't a bad operating system, it just had a bad reputation. What most hurt Vista? It felt slow, because users had to wait too much. Bootup time to usable desktop was comparably slower than Windows XP, and security prompts kept forcing users expecting to drive 130 km/hour to slow down for speed bumps.

    Apple enthusiast/defender John Gruber titled his recent missive on the news app's problems "The Daily Wait." Gruber and I often don't agree on much, but there are occasions. He's right to call out wait times: "Imagine a paper newspaper that was wrapped in an envelope, and the envelope was so difficult to open that it took over a minute before you could see the front page of the issue. Who would buy that newspaper? No one, that's who. And I suspect that's who's going to read The Daily, unless they fix this, and soon." Perhaps "no one" to read is explanation enough for News Corp. holding back those 99-cent per-week charges.

    News Corp. spent $30 million developing The Daily, which struck me as way, way too much when Murdoch revealed the number on February 2nd. For 30 million bucks, News Corp. couldn't develop a news app that works? Oh, yeah, operational costs are $500,000 a week. That's maybe a little less than $2 million, seeing how February is a short month, with The Daily generating not even 99 cents from subscribers.

    How bad are the problems? Well that's my question for you. If you've used The Daily please share with the class about your experience. Do you like it? Would you like it, if something was different? Is it too slow or fast enough? Say, what about crashes -- are you having any? You know the drill. Please answer in comments, or email joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    To get you started, I took a look at The Daily's app page at the iTunes App Store for reviews. Current version is 1.02. As I write, there are 6,763 total reviews with an average rating of 2.5 stars. Uh-oh. That can't be good. For the new version, there are 2,461 reviews with an average rating of still 2.5 stars. Out of those twenty-four hundred or so reviews, 920 are one star and 579 are two stars. Hey, but 428 happy campers gave the app 5 stars. Out of fairness, I looked at some other publications. Wired for iPad has an even lower 2-star rating, with 150 of the 250 reviewers giving it one star. The New Yorker: 1.5 stars with 1,288 1-star ratings out of 1,599 reviews. Even ratings for newspapers like the New York Daily News or Washington Post make The Daily's 2.5 stars look pretty good. So perhaps, if not for persistent glitches, The Daily would appeal to more people.

    For fairness sake, I looked at the most recent The Daily reviews. "My first review of The Daily was negative, 1 star, but after the app update, deleted and reinstalled the app, it is working great," from a four-star reviewer. A one-star reviewer gripes: "Crashes constantly" and "I'm upset I paid for a subscription to this." Check your credit card. It's unlikely The Daily charged you anything.

    Uh-oh. "This app crashes more than any app I've ever used," writes another 1-star reviewer. A four-star reviewer quips: "New version works worse than the original version." The reviewer likes the "superb concept" not the app. "After I installed The Daily, my normally stable iPad crashed 2 or 3 times a day," writes another 1-star reviewer. By the way, all these reviews were posted today.

    So, is The Daily giving you the blues or the news? You know where to answer.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/23/Google_fights_Facebook_for_your_mobile_identity'

    Google fights Facebook for your mobile identity

    Publié: février 23, 2011, 8:22pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Who owns your mobile/online identity? Stated differently: Who owns your mobile relationships?

    I've been thinking more about both questions since learning last night that Google is pulling Facebook contact sync with delivery of Android 2.3.3 to Nexus S smartphones. In a statement, a Google spokesperson described the feature removal as "special-case handling of Facebook contacts" for "Nexus S and future lead devices." Google's reasoning: Facebook doesn't allow exporting of contact data to other services. There is no "reciprocity." Maybe, but there is more going on here than the openness, or not, of contact syncing. Google is prepping for a larger battle, particularly with Facebook, over who controls your online identity, particularly as it roams from PC to mobile devices.

    After I posted about the Android 2.3.3 update yesterday, colleague Tim Conneally and I chatted about Google's maneuver, about which he made an astute observation: That the smartphone will most likely become the future hub for peoples' identities, not big cloud social networks. Facebook is in position to leverage its service to the future hub -- already is doing so through one-way sync, Facebook Connect logins and the mobile app for various smartphones and tablets. Strategically, Google should want to control the smartphone identity hub, too. Android's explosive popularity is reason enough. Already, a Google account is the important ID for activating an Android phone and using additional cloud services. Facebook sync treads on Google turf.

    Facebook goes Big Time Mobile

    For 500 million Facebook subscribers, the social networking service is an important -- for many, essential -- identity and relationship hub. But there are many other -- really too many other -- online identities. You have one identity for your bank, another for Amazon and others -- corporate network, Google services, Last.fm, Microsoft Live services, tumblr, Twitter, Wordpress.com and many, many more. But an increasing number of services are consolidating identities. For example, many sites now offer or even require Facebook or Twitter account IDs to post comments. These sites benefit from linking to the cloud services.

    Facebook's mobile presence is increasing, with its successful mobile app and mobile logins for services supporting the set of Facebook Connect APIs. According to Facebook, 200 million subscribers access the service from mobile devices -- that's right, 40 percent. Mobile users are reportedly twice as active on Facebook as other subscribers. Today, Ovum released report "Mobile Social Networking: change driver & key players" with a dire warning: "Facebook is encroaching directly on mobile operator territory and should not be underestimated," report author Eden Zoller said in a statement. "Facebook wants to integrate with everything and be the main way that people consume and share information, anywhere and on any device."

    Smartphone adoption 12-10

    Zoller also addressed recent rumors. "There is also intense ongoing speculation that Facebook will come out with its own phone, which in some respects would be the final piece of the puzzle," he continued. "This would in effect make Facebook a social operating system."

    Social operating system is the last thing Google would want competing with Android or Chrome OS. But there's competition enough today, with Facebook and Google already vying to be mobile identity hubs. What differentiates Facebook from Google identity efforts is relationship. The social networking service allows people to connect, on the go, meaningfully, in ways the search and information giant can't remotely touch.

    Sizing up Smartphones

    Twelve days ago, ComScore released report "The 2010 Mobile Year in Review," looking at mobile behavior for people 13+ years old from seven countries: France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom and United States. By the way, to get the ComScore report, I had to give up information about my identity -- name, job title, organization, country, state, city, email and phone number.

    "In December 2010, nearly 47 percent of mobile subscribers in the US were mobile media users (browsed the mobile web, accessed applications, downloaded content or accessed the mobile Internet via SMS) up 7.6 percentage points from the previous year," according to the ComScore report. During the 12 months from December 2009 to December 2010, the number of US smartphone owners rose from 16.8 percent to 27 percent. Smartphone install base: 63.2 million. By the end of 2010, "3G/4G phone ownership reached 51 percent."

    Among the five EU countries, "mobile media usage reached 37 percent penetration, up 7 percentage points from the previous year. Driving this mobile media usage in Europe, 3G adoption reached 47.1 percent in December 2010, up from 41.7 percent the previous year." Smartphone ownership and ownership: 31.1 percent and 72.6 million, respectively.

    Smartphone social media 12-10

    Nearly 60 percent of US and 40 percent of European smartphone users accessed social networking sites at least once a month in December 2010, according to ComScore. Daily usage jumped 104 percent year over year in Europe and 80 percent in the United States. "The growth of social networking via mobile devices is mainly driven by Facebook, which reached 90 percent of US social media users and 85 percent of European users, and grew more than 120 percent over the past year in both regions...The most significant difference in 2010 is the trend for MySpace, which declined 20 percent of in the U.S. but gained 32 percent in Europe."

    One metric often overlooked by bloggers and journalists reporting about online activities is time spent online. "In the UK, Facebook was the clear leader in a ranking of top sites by time spent," according to the ComScore report. "In December 2010 the 7.5 million unique mobile visitors spent a total of 2.5 billion minutes on Facebook.com, averaging 5.6 hours per visitor during the month."

    Facebook and Google want You

    Smartphone shipments are expected to explode in 2011. Last year, Europe and the United States accounted for more than 52 percent of sales, according to Gartner. There is no reliable forecast for 2011, since major analyst firms up the numbers every couple of months. During 2010, 1.6 billion mobile handsets were sold, of which 297 million were smartphones -- or 19 percent. Sales grew 72 percent year over year.

    Global Android handset sales grew by 888.8 percent year over year, from 6.8 million to 67 million units, according to Gartner. Android is on fire, which is great for Google signing more users to its identity service. One problem: Facebook is there, too, competing for Android users' time and attention. Meanwhile, Facebook rolls out mobile services that increasingly compete with Google's. If we've truly entered the cloud-connected device era, who controls your mobile identity, which is likely to be the same as your broader online identity, will be increasingly important.

    Tactically, with the removal of Facebook contact sync from Nexus S, Google has drawn a line in the sand, made a demarcation for developers. They will use one set of contact APIs, which, in theory, will work consistently with Android across applications. Well, those that reciprocate, anyway. It's Google's first step to define rules for mobile identity on terms other than Facebook's. Remember, contacts and syncing them is tied to an identity. What Google hopes to achieve is a leveler playing field, where contact data can be easily shared among different online identities.

    Google also is setting the stage for future identity pushes. For example, Nexus S and some newer Android handsets support Near Field Communication technology. NFC is limited today to functions like reading RFID tags. Even mobile phones that ship with the technology typically don't support it -- yet. Looking ahead, NFC is being touted as a way for processing payments -- essentially using a feature phone or smartphone as an ATM/debit card. That kind of functionality will be tied to an identity, something Google should want to control on Android as it does with supporting cloud services like maps, search and shopping.

    So Google has another reason to stick it to Facebook -- solidifying its approach to identity and anything associated with it for developers. Contact sync is but part of the broader identity push that will support NFC and other future mobile technologies.

    Who owns your mobile -- and even online -- identity? In theory you do, but with limits if the relationships and data are tied to a service that provides APIs for data going in but doesn't support other providers' APIs for data going out. That's yet another aspect of the identity dispute between Facebook and Google. "Since Facebook contacts cannot be exported from the device, the appearance of integration created a false sense of data portability," a Google spokesman said in a statement provided to Betanews yesterday. "Like all developers on Android, Facebook is free to use the Android contacts API to truly integrate contacts on the device, which would allow users to have more control over their data."

    It would also give Facebook a little less control over the user's identity, and that's great for Google's mobile identity objectives.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/23/Google__don_t_take_away_my_Facebook_friends'

    Google, don't take away my Facebook friends

    Publié: février 23, 2011, 4:57am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier today, Google started sending out Android 2.3.3 to Nexus One and Nexus S smartphones. I haven't received the over-the-air update, and frankly don't want it. I'm pissed as hell that Google will take away something I have and use: Facebook contact sync. I bought Nexus S to get the newest Android version, always, not to have functionality most other smartphones have taken away. As available before the update installs, the Android Facebook app syncs friends information and profile photos to the Android address book. Google's OS update removes the functionality from Nexus S smartphones.

    Google gives good reasons for nixing Facebook contact sync, and I agree with them in principle. Facebook is a one-way street for data; it easily goes in but is difficult to extract. But that's a problem between Facebook and Google. I and other Nexus S owners shouldn't be battleground between them.

    Facebook contact sync is one of the few benefits I get from the service. I signed up for Facebook right after it opened to the public in 2006, but haven't really used it heavily because of the data portability issue. I can't see putting photos and other content into a repository where withdrawals are largely prohibited. I want to be able to move my data around on my terms, not those set by Facebook.

    So, again, I agree with Google in principle. "We believe it is very important that users are able to control their data. So in the over-the-air update for Nexus S, we have a small change to how Facebook contacts appear on the device," according to a statement provided by a Google spokesperson. "For Nexus S users who downloaded the Facebook app from Android Market, Facebook contacts will no longer appear to be integrated with the Android Contacts app."

    That's a "small change?" What is Google's definition of a big one? Is the update going to strip out contact data I rely on? Yes or no doesn't much matter. Sync keeps the Contacts app up to date from friends' Facebook profiles. It's a great utility. But what kind of user benefit is there to taking away functionality? More significantly, if Google truly believes that it "is very important that users are able to control their data," then don't take away my control. Right now I can decide to sync or not. The new Gingerbread update will remove my control by taking away sync. No thank you.

    "Since Facebook contacts cannot be exported from the device, the appearance of integration created a false sense of data portability," the spokesperson statement continues. "Facebook contact data will continue to appear within the Facebook app." Yeah, but that's not where the contact data is most beneficial to me the Nexus S user.

    Still, I concede there is forward-thinking behind Google's Facebook friend zapping. The future social hub -- the identity that matters to you and everyone else -- will likely be the smartphone, not a big cloud service like Facebook. Why do you think there are persistant rumors about a Facebook phone? Facebook is in position to leverage its service to the future hub -- already is through one-way sync. Strategically, Google should want to control that smartphone identity hub, too. Already, a Google account is the important ID for activating an Android phone and using additional cloud services. Facebook sync treads on Google turf.

    Perhaps because the Nexus S is targeted to developers and enthusiasts, Google hoped to generate outrage at Facebook's lack of data portability. I dunno about you, but the contact information on my phone is the most important. As long as the information is all there and I can resync it later on, I don't much care whose cloud provides the contact info. So my anger is directed at Google, even though Facebook's limiting data portability is the underlying problem.

    "Like all developers on Android, Facebook is free to use the Android contacts API to truly integrate contacts on the device, which would allow users to have more control over their data," according to the spokesperson statement. "We are removing the special-case handling of Facebook contacts on Nexus S and future lead devices." Future devices? I thought Nexus S got "special-case handling" to receive the newest and greatest Google has to give -- not to take away features.

    The zinger from Google is a statement of principle that, again, I would normally embrace: "We continue to believe that reciprocity (the expectation that if information can be imported into a service it should be able to be exported) is an important step toward creating a world of true data liberation -- and encourage other websites and app developers to allow users to export their contacts as well."

    Google's decision to make me and other Nexus S owners casualties of its "open principles" war with Facebook is simply unacceptable. I will seriously consider switching smartphones because of this action. If Google takes away Facebook contact sync, what next? My Nexus S love affair may be short lived because of Android 2.3.3. Perhaps it's time I try Windows Phone. Any manufacturer want to send one for review?

    Say, Google, if you want to fall on your principles, fine. Just don't impale me with you.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/22/Amazon_Prime_just_got_better__Free_movie_and_TV_show_streaming'

    Amazon Prime just got better: Free movie and TV show streaming

    Publié: février 22, 2011, 7:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Amazon Instant Video

    One of Amazon's best values is its Prime service, which costs $79 a year. For that fee, buyers get free two-day shipping or overnight packages for $3.99 per item. Today, Amazon added something more: free streaming of 5,000 movies or TV shows. Or so the retailer claims. I only see 1,688 movies and 484 TV shows currently available on Amazon Instant Video.

    Amazon offers a surpringly good selection, too; that is sure to give Netflix some unexpected and needed competition in the streaming market, and Prime is a better value. Netflix charges $7.99 per month (before taxes) for movie and TV show streaming, or minimum $95.88 a year. Not only does Prime cost less but it offers more in the aforementioned shipping costs -- and there's something else: Amazon allows the sharing of Prime among four accounts in the household. If, say, you're a college student with roomies sharing Primes, the value just got whole lots better.

    I started subscribing to Netflix in February 1999 and began using Amazon Prime in June 2007. If I had to choose one, I'd dump Netflix, even with the sentimental value it holds for my being an early subscriber. That's my question to other Amazon Prime and Netflix subscribers, would you choose one over the other? Or if a Netflix subscriber only, would you dump the service and sign up for Prime? Please respond in comments.

    One Netflix advantage is its distribution relationship with Starz, which keeps a fresh cycle of movies moving through. Amazon is offering a month of free Prime to new subscribers. That's right, not 7 days or two weeks but 30 days free. That's helluva an offer. Both services offer content commercial free.

    In January, US Internet users watched an average 14.5 hours of online video -- or 4.9 billion viewing sessions, according to ComScore. Google sites and music streaming service VEVO topped all others. Hulu, which offers movies and TV shows, ranked tenth. Hulu Plus also competes with Amazon Prime and Netflix, and it costs $7.99 per month. I'm near to canceling my Hulu Plus subscription since I can't get it on Google TV. Amazon and Netflix streaming are both available.

    I've got a question for Amazon: So when will there be a color Kindle for reading books and streaming video content?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/22/It_s_time_Apple_came_clean_about_Steve_Jobs__health'

    It's time Apple came clean about Steve Jobs' health

    Publié: février 22, 2011, 5:03pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Tech leaders meet Obama

    Apple can no longer remain silent about its CEO's health. This is no longer a debate about corporate responsibility or fair disclosure to shareholders. Now that Paparazzi are following Jobs and taking photos or videos of him outside the cancer treatment facility, Apple must respond. Silence is bad for Apple, bad for its shareholders and quite possibly damaging to Jobs' recovery. How would you feel about seeing your photos in the National Enquirer? How would it affect your cancer recovery?

    Jobs announced indefinite medical leave from Apple on January 17. "My family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy," Jobs requested. That clearly isn't happening. Yesterday, Radar Online posted a video of Jobs leaving the Stanford Cancer Center in Palo Alto, Calif. The video was shot 13 days earlier. Last week, the Enquirer published photos of Jobs outside the same facility. Out of respect to Jobs' recovery and privacy, I won't link to either the photos or video. If you want to see them, Bing or Google.

    I'm on record as saying Jobs' health isn't a private matter. He works for shareholders and has ethical obligation to them to report on his ability to effectively run the company. Hell, US presidents have annual checkups, which are publicly reported. Why not CEOs of public companies? But what's happening now trumps any debate about the extent of Jobs' privacy. He has none if Paparazzi photos and videos are popping up all over the Internet.

    Stories supporting both the National Enquirer and Radar Online postings emphasized Jobs' frailty. Last week, I even read some crazy analysis, based on a doctor reviewing photos, stating Jobs had something like six weeks to live. No responsible company should let such potentially damaging information about its ailing CEO go unanswered.

    Apple doesn't have to disclose the gritty details of Jobs' recovery, merely fill the silence with something more than rumor or speculation. Perhaps, it's time for an official Steve Jobs blog or Twitter feed. Just an occasional tweet from Jobs would drive thousands of blog posts or news stories and overshadow Paparazzi-driven speculation about his health. If Apple's CEO just hinted at some future product, without disclosing anything substantive, there would be massive blogger and news media response. After all, in the January 17 email, Jobs wrote that while on medical leave he would be involved in "major strategic decisions." Jobs wouldn't need to tweet often.

    Another approach: Jobs' could voluntarily make his cancer fight public, even if just partially. He's an iconic figure, who survived cancer in the mid Noughties and received a liver transplant in 2009. An occasional statement or blog post could truly inspire other people fighting cancer. Apple's board and Jobs might see such an approach as distracting from the company's business, but it also could effectively distract from speculation about his health. A more public approach could generate strong feelings for Jobs, which could mitigate any negative impact to the stock should something truly terrible happened to him.

    Normally, I would recommend that Apple finally disclose a succession plan should Jobs not return as CEO. But that's not easily done now. If Apple revealed a succession plan so close to the release of Paparazzi photos and videos, there would likely follow more speculation that Jobs' health is declining faster. Succession plan disclosure is not an option at this time. Instead, Apple should begin a subtle campaign promoting COO Tim Cook, who is running day-to-day operations during Jobs' absence. The purpose: To further build up investor confidence in Cook, should Jobs suddenly need to step down or even die.

    Apple is renown for its marketing savvy and knack for managing perceptions. Unanswered, these Paparazzi photos and video create a negative perception -- that Jobs' is much sicker than the company has revealed. If there's money to be made here, more Paparazzis will line up to capture images or videos of Jobs. Apple can't rely on the goodwill of photographers and videographers using Macs and products like Aperture or Final Cut Studio. Somebody will follow the money shots, which already is happening. Nor can Apple rely on the goodwill of investors, which have yet to punish the stock.

    They say silence is golden. I say absolutely not.

    Photo Credit: President Barack Obama meets with Silicon Valley tech leaders on February 17, 2011; courtesy of the White House.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/22/5_reasons_Macs_will_never_outsell_Windows_PCs'

    5 reasons Macs will never outsell Windows PCs

    Publié: février 22, 2011, 2:24am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    MacBook Air

    Apple may be the most talked about tech company in geekdom and on Wall Street. The brand is hot, but for all the hype Macintosh is not. Sure Mac sales are way up, as is Apple's personal computer market share -- at least compared to May 2001 when CEO Steve Jobs talked about topping 5 percent share when opening the first company-owned retail store in McLean, Virginia. Ten years later, Jobs' has his 5 percent, but Windows PC sales dwarf Macintosh, and there absolutely are no signs of change coming anytime soon.

    During fourth-quarter 2010, Apple's PC market share fell sequentially, dropping to fifth place in US market share -- from third place according to IDC (10.4 percent to 8.7 percent) and from fourth by Gartner's reckoning (10.6 percent to 9.7 percent). Combined Windows PC market share is still about 90 percent, and let's be brutally honest: Windows PCs are used pretty much everywhere.

    Last week, DisplaySearch joined Canalys classifying iPad as a personal computer. Canalys claims that iPad lifts Apple to third place in global PC market share. DisplaySearch puts Apple No. 1 in the United States by similar reckoning. As I explained earlier today, iPad is not a PC. Canalys and DisplaySearch are both wrong to classify iPad as a personal computer. I make the point proactively before someone comments that Macs already outsell PCs. To further emphasize: Apple separates iPad from Macs in its quarterly accounting of product sales. By that measure, if Apple doesn't count iPads with Macs, neither should you.

    With that clarification out of the way, I present five reasons why Macs will never outsell Windows PCs, globally, in no particular order of importance.

    1. Macs cost too much. Naysayers will be quick to answer this one in comments with Mac and Windows PC feature and price comparisons, which perhaps are okay for buyers in mature markets. But the majority of the world's population lives in emerging markets, like BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China), where price makes the Mac unattainable for most people. For example, per capita income in China is around $4,000 a year, depending on source of information (CIA Fact Book, International Monetary Fund or Word Bank, among others). Brazil: $9,800 a year. Russia: $9,900. Twenty percent of citizens in the Russian Federation live below the poverty line, according to the International Monetary Fund. Based on US Mac pricing, the realistic entry price is $999 for either the MacBook or MacBook Air. Who is going to spend 10 percent to 20 percent of their annual income on an Apple computer?

    International Mac prices are not comparable to the United States. Prices tend to be much higher. For example, in China the MacBook Air is 7,998 Yuan, which is about US $1,216 at today's exchange rate. Same computer, in Brazilian Real, is 3,099, which is about US $1,865. Of course, even among the poorest nations there are upper echelons that can afford these prices, and it's true that almost 60 percent of Apple sales are international. However, the majority can't afford Macs, and the rise in international sales are more about iOS devices than Macs.

    By comparison, Windows PCs can be purchased in most any geography for just a few hundred dollars, either from global companies like Acer and HP or local resellers.

    2. People can pirate Windows. One of Windows' biggest cost advantages is piracy. People can and often do steal the operating system, particularly in emerging markets. Although steal is a loose definition. The software is often purchased, for price acceptable to the local economy and from someone who is a pirate by Microsoft's definition. However, the buyer likely made a good-faith purchase.

    Piracy, whether Windows or software running on it, gives Apple grave competition. According to Business Software Alliance, piracy rate in China was 79 percent in 2009 (2010 data won't be available for several months). Brazil: 56 percent. By comparison, the United States was 20 percent. The top five -- Armenia, Banglidesh, Georgia, Moldova and Zimbabwe -- have piracy rates above 90 percent. Not coincidentally, they're all relatively poor nations, with annual average per capital incomes ranging from about $500 to $2,700.

    Because Apple controls both hardware and software, piracy is significantly less effective in bringing down Mac prices. Apple sells hardware and software bound together, which isn't true of the Windows PC ecosystem. It's easier to pirate Windows and install it on a vanilla machine than it is Mac OS. Perhaps in the future there will be a market for Mac clones, running pirated software, but there isn't one today. So this point relates to the first: Most people on this planet can't afford Macs.

    3. Windows ecosystem is simply too large. Microsoft executives like to talk about the importance of the Windows ecosystem of PC OEMs, peripheral manufacturers, software developers, system integrators and more as being foundation for the company's success. They participate in the ecosystem because it makes them money. Successful platforms share five attributes:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily making good applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    The latter two are intertwined. No ecosystem thrives if third parties aren't profiting. Apple's Mac ecosystem is much smaller for many reasons but I'll call out two:

    1. Apple doesn't license Mac OS X, which limits how widely the supporting ecosystem can grow. Only Apple ships Macs.

    2. The established Windows ecosystem infrastructure is simply too large. Microsoft has a robust monopoly in PC operating systems.

    Apple is trying to build its own ecosystem, around iOS and supporting devices iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Not Macs.

    4. Windows shadow ecosystem is profitable, too. There also is a shadow ecosystem that profits from Windows through malware and activities that steal people's credentials and subvert their computers as part of botnets. This thriving ecosystem contributes to software piracy. Malware writers and cybercriminals have huge interest in keeping Windows and supporting software thriving; some estimates put online crime costs to businesses and consumers at about $1 trillion. Perhaps a shadow ecosystem will develop around smartphones and tablets (we can only hope not), but it's mostly about Windows today.

    In January, McAfee released report "A Good Decade for Cybercrime," which is an excellent primer on the topic. LOL, McAfee and other security vendors also profit from the shadow ecosystem, feeding off malware parasites attached to the Windows platform.

    5. Windows owns the enterprise -- and Apple isn't even trying. As long as businesses the world over run on Windows PCs, there's limited headroom for Mac share growth. Even if Apple seriously tried to break Macs into the enterprise, the supporting Windows ecosystem and cost of switching platforms would prohibit serious defection. Until something different comes along, the Windows PC will rule enterprise computing.

    Would you like to add other reasons? Please offer them in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/21/iPad_is_not_a_PC'

    iPad is not a PC

    Publié: février 21, 2011, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPads

    Last week, DisplaySearch joined Canalys classifying iPad as a personal computer. Canalys claims that iPad lifts Apple to third place in global PC market share. DisplaySearch puts Apple No. 1 in the United States by similar reckoning. The Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists delighted in the DisplaySearch data, gifting Apple with "its No.1 headlines." I write to correct the record about Macs outselling Windows PCs. They don't, and you can put your wishful thinking back in the draw or closet from whence it came. Apple's tablet is not a PC.

    In August 2010, I asked: "Is Apple the real US PC market share leader -- or soon will be?" That could only be if iPad classified as a PC. I write posts like that one to get people thinking, to look at something from a different perspective. Also, based on iPad's functionality and available applications, it was legitimate consideration -- Apple's market share would be so much greater if iPad was a PC.

    Neither Gartner nor IDC count iPad as a PC, and IDC's classification is all wrong -- or so I say. The analyst firm classifies as "media tablets" slate devices ranging in size from 5 inches to as much as 14 inches and running so-called lightweight operating systems, such as Apple's iOS and Google's Android OS, on ARM processors. However, IDC classifies tablets running Windows on x86 processors as PCs. It's a simply shortsighted categorization that ignores how the devices are used.

    Based on usage, iPad is not a PC. That's my analysis, which I haven't explicitly stated until today. (Tip: My posts often don't reflect my personal opinion unless I explicitly say so; many readers wrongly have assumed I see iPad as a PC. I raised the question for others to answer. Today I offer my own answer for the first time.)

    As long as iPad requires a PC for activation and to receive operating system updates, it is a dependent device. Apple's tablet requires a PC to fully function. By comparison, I would rank the new generation of Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" tablets as PCs, based on function. Multi-core processors, improved graphic performance and Honeycomb will make tablets like the HTC Flyer, Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 PC replacements for many buyers. Android has never been dependent on PCs. Account activation takes place from the device and all updates are sent over the air -- that is directly to the smartphone or tablet.

    By the "it's dependent" reasoning, Canalys and DisplaySearch are both wrong to classify iPad as a PC. Many Betanews readers have expressed similar opinion in comments, and they're do some recognition.

    "Only thing that should be considered a PC is a device that I can use and not need any other device," writes Matt Shulman.

    "I don't care how they categorize the iPad, but they need to employ some logic and some common sense instead of using arcane and unhelpful definitions that parse the computing industry into a bizarre and seeming random combinations," John Kirk observes. "Gartner uses a definition of 'Tablet PC' that pretty much can only include Windows Tablets. Then they merge together tablets like the iPad with dedicated book readers like the Kindle. Then the[y] call netbooks PCs. It makes no sense." I agree with that.

    "On [Mac OS X], I can create software and sell it," writes Steve Smith. "Done. On the iPad I can make software and maybe get the approval of apple to sell it." DaveN: "If an iPad is a PC, then a bicycle is a car. And I'm not trying to disparage either the iPad or the bicycle."

    I say iPad is not a PC, yet would classify Android tablets as PCs -- or at least enough to be used independently of personal computers enough to replace them. What do you think? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/20/Best_Buy_takes_XOOM_preorders____get_yours_for__gasp___800__not__600'

    Best Buy takes XOOM preorders -- get yours for (gasp) $800, not $600

    Publié: février 20, 2011, 7:31pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Best Buy XOOM ad

    So much for the $600 WiFi-only Motorola XOOM tablet, gadget geeks pine for. While Moto may have promised the lower-cost model, there are no signs it's coming this week. Best Buy has started taking preorders for the 3G/4G/WiFi model for (cough, cough) $799.99, available February 24 -- that is based on earlier leaked information. The higher-cost XOOM requires (cough, cough) Verizon cellular contract and (cough, cough) one month's service required to turn on WiFi capabilities.

    Can you say price gouging? Best Buy isn't taking preorders online. Shoppers must go to stores to cough up 800 bucks. Here, in California, applying 9.95 percent tax puts the price at nearly $880 out the door.

    When the $800 price leaked out earlier this month, Betanews readers scowled at the cost and required one-month Verizon service to activate WiFi. Verizon is notorious for disabling hardware features, like Bluetooth, on some handsets.

    XOOM is among the hottest Android 3.0 (aka Honeycomb) tablets announced this year. The Moto tablet weighs 1.5 pounds and measures half an inch thick. Other features: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports; accelerometer; barometer; and gyroscope.

    But for all users get, there's tremendous sticker shock, particularly compared to iPad, which entry price is $499. Betanews reader Mark Byrn astutely puts the competitive problem in even bigger perspective. He writes via email: "Joe, one thing you've missed is the absurdity of the price difference between the WiFi-only version and the XOOM with 3G/future 4G radios. Consider that Apple adds $130 for it's 3G version -- ridiculous for a part that costs maybe $20 -- and here we got Motorola charging $200 for 3G/4G?"

    He continues: "I got a 4G iSpot from Clear for $25 and no contract. Motorola should be undercutting Apple by more than half here in all respects...the iPad is already overpriced and people are looking for better alternatives that don't involve paying the Apple tax."

    He's preaching to the choir, as they say. Last week I griped about how carrier contractual commitments push up Android tablet pricing compared to iPad. What's surprising about the $800 3G/4G radio XOOM price: It's unsubsidized. Verizon isn't giving buyers a break, and it's still demanding they pay for a data contract.

    "If you recall your history, Widows PCs buried Mac computers into niche status because of price (you got more for less), and if Motorola and other Android tablet makers aren't offering comparable platforms at a significantly lower prices than Apple's overpriced 'magic', they're smoking some bad weed," Byrn writes.

    He then scolds me: "Instead of taking sides for or against the companies, please take sides with the consumer; you should be blasting Motorola and Samsung for duplicating Apple's 'premium profit' model, and if tablets are going to succeed with the masses (not just the loyal Apple Kool-Aid drinkers), the prices have got to come down to reality."

    This post is what you asked for, Mark. I've done four previous XOOM pricing stories without offering my personal opinion. XOOM costs too much at $800 and even $600. Motorola's priority should be gaining market share, by offering pricing below iPad, which would benefit consumers. Apple has first-to-market advantage in a resurgent category. More importantly, more than 85 tablets are queuing up to compete with iPad. Moto should seek to get in front of other tablet competitors, even if it initially loses money to gain market share.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/18/3_things_XOOM_and_other_tablets_need_to_succeed'

    3 things XOOM and other tablets need to succeed

    Publié: février 18, 2011, 9:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    HTC Flyer

    There are close to 90 different tablets announced for 2011 delivery. Some of the hottest models, like the Motorola XOOM, are weeks away from availability. Meanwhile, hype continues as fervently as ever about iPad 2. In such a competitive market, with overwhelming number of choices, there are going to be losers -- and lots of them. Is there a formula for success?

    Earlier today, I asked Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, three things tablet manufacturers/retailers need do to be successful. One of the three I most expected didn't make the list (more on that later). Baker is unusual among industry analysts for his no-nonsense common sense about retail. Tablets aren't just tactile in how they're used. People will want to touch and hold them before buying them, which means retail distribution. Besides something new needs to be seen before purchasing; it's retail marketing 101 stuff.

    Three Things

    I asked Baker: Are there three things you would recommend that tablet manufacturers/retailers should or should not do to be successful? He chose to answer about what they should do. His responses are organized 1, 2, 3 with additional perspective from me.

    1. "Focus on distribution. As more and more companies get in you are going to need shelf space and presence to survive."

    In late January post "Why is iPad successful?" I explained how Apple's massive manufacturing and distribution channel -- the ecosystem -- was foundational to the tablet's success. Apple launched iPad with huge marketing, manufacturing and distribution systems established for iPod and iPhone. This advantage is often overlooked in analyses of iPad's success. The tablet was available in 46 countries during calendar fourth quarter, when Apple shipped 7.33 million units.

    For anyone trying to pick other winners and losers, look first at the manufacturers with best distribution logistics. Samsung is in best strategic competitive position because of its massive distribution and retail reach and because it's a major supplier of components used in tablets. LG has presence on the order of Samsung, meaning both manufacturers sell hundreds of consumer electronics products through tens of thousands of retailers. Research in Motion looks good -- that is if it ever ships PlayBook. HTC is another manufacturer with reach.

    2. "Integration. I think integrating more completely with other household devices, phones, TVs and PCs for data, personal information management, entertainment and content management will be crucial."

    Apple already is doing some of this with content streaming and synchronization options for iPad with personal computers and Apple TV. But Samsung and LG sell TVs and smartphones and other consumer electronics devices around which tablets could integrate.

    3. "Apps. Obviously [tablets] now need a wide and varied array of easy to use and buy applications. That also means a much better app store experience and one more widely available. It can't just be an OS thing. I think retailers, who have a core competency there, have a role to play in promoting in dsitributing apps more easily and widely."

    Perhaps that latter point explains why Amazon is developing an app store competing with the Android Marketplace. There's a presumption among the Apple and Android fan clubs of bloggers and journalists that one, perhaps two, app stores will rule the market. But based on music and video distribution, even with iTunes overwhelming dominance, there are many distributors, some of the more successful from retailers like Amazon.

    On February 15th, during his Mobile World Congress keynote, AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson bit the hand that feeds the carrier so many subscribers -- iPhone. He expressed seemingly sour grapes about Apple's App Store success: "You purchase an app for one operating system, and if you want it on another device or platform, you have to buy it again." Hell, he's right about that. However, I've spoken with some journalists who see the statement as sour grapes -- app stores taking away carriers' efforts to sell (and profit from) applications over their networks. Perhaps, that's true a little, but Stephenson is right about the consumer experience. It makes sense that with the proliferation of connected mobile devices that apps should run on many of them -- like digitally downloadable music is today.

    There's One More

    Baker didn't mention price, something I harped on earlier in the week. So I asked: What about price? Competing tablets look high to me compared to [iPad], mainly because of carrier contracts? He responded: "Well, I didn't want to get into the WiFi vs. carrier debate." But he also left out price because it's "a given. Price will be there, otherwise you die. What I get for what price and how I get to the right price is the trick."

    What is the right price? Competition will answer that question. On February 16th, Motorola revealed that its drool-worthy XOOM tablet will be available in a WiFi-only version for $600. So I asked Betanews readers if they would pay 600 bucks for XOOM? Reaction was mixed, with even the most tech-savvy of you wanting a price about half as much -- for any tablet, not just XOOM.

    By the way, regarding tablets, Baker believes the "vast majority will be [sold] with no contract" from wireless carriers.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/18/US_Consumers_are_replacing_PCs_with_smartphones_and_tablets_for_common_tasks'

    US Consumers are replacing PCs with smartphones and tablets for common tasks

    Publié: février 18, 2011, 7:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Make no mistake, smartphones and tablets are disrupting typical PC behavior. The real question: Will changing behavior slow PC sales? It's among the questions to ask, following the release earlier today of NPD report "Evolving Technology Trends: PC Activities on Non-PC Devices."

    According to NPD, about 35 percent of US smartphone owners use email less on their PC now. Similarly, about 30 percent of US tablet owners say they email and browse the Internet less on the PC; 28 percent don't use PC social networking services as much. Welcome to the post-PC era, or at least it's beginnings.

    NPD's report follows findings released by Gartner yesterday: US consumers are more likely to buy a smartphone than any other device this year. NPD surveyed 2,400 US consumers in December about their non-PC device habits. A stunning 83 percent email on their smartphones, while 76 percent browse the Internet. NPD found high satisfaction levels, which were greater for tablets than smartphones. Respectively, 67 percent and 59 percent for email and 60 percent and 49 percent for social networking.

    Well, call me stupid -- and many of you already do in comments. "About 50 percent more 18-34 year olds own a tablet than over 55 year olds -- despite the high price that normally scares away the younger consumer," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis told me, today. In March 2010, I pegged the device as particularly suitable for the 55 and older set, which it might still be (I just want to give commenters consistently digging at my posts something legitimate to gripe about).

    It seems to me that with tablets' popularity among younger US consumers and how many Americans are shifting common Internet tasks to cloud-connected mobile devices from personal computers, there should be an impact on PC sales. According to Gartner and IDC, tablets clearly cannibalized PC sales during fourth quarter 2010. Gartner expects 95 million smartphone sales this year, up from 67 million in 2010. By comparison, PC shipments are expected to be 50.9 million, up from 45.6 million. So I asked Baker about cannibalization.

    Q: Based on activities, are consumers replacing behavior -- smartphone and tablets for PCs -- and will that cannibalize sales?

    A: "Eventually it will. But for PC companies there is still action in upgrades from old models -- you are still going to have PCs -- and from desktops to notebooks. Also these are positioned as companion devices, so not totally positioned as a replacement."

    Q: Understood, but what about replacement purchase -- choosing smartphone or tablet over new PC? Meaning: Companion enough that people keep that old PC longer rather than upgrading now?

    A: "Nope. You are going to have all three. Each has a role to play. Initially [consumers] might keep PC longer, but after a time refresh cycle will take hold -- and I think tablets long term will look more like PCs for refresh than phones because the vast majority will be with no [carrier] contract."

    Call me cynical and skeptical, but I'm convinced that changing behavior will cause many smartphone buyers, and many more tablet adopters, to delay PC upgrades. That mobile device may be PC companion but behaviorally it's a replacement. Want to bet what are the top activities consumers do on their PCs? Can you say email, Web browsing and social networking? All three categories are already displacing PC behavior, according to NPD's survey. To be clear: I'm talking about consumers and not businesses.

    What about you? Did you or will you soon put off a PC purchase for a smartphone or tablet? Please answer in comments, or email joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/18/Gartner__2011_is_year_of_the_smartphone__not_tablet'

    Gartner: 2011 is year of the smartphone, not tablet

    Publié: février 18, 2011, 12:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The 2010s are rapidly shaping up to be like the 1990s, but with smartphones replacing PCs as the objects of want. This week's Mobile World Congress buzzed with excitement that felt like Comdex 1995. The next day's hottest device announcement eclipsed the day's before. Single-core processor today is obsolete to tomorrow's dual-core, which is outdated a day later by quad-core -- or that's how it feels.

    Things are changing so fast, some manufacturers can only keep up by announcing the next big thing. Yesterday, veteran Mac journalist Jim Dalrymple chided Research in Motion: "Shut up and ship." He observed that RIM talks lots about new tablets -- "that's three generations of PlayBook tablets announced in five months, and we still haven't seen a single product make it to market." The excitement about mobile devices and pace that faster phones are shipping and new applications releasing are among the many reasons that last week I asserted: "The PC era is over." To be clear: Change of eras doesn't mean the end of the PC just its rapidly decreasing relevance before cloud-connected devices.

    Today, Gartner put stats behind the mobile frenzy, claiming that US consumers are more likely to buy a smartphone than any other device. "Continued low retail pricing and widespread adoption of applications like Web browsing, e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, GPS and games will continue to stimulate consumer demand," said Hugues de la Vergne, Gartner principal research analyst, in a statement. Faster smartphone adoption will change the market, "which will shift from the more technically astute tech savants toward less tech-savvy comfortable conformists. Issues such as ease of use will become even more important in 2011"

    While geeks can't chatter enough about Android vs iOS vs other mobile operating systems, other buyers won't really care. "First-time smartphone buyers may not be familiar with the range of operating systems and the different versions of those OSes," de la Vergne asserted.

    Gartner used two data points to make its claim about consumers' buying preferences: Its smartphone and PC forecasts and a December 2010 survey. The analyst firm expects 95 million smartphone sales this year, up from 67 million in 2010. By comparison, PC shipments are expected to be 50.9 million, up from 45.6 million. However, it should be noted that IDC and Gartner PC forecasts have proved unreliable of late, with shipments falling below expectations. So that nearly 51 million number could prove to be optimistic.

    The survey assesses buying intent, which I can say having worked as an analyst can be hugely unreliable measure. What people say they will do often represents what they want to do. Often they do something different. With that qualification, Gartner's ranking of gadgets Americans say they will buy in 2011, in order of intent:

    1. Smartphone

    2. Laptop

    3. Desktop PC

    4. Mobile handset (other than smartphone)

    5. E-book reader

    6. Media tablet

    No. 6 is worth calling out, given the incredible hype around media tablets -- and the nearly 90 devices announced for 2011. Certainly Apple had a great three quarters with iPad, shipping more than 14 million devices and generating about $10 billion in revenue. If Gartner's survey is even remotely reflective of buying intentions, PC manufacturers don't have that much to fear from tablet competition, and the tablet market is already overcrowded -- too many entrants for the possible amount of demand in 2011.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/17/Even__600_is_too_much_for_many_gadget_geeks_to_pay_for_Motorola_XOOM'

    Even $600 is too much for many gadget geeks to pay for Motorola XOOM

    Publié: février 17, 2011, 4:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Motorola XOOM tablet

    Late yesterday I asked: "Would you pay $600 for the Motorola XOOM tablet?" Whoa, did you respond. Reaction is mixed, but those of you who own Android phones, particularly Motorola models, are more likely to answer "Yes." However, plenty of readers still wouldn't pay $600 -- for any tablet, and that includes Apple's iPad.

    Quick recap: It turns out that earlier leaks about XOOM costing 800 bucks were true. That's for a model with 3G/4G radios and WiFi. Yesterday, Motorola revealed that a WiFi-only model would be available for only $600. Betanews readers reacted quiet negatively to $800 XOOM. So what about 600 bucks?

    "I would most definitely purchase a WiFi-only Xoom for $600," Jonathan Farmer writes by email. "If that is indeed the price point, I'll be buying it sooner rather than later." Farmer is the kind of buyer who shows that tablets will cannibalize some PC sales. "I was going to buy a new laptop, but I really want to get into the tablet game. Right now I'm torrenting some stuff, twittering, emailing, and who knows what else on my EVO [smartphone]. I love Android, and I'm super excited to try out 3.0 without any stupid software added on top of the OS."

    "Maybe," John Higham answers by email. "It has to seamlessly, and wirelessly, tether to the Android phone sitting in my pocket." I asked Higham which smartphone? "Mot Droid running Froyo. I have my $600 ready. :-)"

    "A tablet/pad purchase is imminently in my future," Ashley Glenn writes by email. "It will most likely not be the XOOM. Don't get me wrong, it's an attractive piece of hardware. At $600, I expect more for my money than I'll probably get. The frustration of a locked-down device likely denied upgrades its first cousins will receive combined with the fact that all of my iPad-committed colleagues will have access to beneficial apps I'll likely never see leave me having to say 'No' to a really nice looking device."

    Many Betanews readers who responded by email use Android handsets, which also means Google sync services. I asked Glenn how important are Google sync services -- contacts, calendar, bookmarks, etc. -- to him. "Google's sync services are heavily important but can be worked around. I have a ridiculously full plate -- husband, father, teacher, part-time IT, sound tech, chief union negotiator -- and connected services save my hindquarters on a regular basis. I'll be waiting out a WiFi iPad 2 (can't afford another data plan with child #2 on the way), so my phone will still be my communication and planning hub."

    "I wouldn't even pay $600 for it," Brian Hilgefort writes via email. I would be willing to give up quite a bit. It's not that I don't want to pay a little more for something nice, it's the principle. Since people have gotten addicted to Android, it seems that they've left their values behind. I do not want something just because it's Android, I want something because it's personally valuable. My phone, for example, is stainless steel and glass. The Droid 2 came out and it was plastic. People still paid the money for a cheap toy. At least Apple doesn't give you a plastic copy. Not that I want to rant on about values, it's just a very important issue for me that others have forgotten. Oh yeah, even the Droid X is aircraft aluminum, and was only $200. Would you sell your soul for the next big thing?"

    "Yes, I'd pay $600 for one," Betanews commenter ScottMD writes. "I'd pay $800 for one as well. Why? The specs are so far superior to the iPad. And again, it is all Apple's choices, ignoring the customer, and then the hamstrung app store. Closed OS." He observed how rapidly Android gained in the smartphone market, predicting tablets would follow similar pattern. "The iPad isn't a bad gadget, just underpowered and overhyped."

    Even $400 is too much for Atom Smith to pay. "A decent netbook has utility far beyond any tablet -- WiFi, USB, keyboard. Add an air card and you have cellular data access and your still below $600. The only advantage that a tablet has is the physical functionality of its size and single piece design. It is no longer single piece when you install a cover. How about a netbook with a keyboard that folds back against the back side of the screen, with a touch screen for tablet functionality and a built in protector for the keyboard."

    I asked Smith if he would buy an ebook reader, like Amazon's Kindle, which is more single-purpose, smaller and cheaper. "I have a Kindle 3G. I bought it for two reasons: 1) To see if I could reduce my paper consumption by downloading to the Kindle. 2) Reduce my physical book load and cost. The paper consumption hasn't worked because PDFs do not work well on a 3G."

    Bobbrinksster comments: "For $600, the XOOM is a much better deal. I agree that the Apple IPad has way too many limitations and flaws at this point. Don't get me wrong, it's a really nice tablet but not for me. My initial turn off, besides the price, was the link to Verizon."

    "I can wait, $600 is not compelling," Ivan Kirkpatrick writes by email. I still prefer a Chrome OS notebook, like Gogle is beta testing. My wife, who is a nurse, could probably get a lot of use out of a WiFi-only XOOM, assuming it has some apps she can use, since her facility is not WiFi enabled yet. At least it would connect fine at home."

    Ken Dellinger writes about the $600 price: "I would buy it with a grumble. I just hope the WiFi version hits the shelves around the same time as the 3G." Like many other Betanews readers responding by email, Dellinger is a Droid user. I asked if there was one feature that drew him to XOOM. "Oh, hands down it's Honeycomb."

    Betanews commenter Cloudy Weather's problem isn't price but Android fragmentation. "Android 3 is right around the corner, and nearly 42 percent of Android smartphones are still on 2.2 or earlier. The Android tablet market is likely to follow the same slow upgrade path and leave all users to only dream of having the latest version of the OS. I'm all for dreaming, I like dreaming, but not when it comes to timely upgrades of a smartphone or a tablet OS. Until Google and the carriers get their stuff together and tighten up the upgrade cycle, and stop stuffing devices full of crapware...there is zero chance I'll be using an Android device."

    Betanews commenter TheMokoda isn't intimidated by $600 or even $800: "Is that too expensive? Yes, it is. Will the price be lower in a few months or a year? Possibly. Will there be something as good or better, possibly for less, 'right around the corner'? Possibly. Shouldn't I just wait for the iPad2? Maybe, but I don't want to...The few other tablets (Galaxy, et. al.) just don't have the specs/features I want. XOOM not only has the specs/features, but it's close enough to being here, NOW."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/16/Would_you_pay__600_for_the_Motorola_XOOM_tablet_'

    Would you pay $600 for the Motorola XOOM tablet?

    Publié: février 16, 2011, 10:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Motorola XOOM tablet

    Last week, I asked about $800, and most Betanews readers answering the question said emphatically "No!" Today, Reuters is reporting some potentially exciting news from Mobile World Congress: A WiFi-only version of the XOOM tablet will be available for $600. Is the price low enough for you? You know how to answer -- in comments or by emailing joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Surprisingly, Verizon, which will carry the 3G/4G model, is doing so unsubsidized -- so that previously leaked $800 price still applies. The Verizon model does WiFi, too, but based on leaked Best Buy documents buyers must use at least one month of data service first; then WiFi is enabled. How whacked out is that?

    Yesterday I complained that carrier contractual commitments for data put Android tablets at unfair competitive advantage to Apple's iPad. In January, I posted "5 things every tablet needs to succeed" --"right price" and "no carrier commitment" appeared as items one and two. The two points are intertwined, since Apple offers WiFi-only iPad for $499. That puts the XOOM just one hundred bucks higher. Again, is that cheap enough for you?

    Certainly XOOM's specs are compelling: 1GHz dual-core nVidia Tegra 2 processor; 10.1-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 1GB of RAM; 32GB internal storage, expandable with MicroSD card; 5-megapixel back-facing and 2-megapixel front-facing cameras; 720p video recording; 1080p video playback; HDMI and USB 2.0 ports;  accelerometer;  barometer; gyroscope; Android 3.0 (Honeycomb).

    The comparably-priced ($599) WiFi-only iPad: 1GHz single-core Apple A4 processor; 9.7 inch display with 1024 x 768 resolution; 256MB of RAM; 32GB internal storage (non-expandable); 720p video playback; accelerometer; and iOS 4. There are no cameras, there is no HDMI port and external USB connector costs $29 extra. Another option: Spend $100 less for the 16GB WiFi-only iPad.

    Fans of the iPad are quick to claim apps are an advantage, but that's a gap Android is closing. Google One Pass set against Apple's more subscription plan should open the floodgates of content, including video as well as written information. Apple says that the average selling price for iPad is $600, so surely someone is willing to pay that much? Is it you, for the Moto XOOM?

    Last week in comments, Betanews reader Utomo wrote: "I believe $599 is best price for this gadget. More than that it will not [be] big success." OK, Utomo, XOOM is $600. Are you buying? Commenter Tom Kyne made a smart prediction: "This could be part of their marketing scheme. Shock everyone with a leaked $800 price, but on the day it's revealed, it's only $600, so we are all relieved we save $200." Well, the price is both ways, but Kyne's speculation feels about right.

    That's a wrap. Please share your reaction with us all -- and answer not just "would you pay" but "will you pay" $600 for the Moto XOOM tablet, meaning are you ready to buy one. Again, please answer in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/16/Google_One_Pass_gives_back_what_Apple_s_iPad_subscription_plan_takes_away'

    Google One Pass gives back what Apple's iPad subscription plan takes away

    Publié: février 16, 2011, 7:46pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, that didn't take long. One day after Apple dropped its subscription plan bomb on suspicious publishers, Google officially countered with One Pass. Google strips out the onerous restrictions Apple imposes. It's a brilliant marketing response, and aptly timed with new Android tablets like the HTC Flyer, Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 going on sale within weeks. More significantly, the program isn't restricted to mobile devices. Can you say Internet?

    Apple's subscription plan places many restrictions on publishers. Apple takes a 30-percent commission on all sales, requiring publishers to offer prices the same or lower in-app as elsewhere; that hugely limits promotions, for example. Apple's plan would prevent publishers from making in-app subscriptions free as a benefit to existing subscribers elsewhere (e.g., consumers pay more because of Apple policies). Publishers will likely loose access to vital customer data, since Apple is requiring an option that lets subscribers opt-in to this disclosure.

    By comparison, One Pass gives publishers "control over how users can pay to access content and set their own prices," according to Google. "They can sell subscriptions of any length with auto-renewal, day passes (or other durations), individual articles or multiple-issue packages. Google One Pass also enables metered models, where a publisher can provide some content or a certain number of visits for free, but can charge frequent visitors or those interested in premium content based on the business model that the publisher prefers."

    The flexibility is compelling. What publishers need in this era of overwhelmingly free content is more flexibility charging for their valuable stuff in ways that make sense for their businesses and customers. For example, One Pass conceptually would allow a publisher to offer, say, limited access to one digital magazine to subscribers of another.

    One Pass "also allows publishers to grant access to existing subscribers through a coupon-based system, so it is easy to give full online access to current customers. Publishers can give their customers codes verifying their subscription status, or can seamlessly offer content to existing subscribers via solutions enabled by Google One Pass."

    Don't expect One Pass on Apple iOS devices any time soon, if ever. The service leverages Google Checkout through mobile or PC Web browsers. Apple's revised content policies prohibit this kind of transaction -- something Amazon does today with Kindle ebooks; readers leave the app and purchase through web browser. Where Apple is locking down subscription payments to one platform, Google seeks to reach many via the open web.

    From the user's perspective, a single Google ID logs into any publisher's digital content using One Pass. That suddenly makes more sense of Google's announcement last week about offering 2-step account verification.

    Something else, regarding Apple's subscription plans: In posts on February 3rd and yesterday, I asserted that Apple's monopoly position in mobile apps and tablets raises antitrust concerns about the restrictive subscription plan and content rules changes affecting Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Today, at the Apple 2.0 blog, Philip Elmer-DeWitt asks: "Does Apple have a Monopoly?" Meanwhile, at the Wall Street Journal, Nathan Koppel writes: "Apple's Subscription Rules Raise Possible Antitrust Issues." Not that either journalist reciprocated links.

    Google's One Pass FAQ:

    Q: Who sets the price of Google One Pass content? Publishers decide the price and terms of the content they choose to sell through Google One Pass.

    Q: Who determines the terms for access to content available through Google One Pass? Partners determine the duration and extent of access to their content. For instance, this may include setting a one-week or 30-day limit on the accessibility of a given article.

    Q: Who determines what content is accessed through Google One Pass? Partners have total control over what content is accessed through Google One Pass and what content is free to users.

    Q: How is Google One Pass implemented? Publishers will continue to host their own content. They will upload the list of the content they want to monetise into the Google interface. Publishers will need to add a small amount of code to their website, but development effort is minimal.

    Q: Why is Google launching Google One Pass? Google cares a lot about helping high quality content thrive online and about the future of journalism. That's also why we built things like First Click Free, Fast Flip and Living Stories.

    Q: Will Google One Pass allow users to read existing subscriptions on all their devices? Google One Pass will enable users to access content on connected, browser-enabled devices and from mobile apps where the mobile OS terms permit publishers to access the web via the app for Google One Pass transaction or authentication services.

    Q: Where is Google One Pass available today? Google One Pass is currently available in France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and the US and Canada. Publishers in any country where Google Checkout is available can implement Google One Pass.

    Q: What types of content can Google One Pass support? Google One Pass is currently intended for periodicals, such as news and magazines, but is a flexible payment system that can be used for many other types of content.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/16/iPad_accounted_for_12_percent_of_global_mobile_PC_shipments_in_Q4_2010'

    iPad accounted for 12 percent of global mobile PC shipments in Q4 2010

    Publié: février 16, 2011, 6:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    DisplaySearch mobile PC Q4 2010

    NPD's DisplaySearch has joined Canalys as labeling iPad as PC, pushing Apple to the top spot in global mobile PC shipments during fourth-quarter 2010. According to DisplaySearch, Apple shipped 10.2 million mobile PCs, including iPad, compared to second-ranked HP's 9.3 million. Apple's market share: 17.2 percent. It's noteworthy that Apple shipped considerably more smartphones, exceeding 16 million units, during the same quarter.

    The findings pit Canalys and DisplaySearch against Gartner and IDC, which categorize iPad as a media tablet. IDC makes puzzling demarcation: Media tablets range in size from 5 inches to as much as 14 inches and run so-called lightweight operating systems, such as Apple's iOS and Google's Android OS, on ARM processors. However, IDC classifies tablets running Windows on x86 processors as PCs.

    I first raised the "Is iPad a PC?" question in August and October 2010 posts, and it's a question with increasingly broader significance, given some of the multi-core Android tablets introduced over the last six weeks, such as the HTC Flyer, Motorola XOOM and Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.

    "While we anticipate increased competition in the tablet PC market later this year with the introduction of Android Honeycomb-based tablets, Apple's iPad business is complementing a notebook line whose shipments widely exceed the industry average growth rate," Richard Shim, DisplaySearch senior analyst, said in a statement. "Apple is currently benefiting from significant and comprehensive growth from both sectors of the mobile PC spectrum, notebooks and tablet PCs."

    The larger question: Will iPad cannibalize mobile PC shipments? "Cannibalization seems limited at this point," Shim said. However, Gartner and IDC both reported that in fourth quarter iPad did cannibalize netbook sales at the least. It's a fundamental reason often overlooked in explaining why so many manufacturers are suddenly so hot for tablets. Sure, Apple blew open the category last year, shipping 14.8 million units in the first nine months, generating $10 billion in fresh revenue. More broadly, there is the inevitable shift to smaller more portable devices, a longstanding trend tablets are accelerating. PC OEMs need to worry as much, if not more, about shifting existing lines of their PC business to tablets as competing with upstart Apple.

    Last week I asserted that "the PC era is over," as cloud-connected devices, including smartphones and tablets, take on more computing and informational relevance to businesses and the consumer mass-market. From that perspective, DisplaySearch's lumping tablets in with notebook PCs is sensible.

    DisplaySearch offered up mobile PC shipment data with and without tablets, which indicates future growth trends and how the market is changing (and it sure looks like there is cannibalization to me). OEMs shipped 59.6 million mobile PCs, including tablets, in fourth quarter 2010, up 17 percent year over year and 8 percent sequentially -- the highest growth rates since DisplaySearch started tracking the market in 1999. Without tablets, shipments grew only 4 percent year over year and an anemic 1 percent sequential growth. The sequential figure, going into the big holiday sales quarter, foreshadows increased cannibalization -- that's my assertion, not DisplaySearch's.

    Looking at the numbers differently, iPad accounted for about 12 percent of global mobile PC shipments, including tablets, during fourth quarter 2010.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/16/The_real_reason_Android_tablets_don_t_stand_a_chance_against_iPad____onerous_monthly_data_fees'

    The real reason Android tablets don't stand a chance against iPad -- onerous monthly data fees

    Publié: février 16, 2011, 4:29am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Galaxy Tab

    Yesterday, I decided to buy the Galaxy Tab, even though Samsung announced its successor hours earlier. I like the 7-inch form factor, and the Tab seems plenty fast to me, even without those extra cores coming to the Galaxy Tab 10.1. The price is appealing, just $250 after $50 rebate. But the sales process ended abruptly, without a purchase -- not because of last-minute qualms about iPad or worries there wouldn't be enough Android apps. The problem: T-Mobile, like other US carriers, charges too much for the data plans, and they're mandatory.

    Tech blogger and Rackspace employee Robert Scoble claims that iPad will win the tablet wars because of mobile applications. "The only thing that matters is the apps," he asserts. Scoble most certainly is wrong about that. What matters more is the price -- how much more people pay for one product compared to the other. As for the apps, Android has huge momentum and plenty of great apps to compete with Apple's App Store -- and more are coming. But that's a separate topic.

    People do care about price. When Motorola XOOM tablet pricing leaked out as $800, Betanews readers howled in terror at the high pricing. [Update, 2-16-09: Reuters reported that a WiFi-only XOOM tablet will cost $600.]

    But that 800 bucks doesn't include the obligatory data plan, something that smacked me in the face yesterday. T-Mobile has two 7-inch tablets available, the Tab and the Dell Streak. The Streak is only $200 after $50 mail-in rebate. While the Dell appeals on price and full support for T-Mobile network speeds, the Tab's construction and display makes the extra $50 a worthwhile investment. Both tablets' pricing make the XOOM seem even more expensive. To a point.

    For the Streak and Tab, T-Mobile requires a data plan and two-year commitment, and it's not cheap. The two sales guys told me what a bargain $40/month for unlimited data is. "Other carriers charge $60/month," one of them said. The other expressed that I could pay 50 bucks a month at T-Mobile, but qualified for lower pricing as an existing customer. Ah, yeah, thanks. By the way, that unlimited plan really isn't. T-Mobile throttles back bandwidth after 5GB consumption during any single billing period.

    The math wasn't hard. My total cost for a soon-to-obsolete tablet would be minimum $1,210 -- more when adding taxes, regulatory fees and other rip-off charges -- over 24 months.  The entry-level, WiFi-only iPad costs $499. Additional costs the following month: $0. After six months: $0. The iPad might cost twice as much as the Galaxy Tab, but six months of mandatory carrier data fees make them equal.

    HTC Flyer

    So I walked away, remembering #2 of my late-January post "5 things every tablet needs to succeed": "No carrier commitment." These tablets all come with WiFi, which is what I prefer to use. I might squander $15/month for 200MB data transfer. But $25? No way. As for the unlimited plan, I've got one of those for my smartphone. I understand that T-Mobile and other carriers subsidize iPad-competing tablets, but shouldn't eventual pricing attempt to be competitive with the market leader? The whole data pricing thing reminds of cell phone data plans before the June 2007 launch of Apple's iPhone -- ridiculously expensive.

    Apple sells iPad with or without cellular network radios. Buyers can choose WiFi only. Even if they buy a 3G model, the data plan is optional and there is no contractual or time commitments. That Verizon can sell iPad without 3G (since the radios are for AT&T), shows there is demand for the right tablet that offers just WiFi.

    Apple may have more apps, and its tablet may be the early market share leader. But iPad's biggest competitive advantage is price. As long as Android tablets are sold through carriers with costly and mandatory data plans attached, iPad will always be cheaper and more appealing to the mass market. Earlier today HTC unveiled the enticing 7-inch Flyer tablet. It's smaller than iPad, like the Galaxy Tab, but has more powerful processor and more storage than Samsung's tablet. What will it cost? Any price with hefty carrier data fees will be, compared to iPad, too much.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/15/Androidify__I_made_myself_into_a_Google_robot_mascot__and_you_can_too'

    Androidify: I made myself into a Google robot mascot, and you can too

    Publié: février 15, 2011, 9:31pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Androidify

    Who doesn't like a cool avatar? What better for an Android user than you personalized as Google's droid mascot? Yesterday, Google released Androidify to the Android Marketplace, which I downloaded last night. The app starts with the typical green droid, which users can customize to suit their fancies. My first effort, and most certainly not my last, is above. I replaced my Facebook and Twitter avatars last night.

    The app is easy enough to use, and it's hugely finger friendly. Just touch and drag to resize head, torso or limbs. Google lets users choose attire, hairstyle and other attributes. But Androidify isn't what I expected. For no particular reason, I imagined that Google's app would use the phone's camera to take a photo and Androidify the image. So much for my imagination.

    Google Creative Lab and Larva Labs codeveloped the app, which is a great marketing gimmick. Already the green droid mascot is a hugely appealing and identifiable brand representation of Android. It's smart marketing to let Android enthusiasts do an Avatar droid makeover they can easily share. As I have so oft-times asserted: Enthusiasts are any company's best marketers (To be fair, I heard it first from Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg when we worked together at JupiterResearch). There are more than 700 user reviews.

    Androidify is by no means a productivity app, and I expect most people will tire of it quickly. But it's a fun tool for creating new avatars, and, frankly, who really can have enough of them? But is Androidify a fad already out of control? Russell Holly tweeted yesterday: "My twitter feed is a relatively constant stream of #androidify avatars. God help me haha."

    Androdify isn't the only Android makeover on the InterWebs. Among them: MetroPCS' "Android for All" contest, which concludes on March 14th. Participants create and customize their own Android robots; winners will be chosen in a vote conducted between March 15-31.

    Chines New Year Android Collectible

    My favorite Christmas 2010 present was a green Android mini collectable purchased for $8.99 from Amazon seller Fancy Toys (the collectible sells for $11.99 today -- now why is that?). DYZPLASTIC is the place for information on upcoming Android collectibles. Series 02 is scheduled to release in March. The Chinese New Year Android mini collectible (photo above) was limited edition and it's adorably cute. I want one! Don't you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/15/Apple_App_Store_subscription_plan_gouges_publishers__eats_their_young'

    Apple App Store subscription plan gouges publishers, eats their young

    Publié: février 15, 2011, 5:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Somebody call the cops -- eh, antitrust authorities. Apple's subscription plan is here, and it's as bad for many, if not most, publishers as rumored. The first of several key sentences from Apple's press announcement: "Publishers may no longer provide links in their apps (to a website, for example) which allow the customer to purchase content or subscriptions outside of the app." That means you Amazon Kindle; before the announcement, all Kindle transactions took place outside the app in a web browser. This change applies to any content, but it's nestled in the subscriptions announcement.

    Another piece of nastiness: "Apple does require that if a publisher chooses to sell a digital subscription separately outside of the app, that same subscription offer must be made available, at the same price or less, to customers who wish to subscribe from within the app." That rule conceptually would prevent some publishers from extending to existing customers the benefits of a free iPad subscription.

    So, Apple doesn't prohibit publishers from selling subscriptions outside the app -- how could it and get anyone to offer content? But the company does fix prices. So if publisher A charges 50 bucks a year and wants to offer a holiday or school graduation promotion from its website, the deal must be offered for app subscriptions, too. Remember, Apple collects 30 percent from publishers.

    No one should misunderstand other terms, as stated in Apple's press release: "Publishers can sell digital subscriptions on their websites, or can choose to provide free access to existing subscribers. Since Apple is not involved in these transactions, there is no revenue sharing or exchange of customer information with Apple." Based on the wording in context, Apple isn't saying that app subscriptions can be offered free to existing customers but that publishers can offer free subscriptions on their websites (I am asking Apple for clarification).

    "Our philosophy is simple -- when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing," Apple CEO Steve Jobs, said in a statement. "All we require is that, if a publisher is making a subscription offer outside of the app, the same (or better) offer be made inside the app, so that customers can easily subscribe with one-click right in the app."

    That "philosophy" could be considered anticompetitive. I laid out why in February 3rd post: "iPad is a devil's deal for publishers." Apple is imposing restrictions on how publishers conduct their business from a monopoly position. Apple has the leading App Store, with 300,000 applications and more than 10 billion downloads. According to IDC, iPad had 87.4 percent share of the global media tablet market in third calendar quarter 2010. That by most measures is a monopoly position. By comparison, Amazon had 41.5 percent e-reader market share in Q3, based on 1.14 million units shipped. Apple shipped 4.2 million iPads in the same quarter and 7.331 million in the one following.

    The content changes and subscription rules raise two areas of potential monopoly/antitrust concern:

    1. Apple is attempting, whether intentionally or not, to fix prices for all kinds of digital content, with the restriction that pricing must be the same in-app as elsewhere -- all while collecting a 30 percent cut from publishers. There's no anticompetitive problem if few publishers sign up for this devil's deal.

    There's an irony here, or perhaps some payback: Music publishers effectively forced Apple to abandon its uniform pricing policy. Now it's Apple dictating pricing and more, because no matter what the publisher makes elsewhere, it will always earn less on in-app subscriptions because of Apple's cut. Mmmm, is that monopoly or Mafioso?

    2. Apple's content change affecting Amazon or Barnes & Noble conceptually is an attempt to extend the tablet monopoly into the adjacent e-book reader market. E-books are available for iPad and Kindle and Barnes & Noble Nook readers; Apple has its own iBookStore that is exclusive to iOS devices. Both publishers offer readers from the App Store, which they will now either need to pull or keep at grave competitive disadvantage compared to Apple, which will make more on every book sold through the App Store; Amazon and Barnes & Noble would have to give Apple a 30 percent cut for every sale, something not required before today's announcement. The book publishers must either raise prices or suck up profits handed to Apple, should they keep their iOS apps. The maneuver could allow Apple to crush the emerging e-reader market for devices like Kindle and Nook, with price being leverage.

    The deadline for complying to the subscription changes, which presumably apply to content changes, is June 30, according to a post at All Things Digital. However, earlier, some publishers put the date at April 1.

    By the way, I consider Apple 2.0 Blog reporting to be fairly friendly to Apple. When a Philip Elmer-DeWitt post has headline "Steve Jobs to pubs: Our way or highway" or calls an Apple plan "as draconian as the publishers feared," something really is amiss. Hehe, perhaps more publishers will consider Android tablets now.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/15/Say__whatever_happened_to_that_1_million_Verizon_iPhones_sold_announcement_'

    Say, whatever happened to that 1 million Verizon iPhones sold announcement?

    Publié: février 15, 2011, 12:25am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mobile World Congress is too great a public relations opportunity for Apple to pass up. The company is notorious for stealing thunder from events like this one. That's why something missing today is so revealing. There was no Apple press release touting Verizon iPhone weekend sales. Even if there was no industry mobile event in Barcelona, it would be typical for Apple to tout early sales, as it did with iPad (300,000 first day) and iPhone 4 (1.7 million first weekend).

    Apple's silence strongly suggets that those short lines on launch day were no flukes. I heard lots of excuses, in Betanews comments or Twitter, citing bad weather. For example, in response to my post "Verizon iPhone post mortem: Three lessons and some humble pie," Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg tweeted: "You're kidding right? Preorders and reservations along with frigid weather means no lines. But better prepared than not." To which I responded: "It's sunny here in San Diego and lines are short at Apple Store. 'There's not been a line at any point' said one rep."

    If people want something bad enough, they'll wait in the cold to buy it -- and by measure of blog and news media hype plenty of people were ready to do just that. Last week, Bob Brown wrote at Macworld UK: "More than a quarter of AT&T customers and about a quarter of Verizon customers say they are willing to wait in line on Feb. 10 to switch over to Apple iPhones that will run on Verizon's 3G wireless network." He and others based first-day expectations on a 700-person survey conducted by uSamp. There were others.

    As for the preorder excuse, which got tired real fast, Apple and AT&T took preorders for iPhone 4, too. They didn't stop people from lining up on launch day; and if the preorders were enough to lift launch weekend sales above 1 million, surely there would have been an announcement from either Apple or Verizon, perhaps both, by now.

    I'm not suggesting sales were bad, which is a relative measure. But there's every indication, starting with those short lines all weekend long (for the most part none, really), that first-weekend sales weren't what either Apple or Verizon expected. Otherwise, Apple would gloat and steal something from Mobile World Congress Day 1 announcements.

    Perhaps many vocal AT&T iPhone users who vowed to switch because they were sick of dropped calls backed down when assessing switching costs or what they would give up -- like the ability to make calls and do data simultaneously. It's an addicting capability I wouldn't give up. Perhaps Verizon so successfully marketed the Droid line over the past 18 months that there were fewer customers willing or capable of switching, despite sweet incentives to do just that. Perhaps many other potential buyers are holding out for iPhone 5 before getting locked into another two-year contractual commitment. There are probably plenty of possible reasons for which any combination could be right.

    For my blogger friends or journalist colleagues, I've got some advice: If you read nothing else this month, or even this year, make it "The Order of Things: What college rankings really tell us," by Malcolm Gladwell in the current The New Yorker. Gladwell uses rankings conducted by Car and Driver and US News & World Report to show how some statistical analyses can land far off the mark. It's important reading, because right now it seems like every Tom, Dick and Harry with an Excel spreadsheet is making crazy predictions about iPad, iPhone and the mobile device market in general. To reiterate, based on analyses reported in the two weeks before Verizon iPhone went on sale, there should have been long lines and lots of switchers from Android handsets from within the carrier or coming from AT&T for more reliable service. Clearly somebody was wrong.

    I'm very discerning of which analyst reports I write about, and I even treat industry heavyweights like Gartner and IDC with cautious eyes. Bloggers and journalists covering Apple or the mobile industry would do readers a service by balancing analyst reports against others; I pledge to do more of that myself. Many of these so-called analyses shouldn't be reported at all, such as those making bold predictions based on how their service or advertising network is used on mobile devices.

    As for Verizon iPhone sales, who knows? Maybe there will be a press release tomorrow or later this week. How long Apple takes to tout early sales, particularly that magic 1 million number, will reveal something important about expectations versus reality.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/11/Verizon_iPhone_launch_post_mortem__Three_lessons_and_some_humble_pie'

    Verizon iPhone launch post mortem: Three lessons and some humble pie

    Publié: février 11, 2011, 10:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    No matter what sales numbers Apple or Verizon eventually boasts about, iPhone 4's launch on the carrier cannot be called a resounding success -- at least compared to others. Launch day got off with short customer lines, something Apple simply isn't accustomed to or was prepared for. The Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists fed the frenzy, raising expectations about Day 1 on Verizon. There was fizzle instead of pop yesterday.

    In doing a post mortem, I see three things the Verizon iPhone launch reveals about Apple.

    1. Apple botched launch preparations. Apple stores opened early, with loads of staff inside and lots of food and drinks ready for customers waiting in line. Except there were no big crowds. The company clearly overestimated in-store demand for the Verizon phone, something also indicated by customers receiving preorders early and actual orders starting a day earlier than planned. Sure, Verizon sold out preorders in just a couple of hours but never said how many. It's possible to view orders and delivery as Apple's well-oiled distribution channel working efficiently. Based on the lack of crowds, early demand is as likely, if not more likely, to have been considerably less than Apple anticipated.

    2. Bloggers and journalists are overly obsessed with Apple -- to a fault. There is clearly pro-Apple bias, which I previously wrote about -- twice in March 2010 (here and here). Verizon iPhone Day 1 shows how bad is the problem, by how hype worked against Apple. Apple's handset has been called the "Jesus phone," for its popularity. Overly positive posts about the Verizon iPhone -- many making outrageous sales projections and switcher predictions -- essentially proclaimed the Second Coming of the Jesus phone on Jan. 10, 2011. The Apple fan club overly raised expectations, and even Apple executives may have been taken in by the hype when planning for launch day.

    3. Apple's stock is nowhere as safe as Wall Street analysts lead investors to believe, and there is a whole lot of denial going about the rocky Verizon iPhone launch. Apple shares plunged suddenly yesterday, in what Apple 2.0 blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt described as a "flash crash." He writes: "Except for the surprisingly short iPhone lines at Verizon stores Thursday, there didn't seem to be any news behind the sell off." What? Short lines wasn't reason enough in context of big sales expectations?

    The big wave of news stories about the short lines started to crest between Noon and 1 p.m. ET, yesterday. For example, CNET posted images of short lines at 12:14 p.m. ET. Then right around 1 p.m. came several stories based on a Piper Jaffray quickie survey of 40 customers at Apple and Verizon stores: Only 8 percent of buyers were switching from AT&T. But the Apple fan club of bloggers had been writing about churn of 26 percent or more. The flash crash came soon after the 8-percent figure was reported. It's not rocket science to see a connection.

    I've been complaining for more than 18 months that too much of Apple's share performance is about perception -- something the biased blog posts and news stories feed. Sure, there are good reasons to invest in Apple and believe in its future, that is based on performance. But there are clear indications that hype and rumors overly influence the share price. If the hype turns bad, then what of Apple shares?

    Something else: How much can investors trust Wall Street analysts when they are infected by Apple hype and live in denial when expectations fall short of reality? For example, yesterday at Pioneer Press/TwinCities.com, Julio Ojeda-Zapata wrote about experiences at an "Apple Store with short lines." He wasn't alone: "Piper Jaffrey analyst Gene Munster was with me at the megamall, and he speculated that the Verizon-iPhone preorders may have had a great deal to [do] with the lack of queuing. Also, he said, it is a work day (past Apple-product launches have often occurred on a weekend)." Oh yeah? Apple offered preorders for iPhone 4 last summer and there were still massive lines. The other US iPhone launches occurred on weekdays. I hear denial talking. Do you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/11/Microsoft_is_the_plague__Nokia_stock_drops_14%_as_1_000_employees_walk_out'

    Microsoft is the plague: Nokia stock drops 14% as 1,000 employees walk out

    Publié: février 11, 2011, 7:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    First Tunisia. Then Egypt. Now Nokia. The twittersphere is again afire with buzz about massive protests. They're not political this time, but the outcome could be just the same. Can Nokia CEO Stephen Elop survive the revolution?

    Nokia employees aren't responding well to today's sweeping deal with Microsoft. They're mad, as they should be. A few hours ago I called the agreement, which swaps Symbian for Windows Phone as Nokia's primary mobile platform, a "silent takeover...If I were a Nokia employee or investor, I'd stage a revolt." Apparently employees and shareholders are doing just that.

    Investors punished Nokia shares with a 14-percent decline. Meanwhile, about 1,000 employees walked off the job, using flexible work-hour plans to do so, apparently protesting Nokia's deal with Microsoft. There is plenty of Twitter buzz, unfortunately too much of it in Finnish (Hey, my second language was Latin, and I'm rusty at that). But the reaction I can read is absolutely chilling.

    Nebil: "#Nokia RIP. #Microsoft will leach you out of your existence. Nokia bends to pick up the soap."

    Turcu Ciprian: "I think #nokia did a big mistake. No offense #microsoft but Android would of been a better way to go if they wanted a slice of the cheese."

    Rajinder Yadav: "#Nokia just added fuel to their man on a burning raft. They just killed the QT developer ecosystem today for MS and .NET"

    Justine Devine: "I should start writing a case study now about how #Nokia put themselves out of business."

    Tom Reestman: "I wonder if Elop thinks his 'relationship' w/ #Microsoft will keep him from getting screwed by them down the road?"

    Dale Wilson: "Did #Microsoft send #Elop to #Nokia to stage a coup? Hmmm ... What do you think?"

    Nick Robinson: "Has any other company ever scrapped the OS with the largest market share in favour of one with the smallest?"

    Steven Frank: "A 20 year regime comes to an end after populist revolt."

    Helge Reikeras: "#Nokia you are officially dead to me now."

    Purnateja: "Why Did Stephen Elop decide to Elope with Microsoft?"

    Stephen Elop and Steve Ballmer

    The questions now to ask:

    • Has Elop gone too far to survive the wrath of Nokia employees, investors, customers, developers and partners?
    • Does he still own Microsoft stock (I haven't had time to yet check), which could raise reasonable questions about conflict of interest?
    • Was this all along a plan between Elop and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to gut Nokia's platform in exchange for Windows Phone?

    Remember, Elop only went to Nokia in September, surprisingly giving up his cozy position as president of Microsoft's Business division. He's not only new chief executive but a foreigner -- a Canadian, giving an American company huge influence of one of Europe's oldest industrialists. These are all marks against Elop when tallying up the benefits (none that I see) from today's Microsoft deal.

    Elop may have thought he was starting a revolution, by making so much dramatic change to Nokia. In the end, he may be the victim of a counter-revolution staged by Nokia employees, investors and loyalists. At the least there should be some official investigation into the ties that bind Nokia and Microsoft: A major Microsoft executive becoming Nokia CEO and then cutting a deal six months later that is hugely beneficial to his old company. Something stinks in Finland and also Washington state.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/11/Nokia_swaps_one__burning_platform__for_another_in_Microsoft_s_silent_takeover_of_the_Finnish_phone_maker'

    Nokia swaps one 'burning platform' for another in Microsoft's silent takeover of the Finnish phone maker

    Publié: février 11, 2011, 4:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, folks, we now know why Stephen Elop so suddenly left Microsoft last year and without even giving two week's notice. He was Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's emissary to Nokia. Today, the world's largest handset maker announced a sweeping deal with the world's largest software developer. Nokia is essentially going to swap out Symbian for Windows Phone as its primary mobile operating system.

    The deal is a merger without the red tape, without billions paid out or without the whiles and wherefores of nasty, debilitating integration. Microsoft won't own Nokia, technically, but it's a takeover in principle. A former top Microsoft executive now runs Nokia and he just cut a sweet deal that's all white meat and gravy for Microsoft and gristle and bone for Nokia. If I were a Nokia employee or investor, I'd stage a revolt. Microsoft will be the worst thing to happen to Nokia in years. It's Happy Friday for Microsoft and Nokia rivals.

    In an internal memo leaked earlier in the week, Elop wrote to Nokia employees about the company's burning platform: "We poured gasoline on our own burning platform. I believe we have lacked accountability and leadership to align and direct the company through these disruptive times. We had a series of misses. We haven't been delivering innovation fast enough. We're not collaborating internally. Nokia, our platform is burning." Elop's solution is to swap out one burning platform for another? Someone should hold him accountable before it's too late.

    Ballmer and Elop laid out the broad terms of the deal in an "open letter." According to the document, "Nokia will adopt Windows Phone as its primary smartphone strategy"; "Nokia will help drive and define the future of Windows Phone"; Nokia and Microsoft will closely collaborate on development, joint marketing initiatives"; "Bing will power Nokia's search services across Nokia devices and services"; "Nokia Maps will be a core part of Microsoft's mapping services"; "Microsoft development tools will be used to create applications to run on Nokia Windows Phones"; "Nokia's content and application store will be integrated with Microsoft Marketplace."

    By just about every measure, the major benefits go to Microsoft in this silent takeover of Nokia. Meanwhile, the Finnish phone maker assumes most of the risk. On February 4 I asked: "Does a Microsoft-Nokia mashup make sense, or are its supporters just nuts?" Elop is the crazy one here; Ballmer just cut one hell of a shrewd deal.

    The low points for Nokia:

    1. Nokia will lose customers and market share. It's the inevitable consequence of such a massive operating system switch. Timing is terrible. Android OS sales increased 888.8 percent year over year in 2010, according to Gartner, propelling the Symbian rival to second place in global smartphone operating system share. Meanwhile, Apple is building iOS into a formidable mobile platform across three devices, including hot-selling iPad. A mobile OS transition of this magnitude will take years. Nokia doesn't have the time.

    There's no question Nokia is declining, but that's from a position of still remarkable strength. As measured by device sales, Nokia's market share dropped from 36.4 percent to 28.9 percent year over year in 2010, according to Gartner. Similarly, Nokia's Symbian lost smartphone OS share, falling to 37.6 percent from 46.9 percent. Nokia sold 461 million handsets. Nokia and its licensees sold 111.6 million Symbian smartphones. Symbian is ailing but by no means even close to death, so why euthanize it? Windows Mobile/Phone is all weakness. Microsoft's mobile operating(s) clung to fifth place, with its market share falling to 4.2 percent smartphone OS share from 8.7 percent. It's simply not sensible to swap a market leading platform for an also-ran.

    2. Nokia has too much invested in Symbian, particularly from its developer channel, that would be lost in an operating system transition. Today's loyal developers, particularly those thinking of switching major resources to Android or iOS, would have even fewer reasons not to jump platforms. Make no mistake, a large part of Symbian's appeal is open-source availability. Windows Phone isn't open source and likely will never be. How will Nokia developers react to being compelled to use Microsoft development tools? Now there's a question for you to answer in comments.

    3. Nokia is giving up control of its destiny to Microsoft. Right now, Nokia controls the hardware, software and services stack, like Apple and Research in Motion. It's an enviable position of strength. Nokia should invest in remodeling the house it owns rather than giving control to a landlord -- some Microsoft critics might say slumlord -- and renting back the space. Elop is wrong to call Nokia's platform burning without trying to save it.

    The high points for Microsoft:

    1. The world's largest handset maker, which sold 461 million of the 1.6 billion cell phones in 2010, will distribute Microsoft's ailing mobile operating system. No matter how much Nokia declines during the transition, Windows Phone will pick up desperately needed market share.

    2. Microsoft essentially becomes a handset manufacturer without the risk or expense, despite how many hundreds of millions might be paid to Nokia as part of the arrangement. Microsoft's biggest problem developing a mobile operating system is licensing it and in doing so losing control over hardware integration. The Nokia deal gives Microsoft the closest thing to Apple's vertical integrated hardware, software and services approach without making a phone. By letting Nokia take some responsibility for Windows Phone development, Microsoft can assure that at least one handset manufacturer's devices will tightly integrate with its software and services.

    3. The future of search is mobile, and Bing will rapidly gain share Microsoft couldn't get organically without the Nokia deal. Given Google's global reach, Nokia should have cut a different deal. The upside belongs to Bing.

    4. Ovi services aren't that good, but Nokia still has millions of customers using them. Surely Nokia's giving up its applications store to Windows Phone Market place is but a first step. In any services integration, Microsoft will pick up these customers during the transition -- those that don't flee somewhere else. Given the cloud's importance in the post-PC era, Nokia is ceding control of strategically valuable services to Microsoft. Again, it's just one more way in which the deal is like a silent takeover of Nokia.

    5. Microsoft's mapping service is good, but Google's and Nokia's are better. Nokia already had broad reach and appeal of its mapping service, such that it will gain little from Microsoft.

    The upsides for Microsoft are obvious. Nokia's benefits are harder to measure, which is why I assert the deal is a silent takeover without the expense or responsibility by Microsoft. In their letter, Ballmer and Elop boasted: "There are other mobile ecosystems. We will disrupt them. There will be challenges. We will overcome them. Success requires speed. We will be swift. Together, we see the opportunity, and we have the will, the resources and the drive to succeed."

    Microsoft's and Nokia's responses to the changing mobile market, where Android and iOS became important operating systems in less than three years, is appalling. It's simply outrageous to assert they will cause disruption and act with speed now, given the enormous challenges a major platform switch will entail. Two burning platforms don't make one that's right.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/10/Google_introduces_2_step_account_verification__but_is_it_too_much_to_ask_of_users_'

    Google introduces 2-step account verification, but is it too much to ask of users?

    Publié: février 10, 2011, 7:49pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google 2-step verification

    Google today announced 2-step verification for account holders. The new security feature is rolling out gradually; I haven't received the update and so couldn't test the new feature. I like the concept but wonder how many people will bother to set it up or will cringe at the steps required to use it.

    Like so many other cloud services, Google requires a username and password to login @gmail.com. The new mechanism adds a verification code received by cell phone. Additionally, there are 16-digit app-specific codes for e-mail clients and other applications. The extra layer of security is compelling, but is in some ways daunting.

    In a blog post, Nishit Shah, Google security product manager, said 2-step verification could take as long as 15 minutes to set up. "Once you enable 2-step verification, you'll see an extra page that prompts you for a code when you sign in to your account. After entering your password, Google will call you with the code, send you an SMS message or give you the choice to generate the code for yourself using a mobile application on your Android, BlackBerry or iPhone device. The choice is up to you. When you enter this code after correctly submitting your password we'll have a pretty good idea that the person signing in is actually you."

    The idea is simple: If someone gets your ID and password, they would still need the verification code -- received by cell phone -- to access the Google account. The code is either required for every login or once every 30 days, depending on settings. Google also asks for a second phone number, as back up should the user lose, say, a cell phone. For applications, the 16-digit code replaces the user's normal password. These only need to be set one time.

    I can speak from experience about the dangers of the current username/password mechanism. Over the holidays, my daughter received a YouTube security alert about her account being hacked and asking to log in to the account. It was a phishing message, and the website a fake. She signed in, and hackers seized control of her Google account ID and started spamming her YouTube account. Google responded quickly to my request to recover the account. It's unclear without testing 2-step verification whether the mechanism would have prevented the phishing attack.

    The timing is important for Google. With 300,000-plus activations per day, Android is generating lots of new accounts. It's smart to offer the extra layer of authentication, which is as much about the future as the present, as Google Checkout expands its payment service.

    Both processes -- setting up initial account verification and application-specific codes -- are a lot to ask of computer users. I'll do it. Is it too much for you? Please respond in comments, or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/10/Verizon_iPhone_launch_is_a_bust__as_hordes_of_Apple_Store_employees_wait_for_no_one_to_come'

    Verizon iPhone launch is a bust, as hordes of Apple Store employees wait for no one to come

    Publié: février 10, 2011, 6:04pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple Store no Verizon iPhone line

    So much for the big Verizon iPhone launch: The lines are simply astonishing, as in so small you need a magnifying glass to see them. Don't blink as you walk by the local Apple or Verizon store. You might miss the people waiting to buy a CDMA iPhone 4.

    Perhaps it's all those preorders.

    Could it be because of bad weather across most of the country?

    The phone is available in more places, including Best Buy and Walmart.

    Or maybe, just maybe, the news media has irresponsibly overblown sales expectations.

    Over the last couple weeks all kinds of so-called analyst firms, with crazy-sounding names, popped up with surveys and predictions about how many people would line up to buy or switch to Verizon iPhone, and the Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists gobbled it up. Three days ago, Bob Brown wrote at Macworld UK: "More than a quarter of AT&T customers and about a quarter of Verizon customers say they are willing to wait in line on Feb. 10 to switch over to Apple iPhones that will run on Verizon's 3G wireless network. This according to an online panel survey of 700 smartphone users conducted by market researcher uSamp."

    Verizon iPhone line

    Oh yeah? Take a look at Business Insider's gallery of lines for a realistic look at who really braved the storm to buy Verizon iPhone. Dan Frommer's headline says it all: "Verizon iPhone lines are laughably short." CNET News.com's photo gallery from Apple's Manhattan store is perhaps more startling. Hey, is that a Fox News crew with no news to cover?

    At the Apple 2.0 blog, Philip Elmer-DeWitt used the same uSamp survey to assert in the headline "44 percent of Verizon Android users likely to switch to iPhone on Day One" and in the deck "for Blackberry users it's 66 percent." Over at Mashable, Jodie O'Dell crunched the uSamp numbers differently: "Altogether, 54 percent of the Verizon-using, smartphone-owning respondents said they planned to switch to the Verizon iPhone."

    Verizon iPhone line Manhattan

    Sure, Verizon sold out preorders in just a couple of hours but never said how many. JP Morgan analyst Phil Cusick estimated 500,000 preorders, which would comfortably meet projections of 1 million sales during the first week.

    Analyst estimates for first year Verizon iPhone sales range from 9 million to a seemingly implausible 25 million. Not that you would know that from today's waiting lines.

    Over at Pioneer Press/TwinCities.com, Julio Ojeda-Zapata asks the right question: "What if Apple threw a party and no one came?" The photos of empty lines set against hordes of Apple greeters waiting for buyers are simply embarrassing. Not that the Apple fan club is backing down. "Piper Jaffrey analyst Gene Munster was with me at the megamall, and he speculated that the Verizon-iPhone preorders may have had a great deal to [do] with the lack of queuing," Ojeda-Zapata writes. "Also, he said, it is a work day (past Apple-product launches have often occurred on a weekend)." Oh yeah? Apple offered preorders for iPhone 4 last summer and there were still massive lines. Perhaps Munster works such long hours he can't tell weekdays from weekends; the other US iPhone launches occurred on weekdays.

    The good news for you, if planning to buy the Verizon iPhone, the wait will be short -- nothing like the enormous line of people who waited to get iPhone 4 from the Apple Store at Fashion Valley in San Diego.

    I had planned to check out the line there today, but the mall is undergoing massive renovations that block most of the main area around the Apple Store. There simply isn't enough room for a big line to form.

    Did you wait in line for Verizon iPhone? Please share your story, or better your pics in comments.

    Photo credits, in order of appearance: Christine Bartolucci, Rebecca Casey, Wilson Tang

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/10/Gartner__Android_smartphone_sales_surged_888.8%_in_2010'

    Gartner: Android smartphone sales surged 888.8% in 2010

    Publié: février 10, 2011, 5:06am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gartner Handsets 2010

    In an unexpected turn, Android did better by Gartner's measure than other talliers' reckonings, and the numbers have more punch. Unlike other analyst firms, which measure shipments to carriers and dealers -- what's sometimes called "sales-in" -- Gartner measures "sales-out" to buyers. Manufacturers shipped 67.2 million Android smartphones last year, up from 6.8 million in 2009. That works out to an average 184,000 Android smartphones sold per day. By comparison, Apple sold an average 127,000 iOS smartphones a day, or 46.6 million for the year.

    Android's smartphone OS market share rose to 22.7 percent, putting it in second place, up from 3.9 percent in 2009. Android benefitted from strong manufacturer support. Among the top 10 global handset manufacturers, seven ship Android phones -- second-ranked Samsung and third-ranked LG among them. However, Samsung and LG both lost global handset market share for all 2010.

    But no manufacturer lost share like Nokia. As measured by device sales, Nokia's market share dropped from 36.4 percent to 28.9 percent year over year. Similarly, Nokia's Symbian lost smartphone OS share, falling to 37.6 percent from 46.9 percent. Nokia sold 461 million handsets. Nokia and its licensees sold 111.6 million Symbian smartphones.

    Recent reports from ComScore and Nielsen show US BlackBerry shipment declines, particularly after Apple launched iPhone 4 in June. But globally, based on actual sales, Research in Motion and its smartphone are doing better. RIM moved up into fourth place for global handset sales, selling 47.5 million units for a 38.2 percent year-over-year increase. Gartner reported a strong fourth quarter, with RIM sales strongest in UK, Netherlands and Indonesia. However, Q4 dragged on RIM, despite its overall good performance for all 2010, as competitors grew faster. During fourth quarter, RIM's global handset market share fell to 13.7 percent from 19.5 percent a year earlier.

    RIM also ranked fourth in smartphone OS sales, by both measures ahead of Apple. For the year, fifth-ranked Apple sold 46.6 million handsets, nudging its market share to 2.9 percent from 2.1 percent in 2009; growth was a strong 87.2 percent. Apple claims to have sold 47.5 million iPhones for 2010. But like other manufacturers, Apple really means shipments, or sales-in, to the channel. That said, only about 890,000 units separate Apple's and Gartner's numbers, which reflect excellent inventory management and/or high demand for iPhone 4. As measured by smartphone operating systems, Apple had 15.7 percent market share, up from 14.4 percent a year earlier.

    "Strong smartphone sales in the fourth quarter of 2010 pushed Apple and Research In Motion (RIM) up in our 2010 worldwide ranking of mobile device manufacturers to the No. 5 and No. 4 positions, respectively, displacing Sony Ericsson and Motorola," Carolina Milanesi, Gartner research vice president, said in a statement.

    Gartner said that two factors weighed favorably on Apple's growth -- ending exclusive carrier deals and broadening availablity; iPhone is available through 185 carriers -- what Gartner calls communication service providers. Surprisingly, Gartner identified Apple's Verizon distribution deal as being iPhone's greatest growth driver during 2011. The smartphone officially goes on sale tomorrow, but was available for order online today. Gartner's assumption suggests that iPhone has reached its peak market share growth, which may be somewhat by design. As Gartner noted, Apple's priority has been more about maximizing margins than gaining market share.

    Gartner Smartphones 2010

    The Verizon-iPhone deal isn't advantageous because of potential switchers but for characteristics of the broader market. "Western Europe and North America accounted for 52.3 percent of global smartphone sales in the fourth quarter of 2010, with smartphones accounting for close to half of all handsets sold in these regions," Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst, said in a statement.

    For the broader market, there were 1.6 billion cell phones sold during 2010 -- 452 million during fourth quarter. Smartphones accounted for 19 percent of global handset sales, growing 72.1 percent year over year.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/09/Satya_Nadella_replaces_Bob_Muglia_as_president_of_Microsoft_s_Server_and_Tools_Business'

    Satya Nadella replaces Bob Muglia as president of Microsoft's Server and Tools Business

    Publié: février 9, 2011, 8:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Microsoft began the big, rumored management shakeup with the appointment of Satya Nadella as president of the Server and Tools Business. Supposedly, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is putting more engineering-focused employees in key, management positions. Nadella replaces Bob Muglia, who essentially was fired last month by Ballmer; Muglia will remain during a transition period through summer.

    Like Muglia, Nadella is a long-time Microsoft employee, since 1992, and he more recently oversaw engineering efforts within Microsoft's perennially, money-losing Online Services Business unit. It's an interesting move, to sack the leader who helped build up the highly successful and profitable Server and Tools Business unit and replace him with someone working, since 2007, in a flailing group. OSB has been flapping like a chicken trying to fly above Google for years. Microsoft lags far behind its rival in search share, and the Online Services Business loses money quarter after quarter. It's a money pit.

    Ballmer explains his rationale in an e-mail sent to employees and publicly released by Microsoft: "In deciding who should take the business forward, we wanted someone with the right mix of leadership, vision and hard-core engineering chops. We wanted someone who could define the future of business computing and further expand our ability to bring the cloud to business customers and developers in game-changing ways."

    Ballmer praises Nadella's work at OSB: "He led the overall R&D efforts for some of the largest online services and drove the technical vision and strategy for several important milestones, including the critical launch of Bing, new releases of MSN, Yahoo integration across Bing and adCenter, and much more." Right, but where's the business success from these efforts?

    That said, Ballmer highlights more-important qualities: "Satya is also well-known for his leadership. He has strong collaboration skills, is decisive in both decision-making and delegating and has strong customer insights, engineering and business expertise. He also knows how to structure organizations for outstanding performance."

    Decisiveness and action-taking will be important. Steven Sinfosky embues some of these qualities, and under his leadership the Windows Vista fiasco he inherited turned into the Windows 7 success. If Nadella and Sinofsky are models for the kind of leaders Ballmer wants, surely more changes are coming. But at what cost? "Amitabh Srivastava, senior vice president in the Server and Tools Business, will leave the company," Ballmer writes. Srivastava is one of Azure's key architects and a huge loss to Microsoft. Considering that the cloud is now the Server and Tools Business' primary focus, could it be he is leaving after being passed over as unit president?

    Nadella esposes lofty and aspirational goals. In an e-mail sent to Microsoft employees and publicly released, he writes:

    We are on a path to change the world again with our next generation application development and cloud platform, and I feel fortunate to be part of this transformation. Our core capability as a division -- our computing infrastructure and platforms -- is the key driver of computing going forward. Today we are seeing our existing customers move to the cloud to address issues of cost and complexity; tomorrow, our work as leaders in innovation will result in new scenarios and workloads (some of them unimagined!) enabled in the cloud.

    Change the world? More than the Internet already has done, or cloud services coming long ahead of Microsoft's. The attitude is refreshing, at least.

    Nadella also writes about the importance of teamwork, emphasizing that "Individual agendas cannot bog us down." Last month, I wrote about how Ballmer is consolidating his power base and realigning management with a priority on Microsoft. I explained in January: "No Microsoft leader is sacred enough; anyone can and will be sacked if they put personal agenda or perceived Microsoft agenda ahead of the company. Nearly all the major executives exiting Microsoft over the last year...share something in common: They had a following within the company; purposely or not, they had established mini-fiefdoms." Nadella is communicating something that all Microsoft employees should take very seriously: The company comes first. That this even needs to be said is commentary enough on what's wrong with Microsoft's management structure and how Ballmer is trying to fix it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/09/The_PC_era_is_over'

    The PC era is over

    Publié: février 9, 2011, 5:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I chuckled reading the many posts about IDC fourth-quarter smartphone shipment data. As many writers observed, manufacturers shipped more smartphones than PCs -- 100.9 million versus 92.1 million, respectively. This turnabout was inevitable, and it is more than hugely symbolic. The cloud-connected mobile device era has dawned.

    Frankly, I shouldn't need to declare that the PC era is over, but I expect sharp criticism from many Betanews readers in comments. I say to you: End the denial, and look ahead rather than behind. The PC's decline is inevitable, as was the mainframe's. It was never a matter of if but when, and it's a process still underway that will take years to complete.

    Use your noggin, PC defenders. Where is all the buzz, the excitement among businesses, consumers, developers and manufacturers? The last four years of mobile device buzz remind of the early 1990s, when publications like Computer Shopper, PC Magazine and PC Week wrote endlessly about computer hardware and software. Where's the PC chatter today? It's about smartphones outselling personal computers or tablets cannibalizing PC sales, and that's about it. But mobile applications buzz is simply everywhere. Then there is the obsession with new smartphones and the nearly 100 tablets announced this year. My god, pageviews exploded for my two February 7 stories (here and here) and Motorola XOOM tablet pricing -- oh, and it reminds me of the kind of debate PC pricing would have generated in the 1990s.

    It's All About Shifting Relevancy

    A year ago this month I declared that "The Windows era is over," which led to lots of commenters calling me looney or an idiot; coincidently, Apple market capitalization exceeded Microsoft that day. Last month, Microsoft declared it had sold 300 million copies of Windows 7 since its October 2009 launch, which surely doesn't look like the end of an era -- or does it? Cellular manufacturers shipped more smartphones in 2010 -- 302.6 million, according to IDC  -- than Microsoft sold Windows 7 licenses in 14 months. In one quarter, more cell phones ship than PCs during an entire year. Cellular handsets, quite honestly, are pocket computers. Apple's App Store has more than 300,000 applications and last month topped 10 billion downloads. The cloud-connected device noise is simply deafening.

    Many people will snark at my declaration, assuming that the end of the era is the end of the PC. Not at all. In the 1980s computing and informational relevance shifted from the mainframe to the personal computer in part because of lower costs and greater availability. PCs cost much less than mainframes and made information more available, essentially more mobile, to more people. Similar transition is happening today, as cloud-connected mobile devices make more information available to more people in more places than do PCs. Computing and informational relevance is shifting once again. The mainframe didn't go away because of the PC era, the mainframe's relevancy simply declined. The PC won't go away, but it's relevancy is declining.

    Technological displacement is centuries old and fairly consistent phenomenon. Something new comes along and erodes interest in something else. The pace is slow at first reaching a crescendo, where there is a dramatic shift to the new from the old occurring within a short time span. Some older technologies continue for a time and disappear, while many others remain but in new niches. Some recent -- and not-too-hard-to-grasp -- examples:

    • Horse drawn carriages and trains
    • Trains and automobiles
    • Telegraphs and telephones
    • Mainframes and PCs
    • Digital music downloads and CDs

    There are so many other examples, but I'm trying to make a simple point not give a history lesson. Trains were displaced by autos in the United States but they didn't go away. PCs displaced mainframes, but they're still used as well. Landlines and wireless phones are near their dramatic changing point in many mature markets. Newspapers are in process of being displaced by Web content for PCs and mobile devices, but are likely to co-exist with them for a long time. It's foreshadowing that News Corp. would invest $30 million to launch the tablet-only The Daily newspaper. Times they are a changing now.

    Would You Want to be Buried with Your PC?

    On Halloween 2008, I asked in a Microsoft Watch post: "Will your next PC be a smartphone?" I've been on a tear about the PC era waning before the cloud-connected mobile device era for years. Feature phones and smartphones are much more personal than are PCs. Eleven months ago, writing about a prediction made by a Google employee, I followed up with, here at Betanews: "Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?" My answer was "Yes." But I'll qualify it by adding tablets to smartphones replacing PCs, something that's already occurring, according to Gartner and IDC.

    Compared to PCs, the cellular phone market is:

    • Enormously bigger -- for every PC in use there are five cell phone subscribers, according to the United Nations.
    • Captive -- most people carry mobiles most of the time, but not PCs.
    • Connected -- cell phones have always-on connections, unlike most PCs.
    • More personal -- people care more about their cell phones than PCs. Who asks to be buried with their computers? But it's a common request for mobiles.
    • More global -- more people are likely to have cell phones than PCs, particularly in emerging markets.

    I can already guess the comments, like this one to my March 2010 smartphone post: "Oh, yeah. The infamous annual 'death of the PC' prediction rears its ugly head again." I'm not suggesting the PC is dead or even will soon go away. But its era of dominance is over.

    Be honest. Which is more important to you? Your PC or your smartphone? Which would cause you more distress to fail or to be lost -- your PC or smartphone? Which could you more easily live without for a day or a week -- your PC or smartphone? Which would you rather carry with you most of the time -- your PC or smartphone? Which are you more likely to replace this year -- your PC or smartphone? For which do you read most about newer models and plan which one next to buy -- your PC or smartphone. It's about relevance, and which device has more of it. Please answer the questions in comments, and feel free to answer about tablets along with smartphones or even instead.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/09/Believe_the_rumors__Apple_will_soon_stop_selling_software_at_its_retail_stores'

    Believe the rumors: Apple will soon stop selling software at its retail stores

    Publié: février 9, 2011, 2:06am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mac App Store

    In December I asked: "Should Apple stop selling software in its retail stores?" I reasoned that the Mac App Store greatly diminished the need for Apple retail stores to carry boxed software, which takes up valuable shelf space. In early January, Apple released the Mac App Store, which is part of Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard). I expected Apple would soon go all digital, removing packaged software from its stores. Late last night, MacRumors claimed Apple is preparing to do just that: "Based on what we've heard from our sources, however, Apple is planning on making the move to all digital sooner than expected at their retail stores. Apple is working towards eliminating boxed software and presumably focusing sales through the Mac App Store."

    I can't attest whether or not the rumor is true, or vouch for MacRumors sourcing, but it's what I expected Apple to do, which is why I asked the question. Not everyone agrees this is the right move. In December, Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis told me that "only 43 percent of online software buyers want a digital download only; 30 percent want a box and 22 percent want a download and a box." He didn't see how Apple could meet consumer preferences by going digital download only. I see it differently: 43 percent represents a helluva lot of people, and right now Apple only needs to be concerned with Mac owners.

    There's also the issue of leverage and exposure. Smaller publishers are likely to get more exposure from placement within the operating system than inside the retail store. Late last month Pixelmator made headlines after announcing $1 million in sales after only 20 days in the Mac App Store. Additionally, by pulling boxed software from retail stores, Apple exerts leverage on bigger developers like Adobe and Microsoft to distribute their products through the Mac App Store.

    Over the years Apple and Microsoft have offered special bundles -- discounts on Office for Macintosh purchased with a new computer. How can there be a bundle deal without boxed software available in the retail strore? Easy. Provide buyers a discount with their shiny new Mac, which can be redeemed when purchasing Mac Office.

    Ten years ago next month, Apple released Mac OS X 10.0, with a scarcity of native applications. The company hadn't yet opened one retail store. My how times have changed. Built-in software store is barely 30 days old, but transformative. It's not a question of if Apple stops selling packaged software from its retail stores but when.

    By the way, one comment from my December post deserves calling out. Calc_Yolatuh writes: "Given that nasty art-museum feel they've already got, perhaps the extra whitespace will serve to further crush the spirits of their customers. Actually if they go 100 percent online, I won't even have to walk past their stores anymore." You wish. Not until Apple can materialize/teleport physical purchases is that going to happen.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/07/Would_you_pay_800_bucks_for_the_Motorola_XOOM_'

    Would you pay 800 bucks for the Motorola XOOM?

    Publié: février 7, 2011, 4:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Motorola, or is that Best Buy, sure knows how to dampen enthusiasm for what should otherwise be the hottest Android tablet and iPad's strongest competitor (that is, ahead of Samsung announcing the Galaxy Tab successor). I'm not paying $799.99 for the Moto XOOM? Would you? Oh, yeah, there's fine print: One month Verizon 3G data to, get this, activate the WiFi.

    In business, pricing and perception are everything. Little does more to create unwanted negative perceptions than high pricing. In mass-marketing there are pricing thresholds that trigger sales, and these are particularly important when bringing new products to market against a successful and dominant competitor. For digital singles, 99 cents was it. For Amazon's Kindle: $139.

    According to IDC, in the third quarter iPad had 87.4 percent share of the global media tablet market. Less than two weeks ago, I blogged "5 things every tablet needs to succeed." Among them: Price. Early last month, IDC surveyed more than 2,200 developers, who identified price (57 percent) as their top priority for tablets. So, if not the mass-market, price matters to tablet developers at least.

    The iPad ranges in price from $499 to $829, with storage capacities ranging from 16GB to 64GB and some models packing only WiFi radios and others WiFi and AT&T 3G. The single XOOM model packs slightly larger display, front-and-rear facing cameras, 32GB of storage and Android 3.0 (aka Honeycomb). The pricing is from a leaked Best Buy advert, which has the XOOM going on sale February 24. Over at Boy Genius Report, Andrew Munchbach expresses others may feel: We'll admit, we're still pretty excited about getting our hands on a Motorola XOOM… but that $800 price-tag did take a little bit of wind out of our sails (and may take a little wind out of Moto's sales)."

    Yes, but how many hands realistically will reach for XOOM at 800 bucks? Now, Best Buy pricing may not reflect all pricing that may be available. Carrier-subsidized models might be available for less (We can only hope). So let me ask the question differently: After looking at the video above and the XOOM portable here, how much would XOOM be worth to you? What would you pay for the rocking Honeycomb-based tablet? Please respond in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/06/It_s_Super_Bowl_Sunday__do_you_know_who_s_watching_you_watch_the_game_'

    It's Super Bowl Sunday, do you know who's watching you watch the game?

    Publié: février 6, 2011, 8:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The Super Bowl is as much about advertising, in some respects more, than the actual game. Advertisers are paying as much as $3 million a commercial spot, which is perplexing in this era of targeted advertising on the web. Super Bowl ads hit a mass of people, more than 100 million expected for today's Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers face off, but advertisers don't know who you are. Or do they? It's a question I've been asking, following several unusual events occurring over the past 10 days or so. I'm talking about your privacy and how much less of it you have this Super Bowl Sunday than the last one and how much more advertisers will know about you by next year's playoff.

    I've been thinking lots more about advertising and privacy this week because of Google allegations that Microsoft copied search results and because of a personal experience with targeted advertising. I'll start with the latter. Early last week, I saw banner ads on several tech sites for two different sites where I occasionally buy WordPress themes and cell phones. A few days before seeing the splash banners, I visited both sites -- the one looking for new WordPress themes and the other to buy a case for my Google-branded, Samsung-manufactured Nexus S smartphone.

    Internet Profiling is for Real

    At first, I didn't connect the visitations with the advertising. Instead, I was rather excited to see these two small businesses advertising on sites I visited. But then I got to wondering how coincidental the banner ads might be. So I went on another computer, using a different browser (Safari instead of Chrome) that had never been to the small business sites, and visited the tech sites where the banners appeared. The banner ads consistently appeared on my laptop but not the other. My conclusion: Some ad network is mining my browser's cookies and displaying targeted ads.

    This isn't exactly some startling revelation. This kind of activity is well documented. But I got to thinking about it in several other contexts, starting with the Google-Microsoft scuffle over copying search results. Microsoft denies the charge but does admit to using the "click stream optionally provided by consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals" to improve search relevancy. Google created "100 synthetic queries" -- fakes -- one being "hiybbprqag, and some showed up in Bing searches. Giving Microsoft the benefit of the doubt for the moment and assuming that the data really was collected in bulk, the effectiveness of this mass monitoring is startling. If Microsoft can effectively collect masses of searches and end up copying Google search queries without trying, how much more effective must deliberate data collection be? Even anonymously collected data can be used, or misused if you buy Google's reasoning.

    I also got to thinking about advertising, data collection and privacy in context of News Corp.'s The Daily, a newspaper launched last week for iPad. News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch said that his company spent $30 million in startup costs, and weekly operations are expected to be $500,000, or about $26 million a year. That's a helluva lot of money to spend on a tablet, with an install base of about 14 million at the end of calendar Q4 2011. But The Daily's reach is actually much smaller, being only available in the United States. News Corp. charges 99 cents for their tablet-only newspaper, which is free for the first two weeks thanks to Verizon sponsorship. Sure, with little more than 500,000 subscribers The Daily could break even on a weekly basis. But are paying subscribers really News Corp.'s goal? No. It's more about advertising, which Murdoch and The Daily executive staff put in context of the immersive reading experience; longer time spent in the app appeals to advertisers. Perhaps, but there is something more important to them: Identity, knowing who you are and tying that to a demographic profile.

    It's Who You Are That Matters

    The future of advertising is identity, somebody watching your behavior and targeting it with marketing. Amazon already does this today. My wife jokes that Amazon is her best friend, that she gets more e-mail from the retailer than from any person. The e-mails typically are targeted based on recent Amazon searches or purchases. I got one of these today: "Our Most Popular Point & Shoot Digital Cameras." On Friday, I searched Amazon for the Canon PowerShot S95. Amazon also makes product suggestions on the home page, based on your shopping habits.

    Then there are Facebook and Google, for which identity is a valuable commodity. There's a reason why Facebook keeps pushing privacy boundaries. Marketers want access to your profile. Google claims to collect data anonymously, which may even be true for now, but there's an identity behind it for anyone searching the web signed into @gmail.com. The data isn't really anonymous, because Google tracks your search history and even presents it to you by number of visits to different websites. So your identity is tied to something.

    The Daily gets your identity from your Apple ID. Surely Apple knows your App Store and iTunes purchases, which is tied to an identity, even if who you are isn't directly disclosed to third parties -- for now. All this demographic data can be used to generate profiles of different users, based on age and purchasing habits. News Corp. can go further, amassing data on what you read, how much of it and how long you stay in different sections of the tablet newspaper. Surely editors would use this data to improve content and to see what works, but advertisers would want it, too. Other publications and non-publication sites do this kind of data mining already. It's well documented.

    "Every Breath You Take...I'll Be Watching You"

    What does any of this have to do with Super Bowl XLV? From one perspective, the national football playoff is an anachronism. It represents the old way of marketing -- spending mountains of money to reach a massive anonymous audience. But Super Bowl marketing is changing, too.

    If you Google the results during the game, signed in @gmail.com, someone is watching you. If you go to the Super Bowl website, someone is watching you. If you watch any of the Super Bowl commercials on YouTube or other sites, someone is watching you (Heck, Mashable has collected "30 Super Bowl ads you can watch before the big game"). If you go to one of the many Facebook Super Bowl XLV fan pages, someone is watching you. If you use any of the Super Bowl XLV apps for Android or iOS, someone is watching you. I don't mean to sound paranoid, because I'm not. I long ago accepted that because of the Web that I have no real privacy, and neither do you.

    Marketers have pushed social media and viral marketing with a passion ahead of today's game. At the end of last week, there was viral buzz about Volkswagen's "The Force" spots (This one has more than 12.5 million views). Motorola took the approach of putting up 15 seconds of a Xoom tablet commercial. What advertisers are doing around those big anonymously-targeted Super Bowl ad spends foreshadows the future. Think about that next year, when you use a Super Bowl app, search for a local sports bar on your smartphone, enter contests to win gear with your favorite team's logo or log into a Facebook fan page. Now stop reading this post and go watch the game.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/04/Nokia_s_experimental__Bubbles__lets_Symbian_3_users_pop_their_way_through_common_tasks'

    Nokia's experimental 'Bubbles' lets Symbian^3 users pop their way through common tasks

    Publié: février 4, 2011, 8:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nokia Labs today revealed a new user interface motif called "Bubbles." It's one the many odd little research projects Nokia pops out. Some of them become real products, while many others do not. But I often see lots of creativity and invention in what these Nokia researchers dream up.

    Nokia Bubbles is just that -- bubbles that move around the handset's display. They're essentially shortcuts to other functions, such as unlocking the phone, viewing missed calls, accessing e-mail or viewing text messages.

    Nokia Labs is one of the handset manufacturer's best resources, not just for research and development but marketing. The Nokia Labs website and Nokia Conversations YouTube channel are approachable, informative and fun, and c`mon these developers are so stereotypical they could be cast in any movie calling for geeks.

    Their announcements tend to be quite personal. For example, Pauli Asikainen explains about Nokia Bubbles: "When I invented the bubbles concept (with my friend Sami) the idea was to have a fun way to unlock the phone." I love it: "my friend Sami." He continues: "After some thinking it was obvious that bubbles can be used for many other purposes and at the same time have some fun things on your screen. Throwing the bubbles around was one of the first things we did with them. And when you have some event you want to respond to it is very easy and fast to do so."

    While US bloggers and journalists overly obsess about iPhone and proclaim Nokia's demise, the reality is something else. Nokia still ships more handsets than any other company -- 123.7 million in fourth quarter 2010, according to IDC, or nearly 8 times more units than Apple. Nokia's culture is refreshingly open compared to Apple. There is no open Apple beta labs operation; development is kept secret, either completely or safeguarded by developer and manufacturing partner non-disclosure agreements. Nokia may be ailing and lost an enthusiast like me as customer, but its Labs operation and clever marketing show there's plenty of life in the body yet.

    Bubbles is available for Symbian^3 handsets.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/04/Does_a_Microsoft_Nokia_mashup_make_sense__or_are_its_supporters_just_nuts_'

    Does a Microsoft-Nokia mashup make sense, or are its supporters just nuts?

    Publié: février 4, 2011, 7:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I disagree with TechFlash's Todd Bishop, who today writes that a "wholesale shift by Nokia to Windows Phone 7 from Symbian would be a huge change, similar in magnitude to, say, Apple adopting Intel chips." Oh, no, it would be much bigger than that and way riskier. [Editor's Note: Quote corrected for transposed "by" and "to"; I make that kind of mistake all the time.]

    Bishop responds to yet another call for Nokia to enter an unholy operating system alliance with Microsoft or to merge -- this one from Berenberg Bank analyst Adnaan Ahmad. As the TechFlash managing editor rightly observes: "Ever since he went to Nokia, [Stephen] Elop's connection to Microsoft has been viewed as a possible prelude to a tighter relationship." Elop left Microsoft in September 2010, as president of the Business division, to become Nokia's chief executive. As I expressed nearly six months ago, Elop wouldn't be my first choice to run Nokia.

    Perhaps other people are thinking the same thing, because a Microsoft-Nokia mashup dominates the commentary -- like that woud be the most valuable outcome of Elop's jumping ship. Frankly, unless Elop and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had some increased partnership plan or merger in mind before the leadership change, a deal might be even less likely than before. Ballmer expects loyalty. Elop left the important Business division leadership with less than two weeks notice -- simply uncharacteristically short for an executive of high position. That bridge with Microsoft is burned, again, unless Ballmer and Elop already had an understanding.

    A merger would only set back Nokia, at a time when it is facing increased competition from Android smartphones, iPhone and white box and branded feature and dumb phones coming out of China. Microsoft would buy market share that it likely couldn't keep. Nokia's Symbian has already ceded the market share lead in smartphone operating systems to Android. A switch from Symbian to Windows Phone would benefit Microsoft but prove to be disastrous for Nokia. Android share gains aside, the Finnish handset maker already has too much mobile OS fragmentation without taking on another wholesale.

    Also, Nokia has too much invested in Symbian, particularly from its developer channel, that would likely be lost in an operating system transition. Today's loyal developers, particularly those thinking of switching major resources to Android or Apple's iOS, would have even fewer reasons not to jump platforms.

    Then there are the cloud services. While I'm not really impressed with Ovi, Nokia has millions of subscribers who would be displaced in a move putting Windows Live alongside or ahead of existing cloud services. That said, surely Nokia's Windows-only Ovi Suite could be tweaked to sync with Windows Phone. Even so, in an OS switch, the last thing Nokia needs to do is create cloud services confusion or brand problems.

    Long term, however, there are benefits to both companies -- more from a merger. Cloud-connected devices are the future of computing. A report today from All Things Digital claims that in just three weeks Intuit has had 350,000 downloads of its tax-filing app. That's a huge metaphor for the smartphone's future utility -- people filing tax returns. Merging with Nokia would likely cost customers and developers in the short term, but give Microsoft a mobile platform to build for the future -- and that could include tablets and other mobile devices. Microsoft would gain manufacturing and distribution mechanisms and global relationships it doesn't now have and the ability to offer an end-to-end software, hardware and services platform to compete with Apple, HP and Research in Motion.

    The problem about the future is the present. Android and iPhone are competitors that likely will reshape the mobile device industry even before Microsoft and Nokia could complete a merger. It's a tough call for Ballmer and his executive team to make. I wouldn't want to make it. Would you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/03/Samsung_Galaxy_Tab_customers_are_satisfied_enough____return_rate_less_than_2%'

    Samsung Galaxy Tab customers are satisfied enough -- return rate less than 2%

    Publié: février 3, 2011, 11:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's a reason why Betanews didn't report the ridiculous research report claiming that the return rate on Samsung Galaxy Tab tablets was overly high: It wasn't believable. Finally, Samsung has stepped up with its formal denial.

    Samsung posted the statement yesterday (yeah, I missed it; I was celebrating the Lunar New Year on Seoul time): "The return rate of the Galaxy Tab in the US as claimed by an North American market research firm is incorrect. According to Samsung Electronics Mobile Communications Business the return rate is below 2 percent." Now how's that for terse and to the point?

    A day earlier, ITG Investment Research sent the Apple fan club of bloggers and journalists convulsing with excitement, by reporting that the Galaxy Tab return rate in the United States is a stunning 16 percent (less before the holidays). Return rates for iPad are a reported 2 percent. Surely some fan clubbers bloodied their fingers typing overly fast to get out this "iPad rules the Galaxy" news.

    "No wonder sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab to date haven't been what the company expected," John Paczkowski wrote on February 1 at All Things Digital. "Not only are consumers buying fewer of them than previously thought -- they're also returning them more frequently." Ah, maybe not.

    Yesterday, I asked at the local Best Buy Mobile and T-Mobile stores about Galaxy Tab return rates. The guy at the T-Mo store laughed. He had seen news about high return rates and called it ridiculous. Then there's the Amazon product page for the Galaxy Tab (for T-Mobile). While reader reviews are hardly scientific, most people I know use them to gage a product's purchase worthiness. Out of 49 reviews, 33 gave the tablet 5 stars. Three buyers gave 1 star, and two of them reported returning the Tab; that's a 4 percent return rate. The AT&T Galaxy Tab page had only 9 reviews, the majority 5 stars and no 1 stars or returns.

    Samsung had other troubles this week. On January 31, Strategy Analytics used Apple and Samsung shipments into the sales channel to declare iPad market share fell by 20 percent in three months. Hours later the Wall Street Journal pulled an excerpt from Samsung's January 28 earnings call, where an executive responded to a question about the quarter's 2 million shipments. Samsung's Lee Young-hee conceded the 2 million units was "sell-in" to carriers and dealers rather than "sell-through to customers. He reportedly described sales as being "quite small." I blogged defending Strategy Analytics reckoning and questioning what "quite small" could mean. It seemed damn strange to me a Samsung executive would lose face making such a statement. On February 1, Samsung asserted there was a mistranslation and Young-hee said "quite smooth," which makes a helluva lot more sense.

    Samsung is having a bad public relations week for the Galaxy Tab, and I must blame the iPad-obsessed rabble of US bloggers and journalists. Calm down. Haven't you heard? Apple's iPad subscription policies might just put you out of business.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/03/iPad_is_a_devil_s_deal_for_publishers'

    iPad is a devil's deal for publishers

    Publié: février 3, 2011, 8:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's approach to magazine and newspaper subscriptions and third-party e-book sales stink of the kind of practices that got Microsoft into trouble with trustbusters on two continents during the late 1990s and early 2000s. A year ago, publishers embraced iPad as the savior of their industry. Now iPad looks like a devil's deal instead.

    Trouble started three days ago, when Sony said that Apple rejected its Reader software from the App Store in a policy change. Apple responded that there is no policy change. Oh? Well, if there is no overt policy change, it is effectively one of enforcement. Either way, the demands Apple is placing on publishers is too much, and arguably being made from a monopoly position. Essentially, the company wants sales to go through the App Store, which would compel the likes of Amazon and Sony to sell e-books indirectly through Apple and would prohibit magazine and newspaper publishers from offering existing subscribers the benefits of iPad editions without paying more.

    Policy Change by Another Name

    Let's start by identifying what is or is not a policy change. Yesterday, during News Corp.'s The Daily Launch, Eddy Cue, Apple's vice president of Internet Services, said that "You'll hear an announcement from us very soon for other news publications." That suggests the policy for subscriptions, at least, isn't clear -- if Apple still has something to announce. Regarding content sales, Sony surely seemed surprised about its Reader rejection and the reasons for it. Today, various reports surfaced indicating there in fact is a policy/enforcement change, and publishers don't like it.

    In a Bloomberg story, reporters Stephanie Bodoni and Aoife White reveal there are changes coming, despite Apple's assertions to the contrary: "NRC Handelsblad's digital publisher Han-Menno Depeweg said in an e-mail today that Apple told the paper last month that it must route purchases via iTunes starting from April 1. According to Depeweg, Apple told the paper that offering paid subscriptions to its online version and including the iPad version in the price was no longer an acceptable business model in the App Store environment."

    The headline to a Wall Street Journal story by reporters Yukari Iwatani and Jessica Vascellaro is explicit: "Apple to tighten control on content." They write: "Apple is tightening enforcement of a rule governing how some apps for the iPad must handle sales, a shift that affects online books as well as other electronic publications."

    Yesterday, Cue touted Apple's great relationship with publishers. "We think subscriptions is only going to help them get more customers." Oh yeah? What about retaining existing customers. Should Apple be able to dictate to publishers how they sell their newspapers or magazines? From a publisher's perspective, iPad is but another content delivery channel, like retail stores or websites, where the publisher controls the price and customer relationship.

    Before I sold my iPad during the Christmas holidays, The Economist provided a great benefit: Free iPad subscription as an existing print subscriber. That's a benefit Apple is looking to take away starting April 1. Who is the April Fool then, but the publisher cowing before Apple's rigid, and money-grubbing policies? Apple collects a cut of sales or subscriptions through App Store, something it doesn't get when, say, Amazon sells an e-book outside the Kindle app in mobile Safari or when the Wall Street Journal uses its independent billing system to manage iPad, online and print subscriptions.

    Monopoly Power: Microsoft's Past, Apple's Present

    Microsoft got into heaps of trouble for doing much less. The company's antitrust problems started in the early 1990s, for requiring PC manufacturers to pay a licensing fee on every computer even if it sold with a competing operating system. Microsoft settled the case months before Windows 95 shipped. The next US antitrust case, filed in May 1998, had multiple facets. Among them: The constraints Microsoft placed on its PC maker partners, such as controlling apps on the desktop or limiting what could appear on the splash screen when Windows booted. The case lead to Microsoft ceding more control to PC OEMs.

    Apple has the leading App Store, with 300,000 applications and more than 10 billion downloads. According to IDC, iPad had 87.4 percent share of the global media tablet market in third calendar quarter 2010. That by most measures is a monopoly position. By comparison, Amazon had 41.5 percent e-reader market share in Q3, based on 1.14 million units shipped. Apple shipped 4.2 million iPads in the same quarter and 7.331 million in the one following.

    For Apple, there are two areas that could, and frankly should, be investigated by antitrust authorities. Firstly, the control Apple is trying to take away from publishers so that it can charge them more money, from a monopoly position. Secondly, Apple's apparent attempts to extend iPad into the nascent e-reader market. The subscription requirement is bad business for most publishers because they have to charge existing customers more so that Apple gets its cut. But it is Apple's overtures against competing e-bookstores that's more troubling.

    I encourage anyone to compare the number of titles available from Apple's iBookstore to Amazon's, Barnes & Noble's or Sony's. For whatever reason, Apple has much less content. The question is "Why?" Is Apple unable to cut the deals necessary to populate iBookstore? If so, one could argue that compelling competing bookstores to sell in-app, thus giving Apple a cut, leverages from a monopoly position what the company can't get through competition. If Apple can't profit from selling books directly, it will do so by charging competitors. The maneuver could allow Apple to crush the emerging e-reader market for devices like Kindle and Nook. A similar charge, Microsoft leveraging Windows to dominate the nascent browser market, stuck hard.

    No one should underestimate control-freak Apple's willingness to bleed potential publisher partners and others. The time to fight back is now. Not after April 1. Microsoft executives have called the price difference between Macs and Windows PCs an "Apple Tax." There's a new Apple Tax, what the company wants to collect from partners and their customers for using its market dominating App Store and iPad. E-books? Magazine and newspaper subscriptions? There's a tax for that.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/03/Apple_s_modern_success_story_began_with_four_investments_made_10_years_ago'

    Apple's modern success story began with four investments made 10 years ago

    Publié: février 3, 2011, 5:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    First Applle Store Opening Apple executive briefing at first Apple retail store, May 2001.

    Ten years ago -- that's right, 2001 -- Apple made four investments that bore fruit in a 21st-century success story. Everything that came afterwards, even iPad and iPhone, traces back to what I call the "2001 Four."

    Apple made these investments during difficult times. The dot-com bust rippled disastrously through the tech industry, the United States was gripped in recession and Apple's stock value had collapsed. Shares opened at $343.72 today about four bucks off the 52-week high. Apple's market capitalization was $317.21 billion at yesterday's close. Going back in time, Apple shares traded for less than $10 a decade ago. As I explained last month, Apple's fortunes have dramatically changed.

    The four investments all turn 10 this year, and there surely will be anniversary stories from Mac enthusiast blogs and news sites, perhaps even from more mainstream media. But I expect few, if any, will capture the significance of the 2001 four:

    1. In January, Apple unveiled the iTunes music player.

    2. In March, Apple launched troubled Mac OS X 10.0 and relaunched as 10.1 in September.

    3. In May, the company opened Apple Store, in two locations -- California and Virginia.

    4. In October, the first iPod debuted.

    Apple's Gang of Four

    At the time, iTunes, Mac OS X, Apple Store and iPod, seemed like innocuous launches, but they would later be the four pillars raising Apple's brand from obscurity to mass popularity. There was no active blogging community in 2001, just a grabbag of early adopters; the tech news media covered each product's introduction, and there was plenty of skepticism. No one, except some visionaries inside of Apple, saw the potential.

    In January 2001, Apple debuted iTunes for Macintosh, a catchup product released late during the early file-trading era, amid mainstream media skepticism. The world used Windows and Microsoft would greatly update its media player for Windows XP, which shipped in October 2001. There was RealPlayer to compete with, too.

    But the software would eventually morph into a music store, and later one for videos and applications. More importantly, iTunes would become Apple's synchronization engine for all kinds of content.

    In March 2001, Mac enthusiasts were hugely excited about Mac OS X, but it caused Apple to go two, or even three, steps back before taking any forward. Major developers would take years supporting the new operating system. Who could imagine that from Mac OS X, Apple would later create iOS, which today is its most important operating system; iOS products accounted for about 65 percent of Apple revenue during fiscal 2011 first quarter. The developer ecosystem that would later support Apple's App Store cut its teeth on Mac OS X.

    In May 2001, the first Apple Store opened in McLean, Va. I was there for the official news media unveiling and launch days later. Timing struck most analysts I interviewed as strange: Gateway was getting out of retail just as Apple wanted in. But the stores increased exposure to Apple's brand and provided a place to foster Mac community and lifestyle, around digital activities like listening to music and watching, making or sharing videos.

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs started consistently talking about the Mac as digital lifestyle hub, from early 2000. But the company also later extended the Apple lifestyle to Windows PCs, through AirPort Extreme, Apple TV, iPad, iPhone, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store, MobileMe and Time Capsule. Most of these products are sold through Apple Store.

    More broadly, Apple honed its manufacturing and distribution channels to support its retail operations. As I explained last month, these channels proved essential to the success of iPod (in the mid Noughties), iPhone (from 2008) and iPad (2010).

    In October 2001, Apple released iPod, a 5GB music player that excited enthusiasts but not the mainstream market. That success wouldn't really come until the release of iPod mini (2004) and successor iPod nano (2005). Meanwhile, Apple opened more stores and improved distribution logistics and marketing that proved crucial to driving interest in iPhone and iPad. Many of the supplier logistics and contracts crucial to supporting iPhone and iPad evolved from Apple's work on iPod.

    If Not This, No That

    All other major Apple products (but one) that followed derive from -- perhaps crucially depend on -- the 2001 Four:

    • If not Mac OS X, no iMac, MacBook/Mac Pro
    • If not iTunes and Mac OS X, no iLife
    • If not iTunes and iPod, no iTunes Music Store
    • If not iTunes and Mac OS X, no Apple TV
    • If not Mac OS X, no iOS
    • If not iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X, no iPhone
    • If not iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X, no App Store
    • If not iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X, no iPad
    • If not Apple Store, none of the above

    Some people will call my approach simplistic, but think about it. A brief history of product launches based on the 2001 Four:

    • In 2002, Apple launches iLife and begins Switchers marketing campaign
    • In 2003, iTunes Music Store opens, first for Mac and later Windows
    • In 2004, iLife `04 launches with great marketing
    • In 2005, iPod nano makes stunning debut
    • In 2006, first Intel-based Macs ship; "Get a Mac" ads air
    • In 2007, iPhone launches
    • In 2008, App Store opens
    • In 2009, Apple products defy economic recession's gravity
    • In 2010, iPad launches, with nearly 15 million units shipped in first nine months
    • In 2011, the 10 billionth application is downloaded from the iOS App Store; Mac App Store launches

    There is a fifth product that warrants calling out, and it came later: Safari. While Safari probably wouldn't exist without Mac OS X, the browser's lineage is really separate. Safari debuted on Mac OS X in 2003 and on Windows in 2008. The browser is an essential component of many Apple products -- modern iTunes, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch, among them. Safari's importance to Apple and even its competitors can't be understated. Google's Chrome uses the WebKit rendering engine Apple released as open source.

    Few success stories are overnight sensations. Apple made crucial investments during hard times that transformed the company in 2010. Can it get any better than this?

    [Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/02/Search_wars__Microsoft_outdoes_Google_s_copying_claim_by_alleging_fraud'

    Search wars: Microsoft outdoes Google's copying claim by alleging fraud

    Publié: février 2, 2011, 11:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Uh-oh, the plot thickens in the war of words between Google and Microsoft over pilfered search queries. No less than Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president of Microsoft's Online Services Division, has piped up a fervent denial. You know what, emotionally, I want to believe him. Mehdi is one of the few at Microsoft I respect, and he doesn't get enough respect inside the company.

    He blogged this afternoon: "We do not copy results from any of our competitors. Period. Full stop. We have some of the best minds in the world at work on search quality and relevance, and for a competitor to accuse any one of these people of such activity is just insulting." Well, I'm glad that's cleared up, or is it?

    The fuss started yesterday with a blog post at Search Engine Land by Danny Sullivan and another post from Google Fellow Amit Singhal. Singhal's post was as explicit as Mehdi's denial: "However you define copying, the bottom line is, these Bing results came directly from Google."

    Last year, researchers at Google discovered remarkably similar results showing up from Bing -- a little too identical. So Google researchers set a trap. In a surprisingly indignant response, Mehdi accused Google of setting up a "'honeypot' attack to trick Bing. In simple terms, Google's 'experiment' was rigged to manipulate Bing search results through a type of attack also known as 'click fraud.' That's right, the same type of attack employed by spammers on the web to trick consumers and produce bogus search results."

    Let me see if I understand this right. In a blog post presenting reams of evidence, Google accuses Microsoft of copying search results. Microsoft responds by calling Google a spammer and alleges click fraud, with no more backing than one executive's say-so. Seriously, Mehdi has got some balls. Watch your back, Steve Ballmer. There are among your veeps, men who could replace you as chief executive. Remember that when Mehdi was one of MSN's big kahoonas, the division now called the Online Services Business was profitable, and not since.

    "What does all this cloak and dagger click fraud prove?" Mehdi asks. "Nothing anyone in the industry doesn't already know. As we have said before and again in this post, we use click stream optionally provided by consumers in an anonymous fashion as one of 1,000 signals to try and determine whether a site might make sense to be in our index."

    So, like, is that a believable excuse? In a way, it is. Considering that Google is the dominant search engine in most countries, including the United States, its results would dominate the so-called "anonymous click stream" Microsoft collects. But that excuse leaves a lot of unanswered questions. If Microsoft is automatically and anonymously collecting data, then why was the honeypot effective and why is Mehdi's reaction -- something I'd expect from someone who'd been caught with his hands in the honeypot -- accusation about Google playing a trick and committing click fraud?

    Something else: The results might be anonymous for the user, but are they anonymous for the search engine? Surely Microsoft knows what kind of results Bing delivers and can capably sift out the results from other search engines. Then there is the question of how Microsoft incorporates the data collected from all search engines to improve Bing? If there is a kind of cut-and-paste quality to the incorporation, isn't that by definition copying?

    My emotional reaction is to trust Mehdi. But my reasoning doesn't see how Microsoft can collect anonymous data without sifting its search results from competitors; surely that's exactly what OSB researchers would want to do to gauge the effectiveness of Bing search. Additionally, if Microsoft incorporates any of the data into its search processes, how can Mehdi or anyone else reasonably say there is no copying of competitor search queries?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/02/What__The_Daily__means_to_you'

    What 'The Daily' means to you

    Publié: février 2, 2011, 7:53pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The Daily

    At Noon ET today, News Corp. launched its original iPad newspaper The Daily. During an event that started an hour earlier, News Corp. president Rupert Murdoch said the target audience is the 50 million American users expected to have purchased iPads by end of this year.

    The Daily means nothing to you if you don't live in the United States, don't own an iPad or don't plan to buy Apple's tablet. For US iPad users, The Daily builds on some other innovative publications already available for iPad, such as Virgin's Project or Wired. From a user experience perspective, what really differentiates The Daily, immediately anyway, is the subscription model -- "14 cents a day," Murdoch says. Right now, iPad publications like The New Yorker and Wired are only available on one-off bases, and they cost lots more.

    Price is everything in news, something a media mogul like Murdoch knows all too well. Every newspaper's biggest competitor is free content, of which there is plenty on the Web -- and then some. The Daily readers will be billed 99 cents per week or $39.99 per year. So for the price of one song from iTunes store, iPad users can get a week's The Daily, with its mix of text, 360-degree photos and HD videos.

    During today's event, Apple promised an announcement in the near future about subscriptions being available for other publications. In that regard, The Daily will mean something to people who want iPad versions of publications for which they must pay near-newsstand prices today. But competitors will have to rethink pricing.

    Premium or Mass-market Pricing?

    I sold my iPad in December, but might have kept it had lower subscription prices been available for The New Yorker and other publications. Condé Nast charges $4.99 for each weekly The New Yorker on iPad, much more than the $39.99 for 47 issues in print. Wired.com, which also is owned by Condé Nast, put some perspective on the digital pricing in a Sept. 27, 2010 post. John Abell writes: "Media executives inside and outside of Condé Nast have told wired.com that they are determined to try to charge more for digital subscriptions than they do for print -- small digital dollars instead of print pennies -- because they believe they are offering a much greater experience and value than possible on paper."

    This is exactly the opposite of Murdoch's strategy. During today's launch event he explained how The Daily was designed from the ground up for digital distribution. "New times demand new journalism," he said. In the "tablet era there's room for a fresh and robust voice." That voice is cheaper to produce, despite $30 million start-up costs, savings The Daily will pass onto subscribers, Murdoch emphasized.

    News Corp CEO Rupert MurdochNews Corp. CEO Rupert Murdoch announces The Daily

    The pricing feels right, like 99 cents did for songs and $9.99 for albums, when iTunes Music Store launched in April 2003 -- or that $139 price Amazon introduced for Kindle last year. The Daily promises to offer more immersive news for less money. Is 99 cents really that much different from free? That's the question other publishers will now have to ask. The days of publishers like Condé Nast treating iPad as a premium product are already over. Murdoch is thinking mass market and tens of millions of paying subscribers. "The Daily's success will be determined by its utility and originality," Murdoch said today. Part of that utility is the low subscription pricing.

    Immersion Experience

    Contrary to previous assertions, The Daily won't be exclusive to iPad, Murdoch said that the digital newspaper would be available elsewhere. "We will expect to be on all major tablets," he said. However, "this year and next year belong to Apple."

    What does all this mean for The Daily readers?  In January 2010, I posted: "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other." That was when there were iPad rumors but no official announcement. Six months later came my mea culpa: "I was wrong about Apple iPad." I decided the world needed an iPad, and tablets like it, after all. Apple hadn't announced sales figures yet, and then seemingly early popularity bore little on my turnabout. I changed my position because of my shocking user experience with iPad. I used "immersive" 18 times in that post, describing how reading on iPad was different from books or PC Web browsing: "There is something immersive about consuming content on iPad that does change the Web experience -- and that of other media." During today's The Daily launch event, Murdoch and others repeatedly used "immersive" to describe the user experience.

    Human beings are tool users who experience and manipulate the world through five senses. The eyes are passive instruments, while the hands and fingers are more important because they are active -- they're how people tactilely manipulate the world around them. For example, how important is touch? Watching how people interact with items for sale reveals much. First people look -- and then they touch. Surely, many retailers find all that touching and handling of their goods to be irritating. People examine objects they desire as much with their hands as their eyes.

    The Daily, and some other publications already available for iPad, utilize sight, sound and touch. Part of the immersive experience is the use of these senses to interact with content. Every publisher's dream is immersion. It means that people spend more time consuming their content than others'. That's good from a subscriber retention perspective and for securing advertising. What? You think 99 cents a week will support The Daily? News Corp. needs advertisers for the tablet newspaper to succeed. They'll be looking at reader demographics and how much time subscribers stay in the iPad app. Immersion will be hugely important.

    I won't predict whether or not The Daily will succeed. But I don't see it failing for want of lower subscription pricing or for a more immersive user experience.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/02/02/There_s_nothing_unusual_about_Microsoft_reverse_engineering_Google_search_results_to_improve_Bing__but_is_it_right_'

    There's nothing unusual about Microsoft reverse engineering Google search results to improve Bing, but is it right?

    Publié: février 2, 2011, 3:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    When Microsoft announced its July 2009 search deal with Yahoo, and even before, Steve Ballmer said the increased scale would help improve the quality of Bing search results. Perhaps Microsoft's CEO was wrong, or Yahoo search didn't give enough scale. Bing started serving up Yahoo search results late last year. But Bing also is serving up Google results, as was widely reported yesterday. How desperate is that -- or is it, gasp, clever?

    To briefly, recap: Yesterday morning, at Search Engine Land, Danny Sullivan reported that "Bing has been watching what people search for on Google, the sites they select from Google's results, then uses that information to improve Bing's own search listings. Bing doesn't deny this." They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but c`mon, what's right about this and wrong with the math behind Microsoft's search algorithm?

    Microsoft has a long reputation of copying competitors, and here isn't just copying Google but Yahoo. When Yahoo launched its search engine in the latter 1990s, it did so using people. Human beings tabulated search queries to improve them. Later, Google automated the process, removing the assembly line and improving search results. Microsoft uses a little of the old method to copy Google results.

    Well, that's one way for Microsoft to keep from laying off any more of its 88,414 employees, or perhaps the work is contracted out -- gasp, overseas? Ballmer often touts how much Microsoft spends on research and development. Wouldn't Microsoft R&D dollars be better invested in catching up in mobile rather than lifting search results from Google?

    Copying as Reverse Engineering

    But copying competitors' methods or technologies is nothing new. It's standard business practice everywhere. Companies reverse engineer a successful product and release their own. What is Pepsi but an imitation of Coca-Cola? Microsoft exists today because of successful reverse engineering. Cofounders Paul Allen and Bill Gates are often credited with shrewdly licensing rather than selling MS-DOS to IBM. That allowed Microsoft to license the software to other companies, except there really were none in 1981.

    Then Compaq reverse-engineered IBM's BIOS, changing everything. The Texas-based company built an IBM PC compatible portable, affectionally called a "luggable," that was announced in November 1982 and went on sale in January 1983. The Compaq Portable laid the foundation for modern Microsoft, shifting the primary business to operating systems from programming languages and establishing the partner ecosystem that would spread DOS and later Windows everywhere.

    Copying -- eh, reverse engineering -- is a tried-and-proved-successful business model. Microsoft's reputation for copying competitors -- from Apple's Macintosh user interface (which concept was lifted from Xerox PARC) to many utility features later incorporated into Windows. Microsoft didn't invent the spreadsheet or wordprocessor, even though its productivity suite is overwhelmingly the global leader.

    So, in a way, Microsoft's lifting Google search results and using them to improve Bing isn't all that surprising. After all, Google has far greater scale than Bing to achieve the objectives Ballmer claimed Yahoo search would bring. But getting caught is something else, and it's a helluva black eye for Microsoft.

    Caught in Google's Honey Pot

    Later today, Google will hold a developer event disclosing more information about Android 3.0, aka Honeycomb. Google has another honey. The information giant set up a "honey pot" to catch Microsoft copying search queries. Yesterday, Google Fellow Amit Singhal laid out the gritty details in blog post "Microsoft Bing uses Google search results -- and doesn't deny it." Singhal explains:

    It all started with tarsorrhaphy. Really. As it happens, tarsorrhaphy is a rare surgical procedure on eyelids. And in the summer of 2010, we were looking at the search results for an unusual misspelled query [torsorophy]. Google returned the correct spelling -- tarsorrhaphy -- along with results for the corrected query. At that time, Bing had no results for the misspelling. Later in the summer, Bing started returning our first result to their users without offering the spell correction (see screenshots below). This was very strange. How could they return our first result to their users without the correct spelling? Had they known the correct spelling, they could have returned several more relevant results for the corrected query.

    This example opened our eyes, and over the next few months we noticed that URLs from Google search results would later appear in Bing with increasing frequency for all kinds of queries: popular queries, rare or unusual queries and misspelled queries. Even search results that we would consider mistakes of our algorithms started showing up on Bing.

    Microsoft's reaction set the Web abuzz yesterday. Harry Shum, Bing vice president, posted:

    We woke up to an interesting (and interestingly timed) article by Danny Sullivan about some complaints Google has about how it says Bing ranks results...What we saw in today's story was a spy-novelesque stunt to generate extreme outliers in tail query ranking. It was a creative tactic by a competitor, and we'll take it as a back-handed compliment.

    He went on to describe the history of the web and the importance of collected intelligence. Right, intelligence collected from Google search queries. Microsoft's non-denial has PR tongues wagging at both Google and Microsoft, as MG Siegler smartly observed last night at TechCrunch: "Wow, Microsoft And Google Are Punching Each Other In The Face Right In Front Of Us!"

    But what all the commentators are missing is this: Microsoft using Google search queries to improve Bing results -- in a sense reverse engineering Google's search science -- is business as usual. Is it the right thing to do? That's the question for you to answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/28/Three_important_takeaways_from_Microsoft_s__19.95B_record_quarter'

    Three important takeaways from Microsoft's $19.95B record quarter

    Publié: janvier 28, 2011, 8:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft announced fiscal 2011 second fiscal quarter results after the stock market closed yesterday. The company reported $19.95 billion in revenue and $6.64 billion net income. Business and Entertainment & Devices divisions reported enormous revenue gains, while Windows & Windows Live can only be described as abysmal. Overnight, I took another look at the numbers, from which I want to highlight three takeaways.

    Wall Street didn't respond favorably to Microsoft's quarterly report, but that's typical. It doesn't seem to matter how good are the results, Wall Street won't give Microsoft a break. As I post, Microsoft shares are down 4 percent in late-day trading.

    I present the takeaways -- heck, there are only three, for expediency -- in no order of importance.

    The big Windows 7 sales surge is over. There are reasons why Microsoft touted two statics against one it couldn't: 300 million Windows 7 licenses sold to date and 20 percent of Internet-connected PCs running the operating system. Those numbers contrast against difficult quarterly results for the Windows & Windows Live division. Revenue fell by more than 30 percent year over year. Even when removing a one-time $1.7 billion deferral that artificially boosted fiscal 2010 Q2 revenue and created a tough year-over-year comparison, the division's revenue fell by more than $400 million.

    OEM revenue grew by 2 percent, year over year (when removing the deferral), but OEM licenses declined by 5 percent. In a financial statement, Microsoft attributed its OEM license problems to a "decrease in inventory in our distribution channels and lower Windows attach rates in China." Both measures are foreboding, particularly in context of Microsoft's boasting about the number of Windows 7 license sales. Lower-inventory levels reflect slower sales, and manufacturers and retailers responding by cutting back stock. PC shipments grew at a paltry 2 percent to 4 percent during fiscal Q2, by Microsoft estimates. Growth fell short of Gartner and IDC projections. Whatever PC sales pull Windows 7 had, it's over.

    Related to slowing PC sales is the question of Windows 7 saturation, at least among businesses and consumers most likely to upgrade immediately. Looking at Microsoft's 300 million and 20 percent figures differently, that 300 million licenses represents close to one-third the Windows PC install base (which is estimated to be near 1 billion). By that measure, the number of PCs running Windows 7 is anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent less than the number of licenses sold. This backlog is another factor that will likely slow demand for new licenses at least through the remainder of Microsoft's fiscal year (ending on June 30)

    China is another matter. It is the big growth market, but sales are weak. Has piracy crept back its vicious head in China? Perhaps there is simply less PC demand as mobile carriers build out cellular data networks that make cell phones more attractive alternatives to PCs. It's a well-documented phenomenon that in many emerging markets, the cell phone and not the PC is the first Internet-connected device that a family or small business owns. As mobile applications get better, cell phones can stand in for PCs costing much more.

    Entertainment & Devices margins are awful. The division's revenue rose by 56 percent year over year to $3.698 billion, generating a paltry $679 million in income. Is it even necessary for me to calculate how low are the margins? The division's revenue growth added $1.3 billion to overall Microsoft revenues but little to income. From a brand image perspective, Kinect is a great product for Microsoft, and from that perspective it's a huge success. But its contribution to the quarter, which includes a spike in Xbox 360 consoles, raised margins by only a couple percent. Perhaps it's time for Microsoft to spin-off the division.

    IT organizations are spending on knowledge workers again. Year over year, Microsoft Business division revenue rose a whopping 24 percent during fiscal Q2. Revenue exceeded the Windows & Windows Live division by almost $1 billion and income by more than $700 million. Typically, Windows generates more revenue and income. Office 2010 license sales are 50 percent ahead of where Office 2007 was during comparable time in the sales cycle.

    Earlier this month, Gartner projected that global IT spending would be greater in 2011 than previously forecast -- $3.6 trillion, up 5.1 percent year over year rather than 3.5 percent. More than $250 million is expected to be spent on enterprise software.

    Spending may be up, after being sapped by the 2007-09 recession and stock market collapse of late 2008, but Microsoft's earnings report reveals important changes. Microsoft has typically benefitted from a large number (as high as 40 percent) of businesses adopting annuity license contracts. IT organizations pay for the software plus 29 percent extra annually for two or three years. This extra, or "Software Assurance," provides access to upgrades. However, because of layoffs many businesses already had been renewing for fewer seats.

    Something else new is emerging. During fiscal Q2, business non-annuity revenue grew by 40 percent compared to just 9 percent growth for annuity contracts. Consumers account for some of the transactional licenses. Businesses purchasing this way are least likely to upgrade to the next Office version or even the one after. The break-even point between a one-off sale and annuity license is 3.5 years. Presumably then, many IT organizations aren't planning on upgrading from Office 2010 any sooner than 3.5 years, and more likely longer.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/28/Samsung_and_ZTE_shift_the_spotlight_from_Apple_in_Q4_mobile_phone_shipments'

    Samsung and ZTE shift the spotlight from Apple in Q4 mobile phone shipments

    Publié: janvier 28, 2011, 6:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Samsung and ZTE were big winners selling mobile phones in 2010, based on new data released by IDC. Apple fell from fourth to fifth place. Smartphone shipments drove year-over-year growth to a new quarterly high -- 17.9 percent -- in fourth quarter. Unit shipments rose from 340.5 million units to 401.4 million. IDC measures shipments into the channel, which means unsold handsets are counted. Gartner should soon release actual sales data, for which the numbers will be lower.

    For the year, manufacturers shipped 1.39 billion cell phones, up 18.5 percent from 1.17 billion units a year earlier. The United Nations estimates there are 5 billion cellular subscribers worldwide. IDC predicts that smartphones will be the major sales growth driver through 2014. This year, smartphone shipments are projected to rise by nearly 44 percent year over year.

    "The mobile phone market has the wind behind its sails," Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, said in a statement. "Mobile phone users are eager to swap out older devices for ones that handle data as well as voice, which is driving growth and replacement cycles."

    IDC spotlighted an ongoing trend that American bloggers and journalists obsessed with iPhone have ignored: Handsets coming out of China. ZTE moved up into fourth place in market share, largely from shipping lower-cost handsets into emerging markets. Meanwhile, grey market smartphones -- many of them running Android -- are gaining sales momentum in Asia. These grey market devices often imitate better-selling handsets like iPhone while offering new features or capabilities, such as dual-SIM slots.

    By the way, ZTE pushed Apple into fifth place, and the maker of iPhone risks dropping out of the Top 5 altogether. "Change-up among the number four and five vendors could be a regular occurrence this year," added Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, said in a statement. "Motorola, Research In Motion, and Sony Ericsson, all vendors with a tight focus on the fast-growing smartphone market who had ranked among the top five worldwide vendors during 2010 are well within striking distance to move back into the top five list."

    The data also reveals that contrary to a string of Nokia epitaphs from analysts, bloggers and journalists, the Finnish phone maker isn't dead yet. While Nokia handset shipments declined by 2.4 percent year over year during fourth quarter, to 123.7 million units, smartphone shipments rose by 38 percent. However, for the year, Nokia market share dropped to 32.6 percent from 36.9 percent year over year. Still, Nokia shipped, 453 million handsets, or more than the next three vendors combined among the Top 5.

    Samsung topped 80 million quarterly shipments for the first time, buoyed in part by its hugely successful Galaxy S line. Samsung is having success in emerging markets as well as mature ones. By comparison, iPhone sold particularly well in mature markets, such as Europe and North America.

    IDC phones 2010

    Regionally, South Korea emerged as the big market for Asia-Pacific, accounting for about two-thirds of Q4 phone shipments. In Western Europe, smartphones pushed down feature phones, which declined at their briskest pace ever. Among smartphones, Apple iPhone 4, HTC Desire, Nokia N8, Research in Motion Blackberry 852S and Samsung Galaxy S were the big sellers (presented alphabetically by carrier not by shipments).

    In Central Europe, Middle East and Africa, quarterly shipments topped 70 million units -- a new high -- led by the aforementioned Chinese branded and unbranded handsets. In North America and Latin America, smartphones continued to drive shipment volumes. ZTE pushed hard into the latter region.

    IDC phones 2010

    Again, I'd like to point out the American ethnocentric -- and quite honestly Apple-biased -- tendencies of bloggers and journalists here. The IDC numbers aren't being reported as widely today as previous quarterly shipments. Perhaps because the numbers aren't exceptional for Apple. The few reports I've seen focus more on Apple falling to fifth place than anything else, missing the broader and more important global trends.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/27/Microsoft_Q2_2011_by_the_numbers__Record__19.95B_revenue__77_cents_EPS'

    Microsoft Q2 2011 by the numbers: Record $19.95B revenue, 77 cents EPS

    Publié: janvier 27, 2011, 10:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Editor's Note: This was a live document from 4:20 p.m. EDT until 5:40 p.m.]

    Microsoft weathered the brunt of slower-than-forecast PC sales to beat Wall Street consensus for fiscal 2011 second quarter. The software giant announced earnings after the bell, for the three-month period ended Dec. 31, 2010.

    Microsoft revenue rose 5 percent to $19.95 billion, year over year. Operating income: $8.17 billion, down 4 percent. Net income: $6.64 billion, or 77 cents a share. Earnings per share rose by 4 percent year over year. However, Microsoft stated growth rates when counting a $1.7 billion deferral related to Windows 7's launch in the year-ago quarter. Without the deferral, revenue grew by 15 percent, operating income by 20 percent and earnings per share by 28 percent.

    Two years ago this month, Microsoft stopped providing Wall Street analysts with quarterly and yearly guidance, in a move that is highly unusual for so large and so successful a public company. I've long argued that Microsoft's refusal to give guidance creates unnecessary negative perceptions about its performance. As such, Wall Street analysts had to rely solely on their wits to call the quarter. Average consensus was $19.14 billion revenue and 68 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $18.52 billion to $19.73 billion. So Microsoft topped the Street.

    PC shipments hung like a shadow over Microsoft results. Fifteen days ago, Gartner and IDC reported weaker-than-expected demand during fourth calendar quarter, which coincides with Microsoft's second fiscal quarter. PC manufacturers shipped 93.5 million PCs globally, up 3.1 percent year over year, according to Gartner. The analyst firm had forecast 4.8 percent growth. IDC put the number at a lower 92.1 million and growth 2.7 percent. US PC sales declined 6.6 percent to 19.1 million, according to Gartner, which previously forecast 10 percent year-over-year growth. IDC put shipments at a higher 19.9 percent and the decline a lower 4.8 percent. Both firm's numbers are preliminary.

    Both firms said that slow consumer demand, even with the holidays, contributed to actual shipments. But iPad had more tremendous impact. Yesterday, Canalys broke rank with other analyst firms by counting iPad as a PC. By that reckoning, Apple dramatically jumps to third spot in global PC market share, ahead of Dell and behind HP and Acer.

    Q2 2011 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $5.056 billion, down from $7.193 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $4.39 billion, up 10 percent from $3.978 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $6.032 billion, up 24 percent from $4.864 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $691 million, up 19 percent from $579 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $3.698 billion, up 56 percent from $2.381 billion a year earlier.

    The quarter represents the first for sales of Windows Phone 7 and Xbox Kinect. The company said that there were 2 million Windows Phone handsets sold in 2010, which really means shipped. Microsoft shipped more than 8 million Kinect game console controllers.

    Microsoft's most immediate challenge remains mobile, where upstarts like Apple and Google body slammed Microsoft during 2009-10. But there is new competition from iPad, too. Apple shipped 7.331 million tablets during fourth calendar quarter for a total of 14.789 million in just nine months. Apple's tablet generated nearly $10 billion in new revenue during the first nine months of availability. Adding in iPhone and iPod touch, iOS devices accounted for about two-thirds of the quarter's revenue. Apple had sold 160 million cumulative iOS devices. The point: Apple is no longer dependent on Macs, which compete with overwhelming marketing-leading Windows PCs.

    By most every estimate, mobiles are the future of computing, something iPad's negative impact on PC sales shows. Mobile applications are set to generate enormous revenues that may soon begin to cannibalize PC applications. Gartner predicts $15 billion revenue generated by mobile apps this year, up nearly three times from 2010.

    Q2 2011 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $3.251 billion, down from $5.417 billion a year earlier (20 percent growth when adding deferral).
    • Server & Tools: $1.776 billion, from $1.464 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.965 billion, up from $2.947 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $543 million, up from $463 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $679 million, up $365 million a year earlier.

    Microsoft said that it has now sold over 300 million Windows 7 licenses (which doesn't mean all, or even most, have been deployed). Twenty percent of Internet-connected PCs now run the operating system, according to the company.

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Microsoft's flagship division received a double-whammy during fiscal Q2, the effects of a $1.7 billion deferral in the year-ago quarter and macro-effects in the PC market. "OEM revenue decreased $1.8 billion or 32 percent," according to Microsoft financial filings. "This decrease was driven by the prior year launch of Windows 7, reflecting a decrease in inventory in our distribution channels, and lower Windows attach rates in China, partially offset by PC market growth." As such, OEM revenue grew by 2 percent, year over year. OEM licenses declined by 5 percent. Microsoft projected PC shipment growth was between 2 percent to 4 percent.

    Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements; annuity revenue grew by 11 percent year over year. Additionally, enterprise services revenue grew by 9 percent, or $69 million. More broadly, revenue rose 10 percent year over year.

    Business. The division was the quarter's big performer, with revenue up 24 percent year over year. Business non-annuity revenue grew by 40 percent, which isn't ideal. Microsoft benefits more when businesses buy annuity contracts, which revenue grew by just 9 percent. "Office 2010 consumer license sales more than 50 percent ahead of Office 2007 over same period following launch," according to Microsoft financial filings. "Business revenue increased $697 million or 18 percent, primarily reflecting licensing of the 2010 Microsoft Office system to transactional business customers, growth in multi-year volume licensing revenue, and a 7 percent increase in Microsoft Dynamics revenue. Consumer revenue increased $471 million or 49 percent due to sales of the 2010 Microsoft Office system."

    Online Services Business. Search drove up online advertising revenue by 23 percent, that's $117 million to $632 million. Despite revenue gains, the division's loss increased from fiscal Q2 2010.

    Entertainment & Devices. The division's revenue increased a whopping 56 percent year over year, or $1.3 billion. Microsoft shipped 8 million Kinects during first 60 days, which helped drive up Xbox 360 unit sales by 21 percent year over year -- 6.3 million units shipped in the quarter. Related: Xbox Live memberships increased 30 percent.

    Windows Phone 7 is available in 30 countries from 60 carriers. Two million units have shipped.

    [Editor's Note: Percentages corrected in "Revenue by Division"]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/27/Confessions_of_a_former_Nokia_enthusiast'

    Confessions of a former Nokia enthusiast

    Publié: janvier 27, 2011, 6:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Snail taken with Nokia N97

    I love Nokia. It's a global brand with huge, but rapidly declining, global presence. Nokia brought advanced capabilities, like quality photography, video recording and video calling, to its handsets long before competitors. For years, Nokia defined mobile innovation at both ends of the market -- providing quality, affordable handsets to the masses and cutting-edge feature phones to enthusiasts. That was then. I love Nokia, but Nokia doesn't love me.

    Nokia is rapidly bleeding market share, and its once hallowed brand is being hollowed by Apple and competitors like HTC and Samsung that ship Android smartphones. By Nokia's own estimates, its share of the global smartphone market fell to 31 percent during fourth quarter 2010. Nokia's decline is much less about Androids and iPhone and more about the Finnish handset maker falling behind in software and services, and in process losing developer and even customer confidence.

    I've used a variety of Nokia phones over the years and delighted in them all, including the E71, N95 (two different versions), N96, N97 and N900. The phones were rugged, call quality was outstanding and hardware was exceptional -- like the use of Carl Zeiss lenses for the cameras. Older Nokia handsets, like the N95, still have pretty good resale value today just for the parts. 

    Services, Software and Sync

    I'd use Nokia's flagship N8 smartphone if Symbian OS and supporting Ovi services were good enough. They aren't, particularly when compared to Apple's iOS or Android. For example, Nokia let Symbian OS badly fragment, which makes application development more difficult. Meanwhile, Nokia sends mixed messages about what mobile operating system is the future. Is it Symbian or MeeGo? What developer wants to invest resources in an operating system that might disappear? Earlier today, Nokia announced fourth-quarterly results, with CEO Stephen Elop hinting there might be a dual-OS strategy. But could that be triple, if rumors about Nokia offering Windows Phone 7 prove true? Elop recently left Microsoft for Nokia.

    Synchronization is one of the most important areas of Nokia bungling. I first started writing about the importance of sync nine years ago, while working for CNET News.com. In March 2008, while editor of Microsoft Watch, I described sync as the killer application for the connected age. Apple gets sync mostly right (not completely because a computer is still required for some capabilities), and Google does better on Android.

    Synchronization is more than just about contacts, calendars, e-mail or to-do lists. There is application sync/updating, which Google does exceptionally well with Android Marketplace. Ovi Store is disappointing by almost every measure. Given Nokia's global presence and longstanding and successful relationship with developers, Ovi Store should be chock full of interesting applications that are easily downloaded and updated. But fragmented Nokia operating systems limit what apps are available for what device, and the number of interesting apps isn't growing.

    By volume, Symbian should appeal more to developers than iPhone. During Q4 2010, Nokia shipped 28.3 million smartphones, or about 8 million more than Apple. Shipments rose 36 percent year over year and 7 percent sequentially. More broadly, Nokia shipped 123.7 million mobile devices, down 3 percent year over year and up 12 percent sequentially. Looked at another way, in one quarter Nokia shipped about 10 percent of the year's projected 1.3 billion units for all manufacturers globally.

    Market share vs Mind Share

    But the rumors and excitement once given to the next "N-Series" Nokia phone now goes to Androids and iPhone. On much smaller install base and quarterly shipments, Apple has had far bigger success with its applications store, racking up the 10 billionth download over the weekend. Long-time enthusiasts like me have abandoned a beloved brand. Then there are the Nokia has-been blogs and news stories, which numbers will be higher today based on the company's quarterly numbers and board of directors reshuffling. It doesn't help that Nokia has almost no visibility in the United States, and that some new phones planned for the market recently were delayed if not dropped altogether.

    Nokia is still huge. Its install base dwarfs Androids and iPhone. Its market share is enormous -- 70 percent or more in some markets -- and its manufacturing and distribution operations are massive (sorry, Apple). Not that most people in North America would know. Nokia's failure to have even meaningful presence here borders on corporate misconduct. How the hell can the world's largest handset manufacturer be nearly invisible in the world's largest economy -- the United States -- and not much more visible in neighboring Canada?

    I took the photo above using the Nokia N97. That's right, it's not from a camera but from a smartphone. The image is symbolic. Nokia is moving at a snail's pace, while competitors Apple and Google run like rabbits. Nokia announced the N8 more than six months before its release, with massive marketing along the way. By the time the phone released, Apple had already leapt ahead (in most respects) with iPhone 4 and Nokia had exhausted interest in the N8 for overhyping something not available to buy. The announcement should have come sooner to launch and most of the marketing support after.

    Today, many bloggers and journalists will fulfill their quarterly ritual of writing Nokia's epitaph. They'll get another chance when IDC and Gartner announce their handset numbers. I haven't given up on Nokia as a company, but, for now, I've given up using its handsets. Nokia has a huge perception problem right now that makes its situation appear direr than it really is. But Nokia's biggest problem is losing enthusiasts like me. I love you, Nokia. This post is my giving you a little tough love.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/27/Did_you_miss_out_on_the_Chrome_OS_notebook__Psst__you_can_still_get_one'

    Did you miss out on the Chrome OS notebook? Psst, you can still get one

    Publié: janvier 27, 2011, 3:40am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A fair number of Betanews readers have asked how they could get Google's unbranded Cr-48 notebook running Chrome OS. On Dec. 7, 2010, the information giant announced a pilot distributing 60,000 notebooks -- a grand test for those folks ambitious enough to live on the web for as long as six months. I assumed that Google had given out all the laptops. Either it didn't or there's a new batch to be had.

    In a blog posted late this afternoon Eastern Time, Heaven Kim, Google product marketing manager, writes: "If you already live on the web and are itching to get your hands on a Chrome notebook, we've teamed up with a few Web Store apps for a chance to test-pilot the Cr-48. Check out blog posts from MOG, Box, LucidChart, and Zoho for more details. Then go ahead and rock out with 10 million songs, manage your files in the cloud, perfect your diagram drawing skills or move your office onto the web. While you're at it, you might also discover a new favorite app among the more than 2,000 apps in the Chrome Web Store."

    Google is promoting Web Store partners through a simple but compelling offer: Try the service, then sign up to get a Cr-48 notebook. Do you want one? Are you bummed for missing out in December? Google is giving you a second chance.

    By the way, there's other Google OS news shakin' up the InterWebs today. Google has released a preview of Honeycomb (aka Android 3.0). I'll be royally ticked if my Nexus S with single-core processor can't satisfactorily run Honeycomb. Google, you've been warned.

    I've written extensively about the Cr-48. Among them, an overview and seven-day segment living in the cloud:

    1. "Who really needs a Chrome OS laptop?"

    2. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 1: Getting acquainted"

    3. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 2: Becoming a cloud citizen"

    4. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 3: Living with Flash"

    5. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 4: Who is the cloud for?"

    6. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 5: My life in the cloud"

    7. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 6: Adopting a new lifestyle"

    8. "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 7: Settling in for the long haul"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/26/Is_iPad_a_PC__Canalys_says_yes__and_that_makes_Apple_No._3_in_global_market_share'

    Is iPad a PC? Canalys says yes, and that makes Apple No. 3 in global market share

    Publié: janvier 26, 2011, 9:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Canalys PCs

    In August and, again, in October, I asked if Apple would be the US PC market share leader if iPad counted in the numbers. It's a compelling question because of iPad's sudden sales success and analyst firms' strange classifications. For example, IDC counts iPad as a media tablet but slates running Windows as PCs. Today, Canalys released numbers counting iPad as a PC, which propels Apple to the No. 3 spot globally. Canalys' data is for fourth calendar quarter 2010.

    My question for you: Should iPad or Samsung Galaxy Tab really count as PCs? Canalys counts both and other tablets. Please answer in comments.

    "Any argument that a pad is not a PC is simply out of sync," Daryl Chiam, Canalys senior analyst, said in a statement. "With screen sizes of seven inches or above, ample processing power, and a growing number of applications, pads offer a computing experience comparable to netbooks. They compete for the same customers and will happily coexist. As with smartphones, some users will require a physical keyboard, while others will do without."

    Chiam emphasized: "Pads gave the market momentum in 2010, just as netbooks did the year before. We are encouraging vendors to plan for the future and not to remain stuck in the past." He added: "Each new product category typically causes a significant shift in market shares. Apple is benefiting from pads, just as Acer, Samsung and Asus previously did with netbooks. The PC industry has always evolved this way, starting when Toshiba and Compaq rode high on the original notebook wave."

    Based on the tabulation change, Apple shipped 11.5 million PCs, putting it just ahead of Dell. Apple's official count is 14.65 million iPads and Macs. Without iPad, Apple shipped less than half as many PCs as fifth-ranked Lenovo, so the difference is dramatic. Apple shipped 7.331 million iPads during calendar Q4, according to SEC filings.

    Canalys pads

    Canalys' position on iPad butts against most other major analyst firms, not just IDC, and exposes one potential area of conflict of interest. Analyst firms like Gartner and IDC get paid to count things. By classifying iPad as a media tablet, the firms can sell data around a new category. There's less sales benefit when incorporating tablets into PC shipments.

    Again, that assumes a tablet should be a PC. Again, I ask you: Is iPad a PC? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/25/Gartner__Most_CIOs_have_their_heads_in_the_clouds'

    Gartner: Most CIOs have their heads in the clouds

    Publié: janvier 25, 2011, 1:19am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What do CIOs care most about? Cloud computing, says Gartner. They see the cloud as opportunity to freeing up resources that will be reinvested in future growth. Gartner released the findings of its 2011 CIO Agenda survey on Friday.

    According to Gartner, the typical IT organization invests two-thirds of its budget to daily operations. Moving to the cloud will fee up between 35 percent to a whopping 50 percent of operational and infrastructure resources for reallocation elsewhere.

    "Over the next five years, CIOs expect dramatic changes in IT as they adopt new technologies and raise their contribution to competitive advantage," Mark McDonald, a Gartner research vice president said in a statement. "Leaders will implement new infrastructure technologies to achieve increased efficiency and to redirect IT resources to create greater business impact." Resulting changes will range from "re-imaging IT's role in their organization to the creative destruction necessary to break old practices and redeploy resources to new initiatives."

    More than 2,000 CIOs -- from 50 countries and 38 industries, responded to Gartner's survey. Three percent said that the majority of their IT infrastructure ran in the cloud or software-as-a-service (SaaS) technologies. While a seemingly small number, Gartner called cloud adoption as progressing faster than expected. Based on CIO responses, Gartner expects the number to rise to 43 percent within four years.

    Cloud computing offers several important advantages to IT organizations:

    1. Provide employees access to their files and data anytime, anywhere and on anything. This is true whether the organization self hosts or outsources cloud services to Microsoft, Saleforce.com or another vendor.

    2. Better secure data from loss or theft. Too much valuable data leaves organizations via laptops and smartphones, creating security and privacy risks. A properly-run cloud service can keep more files and data behind the firewall, rather than roaming the planet on employees' corporate-issued--or even personal--equipment.

    3. Diminish maintenance hassles and overhead. If Microsoft releases a new version of CRM or Exchange, the average IT organization might take years rolling it out to employees. Hosted SaaS makes the newest version immediately available to everyone, without requiring time-consuming and costly testing, certification and deployment.

    4. Reduce hardware upgrade costs. Many organizations can use existing client hardware longer and dramatically reduce server infrastructure when adopting cloud services, particularly those that are outsourced.

    5. Reduce software upgrades and maintenance costs. For example, Microsoft's "Software Assurance" program requires subscription-like fees for the promise but not guarantee of future software versions. IT organizations can pay for exactly the number of hosted seats they need on real subscription basis and with assured upgrade benefits.

    The aforementioned cost benefits are one of the key factors driving more IT organizations to the cloud. According to Gartner's CIO survey, most IT organizations will spend about the same in 2011 as the previous year, but well below pre-recession levels. Gartner doesn't expect IT budgets to return to 2008 levels for at least another three years.

    "CIOs and IT have been boxed in between modest budget growth and growing legacy requirements," McDonald, said in the statement. Cloud computing, including SaaS and social networks enables "the CIO to redefine IT, giving it a greater focus on growth and strategic impact. These are two things that are missing from many organizations." Besides cloud computing, CIOs ranked virtualization as a priority, citing similar cost-savings and infrastructure-changing benefits. The two technologies are "well-suited for this budget reality, as they offer similar service levels at lower budget costs," McDonald said.

    The entire list of priorities in order of importance: cloud computing; virtualization; mobile technologies; IT management; business intelligence; networking, voice and data communications; enterprise applications; collaboration technologies; infrastructure; and Web 2.0.

    What are your IT organization's top-2011 priorities? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/24/Flash_is_no_longer_default_option_for_YouTube_embeds'

    Flash is no longer default option for YouTube embeds

    Publié: janvier 24, 2011, 6:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I don't know how I missed this one: Google has taken iframe embedding out of beta and quietly made it the default choice. I noticed yesterday, when looking to embed a video here at Betanews. The default had been Adobe Flash with iframe embedding optional and labeled beta; where iframe was placed in the embed options there now is "use old embed code," meaning Flash. I've been embedding with the iframe code for months so Betanews readers using iPads or smartphones could watch embedded YouTube videos. Based on forum chatter, Google made the change as recently as four days ago.

    Technically, the player isn't Flash-free. It's more like Flash is no longer required. Videos can stream in Flash or HTML5 video depending on the player detected. For reasons that don't make much sense from a consumer experience perspective, YouTube videos using the new embed code won't play on Safari without Flash installed (presumably other browsers, but I haven't yet tested). YouTube detects the browser and presents notice that Flash is necessary to play the video. It's not. YouTube is blocking HTML5 streamed content. Changing the browser's identification to "Mobile Safari -- iPad" solves the problem. But why is that necessary?

    There has been some chatter about the embed code change over at Google's YouTube API forum. I've collected a small sampling of questions (which I've condensed) and responses from Jeff Posnick, who is part of Google's YouTube API Team.

    1. Will the old embed code go away?

    "We are in no way dropping support for the older embed codes. The only change that was made is in what type of embed code is generated by default."

    2. Is there JavaScript support?

    "There's no JavaScript API support right now, but it is something that the engineering team plans on adding in the future. We can't commit to anything right now, but I believe the general idea is to expose an API that is very similar if not identical to the existing interfaces and methods."

    2. My blogging system strips out the iframe code. Why is that?

    "It is definitely true that some blogging platforms or social networks might take steps to automatically strip out iframe tags or otherwise prevent the iframe embed code from working in posts. We first announced the new iframe embeds 6 months ago...and since then have worked with a number of the major content platforms to ensure that they support the new-style embed codes. There obviously is still not 100 percent support, and with the recent change to make the iframe embed code the default, we're obviously hearing more about the platforms that don't handle iframe embeds properly."

    I'll add this: I've had WordPress strip out the code when using the WYSIWYG editor, but it's OK when working with the HTML editor. Typically, iframe is referenced surrounded by brackets , but using them causes the Betanews blogging system to try and read the bracketed iframe as a tag. So I've removed the brackets throughout this post, including the Google forum responses presented.

    Compatibility appears to be developers' major concern right now, based on forum chatter. For example, one developer writes: "I manage the website for a hospital system that uses the Stellant content management system. The new embed code that uses iframe does not work at all." Posnick's response isn't exactly encouraging: "If you haven't yet done so, you could try reaching out to Stellant and asking them to support the iframe embed codes as well. We at YouTube obviously have no control over whether their software recognizes the new embeds or not."

    Google gave developers about six months to prepare for the new embed code. Was that long enough? Did Google provide enough notice of the change? Please respond in comments or email joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/24/Refurbished_PCs__When_used_is_better_than_new'

    Refurbished PCs: When used is better than new

    Publié: janvier 24, 2011, 1:08am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Whenever possible, I buy refurbished PCs rather than new ones-- and it's what I recommend to all my friends. Unfortunately, the word "refurbished" is loaded with bad connotations -- used, damaged, unreliable -- that can make items so labeled unattractive to many buyers. But it's my experience that at least with personal computers, refurbished often means better than new, because retailers or manufacturers are selling something at a loss they never want to see again. Returned once is one time too many. Twice or thrice is simply unacceptable.

    I got my first tip off about the benefits of refurbished in the late 1990s when visiting a Sony repair store then located in Beltsville, Md. I observed a number of PCs and asked about them. One of the clerks explained that the shop was one of just a couple clearinghouses refurbishing Sony PCs. I expressed my disbelief in refurbished as being any good. But he explained that Sony didn't want to ever see the PCs again. His job was to make sure the refurbished PCs left in perfect working order.

    The reasoning made sense. The refurbished PC has passed the burn through period. Whatever went wrong has gone wrong and been fixed. There is even less risk of problems with a rightly refurbished PC than a new one. It made enough sense to me that I bought my first refurb -- a dual-processor Dell workstation -- in 1998, saving about 40 percent off the cost of a new model. In February 1999, I bought a refurbished PowerBook G3 from PC Connection. The retailer made a mistake, that, thankfully, it didn't want to fix. I purchased a 233MHz model but received instead the 266MHz PowerBook. In 2001, I sold both computers, which ran flawlessly until retirement (PowerBook) and theft (Dell workstation). Since, I've mostly purchased refurbished PCs.

    I first wrote about buying refurbished in November 2000 for CNET News.com. But some reasons for choosing refurbished have changed in a decade. Windows PC prices have fallen such that the biggest benefit -- good performance for lowest cost -- doesn't matter as much. That 20-30 percent savings off a $400 PC doesn't have the oomph as a $1,500 computer back when averaging selling prices were so much higher. There is benefit, just elsewhere -- allowing the user to get more of something else -- such as faster processor, higher-resolution display or perhaps a thinner, lighter laptop for same price (or less) as a heavier model. Still, as my Dell example will show, even for cheaper Windows PCs savings can be meaningful.

    However, refurbished offers potentially more benefits for Macs because they cost so much more than do PCs. The cheapest Mac you can buy costs $999 -- that's the entry price to join the elite club. Refurbished can shave 10 percent to 30 percent off the price.

    What Kinds of Deals are There?

    Buying refurbished means understanding important nuances that generally only Dell makes clear. First: there is refurbished by the store and refurbished by the manufacturer. I generally recommend against store-refurbished models. I have little confidence in the quality control of back-room store technicians, which sentiment retailers justify by practice: most in-store refurbs come with limited warranty, typically from 30 days to 90 days. If retailers don't have enough confidence to back the refurbished PC with a real warranty -- without trying to get you to pay more for extended coverage -- you shouldn't believe in them either. By the way, PCs sold at retailers like Fry's Electronics in boxes stamped "refurbished" typically come from the manufacturer, but you should still check the warranty.

    Manufacturer-refurbished PCs are more likely to come with the same warranty as new. Apple and Dell are good examples. The OEM wouldn't do this without having some confidence the refurb is at least as good as new, if not better. Whenever possible, I buy refurbs from the manufacturer. However, I have no problem purchasing from retailers that sell "factory refreshed" computers.

    Dell Outlet cart

    Contrary to popular convention, not all refurbs are returns and many were in fine working condition when sent back to the retailer or manufacturer (often not for problems but simply for buyer's remorse). Some PCs sold as refurbs never left the factory, which is often the case with configure-to-order models. Someone cancels the order, and the manufacturer is stuck selling the new PC as refurbished. By the way, these models aren't necessarily better than new. They are new, with hefty discounts.

    Most manufacturers offering direct refurbs do so through an online outlet store. Dell offers the best classification, labeling outlet PCs "refurbished," "previously ordered new" or "scratch and dent." One refurbished Inspiron 14R -- 2.4GHz Intel Core i5 processor with 3MB cache; 14-inch WLED display; 4GB DDR3 memory; Intel integrated graphics; 500GB hard drive; and Windows 7 Professional -- sells for $599. Dell's main website offers the same model for $699.99 after an instant discount from $883.99. However, Dell's outlet store is currently running a 20 percent discount via coupon code. Entering the code during checkout reduces the refurbished 14R price to $479.20 with free shipping. That's more than 30 percent savings.

    Dell's outlet store is by far the best organized among major manufacturers. But deals can be found elsewhere for people willing to dig. Most other OEM outlet stores also carry overstocks, which are new and not usually discounted as heavily as refurbs. Sony deals tend to be on older models, which often vary just slightly from newer ones. For example, one VAIO A390 CTO laptop -- 2.4GHz Intel Core i3 processor; 14-inch display with 1366 x 768 resolution; 4GB DDR3 memory; 512MB ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470 graphics; 500GB hard drive; Blu-ray player; and Windows 7 Professional -- sells for $869.95. A new A490 model, identically configured but with 2.53GHz processor, costs $969.99. This kind of discount is typical. While there are occasional "steals" from Sony, generally savings are not as good as many other manufacturers' outlet deals.

    So what about Apple? The Mac maker labels its deals as either "refurbished" or "clearance." Assessing deals can be tricky because of subtle changes occurring from model to model. One 13-inch MacBook Pro -- 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 1066MHz frontside bus; 13.3-inch display with 1280 x 800 resolution; 4GB DDR memory; 256MB nVidia GeForce 320M graphics; 250GB hard drive; and Mac OS X 10.6 -- for $999, or $200 off a new model. Savings on the 2.53GHz 15-inch MacBook Pro is 15 percent -- $1699 refurbished versus $1999 new.

    I discovered all these deals on the afternoon of Jan. 23, 2011.

    Refurbished Buying Dos and Don'ts

    Some PC manufacturers' outlet stores you might want to visit:

    There are also retailers that sell or specialize in refurbished PCs, such as Acer Outlet out of United Kingdom. I'm not familiar enough with the store to vouch for it.

    Buying from outlet stores can be painless if done right, or disappointing when shoppers are carless. Here are some pointers to help make your shopping experience a good one:

    1. "Open Box" is not the same as "refurbished." I never buy open box items and discourage everyone else from doing so. Open box is a total "buyer beware" situation. You don't know with whom that PC slept, so to speak, and probably don't want to know. Warranties are typically negligible, from none to as much as three months. Open box items often are missing something, and I've seen few deals that warrant the risk.

    2. Check to see if the product was refurbished or is new (e.g., cancelled order or overstock). You should know exactly what you're buying and from that assess how good are the savings. Generally speaking, refurbs should cost less than overstocks or cancelled orders. But don't complain if a manufacturer offers a deeper discount on a new system.

    3. When buying from a store, find out where that refurb came from. Was it returned to the store and refreshed, or did it come refurbished from the manufacturer? Again, I recommend sticking with manufacturer refurbs.

    4. Warranty should be the same for refurbished models as new ones. If not, particularly if 30-90 days compared to 12 months, buy from somebody else. If the manufacturer won't back the PC like it's new, the refurb isn't as good as new.

    5. There should be comparable return policy. Any refurb sold "as is" with no returns isn't worth your money. Make sure the store's return policy for refurbs is same as new. While I contend that refurbs are as good as, or even better than, new, some PCs were bad from the start and aren't getting better. The manufacturer doesn't really want to sell a lemon, and you most certainly shouldn't buy it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/23/Is_7_inches_the_better_size_for_a_media_tablet_'

    Is 7-inches the better size for a media tablet?

    Publié: janvier 23, 2011, 5:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the question I've been asking since selling my iPad the week before Christmas. I simply found the tablet to be too large to regularly carry about. I wasn't using it. I ask you to answer the question in comments or by email -- to joewilcox at gmail dot com. I'm particularly interested in hearing from people who have used, say, iPad and Samsung Galaxy Tab.

    Late Friday, Kevin Tofel turned up the volume on the topic with GigaOM/jkOntheRun post "Why I Dumped the iPad (Hint: Size Matters)." While praising iPad's many benefits, Tofel reached the same place as I did. "The problem is that I simply don't use it any more," he writes. "Actually, let me rephrase that: I stopped using the iPad about a month ago, after I bought a 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab running Google Android."

    Nine months earlier, Tofel replaced a Kindle, which "would go everywhere" with him, with iPad. He observes that Galaxy Tab and Kindle are about the same physical size. "If you look at the Tab and compare the screen size to the iPad, it's easy to think there's little difference between the two: one has a 7-inch display and one has a 9.7-inch display," Tofel writes. But when flipped on its side "the Galaxy Tab is half the size of an iPad...making it far easier to tote around and use while standing or walking." The Samsung Galaxy Tab commercial (above) aptly captures this user benefit.

    Tofel gives many examples, in his post and in response to commenters. I've also considered Galaxy Tab for the size but held back wondering: Is there really all that much difference between a 4-inch smartphone and 7-inch tablet?

    Apple executives don't think so. While the InterWebs are rife with rumors Apple will release a 7-inch model when iPad 2 launches, COO Tim Cook seemed to dismiss the screen size's merits during last week's Apple fiscal 2011 first quarter earnings conference call. He responded to a question about iPad competition, which he put into two categories: Bulky devices with shorter battery life running Windows and smaller Android tablets. Cook largely dismissed Android competition in part by claiming the operating system wasn't designed for the form factor.

    But it was how he expressed the sentiment that reveals something important about Apple's -- or at least his -- perspective on 7-inch tablets. "You wind up having a size of a tablet that is less than what we believe is reasonable or even one that would provide what we feel is a real tablet experience," Cook said. "Basically, you wind up with kind of a scaled-up smartphone, which is a bizarre product in our view."

    This "bizarre product" suits Tofel quite well, and I should point out that GigaOM is a fairly influential and well-read blog. GigaOM/jkOntheRun commenter rightly expressed the usage scenario that perhaps warrants an "inbetweener" sized-device: "Folks are missing the point here, Kevin's use case (and my own) is for a preference for the largest pocketable slate possible." To which Tofel responds: "Bingo! You hit the jackpot in the first sentence IMO."

    When I worked as an analyst surveying consumers about portable device benefits that mattered most to them, smaller size and longer battery life consistently ranked near or at the top. Apple's tablet is smaller and lighter to carry than most computers, which suits the size-priority profile. But the device is still much larger than a smartphone. Is there room between smartphones with 4, 4.3 or 4.5 inch displays and Apple's 9.7-inch iPad? Portability is a huge user benefit. I will say this: Amazon finally got Kindle's size (and price) just right.

    I've played with Galaxy Tab at my local T-Mobile store and must acknowledge being hugely tempted to buy one. But something holds me back, and it's not size: It's carrier commitment. I want the option of buying without having a two-year data contract. But this seems to be the model by which wireless carriers/tablet manufacturers are taking to market -- other than Apple, which is right to make 3G data plan optional rather than mandatory.

    Is a 7-inch tablet an overly large smartphone or the largest pocketable slate you can easily carry? Should Apple release a 7-inch iPad? Please offer your answers in comments or by emailing joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/21/What_do_Apple_and_Google_CEO_changes_reveal_about_their_corporate_cultures_'

    What do Apple and Google CEO changes reveal about their corporate cultures?

    Publié: janvier 21, 2011, 6:21pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple-Google

    This week Apple and Google disclosed holiday quarter earnings and made unexpected management changes. The executive shuffles and how they were announced is opportunity to compare and contrast the management styles and corporate cultures of these two hugely successful technology companies.

    The basic similarities are interesting: Both companies announced better-than-expected fourth calendar quarter earnings. Both companies made CEO announcements affecting who runs day-to-day operations. Both companies assumed some risk that Wall Street would negatively respond to management changes. But they chose different approaches to announcing these changes.

    On Monday, Apple CEO Steve Jobs took indefinite medical leave, technically remaining chief executive but turning over day-to-day operations to COO Tim Cook. In an official statement, Jobs assured that he would still "be involved in major strategic decisions for the company." Yesterday, Google announced that in April, Eric Schmidt will turn over the chief executive's chair to cofounder Larry Page. Schmidt will continue in a more customer facing, public role but as executive chairman, while Page will take over day-to-day operations.

    Both companies had good news in their earnings, by beating Wall Street consensus. Apple separated the Jobs' medical leave announcement by making it a day earlier, during a US holiday when stock markets were closed. Google announced management changes concurrent with earnings. The question: Why didn't Apple make both announcements around the same time? Concurrent announcement worked for Google, or at least didn't hurt. Shares opened at $639.62 today, up from yesterday's $626.77 close.

    Contrasting Management Styles

    Differences in corporate culture is an answer -- and by no means the only one -- that I'll highlight. Google's corporate culture is more open, while Apple's is more secret, controlling. I'm not the first person to make such observation. But this week's events reveal just how extreme are the differences between the two companies' cultures. To be clear: I don't intend to make a value judgement about which is better. Both companies are hugely successful doing business in their different ways.

    Apple's penchant for secrecy is legendary -- at least among the community of people closely observing the company. Apple tightly controls product design, manufacturing and distribution (granted, the latter two are outsourced) and information about them. The company protects against any mention of new products until they're ready to be announced, usually by Jobs. Meanwhile Apple maximizes the marketing benefits of rumors about future products, through occasional leaks but more from event invitations that generate a frenzy of blog posts and news stories with rumors and speculation about what to expect. Secrecy and control are among the defining corporate cultural attributes.

    Google by comparison quickly discloses information about products, even before they're ready for release. Google betas are legendary for their length of time before products ever reach v1 status. Google licenses its major operating system, Android, which also was released to the open-source community. Google leads Android development, but doesn't completely control it. Google operates by so-called "Open" principles, which the company explained in December 2009 post "The meaning of open." Google also advocates the use of open standards as opposed to proprietary ones. For example, Google plans to drop H.264 video support in Chrome for open-source WebM.

    With respect to technology there is no absolute regarding Apple and Google's approaches. Google doesn't disclose the secret sauce behind its search algorithm. Apple's open-source WebKit has been adopted my most major browser developers other than Microsoft. Google is among them. Apple advocates use of open technologies, too. I use open technologies more as example of corporate cultural attitudes -- about being open and public rather than secretive and controlling.

    Public Google, Private Apple

    The differences in how Apple and Google share information is striking. Steve Jobs doesn't blog or Tweet. Apple employees don't actively blog about their products or anything else related to the company. Apple's YouTube account prohibits comments. By comparison, Schmidt has a Twitter account, and he blogs. Google disseminates most of its announcements and other information via blog posts. Nine Google blog posts ranked in Techmeme's Top-50 tech news stories of 2010 -- four in the top 10!

    Schmidt blogged and Tweeted -- "Day-to-day adult supervision no longer needed!" -- about Google executive changes, and he welcomed Wall Street analysts to ask about them (by joining the earnings conference call). Jobs did neither. Granted, he is sick, which is reason enough, but the approach also reflects the corporate culture he has fostered since returning as chief executive in 1997 (with "interim" title during the early days). During Apple's earnings conference call on Tuesday, not one analyst asked about Jobs, which is surprising given the medical leave was sudden and open-ended and that Apple has offered no plan for succession should Jobs not return. By separating the Jobs' medical leave announcement from earnings and the CEO's written request to respect his privacy, Apple communicated to Wall Street analysts that they shouldn't ask. Don't ask, don't tell.

    By comparison, top Googlers preempted their own earnings conference call to accomodate questions about other news of the day. Schmidt and Page briefly joined at the call's beginning, before any numbers discussion, to let people ask questions about the executive management changes. Google has a plan for succession, which is underway leading up to the April 4th change that brings Page back as CEO -- a position he gave up to Schmidt 10 years ago.

    Apple and Google are both hugely successful companies, and their different corporate cultures and policies work well for them. Is one approach better than the other? You tell me, please, in comments.

    I feel compelled to close with a preemptive response to commenters here or blogging elsewhere. Some Mac fans will flame and accuse me of not understanding Apple or showing disrespect to cancer survivor and liver transplant recipient Steve Jobs, who may now be fighting for his life. They'll assert his illness is the only reason why Apple chose to separate the medical leave and earnings announcements, or that they never belonged together. However, as Andy Zacky pointed out, Apple typically announces earnings at the end of the month but uncustomarily moved the date up by about two weeks. "Apple chose to release its earnings right after a 3-day weekend in order to give investors time to soak in the news of Jobs' indefinite departure," he writes, also noting plans were in place as early as mid December. How respectful to Jobs and his illness is that?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/20/Google_sets_its_top_2011_priorities_right____on_mobile'

    Google sets its top 2011 priorities right -- on mobile

    Publié: janvier 20, 2011, 9:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In a short piece, posted in Harvard Business Review, Google CEO Eric Schmidt lays out three priorities for 2011. I'm not exactly sure when this thing was posted. I saw reference to it today on ReadWriteWeb. Google's three priorities are all about mobile, as they should be.

    "First, we must focus on developing the under­lying fast networks (generally called LTE)," Schmidt writes. "Second, we must attend to the development of mobile money," he continues. "Third, we want to increase the availability of inexpensive smartphones in the poorest parts of the world."

    I will focus on priorities two and three, in part because they're more in Google's control. I'll start with mobile money, which I've written about numerous times. In a September 2010 post I reaffirmed a statement made earlier last year -- that the killer application for mobile will be mobile banking/money. It's not the 300,000 applications available through Apple's App Store. Mobile money is the killer application that will define which mobile platforms will eventually emerge most dominant.

    In an early August US State Department presentation, Tech@State: Mobile Money and Financial Inclusion," Maria Otero, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, observed that about 5 billion of the planet's 7 billion people have cell phones. However, 1.7 billion cell phone users with low incomes do not have bank accounts. Mobile money could change all that.

    Mobile money lets cell phone owners store/send/receive money in accounts associated with their handsets, providing banking and payment capabilities. In emerging markets where many people don't otherwise bank, the mobile phone becomes a personal ATM for accessing funds and paying for items. One possible future payment option: Scanning barcodes with the phone's camera. Near Field Communications (NFC) is another.

    Mobile banking/money is a truly empowering application, but it's one with great limitations. For now. Mobile banking/money services are fragmented, mainly for reasons related to availability, competition, infrastructure and local financial regulations. Additionally, no major mobile OS developer has incorporated banking/money services into its platform.

    Google's commitment to mobile money could be transformative for expanding Android's adoption. Developers and handset manufacturers should take notice -- there's a reason why the Nexus S smartphone has NFC capability. Remember, first the Nexus One and now its S successor is reference design for Google developers and OEMs.

    "Phones, as we know, are used as banks in many poorer parts of the world -- and modern technology means that their use as financial tools can go much further than that," Schmidt writes.

    Google's third priority relates to the second, by way of empowerment. Already, some handset manufacturers are putting Android on feature phones, not just costlier smartphones. Meanwhile, declining market leader Nokia has rightly focused on making available cheaper smartphones in many emerging markets while bulking up feature phones with more smartphone-like capabilities, like fully-functional Web browsers.

    Schmidt's goal is ambitious. "We envision literally a billion people getting inexpensive, browser-based touchscreen phones over the next few years," he writes. "Can you imagine how this will change their awareness of local and global information and their notion of education?"

    There are reasons why last week Canalys predicted that Android handset shipments would grow twice as fast as its competitors in 2011, or why Gartner predicts that Android will catch Symbian OS market share within three years. IDC puts Android second, but still two places ahead of Apple's iOS; both firms see Apple bleeding smartphone market share through 2014 (25.8 percent decline through 2014, according to IDC).

    Will businesses and consumers bank on Android? Certainly not until there are practical payment systems in place. It's way too early to say. But Google's priorities are sound and remind of Microsoft at the dawn of the PC era, when cofounder Bill Gates sought to put a computer on every desktop.

    By the way, if you haven't read my analysis "2011: The Year of Google," please do so. It should be a valuable lens for evaluating Google's holiday 2011 earnings report, which is due after the market closes today.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/20/Gartner__10_OEMs_generated__104.3B_semiconductor_revenue_in_2010'

    Gartner: 10 OEMs generated $104.3B semiconductor revenue in 2010

    Publié: janvier 20, 2011, 3:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Ten companies accounted for a third of semiconductor demand in 2010, according to data released today by Gartner. HP, Samsung and Apple topped the list. Gartner measures semiconductors on what it calls a design total available market, or TAM, basis. The leaders accounted for $104.3 billion revenue, which rose 33.7 percent year or year, or $26.3 billion.

    "Semiconductor device vendors should closely monitor the changing competition structure of the target market," Masatsune Yamaji, Gartner senior research analyst, said in a statement "Do not just listen to the requirements of the current market leaders. Have a dedicated sales team, with business development sales metrics, looking for new market entrants who will be the next-generation market leaders."

    Gartner singled out Apple as leading "the new competitive landscape of the IT and electronics industry," by providing vertically integrated software, hardware and supporting services and outsourcing production to electronics manufacturing service providers, typically in Asia. Additionally, its products cover the range of leading design TAM successes, such as smartphones, media players and media tablets; Gartner described the latter category as the "new killer application."

    Samsung benefitted from strong demand for smartphones and flat-panel LCD TVs. Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba also benefitted from the latter category. Gartner predicted that the TV service platform market would be a "key growth segment" during the decade 2010 and noted that Apple and Google have made strategic investments in settop boxes.

    "Judging from purchasing TAM, Asia/Pacific, and especially China, offers the greatest opportunities in most of the device and application market segments," Yamaji said in the statement. "It will be difficult for most of the semiconductor device vendors, especially replaceable general-purpose device vendors, to achieve the full design-win benefit without establishing a strong distribution network in Asia/Pacific."

    Gartner TAM 2010

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/19/Career_Factor__Microsoft_s_online_reality_show_where_IT_meets_the_social_web'

    Career Factor: Microsoft's online reality show where IT meets the social web

    Publié: janvier 19, 2011, 11:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft is using social media as foundation for a web-based reality show following the career quests of nine participants. You can follow their exploits online (e.g., at work when the boss isn't looking), no television required. The Career Factor website went live last week, but the nine participants only started updating their quests yesterday.

    The website describes itself as an "online reality show based on the experiences of nine IT personalities. Each of our candidates have set a professional goal for themselves, and have invited you to follow their every step along the way." Each participant has a personal page where "you can explore their backgrounds, learn from their experiences and share your findings. You'll find videos, links to learning resources, tips and updates via their blog and various social media outlets."

    It's rare enough to see someone talking about or using social media to advance IT anything -- let alone careers or learning -- so I was interested to see what Microsoft hoped to accomplish and what benefits there would be to participants and those people following their quests.

    "In early November Microsoft Learning issued a casting call for the nine different story arcs, where candidates sent in an application accompanied by a video introduction of why they think they would be good for the show," a spokesman for Microsoft explained. "The participants were selected in mid-December and started prepping for the launch."

    People can follow each participant on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, and the icons are quite prominently placed. Each participant's page offers tabs to view "status," "video," "blog" and "bio." Videos are posted to YouTube, and there are additional social sharing options on participants' blogs.

    Who are these people:

    Steve is an unemployed job seeker from Brisbane, Australia. His career goal: "Update skills and certifications to find a new job."

    Tim is a senior IT architect from New York City. His career goal: "Transition skills to Exchange and Active Directory."

    Kevin is a student from Dallas, Texas. His career goal: "Find a job after graduating from college."

    Bojan is an "aspiring Microsoft Certified Master" from London. His career goal: "Complete the MCM: Exchange Server 2010 course."

    Eddie is a barista from San Diego. His career goal: "Transition back into the IT industry and obtain TS and PRO level certifications."

    Rabeb is a student from Tunis, Tunisia. Her career goal: "To develop and release a Windows Phone 7 app to the Marketplace."

    Neil is a "senior software development engineer" from Dublin, Ireland (he is moving to Terrace, Canada). His career goal: "To learn how to develop an application on Windows and SQL Azure."

    Simon is a principal software engineer from Chester, UK. His career goal: "Get team certified to meet Microsoft Partner competency requirements."

    Caroline is a student from Calgary, Canada. Her career goal: "Train to compete and succeed at the 2011 Certiport Worldwide Competition on Office."

    Not all the participants have posted content. As I write, there were none for Neil, Simon and Caroline. Considering this is only officially Day 2, they can be excused. :)

    Microsoft couldn't have foreseen the political upheaval in Tunisia, which piqued my interest in following Rabeb. In a blog post dated today she writes about the important responsibility she feels participating in Career Factor and her family's pride in her. "Moreover, it's the perfect opportunity to show the world that Tunisia is a small country that holds a great nation," she writes. "My country is going through big changes these days. So, my duty is to help build it and show the world that we have innovative people, great minds and brilliant ideas."

    Career Factor is an intriguing concept because it's not some amorphous learning or certification site but real people looking to IT learning/training to improve their lives. Microsoft's challenge will be garnering interest in the participants -- or, better, that the self-described reality show goes viral among IT professionals.

    This is just the beginning, but where does it all end? "Career Factor will continue through TechEd North America between May 16-19, where the participants will meet each other in person for a reunion video (or it should be a union video I guess, since they have never met in person)," the spokesman for Microsoft said.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/19/How_many_LivingSocial_users_can_Amazon_buy_for__10_'

    How many LivingSocial users can Amazon buy for $10?

    Publié: janvier 19, 2011, 7:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Deal site LivingSocial has got a helluva bargain today: A $20 Amazon gift card for 10 bucks. Who could resist that? I could. Should you?

    LivingSocial specializes in half-price deals, typically specific to larger cities -- assuming you live there. I went to the site for the first time early this afternoon. By Internet magic, most likely IP address, LivingSocial correctly detected my city as San Diego. I clicked through to see the big deal, the aforementioned half-price Amazon gift card.

    So what's the catch? There's always a catch. LivingSocial gets your email address -- and also credit card number to purchase (What? There's no PayPal)? It's a "let's get 1 million email addresses in a day" deal. There aren't many marketing promotions better than this. People actually pay you to take their email address. "We email our deals daily. We keep your email safe with us," LivingSocial qualifies. I don't doubt the sincerity of the privacy policy, but it's still selling my email address for 10 bucks.

    The site qualifies that "Amazon.com is not a sponsor of this promotion," which technically is true. So why does this post's title say "can Amazon buy?" In December, Amazon invested a cool $175 million in the Washington, DC-based startup, which began as a "Pick Five" app on Facebook. Besides, the Amazon gift cards are doing the buying.

    So, will you give up your email address for $10. I'll keep mine, thank you.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/19/Five_lessons_you_should_learn_from_Apple_s__26.7B_record_quarter'

    Five lessons you should learn from Apple's $26.7B record quarter

    Publié: janvier 19, 2011, 6:19pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's record fiscal 2011 first quarter will be the Starbuck's coffee talk of Wall Street today. Apple beat analysts' revenue consensus by about $2.3 billion. Behind the numbers there are lessons to learn about the company and economic opportunities that competitors, non-competitors and partners should be aware.

    I've chosen five things, which are presented in no order of importance. As usual, I expect to get whacked aside the head by Apple worshippers who balk at the slightest criticism. For some people, there's only one side to every argument.

    1. Apple selectively timed CEO Steve Jobs' medical leave announcement to protect the stock. On Monday, with markets closed, Jobs revealed that he was taking indefinite medical leave. Investors couldn't react until yesterday. Apple shares closed at $340.65 yesterday, off the previous close -- a then 52-week high -- of $348.48.

    Andy Zaky, who has one of the best track records predicting Apple quarterly results (typically better than Wall Street analysts), puts some sense to the timing. Yesterday, he observed that "since 2007, Apple has always chosen to report earnings during the last week of the month...If you go back at least 14-16 quarters, Apple has reported during the last week of the month in every one of those reporting periods."

    I wondered about the timing last month, when Apple set the date about two weeks earlier than usual. "Now that we have the Steve Jobs news, the reporting date makes a whole lot of sense. Moreover, the fact that Apple chose to release its earnings right after a 3-day weekend in order to give investors time to soak in the news of Jobs' indefinite departure lends support to the idea that Steve Jobs has been planing to take a leave for a very long time."

    I've long accused Apple of timing product announcements or leaking information to influence the share price -- that is keep it gong up, up, up. The same could be said about Jobs' last medical leave, which started simply with an announcement he wouldn't keynote Macworld 2009 and ended with the official news about a month later. It's all about managing perceptions. From one perspective, the approach is sensible because every public company's first obligation should be to the real owners -- the shareholders. Apple top executives knew they had bang-up quarterly results to announce. They strategically chose timing the medical leave to minimize share losses before delivering the good news that could boost the stock.

    "Apple manipulates even when Steve's health hangs in the balance," rrode74 writes in Betanews comments.

    2. China hugely matters to Apple. During last night's earnings conference call, Apple executives couldn't talk enough about China generating $2.6 billion during fiscal first quarter, which compares to $3 billion for all fiscal 2010. The number was repeated several times. Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer also explained that the company's four retail stores in China generated more foot traffic and sales than any others. So nearly 10 percent of the quarter's revenue came from the one market. By comparison, the Americas and Europe generated so much more: $9.22 billion and $7.26 billion, respectively. That said, in the Asia-Pacific region, which includes China, revenue grew 175 percent year over year and unit shipments by 65 percent, more than any other region.

    International markets accounted for 62 percent of Apple revenue during fiscal Q1, up from 57 percent three months earlier. The numbers strongly suggest China is one major factor driving up international sales. Two years ago, Apple didn't even break out Asia-Pacific as a demographic region. Now Asia-Pacific is growing fast, with China accounting for more than half the revenue generated in the region.

    "Several years ago, we identified China as our top priority, and we put enormous energy into China," COO Tim Cook told financial analysts yesterday. The results of that have been absolutely staggering." That's an understatement.

    3. Contrary to persistent rumors, maybe Apple isn't working on a 7-inch tablet. Cook responded to a question about iPad competition, which he put into two categories: Bulky devices with shorter battery life running Windows and smaller Android tablets. He largely dismissed Android competition in part because the operating system wasn't designed for the form factor. But it was how he expressed the sentiment that reveals something important about Apple's -- or at least his -- perspective on 7-inch tablets.

    "You wind up having a size of a tablet that is less than what we believe is reasonable or even one that would provide what we feel is a real tablet experience," Cook said. "Basically, you wind up with kind of a scaled-up smartphone, which is a bizarre product in our view." Same could be said of a 7-inch iPad, should Apple choose to release one.

    4. Wall Street analysts cow before Apple, or they did yesterday. Surely investors want to know: How long does Jobs plan to be on medical leave? Will he realistically return? Is there a succession plan? If I were an Apple investor and one of these analysts represented me and was on that conference call, I'd want some answers. But no one asked. Perhaps analysts were just too awe-struck by the quarter's results.

    Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster came closest to asking the right question: "In terms of the long-term business planning, there have been a lot of questions how far out you actually plan?" He continued: "Is it a one-year plan, a five-year plan? Any sort of insight would be helpful." Jobs is seen as Apple's visionary. Munster knows that products like iPad don't just come to market overnight. What he really asked, ever so subtly, is how long before Jobs' absence would affect the product pipeline.

    "That's part of the magic of Apple," Cook replied, indicating the magic is a trade secret. "In my view, Apple is doing its best work ever...The team here has an unparalleled breadth and depth of talent and culture of innovation that Steve has driven within the company -- and excellence has become a habit. We feel very confident about the future of the company." Maybe, but Cook didn't answer the question.

    5. The cloud is Apple's Achilles Heal. By far, Apple's greatest strategic vulnerability remains the cloud, and nothing during yesterday's conference call -- including the questions (or lack of them) -- changed the perspective. Apple still depends on Google for maps and search on its iOS devices. Sync is convoluted, being anchored to the desktop but partially available from the cloud. Using Cook's words about Android tablets, Apple sync is a "bizarre product." There's no over-the-air-updating of iOS devices, unlike Android. I could go on and on with examples.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/18/Apple_Q1_2011_by_the_numbers___26.7B_revenue___6.43_EPS___2.3B_above_Street_consensus'

    Apple Q1 2011 by the numbers: $26.7B revenue, $6.43 EPS, $2.3B above Street consensus

    Publié: janvier 18, 2011, 10:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Editor's Note: This was a live document from 4:45 p.m. EDT through 6:35 p.m., following Apple's earnings call.]

    This afternoon, Apple delivered record holiday sales results, reporting fiscal 2011 first quarter earnings after US stock markets closed. Investor anticipation about the quarter seemed to hold back a major stock sell off. Yesterday, when US markets were closed, Apple CEO Steve Jobs revealed that he would be taking another medical leave -- for indeterminate amount of time. The sudden and open-ended medical leave raises concerns that Jobs might not return. What then for Apple?

    While some folks may quibble about the future, the present looks mighty fine. Once again, iOS devices delivered handsomely for Apple, particularly iPad and iPhone. Apple shipped 7.33 million iPads and 16.24 million iPhones during fiscal Q1. During today's earnings conference call, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said that Apple had sold 160 million cumulative iOS devices. In total, iOS devices accounted for about 69 percent of the quarter's revenue.

    Apple reported $26.7 billion revenue and net profits of $6 billion, or $6.43 a share. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $15.68 billion and $3.38 billion net quarterly profit, or $3.67 per share. Revenue rose by 71 percent.

    Three months ago, Apple forecasted $23 billion in revenue with earnings per share of $4.80. Projected gross margins: 36 percent. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $24.38 billion revenue and $5.38 earnings per share. This is now an ongoing trend of the Street expecting more than guidance and Apple still beating consensus.

    Gross margins fell from 40.9 percent in fiscal Q1 2010 to 38.5 percent in the current quarter. Sales in international markets accounted for 62 percent of revenue.

    Looking ahead, Apple forecasts $22 billion in revenue for fiscal 2011 second quarter, with earnings per share of $4.90. Projected gross margins: 4.90 percent.

    "We had a phenomenal holiday quarter with record Mac, iPhone and iPad sales," Jobs said in statement from his medical leave "We are firing on all cylinders and we've got some exciting things in the pipeline for this year including iPhone 4 on Verizon which customers can't wait to get their hands on."

    During today's earnings conference call, analysts largely shied away from asking directly about Jobs' medical leave. However, one analyst probed by asking about future product planning. Apple COO Tim Cook discussed the corporate culture Jobs created. "Excellence has become a habit," he said.

    Q1 2011 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.73 billion, up 2 percent from $1.69 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $3.7 billion, up 34 percent from $2.76 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $3.43 billion, up 1 percent from $3.39 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.43 billion, up 23 percent from $1.16 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $10.47 billion, up 88 percent from $5.58 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $4.6 billion; no comparable -- new product.
    • Peripherals: $593 million, up 26 percent from $469 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $786 million, up 25 percent from $631 million a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped 16.235 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal first quarter. A year earlier, Apple shipped 10.468 million iPhones. Apple counts shipments into the channel,  typically making them several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. Wall Street analyst average estimate was about 15.6 million units. I typically calculate the analyst estimates, but Philip Elmer-DeWitt has done such a remarkably good job, I want to draw attention to his compilation of analyst estimates. The aforementioned analyst estimate and those for products that follow come from his compilation.

    Year over year, iPhone shipments rose 86 percent. The smartphone was available in 90 countries with an average selling price of $626.

    Q1 2011 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.227 million units, down 1 percent from 1.234 million units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 2.9 million units, up 37 percent from 2.13 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 9.5 million units, down 7 percent from 20.98 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 16.24 million units, up 86 percent from 8.74 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 7.33 million units; no comparable -- new product.

    iPad. The tablet's impact on Apple simply cannot be understated. The company shipped 7.331 million tablets during the quarter for a total of14.789 million in just nine months. Apple's tablet generated nearly $10 billion in new revenue during the first nine months of availability. Analysts estimated 6.15 million iPads for the quarter. Apple's tablet was available in 46 countries, with average selling price of $600. Apple ended the quarter with expected 4-6 weeks inventory.

    Earlier today, IDC initiated coverage of the so-called media tablet market. The analyst firm put Apple's tablet market share at 87.4 percent. IDC predicts that media tablet shipments ended the year with 17 million units. For 2011, IDC forecasts 44.6 million media tablets shipped, and 70.8 million units in 2011. But Apple likely will lose share. "Growth in 2011 and beyond will be driven by device vendors introducing media tablets based on Android and other operating systems, as well as price and feature competition and strong demand in both the consumer and commercial segments," according to IDC.

    Q1 2011 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $9.22 billion, up 51 percent from $6.1 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $7.26 billion, up 44 percent from $5 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $1.4 billion, up 83 percent from $783 million a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $4.99 billion, up 175 percent from $1.8 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $3.85 billion, up 95 percent from $1.97 billion a year earlier.

    Computers. Mac shipments soared during the holiday quarter. Apple sold -- what company executives really mean by shipped -- 4.134 million Macs during the quarter, up from 3.362 million units a year earlier; growth was 23 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus was just over 4 million units worldwide. Oppenheimer cited strong MacBook Air as factor driving record Mac sales. Apple shipped 2.907 million portables compared to 1.227 million desktops. Apple's Mac business had "19 quarters straight of growing faster than the PC market,"Oppenheimer said. Apple ended the quarter with expected 3-4 weeks of channel inventory.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary fourth calendar quarter PC shipment data. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.734 million computers, for 15.2 percent year-over-year growth, according to IDC. However, Gartner put Apple shipments higher, at 1.86 million, with growth a much higher 23.7 percent. Both Gartner and IDC put Apple in fifth place -- down one spot and two, respectively. That's right, IDC had Apple as No. 3 in US PC shipments during Q3 2010 and now No. 5.

    The market share drops also reveal something else not apparent from the year-over-year growth numbers. IDC put Apple US shipments as less than the previous quarter -- down from 1.999 million. Typically fourth quarter should be more. For example, HP's US PC shipments rose from 4.591 million in third quarter to 5.724 million in Q4, according to IDC. Dell and Toshiba shipments grew quarter over quarter, too. A Betanews analysis of the data reveals that iPad likely cannibalized Mac sales during the holiday quarter.

    Apple's numbers suggest this, too. Mac shipments rose 6 percent sequentially, which is surprisingly low going into the holiday quarter. Mac sales in Apple retail stores fell 3 percent from the previous quarter. Geographic data suggests that iPad cannibalization is likely largely contained to the Americas. One analyst asked the cannibalization question during today's conference call. Cook cautiously answered by using a common media deflection tactic. He started by going on for some time cataloging the regions where Mac shipments outgrew the greater personal computer market. Finally he answered: "Yes, I think there is some cannibalization, But I also think there is some halo effect," referring to iPads leading to other Apple product sales. Cook rightly pointed out that in the broader sense, Apple's low PC share is an advantage. "The other guys lose a lot more," because of cannibalization.

    Q1 2011 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.36 million units, up 15 percent from 1.19 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 1.25 million units, up 17 percent from 1.1 million units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 162,000 units, up 54 percent from 105,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 516,000 units, up 65 percent from 313,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 851,000 units, up 24 percent from 689,000 units a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 19.446 million iPods during fiscal third quarter, down from 20.97 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for fiscal Q1 was 17.75 million. Shipments of iPod touch grew 27 percent year over year and accounted for more than 50 percent of iPod sales. Apple ended the quarter with anticipated 4-6 weeks of inventory. Revenue for iTunes Store reached $1.1 billion.

    Retail. Revenue rose 95 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 851,000 Macs, compared to 689,000 a year earlier, up 24 percent. However units declined by 23,000 sequentially, which is highly unusual going into the holiday quarter. As aforementioned, I see that as signs of iPad cannibalizing Mac sales.

    Apple opened 6 new stores in the quarter, for a total of 323 retail outlets worldwide -- 87 outside the United States. There was an average 321 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $12 million up from $7.1 million a year earlier. Apple retail stores had 75.7 million visitors during the quarter. Apple's highest trafficked and performing stores were the four in China.

    This is a good place to briefly discuss geographic performance. Revenue rose 175 percent in Asia-Pacific year over year and 83 percent in Japan. Oppenheimer said that China generated $2.6 billion revenue during fiscal first quarter.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/18/IDC__Apple_leads_tablet_market__Amazon_e_readers'

    IDC: Apple leads tablet market, Amazon e-readers

    Publié: janvier 18, 2011, 7:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    IDC ereaders Q310

    Today, IDC initiated coverage of the media tablet and e-reader markets, ranking Apple and Amazon leaders in their categories, respectively. Reporting on two separate product markets in one release is unusual for IDC. But it makes sense. So-called media tablets and e-readers will likely become one category in the not-so-distant future.

    What's more interesting is IDC's tablet definition. In October, I observed that if iPad counted as a personal computer, Apple would likely meet or beat top-ranked HP in Q3 US PC market share. IDC has decided iPad isn't a PC, but Tablet PC would be one.

    "Media tablets are tablet form factor devices with color displays larger than 5 inches and smaller than 14 inches running lightweight operating systems (such as Apple's iOS and Google's Android OS) and can be based on either x86 or ARM processors," according to IC. "By contrast, tablet PCs run full PC operating systems and are based on x86 processors." Oh yeah? So what happens when Windows 7's successor supports ARM processors, or did IDC analysts somehow miss Microsoft's big announcement during the Consumer Electronics Show two weeks ago?

    By IDC's media tablet definition, iPad had 87.4 percent global market share during third quarter 2010, based on 4.2 million units shipped. IDC predicts that media tablet shipments ended the year with 17 million units shipped. Market-leader Apple will shed some perspective on the final number when announcing holiday quarter earnings later today.

    For 2011, IDC forecasts 44.6 million media tablets shipped, with the US accounting for about 40 percent of them, and 70.8 million units in 2011. "Growth in 2011 and beyond will be driven by device vendors introducing media tablets based on Android and other operating systems, as well as price and feature competition and strong demand in both the consumer and commercial segments," according to IDC. Oh? So what about the iPad dominance I keep reading about. Gasp, could Apple-hooting bloggers, journalists and Wall Street analysts be wrong?

    Amazon dominated the e-reader market with 41.5 percent market share, based on 1.1 million shipments during Q3 2010. Pandigital beat out Barnes and Noble -- 16.1 percent to 15.4 percent, respectively. IDC predicts 10.8 million e-readers shipped for all 2010, with the United States accounting for 72.4 percent of the total. The analyst firm expects 14.7 million e-readers shipped this year and 16.6 million in 2012.

    There remains the question of definition. I understand that analyst firms like IDC get paid for counting things and doing analysis around the numbers. The more things IDC counts, the more it can charge clients. But are all these categories really necessary when there is so much overlapping functionality, particularly among e-readers, smartphones and tablets? That's a question I pose to you. Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/18/Microsoft_s_pitch_for_HTML5_logo_has_familiar_ring'

    Microsoft's pitch for HTML5 logo has familiar ring

    Publié: janvier 18, 2011, 6:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    HTML5 logoI'm not doing cartwheels over the new HTML5 logo, which reminds me of a superhero badge. It's bold, masculine and sort of orange, which will appeal how to the majority of web users? But the logo is a great idea, and it's big splash promotion -- some of that from Microsoft -- is exactly what the standard-in-progress needs right now.

    Today in a blog post, Jean Paoli, Microsoft's general manager of interoperability, writes: "The logo links back to W3C, the place for authoritative information on HTML5, including specs and test cases. It's time to tell the world that HTML5 is ready to be adopted."

    There's a strange appropriateness to Microsoft promoting the logo's use. It's what the company did in the late 1990s to promote Internet Explorer. During the so-called browser wars between Microsoft and Netscape, each side adopted proprietary tags not necessarily supported in the other's browser. Microsoft encouraged websites supporting Internet Explorer to put up an IE logo/badge -- to be proud, to proclaim their support. As a marketing mechanism, the logo branding was brilliant and quite uncommon.

    I remember interviewing Sun cofounder and then chief executive Scott McNealy in his office about Java; some time in 1997. McNealy, an avid amateur hockey player, limped from an injury on the ice from the night before. I scolded McNealy, calling him a boy who cried wolf, for making promise after promise after promise about Java -- like powering light switches -- that never came to be. He didn't get upset at that but my accusations about Java branding. I observed that Internet Explorer logos were on tens of thousands of websites, while Java was seemingly nowhere. If developers are using Java, why are they keeping a secret, I accused. McNealy responded by pointing across the room at his Java terminal and the tiny logo on the side. He blamed his marketers for not listening.

    Someone listened, or observed -- that is Microsoft's browser, and the logo program was one reason. The US Justice Department painted a black-and-white case about Microsoft triumphing over Netscape during the browser wars. Simply stated: Microsoft abused its monopoly position in desktop operating systems to gain dominance in the adjacent browser market. I don't agree with that simplistic portrayal. Microsoft's success was about more than integrating the browser into the operating system. Microsoft also made huge investments in developer programs and branding and marketing efforts. The logo program was among them.

    I'm not asserting that developers and downloaders adopted IE over Netscape simply because of a logo program. That said, no one should misunderstand the influence a well-placed logo can have. Take for example TV networks, which not long after the browser wars, started putting their logos in the lower right-hand side of the screen. It's about brand recognition and in some ways territory marking -- the network asserting: "This is my content."

    On the web, the logo means something more. If the popular sites support Internet Explorer there must be a reason for that. People take social cues from one another all the time, about the clothes other people where, the cars they drive, the jewelry they wear and in the 2010s which smartphones they carry (and what apps are on them). In the late 1990s, pervasive IE logos indicated that Internet Explorer was the happening browser -- to developers and web surfers.

    The HTML5 logo is even more significant, and its usage communicates that the standard is ready enough to adopt. More web developers will support HTML5 as they see others doing so. Microsoft's support communicates something, too. Right now, IE has a reputation for being a non-standards browser, mainly because of persistent IE6 usage and the still-supported ActiveX plug-in architecture. Large businesses are among the biggest consumers of ActiveX, which holds back the browser's future development (backwards compatibility is a Microsoft customer priority). Microsoft's loud support for HTML5 and now its logo communicates to legacy customers and developers that the future is something else. It's one thing for Google to call for HTML5 support, and something all together different for Microsoft -- the company with the perpetual Internet Explorer standards non-compliance black eye -- to do so.

    The logo is important, as is Microsoft's promoting it. Paoli and I agree. He writes: "As developer and site owners see this logo across the web, we hope it will signal that while there is still a lot of work to do until all the HTML5 technologies are ready, real sites are starting to take advantage of them today."

    There remains one question. What's your reaction to the HTML5 logo? OK another: Will you mark you territory with the HTML5 logo? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/18/Apple_s_future_without_Steve_Jobs_won_t_be_as_bright'

    Apple's future without Steve Jobs won't be as bright

    Publié: janvier 18, 2011, 8:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today is an important, perhaps defining, day for Apple. As US stock markets open, investors will give their vote of confidence about the company's future. Yesterday, in a stunning and unexpected announcement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs took another medical leave, but this time with no set time period like the last one. "When, or perhaps that should be if ever, will Jobs return and what does it mean for Apple?" is question of the day. Later, after the stock market closes, Apple plans to announce holiday quarter earnings results.

    "Strange they left it until a day that the stock markets are closed," observed Betanews reader Brian Butterworth. Commenter rrode74 made similar observation: I have zero doubt Apple announced this [yesterday] when US markets are closed. Apple manipulates even when Steve's health hangs in the balance. With the stock having climbed so high so fast, even with Steve it will hit a peak and come down. This could bring it down much faster." Apple opened at $327.05, or about 5 percent off the previous close.

    Fast-flying Apple

    How has the stock "climbed so high so fast?" Jobs took his last medical leave two years ago this month. Apple shares traded for $82.33 on Jan. 16, 2009 and closed on Jan. 14, 2011 at a 52-week high of $348.48. While markets were closed yesterday in the United States for the Martin Luther King Jr. birthday holiday, they were open in Europe. Apple shares fell nearly 10 percent on the Frankfurt exchange before closing down by more than 6 percent. Will US investors similarly respond, or will a day to think things over and the promise of strong holiday quarterly sales mollify their worries?

    To gage the mood in one part of techdom, yesterday I asked Betanews readers: "What future does Apple have without Steve Jobs?" "I am under the impression that Jobs proverbially rubs every new device with a diaper before it goes out the shop doors," Daniel Fletcher expressed by e-mail. "If this is true, what will happen to new Apple products -- or at least how much will his absence affect peoples' psychological perception of each Apple product having personally received 'the Master's touch?'"

    "No one person comes up with all the great ideas at Apple, but someone has to decide which ones to green light," Lee Meade wrote in comments. "And that's what Jobs has done at Apple on a level unparalleled anywhere. Can't see Apple continuing this amazing run of product successes without Jobs around to make those final calls."

    Betanews reader Kevin Baron sees a powerful team capable of going on without the cofounder and iconic visionary: "Jobs if anything has whipped into shape a very amazing creative team, which he should be given credit for. There is a lot of great talent at Apple that understands Apple and knows how to make great products. Apple will go on just fine without Jobs. And that's a credit to Steve Jobs leadership for many years. Having said that I wish him luck and good health."

    Matt Shulman agreed. "Steve Jobs turned Apple around and was a huge part in where it is today. At this point though, is he the sole person behind all their new ideas? I tend to think he's not and that with the success they've had, it shouldn't be too hard for them to keep going without him when needed. Even with Steve Jobs at the helm, I think they are going to be facing far more competition than they have in the next couple of years."

    Steve Jobs' Return from Exile

    How big was the turnaround? In 1996, Apple was near financial collapse. The company's failure to timely release a new operating system and Microsoft's huge Windows 1995 success exacerbated existing structural problems. Then, right near year's end, Apple unexpectedly bought Jobs' NeXT Computer company, bringing back a cofounder ousted during a 1985 boardroom coup. By summer 1997, Jobs had assumed interim CEO status (he also was Pixar's chief executive), obtained a $150-million Microsoft investment as part of an intellectual property settlement and secured a five-year Macintosh Office development commitment. The following year, Apple released the trendy translucent iMac and showed a promising rebound until summer 2000, when the recession smacked most tech companies. Apple shares collapsed.

    Meanwhile, Apple pushed ahead with investments, with four in 2001 that would be foundational for major products available today. They were, in order of 2001 launch: iTunes, Mac OS X, Apple retail stores and iPod. Still, eight years ago, Apple shares traded in the doldrums. On Jan. 7, 2003, when Merrill Lynch recommend "sell" on Apple, shares traded for $14.85. Today, Apple's market capitalization is second only to Exxon and the company has more than $50 billion in the bank. If Jobs doesn't return, he will leave behind a company on solid footing by most every measure but one: Perception. Fickle investors could look at current solid financials and product pipeline and not worry, or they could run from the stock for fear of the future. As I've stated so many times, in business perception is everything.

    "It's debatable whether or not Steve Jobs is personally involved in so many minute details of Apple product design and strategy," writes Betanews reader Greg Glockner. "However, it's widely believed that he does, and Apple has done little to dispel this theory."

    There it is, the perception problem -- that Apple and Jobs are one. Rene Gutierrez observes that Jobs' last medial leave was but six months and the product pipeline by no means dried up: "The crucial question here is not whether Apple can survive a six-month sabbatical, but whether they can survive without him at the helm, period."

    Readers Express Their Fears

    For Gutierrez it is the distant and not the recent past that is foreboding: "Remember what happened to Apple when he left for good back in the 80s? While he may not be involved in every detail of his company, he is still the person who oversees the most important projects, rallies the troops, creates the 'whiz bang' aura with consumers and serves as the visionary for the company. That is something you can't substitute just with anyone. Just ask Microsoft what life has been like without Bill [Gates]."

    "The departure announcement 'I'm going but I'm still going to be involved' suggests that Apple knows a lot of the share price is the Jobs-distortion-field, or perhaps sadly that Jobs in reality has entered a terminal disease phase," Butterworth commented. "If Jobs really just wanted to have some time off, Apple would have announced this on a 'normal day'; this way looks very suspect. A company the size and value of Apple should have more than one star. The impression is always that the company is the star, and if the star fades, so does shareholder value."

    Brian Kramer also is concerned and wonders what investors will do: "I think the market's reaction to a leave of absence, and leaving the company are going to be two very different things. Steve leaving the company could have not only a devastating effect on the stock price, but also product development past the 1-2 years already laid out."

    Douglas Utley shared a sentiment similar to what I read several places yesterday: "This just goes to show no matter how much money Steve has or how much better he thinks he is than everyone else, in the end some of the poorest of the poor have something much more valuable than Steve Jobs will ever be able to obtain again: Health."

    Whatever happens today or the months ahead, I want to close by wishing my best to Steve Jobs and his family. Anyone want to sign a giant get well card?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/17/What_future_does_Apple_have_without_Steve_Jobs_'

    What future does Apple have without Steve Jobs?

    Publié: janvier 17, 2011, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs

    That's the question Mac commentators and fans will be asking today, with the announcement that Apple's CEO will take yet another medical leave. I want to ask the question of you. What future does Apple have without Steve Jobs? Please answer in comments or send e-mail to joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Jobs took his last medical leave two years ago this month. But there was a difference. Jobs planned for a six-month hiatus and returned during that time period, even after undergoing a liver transplant in April 2009. But today's announcement gives no time period at all, raising more seriously a question asked many times two years ago: Will Jobs return? It's one thing for Wall Street to see a finite medical leave, but something else when there is no end date in sight. Earlier fears ebbed as Jobs' return date approached. This time there is no end date.

    Jobs' sudden departure is in body but not mind (he is still CEO and will "be involved in major strategic decisions for the company," according to an e-mail sent to Apple employees and publicly posted on the company's Website). But timing is foreboding and puts perspective around some recent events. For example, it was COO Tim Cook who participated in last week's Verizon iPhone announcement. News Corp. reportedly delayed launch of its iPad-only newspaper. Rumors had CEO Rupert Murdoch making the delayed launch with Jobs. That's unlikely now and reason again not to believe all the crazy rumors about Apple. That said, repeated rumors have Apple soon announcing iPad 2, something Jobs would normally be expected to lead.

    "Last time he took leave, we didn't know how serious it was," Betanews reader rwalrond writes in comment. "Now we know. Steve isn't going to be CEO forever; if he's too ill to introduce a new iPad or iPhone can anyone else at Apple command the kind of attention Steve gets? This has got to be serious for Steve to leave now."

    Commenter rwalrond effectively answers the question I'm asking of you: "Apple as a company will continue to be successful with or without Steve, we really need to turn our prayers to Steve in hopes that his health will allow him to leave a long happy life."

    Apple chose to reveal Jobs' open-ended medical leave on a day when US stock markets are closed, which suggests someone there is concerned about how investors will respond. Markets are open in Europe, where Apple shares fell nearly 10 percent following the announcement.

    Apple didn't just survive during Jobs' last medical leave, it excelled, particularly the stock, which rose from $82.33 on Jan. 16, 2009 to $163.39 on July 31, 2009. Shares reached a new 52-week high of $348.88 on Friday. But, again, Apple watchers and investors watched Cook's tactful running of the company with expectation the visionary leader would return. It's more uncertain this time.

    Jobs' iconic status is indisputable, and he most certainly will have a place in the history books. But his future place at Apple is more uncertain than ever. It's time the company put in place a public succession plan, starting by getting Cook more visibility. In today's e-mail, Jobs expresses what anyone would want: "My family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy." His privacy is one thing, Apple's responsibility to shareholders -- the company's real owners -- is another. Surely Apple can reassure investors about the future without jeopardizing Jobs' privacy.

    So much about Apple is perception, because the company is so adept at marketing and managing perceptions. I'm asking you about Apple's future in part to measure Betanews readers' perceptions about the post-Jobs era possibly coming sooner than many people expected. But the responsibility for managing perceptions falls upon Apple's board of directors. To reiterate: They can always plan for Jobs' return while reassuring investors there is a succession plan.

    So, again, I ask you:  What future does Apple have without Steve Jobs? Please answer in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/14/Canalys__Verizon_iPhone_won_t_slow_Android_growth_even_the_slightest'

    Canalys: Verizon iPhone won't slow Android growth even the slightest

    Publié: janvier 14, 2011, 4:56am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today analyst firm Canalys asserted that Android handsets would grow at twice the rate of its major competitors during 2011. Canalys only named one, iPhone. The prediction comes two days after Verizon announced that it would carry iPhone 4 starting in early February. Since, and even before, numerous commentaries and punditries claimed victory for iPhone against Android. Absolutely not, says Canalys.

    The research firm also said that fragmentation, while greater on Android than iOS, wouldn't stop the Google-created operating system's phenomenal growth. During third quarter 2010, 20 million Android handsets shipped, for 25 percent share of the global smartphone market, according to Canalys. During the first three quarters of 2010, Android shipments grew 1,000-percent year over year.

    "The growth of Android has been phenomenal, but so too has the number of related devices launched with different hardware and software specifications," Chris Jones, Canalys principal analyst, said in a statement. "This has led to the market perception of it as a fragmented platform." Jones emphasized: "Fragmentation affects all OS platforms, though it is particularly visible with Android due to the fast pace of upgrades that has characterized its growth,"

    However, he rightly observed that fragmentation is "less pronounced" on iOS. "We believe that growth will continue as the pace of Android OS upgrades slows," Jones expressed, referring to fragmentation's minimal long-term impact.

    Canalys was clear in its contention that Verizon wouldn't slow down Android, contradicting several days' commentaries and punditries. For example, this morning I spotted Dan Frommer post "Only Now Are We About To See The Real Battle Between iPhone And Android" at Business Insider. He makes a good case for competition between Android handsets and iPhone in the United States. Then he stretches the implications a bit too far. Android's success is global and gaining. Here in the United States, 40.8 percent of US new cellphone purchasers chose an Android handset in November, up from 27.5 percent in June, according to Nielsen. Last week, ComScore asserted that between August and November, Android pushed ahead of iPhone -- smartphone platform share among US mobile subscribers. Yesterday, ComScore revealed that Android is the fastest-growing smartphone platform in Germany.

    "With Android's momentum expected to stay strong, the installed base of Android-based smartphones and pads will rapidly increase -- good news for developers," Daryl Chiam, Canalys senior analyst, said in a statement. He cautioned developers to adapt their applications to capabilities of the various Android smartphones and tablets -- something, I should add, isn't as necessary on iOS.

    "To support developers, Google must also make substantial enhancements to the Android Market, including the ability to detect device platforms, highlighting the applications suitable for each, which would improve the user experience and increase the number of downloads," Chiam added.

    I have to ask: If developers and Google have to make all these adaptions to different Android versions and handsets, why isn't fragmentation a problem? One answer is increasingly lower Android phone prices, which is one factor driving the platform's rapid growth, according to Canlays.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/14/Sometimes_commenters_need_to_be_put_in_their_place'

    Sometimes commenters need to be put in their place

    Publié: janvier 14, 2011, 3:38am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Early this afternoon, I was surprised to see that Machead John Gruber had posted "Clam Chowder: Joe Wilcox on Verizon and Apple." He referred to my Jan. 8, 2011 post: "Why Verizon won't let Apple announce iPhone." The headline played off the title to a TechCrunch post I rebutted: "Why Apple Will Let Verizon Announce An iPhone." I disagreed with reasons that put Apple solely in control of the Verizon iPhone announcement, which was then just rumored.

    I normally wouldn't bother responding to Gruber's typical slash-and-attack pulpit (Hey, it's free speech and his right). But Gruber quoted a comment posted here at Betanews, and that warrants response because it misquotes or takes out of context my January 8th post. In fact, I wrote a response in comments, but before posting I realized just how long it was and decided to do a separate, full-post response instead. Hence, what follows is my response to commenter iphonedroidberry, whose identity I don't know. But the commenter's first Betanews login was two days ago. You can read iphonedroidberry's full comment following my response. I will address additional issues after the quoted comment.

    My Response to iphonedroidberry

    iphonedroidberry wrote: "Verizon has no control over software/firmware or updates, or scheduling of update release dates...VZW also got NO exclusivity on a CDMA version of iPhone in the US that means Sprint and other smaller carriers may get their CDMA version of iPhone later this year or next year."

    I reread my own story wondering where I said that Verizon would have its brand on the phone and would load it up with crapware. I asserted no such thing. My point was lost on you, I guess: Verizon and not Apple controls its network. I stand by that assertion.

    I never asserted or even expected that Verizon would get an exclusive deal for CDMA. Apple is no longer in the habit of making exclusive deals now that iPhone has momentum. Apple wants distribution, and, as the exclusive AT&T iPhone deal shows, exclusive agreements hurt distribution.

    I've stated in several other posts going back more than two years that Apple controls software updates and the company changed the paradigm by doing so first with AT&T. Apple's control over software updates is essential to keeping the iOS platform fairly uniform for the customer experience and also for application development.

    I was most intrigued by how you used snippet quotes to emphasize your point. Verizon "takes no crap from suppliers" is fine. I wrote that. It's true, and I stand by that assertion. But you took liberties with "Verzon 'is in the driver's seat'"; that's very naughty. I wrote that: "No one should expect Verizon to take a backseat to Apple," which is much different. The full quote in context: "No one should expect Verizon to take a backseat to Apple, the way AT&T has. Verizon will be ruthless promoting the benefits of its network over AT&T's for iPhone. But Verizon also sells many other smartphones, Androids among them, and announced many new handsets during this week's Consumer Electronics Show. Verizon won't depend on iPhone the way AT&T has."

    I also never wrote that "Verizon 'won't cow before Jobs.'" I wrote that Verizon's CEO "isn't the type to cow before Jobs, no matter how revered." The full quote in context: "Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is a formidable figure in American business. His cunning acquisitions brought together Bell Atlantic, GTE and (and earlier NYNEX) to form Verizon in 2000. He didn't need an iPhone to relaunch or rebrand. Seidenberg isn't the type to cow before [Apple CEO Steve] Jobs, no matter how revered." I should point out that Verizon Wireless CEO Dan Mead and Apple COO Tim Cook led the iPhone announcement. Not Seidenberg or Jobs. You should really ask yourself why. The answer will shed some insight into the meanings behind what I wrote on January 8th.

    I was aghast by misquote "Verizon 'set the terms of the deal.'" I wrote, in full context: "At the least Verizon is on fairly equal footing negotiating terms and selecting launch venue. Dalrymple's mistake is the same as many other people watching Apple -- assuming the company will set the terms of the deal and lead the launch. No way, Jose." I never ever said that Verizon would set the terms of the deal. I asserted my friend Jim Dalrymple and other Macheads wrongly assumed that Apple would set the terms of the deal. That's a nasty misquote.

    My January 8th post had three clear points:

    • That Macheads (I assume you are one, iphonedroidberry) arrogantly assumed that Apple and only Apple was driving the announcement.
    • That it was wrong to assume Apple didn't send out the event invitation so as to avoid rumors about iPad 2 and other products.
    • That Verizon was a partner with Apple (at least on equal footing), which the New York launch venue indicated, among other things.

    That addresses most of the points, but two remain from your list. You mocked that there was "no V-CAST software" and "no Verizon selling of games, music or apps." Verizon hasn't yet released iPhone 4, so you don't know what apps the carrier may offer. In Apple's App Store, AT&T offers its own applications for iPhone, such as the one letting U-verse customers schedule and stream programs. Verizon already offers two iPhone apps for its FiOS service. I would be surprised if Verizon doesn't eventually offer in the App Store a V-CAST app and others. While there is no Verizon branding on iPhone, I expect to see Verizon branded iPhone 4 cases.

    iphonedroidberry's Full Comment Posted January 11th

    Another couple of items that point out how Verizon cowed to Apple: Verizon has no control over software/firmware or updates, or scheduling of update release dates. On every Android phone they do have this type of control. VZW also got NO exclusivity on a CDMA version of iPhone in the U.S. that means Sprint and other smaller carriers may get their CDMA version of iPhone later this year or next year.

    So, to recap, here is how Verizon "takes no crap from suppliers", and how Verzon "is in the driver's seat", and how Verizon "won't cow before Jobs" and how Verizon "set the terms of the deal":

    a) no V-cast software
    b) no Verizon software/bloatware/crapware (of their own or of their partners)
    c) no verizon selling of games music or apps
    d) no verizon branding on the hardware
    e) no verizon control of software/firmware or updates
    f) no verizon control of scheduling of release dates for software updates
    g) NO exclusivity deal for a USA CDMA version of iPhone

    Beyond those tiny little things, if you overlook items a thru g, yes, Verizon is definitely wearing the pants in the Apple/Verizon relationship.

    I can't believe Wilcox actually published this piece of crap fantasy story masquerading as an article and actually got paid to do so.

    Couple More Things

    I won't speak to iphonedroidberry's motivation or zealousness, but will make an observation. Little more than three hours before this comment was posted, I quoted iphonedroidberry in post "Would you buy Verizon iPhone?"

    Something else: Nearly all the other criticism of the January 8th post is directed at one sentence, which I assert has been interpreted out of context: "Verizon controls everything on its network and is quick to customize handsets with its software and services." That has been used to assert my claiming Verizon would offer its own software bundle on iPhone. I said nothing like that. In context:

    Verizon isn't AT&T. The United States' largest cellular carrier isn't accustomed to taking crap from handset manufacturers. Verizon controls everything on its network and is quick to customize handsets with its software and services. AT&T is different, or was when Apple launched the original iPhone in June 2007. AT&T made lots of concessions to get iPhone, such as granting Apple control over the software and updates. The company then known as Cingular was relaunching as AT&T; iPhone would anchor the brand change. But Apple made concessions, too, as a handset manufacturing newcomer, granting AT&T exclusive US iPhone distribution rights for what was then reported to be five years.

    I was making an attitudinal point about the difference between AT&T and Verizon and also how different are the circumstances for 2007 versus 2011 iPhone distribution deals. It's ridiculous that Apple would cede the huge platform advantages of distributing software to Verizon. More importantly, such action would open demands from other carriers; there's no reason for Apple to do that. Anyone who has read what I've consistently written about Apple and the advantages of controlling software load and updates shouldn't need this explanation.

    Following that one paragraph, I went on to present subscriber data for AT&T and Verizon and compared Android and iPhone sales (meaty stuff ignored by my Machead critics). All to make a point: Apple and Verizon need each other, rather than Verizon begging for iPhone and Apple controlling everything as numerous commentaries and punditries had asserted.

    Bottom line: I stand by my January 8th post in the context it was written. I take a lot of crap from obnoxious commenters who flame me with nothing more than ridicule. Every once and awhile I need to push back. I chose this instance because of how grossly what I wrote had been misquoted and twisted out of context.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/13/Bieber.ly_will_maime_your_shortened_URL_with_teen_s_image'

    Bieber.ly will maime your shortened URL with teen's image

    Publié: janvier 13, 2011, 7:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Bieber.ly

    Surely today marks the end of Western civilization. The YouTube generation that spawned the Justin Bieber sensation has another place for the much-loathed (by adults - come on, you know you do) teen singer. Bieber now has a URL shortener, which does more than just shorten the URL. Bieber.ly also plasters a photo of the teen on whatever website it takes you to -- and every page you navigate to.

    Normally I wouldn't post something like this, but surely somebody would want to comment about this marvel of brand marketing and ickiness. So I'm eager for some reader reaction to this one. Fire up your comments, folks.

    And if you love Justin Bieber, feel free to slap me around in comments for slapping him around.

    I spotted this at Mashable. Hey, credit goes to where it's due.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/13/Steve_Ballmer_finally_shows_who_s_in_charge_of_Microsoft'

    Steve Ballmer finally shows who's in charge of Microsoft

    Publié: janvier 13, 2011, 5:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In his 11th year as chief executive and third outside the shadow of Chairman Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer is asserting surprising control over Microsoft. There were signs in 2010, but events over just the last week, particularly the public execution of Bob Muglia, show a different side of Microsoft's CEO. Competitors, you've been warned.

    Over the last week, Ballmer did two things that spotlight this change in his leadership style, something already seen in other executive ousters (including Robbie Bach and Ray Ozzie in 2010). The first: Ballmer rightly resisted making tablets a major part of his Consumer Electronics Show keynote last week. The second: Muglia's demotion, and in real substance firing, as Server and Tools Business president.

    Tablet To-Do

    Gates' debuted Microsoft's Tablet PC concept in November 2000, during Comdex, and announced the first devices two years later with 20 partners. But not until last year's Apple iPad debut did the category get moving. Now, anyone and everyone is blabbering non-stop about tablets' future and iPad's overwhelming dominance (ignoring, by the way, that it's still a nascent market compared to PCs or cell phones).

    Rumors going into CES had Ballmer pegged to make a major tablet OS announcement during his CES keynote and to show off a rack of supporting devices in response to iPad. Instead, in an event held hours earlier, Microsoft announced the next Windows version would support ARM processors and System-on-a-Chip technology.

    Ballmer was right not to make any major tablet announcement, showing off something that wasn't ready. Any zealous tablet push would have led to bloggers, journalists and Wall Street analysts making iPad comparisons. By staying away from Apple and iPad, Ballmer kept the message pure, which is good marketing. Ballmer set the keynote agenda on his terms rather than taking the position of following a competitor. Surely there was temptation, and pressure, to directly respond to iPad. Ballmer showed leadership by waiting.

    Mugging Muglia

    Muglia's ouster is Ballmer extraordinaire, and I say that with a big lump in my throat. Muglia is a big huggy bear executive; it's hard not to like his unpretentious manner. But Muglia also is a sacrifice to Microsoft's future, and one Ballmer rightly made. Ballmer's e-mail about Muglia's departure, which was posted on Microsoft's PressPass website, is remarkable for what it states:

    Bob Muglia and I have been talking about the overall business and what is needed to accelerate our growth. In this context, I have decided that now is the time to put new leadership in place for STB...In conjunction with this leadership change, Bob has decided to leave Microsoft this summer. He will continue to actively run STB as I conduct an internal and external search for the new leader. Bob will onboard the new leader and will also complete additional projects for me.

    Ballmer essentially humiliates Muglia, by asserting the executive who helped build up the very successful Server and Tools business and who now runs it isn't qualified enough to lead future advances. It's an unusually public admonishment of a loyal, long-time Microsoft employee (since 1988). I've read lots of speculation among pundits that Muglia and Ballmer had some personal falling out. I won't speculate but instead focus on what the public ouster communicates: Don't frak with Steve Ballmer.

    Captain, My Captain

    Ballmer has something to communicate here to other Microsoft executives, employees, partners, Wall Street analysts and investors: He's in charge and will do whatever is necessary to make Microsoft more competitive in the decade 2010.  No Microsoft leader is sacred enough; anyone can and will be sacked if they put personal agenda or perceived Microsoft agenda ahead of the company. Nearly all the major executives exiting Microsoft over the last year -- J Allard, Bach, Muglia and Ozzie, among others -- share something in common: They had a following within the company; purposely or not, they had established mini-fiefdoms.

    The public nature of Muglia's departure also communicates to Wall Street just how serious Ballmer is about the cloud and transforming the server business to embrace it -- the same way Allard's and Bach's departures showed renewed commitment to transform the mobile business. Nothing is sacred now, not even loyal, long-time executives who succeeded in the past -- there Bach shares something with Muglia. Microsoft will even search outside the company to find the right leader for the responsibility.

    Whether or not Wall Street analysts and investors can believe in Ballmer, that he is the right man to continue running Microsoft, is another matter. But there's no question about who is in charge. Many commentaries and punditries treat recent executive departures negatively -- rats fleeing the sinking ship. Just the opposite is true. The captain is taking the helm of the ship and throwing overboard suspect or disloyal officers ("You're walking the plank there, matee!"). There's only one captain on the good ship Microsoft.

    Ballmer may have been chief executive since early 2000, but not until Gates' summer 2008 semi-retirement did the CEO escape the Chairman's shadow. The company made plenty of mistakes during the transition years, particularly falling behind in mobile and the horribly botched Windows Vista release.

    But there is something different now in Ballmer's leadership style, which started soon after the September 2008 stock market collapse and became more apparent in actions taken in 2010. No one should underestimate Microsoft in 2011. Whether the good ship Microsoft breaks up on a reef or outmaneuvers competitors during the next two years, Ballmer will be at the helm. Accountability starts and ends with him now, like never before in his 11-year tenure. He's communicated that he is absolutely in charge. It's now deliver or die.

    Steve Ballmer became Microsoft CEO 11 years ago today.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/13/It_s_official__iPad_sapped_Windows_PC_shipments_during_Q4_2010__but_Macs_more'

    It's official, iPad sapped Windows PC shipments during Q4 2010, but Macs more

    Publié: janvier 13, 2011, 3:02am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gartner and IDC both released fourth-quarter PC shipments this afternoon (PC here refers to Windows computers and Macs). While they didn't agree on the actual numbers or year-over-year growth, both analyst firms cited iPad and other media tablets (What? There are others?) as displacing PC sales. Well, hell, no wonder every Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane with a manufacturing plant, or the funds to outsource one, showed off a tablet during last week's Consumer Electronics Show.

    A Betanews analysis finds that not only did iPad cannibalize computers sales but with greater impact on Apple than major Windows PC vendors.

    "Media tablets, such as the iPad, as well as other consumer electronic (CE) devices, such as game consoles, all competed against PCs," Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, said in a statement. "Overall, holiday PC sales were weak in many key regions due to the intensifying competition in consumer spending." IDC also described consumer PC spending as soft, warning it's likely a trend: The "situation is likely to persist in 2011, if not get worse as a wave of media tablets could put a dent on the traditional PC market," IDC research diector David Daoud said in a statement. Kitagawa concurred: "The PC market will face challenges going forward with more intensified competition among consumer spending."

    The analysts may have singled out media tablets, but smartphones are another category consumers are hugely interested in. They're personal, pocketable computers that are connected to the network and primary means of connecting to other people.

    Shouldn't Tablets Count as PCs?

    Neither analyst firm counts media tablets as PCs, a categorization choice I find hard to reconcile with how they're used. In October, I observed that had iPad counted as a personal computer, Apple likely would have tied or beat HP for No. 1 spot in US PC shipments during Q3 2010.

    "Media tablets undoubtedly intensified the competition in the consumer market," Kitagawa reiterated. "These devices do not replace primary PCs, but they are viewed as good enough devices for these who want to have a second and third connected device for content consumption usage." That's not my experience. I know plenty of consumers -- mainly those who don't need a computer for work or school -- who have replaced their PC with iPad. They're only tied to the PC because that's how iPad syncs and receives software updates.

    Sometimes I am appalled by the rationale of both analyst firms, which locks into a kind of enterprise status quo mentality. It's not rocket science. If people are buying tablets instead of PCs, there must be some kind of replacement behavior, too. The new crop of dual-core tablets, particularly those sold through wireless carriers with data plans, won't be PC dependent and will be more capable of replacing personal computers.

    The netbook is dead, or soon will be -- the most severe casualty of iPad's success. "Mini-notebook shipments were hit the most by the success of media tablets," Kitagawa expressed.

    Gartner PC Q4 10

    While consumers shied away, businesses did not. "The bright side of the PC market during the fourth quarter of 2010 was a steady growth in the professional market driven by replacement purchases," Kitagawa explained. Earlier today, I posted Gartner's forecast that IT spending would rise 5.1 percent this year. Office 2010 and Windows 7 are driving enterprise PC sales -- that and onset of an upgrade cycle delayed by the recession.

    Sizing up the Numbers

    PC manufacturers shipped 93.5 million PCs globally in Q4 2010, up 3.1 percent year over year, according to Gartner. The analyst firm had forecast 4.8 percent growth. IDC put the number at a lower 92.1 million and growth 2.7 percent. US PC sales declined 6.6 percent to 19.1 million, according to Gartner, which previously forecast 10 percent year-over-year growth. IDC put shipments at a higher 19.9 percent and the decline a lower 4.8 percent. Both firm's numbers are preliminary.

    Both analyst firms ranked HP No.1 globally and in the United States. But Apple stands out in the United States, for what it lost. As Apple earnings approach, there is no loss of prognosticators predicting a big quarter of Mac sales. Maybe, but both Gartner and IDC put Apple in fifth place -- that's down one spot and two, respectively. That's right, IDC had Apple as No. 3 in US PC shipments during Q3 2010 and now No. 5. For fourth quarter -- typically the biggest sales period of the year -- IDC put Apple US shipments as less than the previous quarter -- 1.734 million to 1.999 million, respectively. Typically fourth quarter should be more. For example, HP's US PC shipments rose from 4.591 million in third quarter to 5.724 million in Q4, according to IDC. Dell and Toshiba shipments grew quarter over quarter, too. However, Acer, which suffered somewhat from slowing netbook sales to iPad, declined quarter on quarter.

    Gartner PC Q4 10

    By comparison, Gartner put Apple ever so slightly ahead, with fourth-quarter shipments of 1.86 million compared to 1.849 million a quarter earlier; that's not exactly steller for the holiday quarter. While Apple's market share rose quarter on quarter, it declined sequentially -- 10.6 percent to 9.7 percent, according to Gartner and 10.4 percent to 8.7 percent, according to IDC. The question everyone should be asking: Is iPad cannibalizing more Mac sales than PC sales? It's certainly a most reasonable interpretation of the data. I first asked the question -- "Will iPad cannibalize Mac sales? -- in April 2010 and again in August. Most Wall Street analysts dismissed the cannibalism theory.

    The data stacks up like this: Tablets (really iPad) cannibalized some PC sales among consumers. Apple primarily sells to consumers. Apple sells Macs and iPads in the same stores, where any choice between the PC devices is more visceral. Apple PC shipments declined or are flat quarter on quarter, during a time when holiday sales should boost shipments and did for three of the other top PC vendors. Acer shipments also declined because of iPad's impact on netbooks.

    The real measure will be comparing Mac shipments in markets where Apple offers iPads to those markets where it doesn't and putting the comparison in context of the entire year's sales. I expect that in the final analysis, iPad will be shown to have helped the Windows PC market while hurting Macintosh shipments during fourth quarter. Netbooks are a curse to the Windows PC market, pulling down the margins of both Microsoft and its OEM partners. A Windows PC market without netbooks could recover lost margins and improve customer satisfaction; iPad cannibalization there is a benefit. For Apple the hurt is a matter of perspective. Mac cannibalization is a negative in context of the larger PC market, but a positive seeing as iPad is still a sale to Apple and facilitates the expansion of its iOS platform.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/12/Global_IT_spending_will_reach__3.6_trillion_in_2011'

    Global IT spending will reach $3.6 trillion in 2011

    Publié: janvier 12, 2011, 9:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Worldwide IT spending will rise by 5.1 percent this year to $3.6 tillion, according to Gartner. The new forecast increases year-over-year growth from 3.5 percent. The analyst firm released the data last week; some news is better kept on hold until supernovas like the Consumer Electronics Show or the Verizon iPhone pass by.

    Richard Gordon, a Gartner research vice president, expressed cautious optimism.  The forecast "is far from certain, given continued macroeconomic uncertainty," he said in a statement. "Favorable US dollar exchange rates" is one factor precipitating IT spending.

    "While the global economic situation is improving, the recovery is slow and hampered by a sluggish growth outlook in the important mature economies of the US and Western Europe," Gordon warned. "There are also growing concerns about the ability of key emerging economies to sustain relatively high growth rates. Nevertheless, as well as a fundamental enabler of cost reduction and cost optimization, investment in IT is seen increasingly as an important element in business growth strategies. As the global economy repairs itself in coming years, we are optimistic about continued healthy spending on IT."

    Gartner publicly disclosed information on five sectors: computing hardware, enterprise software, IT services, telecom equipment and telecom services. Telecom equipment had the strongest spending growth in 2010 (14 percent) and is expected to top the other categories in 2011 (9.1 percent). That's spending of $426.6 billion and $465.4 billion, respectively. While Gartner didn't say in its publicly disclosed information, the global cell phone market is one major factor driving telecom equipment spending. According to the United Nations, there are 5 billion cell phone subscribers worldwide, the majority in emerging markets such as BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China). Telecom providers are still building out networks in many emerging markets, particularly for providing data services.

    Spending growth on computer equipment was 8.9 percent in 2010 but projected to be only 7.5 percent this year. That's $391.3 billion versus $364.1 billion, respectively. Gartner warned at least during the first half of the year continued global economic problems would affect PC growth. But the problems are much broader. The release of Windows 7 in October 2009 and Office 2010 in May 2010 precipitated an enterprise PC refresh cycle, particularly with as much as 85 percent of the install base running Windows XP. Many of those older PCs need upgrades or replacement to run Windows 7. While PC spending will ride the software's coattails this year, the bigger bump came in 2010.

    Gartner IT spending 2011

    Related: Enterprise software spending is on the rise, with Gartner forecasting 7.5 percent year-over-year growth in 2011, up from 6.1 percent in 2010. That's spending of $253.7 billion versus $235.9 billion respectively. IT services, which get a boost from new hardware and software upgrades, will see year-over-year growth rise 2.5 percent in 2010 to 4.6 percent this year. That's spending of $782 billion versus $817.9 billion, respectively.

    By far, the sector with highest spending but lowest growth will be telecom services. Spending is predicted to reach $1.647 trillion this year.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/12/Who_s_switching_from_AT_T_to_Verizon_iPhone__It_s_probably_not_you'

    Who's switching from AT&T to Verizon iPhone? It's probably not you

    Publié: janvier 12, 2011, 4:41pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The rabble worshipping Apple's so-called Jesus phone are in for a surprise. The expected mass-exodus from AT&T to Verizon may be more myth than reality. Yesterday I asked Betanews readers "Would you buy Verizon iPhone?" and embedded a poll in that story and two others. At least among the tech-savvy people who read Betanews, the informal survey suggests that most will not switch from iPhone 4 on AT&T to iPhone 4 on Verizon. Nor are they likely to abandon Android phones. Prominent blogger or journalist posts, particularly the prognosticators of Android's doom, give a different impression. It's reality check time, baby.

    Betanews readers give many reasons for sticking with what they've got, and for many it's not iPhone. Reasons range from satisfaction with their existing (usually Android) handset to concerns iPhone 4 is already outdated to there being no LTE support.

    Nicholas Gerstenberger expresses a common concern about Verizon, which, I concede, probably won't matter to the mass of users (but would to me and many of you): "My one gripe with Verizon's CDMA network is that there is no simultaneous use of voice & data; besides the slightly higher costs."

    Matthew Hochman would switch. "I would absolutely jump ship from AT&T," he writes. "I love my iPhone, and until last year AT&T was the best provider where I am (an island off the coast of Maine) but last summer AT&T had a total failure almost all summer-- slow service, dropped calls, then one weekend all AT&T service just stopped, when we called to find out what was up, AT&T refused to admit there was a problem." Hochman was by far in the minority of Betanews readers answering in comments.

    Yesterday's poll offered six answers. I took the unusual approach of offering yes and no options to the same question, which is somewhat redundant but useful in capturing emotional context and also getting a different perspective on respondents' intentions. The approach is useful for an informal survey where the respondents aren't qualified -- meaning I don't know who they are. In my experience there is different emotional context behind yes and no responses. Poll takers could only answer once. The question: "Verizon's iPhone will be available Feb. 10, 2011. Will you buy it?" The answers readers could give:

    • Yes, I'm an existing Verizon customer switching from another handset.
    • Yes, I'm switching from another carrier and non-iPhone device to get Verizon's iPhone.
    • Yes, I'm an AT&T subscriber and iPhone owner switching to Verizon.
    • No, I'm an existing Verizon customer either not interested in or eligible for Verizon iPhone.
    • No, I'm sticking with my existing carrier and non-iPhone handset.
    • No, I'm an AT&T subscriber and iPhone owner either not interested in Verizon iPhone or locked into contract.

    I closed the poll at 10:20 am ET this morning, with 484 responses. Only 10.3 percent of respondents with an iPhone on AT&T say they will switch to one on Verizon. Another 3.1 percent would switch from another carrier with non-iPhone device. So little more than 13 percent of respondents say they would switch from another carrier and handset to Verizon iPhone. Still, 10 percent shouldn't be understated. During the first three quarters of 2010, AT&T added 5.2 million net subscribers for a total 92.2 million. Even if just 5 percent switched, AT&T would lose those gains and see a dramatic decrease in switchers -- at least from Verizon.

    Among Verizon subscribers, 17.52 percent of respondents would switch from another handset to iPhone. That's a huge number for the carrier and, at the least, valuable for retaining customers rather than having some switch to AT&T for iPhone 4. The benefits to Verizon shouldn't be understated. During the first three quarters of 2010, Verizon added only 400,000 net subscribers for a total of 93.2 million. Putting it altogether, 9 out of 10 respondents with AT&T iPhone won't switch to Verizon iPhone. One in six Verizon customers will switch to iPhone. Regarding the internal switchers, there is question: will many switch from Android handsets? Probably not, since the install base is largely feature phones. Betanews reader responses somewhat supports this contention.

    "I already use Verizon and have an Android phone," writes commenter Robert Bradley. "Why would I want an iPhone and the iTunes anchor?"

    Douglas Utley also won't give up Android. "I'm sure a lot of AT&T customers and part of the younger crowd that doesn't mind not being able to customize their phone might jump on it but I'm sticking with Android for the foreseeable future," he writes.

    Regarding those "no" answers in our poll, the numbers are unsurprisingly higher than those for yes: 20.8 percent of respondents won't switch from AT&T iPhone to Verizon iPhone. Another 25.62 percent won't switch from another carrier and non-iPhone device. Among existing Verizon customers, 22.52 percent won't switch to iPhone.

    "I doubt I ever will [switch]. I'm still enjoying my one-year old Droid," Gerstenberger adds. "Thanks mostly to a large community of coders pumping out updated ROMs to a device that Verizon has completely given up on. I enjoy what I can do with it. But thats me, I like to hack my hardware and push it to it's limits beyond what was originally 'intended.'"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/11/Google_does_an_Apple_in_reverse____will_drop_H.264_support_in_Chrome'

    Google does an Apple in reverse -- will drop H.264 support in Chrome

    Publié: janvier 11, 2011, 11:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Would someone please stop the "Twilight Zone" music from playing. I'm hearing it now following today's Google bombshell (Yes, there is other news besides Verizon iPhone): Chrome will soon no longer support the H.264 codec. Google supports Flash Video, but Apple has abandoned it. Apple supports H.264, and Google is giving it up. Someone pinch me when there is something resembling sanity among these companies' positions. Perhaps Firefox can save us all and our online video streaming. No, wait! Mozilla also spurns H.264. Well, gulp, Internet Explorer anyone?

    Apple's Flash abandonment is nutty enough, at least in the here and now, given how widely Adobe's technology is used on the Web. H.264 also is pervasive, making Google's plan as out of touch, from a user experience perspective. Then there is Google's support for Flash to consider. Am I missing something or isn't H.264 a primary Flash codec?

    Google's position on H.264 is strange because the stated reason is openness or lack of it. Rather than H.264, Google is opting for the WebM audio and video codec, which is a fairly recent but open entrant. "We expect even more rapid innovation in the web media platform in the coming year and are focusing our investments in those technologies that are developed and licensed based on open web principles," Mike Jazayeri, Chromium product manager, asserted in a blog post. Excuse me, isn't there something contradictory here? What is open about Flash, or some of the other technologies Google supports?

    "To that end, we are changing Chrome's HTML5 [video tag] support to make it consistent with the codecs already supported by the open Chromium project," he continued. "Specifically, we are supporting the WebM (VP8) and Theora video codecs, and will consider adding support for other high-quality open codecs in the future. Though H.264 plays an important role in video, as our goal is to enable open innovation, support for the codec will be removed and our resources directed towards completely open codec technologies."

    One commenter to the blog post, going by handle Andrex, called Google's video codec changeling a "ballsy move." Commenter Abe challenged: "Your move Apple." In the tit-for-tat skirmish between Apple and Google over web video, the H.264 abandonment warrants response.

    "These changes will occur in the next couple months but we are announcing them now to give content publishers and developers using HTML5 [video tag] an opportunity to make any necessary changes to their sites," Jazayeri emphasized. My question: What should be the real definition of open -- open availability or open licensing/development? By the measure of open availability, Google's H.264 position makes as little sense as Apple's regarding Flash.

    Several other commenters to Jazayeri's blog post captured my sentiments and surprise. "Well, that [is] a violent move: that leave[s] the site's owner with the choice of staying with Flash player + H.264 alone or to double encode their videos -- one in WebM for half the browser market, the other in H.264 for the rest of the world," writes commenter, Jean-Pierre. "I know YouTube is doing it, but for the rest of the world, that's not a cheap enough move. Aren't you afraid to simply kill the HTML5 video tag?"

    "Ugh. This is a move by Google where they care more about the open source 'community' than they do actual users of their browser," Commenter Shidoshi griped. "Let's be real here: WebM has a long way to go before it will have any serious amount of traction...Like it or not, H.264 is becoming the standard, and dropping support for it for no good reason is ridiculous."

    Of course, many people have said the same about Flash, and that didn't stop Apple from giving Adobe or anyone else using the technology a big middle finger. Google, or the Chromium team anyway, is making a philosophical stand -- and one that might eventually move more developers to open codecs. But in the here and now, particularly with so many devices offering hardware that supports H.264, the Chrome user experience may suffer in a few months. Of course, someone can always release a H.264 extension, giving Chrome users the video they want and allowing Google to keep purity with the open-source community and to pursue other development goals.

    What about Android's browser? Google could drive open codecs' adoption by also dumping H.264 there and working with WebM and phone manufacturers and chip suppliers to offer hardware support for the codec.

    What do you think of Google's plans? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/11/Can_you_switch_from_AT_T_to_Verizon_iPhone_without_paying_hefty_termination_fees_'

    Can you switch from AT&T to Verizon iPhone without paying hefty termination fees?

    Publié: janvier 11, 2011, 7:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    No, but you can act like you did. The iPhone's high resale value can cover early termination fees and possibly cost of a new handset from Verizon.

    In December, I abandoned AT&T and iPhone 4, returning to T-Mobile with the Samsung-manufactured, Google-branded Nexus S. AT&T charges a $325 ETF for smartphones, which is prorated depending on number of months left on the contract. I signed up for new AT&T service is June, making my December ETF $275. That set the minimum price for which I would sell iPhone 4.

    I took the eBay auction route, by putting the 32GB iPhone 4 up for just 24 hours with $410 starting bid. I based the starting bid and reserve price based on average selling prices for the device that week. Twenty-four hours later, a woman living in the United States bought the phone for $525; I expedited shipping for Christmas. Of course, eBay gets its cut -- and PayPal, too -- putting my net around $450.

    A week earlier one of the phone geeks at my local T-Mobile store sold his unlocked iPhone 4 on Craigslist for $710. He listed it at $750, which I thought was outrageous. But buyers from other countries will pay that much, because it's less and/or unlocked option -- for example, just south of San Diego in Mexico, he said. The phone geek also switched to Nexus S.

    So, what's the going rate for iPhone 4 on eBay? While writing this post one auction finished, after 30 bids, for a new 16GB iPhone: $598. If that was you, and you're ETF was $275 and new Verizon iPhone $199, you would be able to cover full switching cost (when adding tax and eBay/PayPal fees) and still have a little left over. Sure, you're still out the original cost of the device. But that's the price for switching. On the bright side, any cases or peripherals purchased for the older handset should work fine on the new iPhone 4.

    Verizon's iPhone will be available Feb. 10, 2011. Will you buy it?online surveys

    But these eBay auctions can be unpredictable. Another auction ended while I was writing this post with zero bids for a used 16GB iPhone 4. Starting and ending bid: $599. The seller should have set a lower starting bid and included more photos. But who knows, he might relist and catch a buying wave. In my experience watching eBay auctions, shorter placement is usually better for hot gadgets.

    AT&T isn't going to let you get away without giving up blood. But you can minimize the number of pints by selling your older iPhone 4. Remember to carefully wipe the data. You don't know what Russian hacker might be the eventual buyer. ;-) Five hundred bucks used might seem like lots to you, but it's not for many overseas buyers -- particularly in markets where handsets are usually sold with carrier commitment but where Apple/wireless provider demands it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/10/2011__The_year_of_Google'

    2011: The year of Google

    Publié: janvier 10, 2011, 12:55pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google logo

    By just about every measure, 2010 was a great year for Google -- perhaps its best ever. So I'm surprised to have read over the last 10 days or so, several commentaries and punditries asserting that Google has slowed down and is losing its competitive edge. These prognosticators of Google doom are fraking crazy. Anyone who asserts that Google has lost its mojo is simply and absolutely clueless.

    Google is on a roll and showing its mojo everywhere. No tech company on the planet is iterating products and services faster than Google. Not a week goes by when Google isn't announcing something new somewhere. Perhaps some of Google's critics aren't paying close enough attention, since there are few Apple-like media events, which draw lots of attention.

    There are many measures of Google's 2010 success and infuence and what they foreshadow for 2011. For example, four Google blog posts ranked among Techmeme's top-10 tech stories of the year. Next to Apple, Google overwhelmingly had the most stories on Techmeme's top-50 tech stories -- 19 and 13, respectively. Clearly somebody is paying attention, if not Google doomsayers. Google blogs had 24,768,052 unique visitors in 2010, up 70 percent year over year, according to Google. To get a real sense of just how quickly the search and information giant is iterating products everywhere, visit the Google Blog Directory.

    Three attributes define Google's success and why 2011 will be second of several big years:

    1. Google made several key, strategic investments years ago that are starting to bear fruit in new products and services. Android is among them.

    2. The year 2010 marked a dramatic change in software/services development, with Google making iteration development priority. The company started releasing more features and new products on shorter cycles -- every six weeks for the Chrome browser.

    3. Mobile is the next big thing in computing. Feature phones and smartphones offer huge opportunities for utility features and services that help people connect and communicate. Google's success with Android and Chrome mobile are foundational for making the company a major player in the market for cloud-connected devices.

    Apple Investments That Paid Off

    Google Nexus OneDuring the mid- to late-Noughties, Google made several key investments that are now starting to hugely pay off, such as the 2005 acquisitions of Android and YouTube. As significantly, Google brought to market during the economic crisis foundational products that will pay back dividends for years. The information and search giant started reaping the fruits of these investments in 2010. But it is in 2011 and the two to four years that will follow where Google can really reap the benefits. The pace of Google product development has never been faster, and it's the crucial ingredient for continued and future success.

    Historically, companies that continue to invest during a recession or other economic downturn are rewarded later on. Apple is glaring, recent example. In September 2009 post "2001: An Apple Odyssey," I explained how four Apple investments were foundation for the company's current success: iTunes, Mac OS X, Apple Store and iPod -- in order of release. The recession of 2000-01 hit Apple hard, devastating its share price. Another company might have pulled back research, development and new product releases, but Apple pushed ahead.

    The "2001 four" are foundational to every product success since:

    • iTunes grew into music and, later, applications stores
    • Mac OS X led to iOS that runs on iPad, iPhone and iPod, and, of course, it powers Macs
    • Apple Store provides a place to sell products and the Apple lifestyle, and anchors the company's massive marketing and distribution channels.
    • iPod established the global retail distribution channels that support iPad and iPhone -- and these devices are descendants.

    That's the simplistic perspective. You can read the September 2009 post for depth. This post is about Google and not Apple. But the parallels are worth noting. In late 2008, Google released Android and Chrome, which are transforming the company into something more than search and information gathering -- like Apple's "2001 four" pushed beyond the Mac into consumer electronics and cloud services.

    Google Investments That Will Pay Off

    Android and Chrome aren't just huge successes, they're fundamentally changing Google. Perhaps it's this change that Google doomsayers emotionally perceive without intellectually understanding the meaning. Let's measure the success. First, Google's mobile OS. T-Mobile launched the first Android handset, the G1, in late September 2008. During 2009, global Android handset sales reached 6.8 million units, according to Gartner. Not a bad start. By December 2010, Google was activating more Android handsets in a single month (9 million) than were sold for all of 2009. Activations rose from 60,000 a day in February to 300,000 in November. Last week, Nielsen put Android smartphone OS market share ahead of iOS in the United States.

    Android may be open source, but it wouldn't have gotten this far so fast without continued and aggressive investment from Google. For example, Google announced the Nexus One smartphone in early January 2010. Few bloggers and journalists seem to have groked the N1. I daren't count the number of times I read someone calling the smartphone a failure, because of the seemingly low number of sales or Google selling direct. These critics don't get it. Google released Nexus One with two clear goals, and both were achieved: To provide manufacturers a baseline reference design and to give developers an Android phone that always has the newest version available. The runaway success of Android in 2010 cannot be understated, and Nexus One lit the fire.

    Google Cr-48 laptop

    What about Chrome? Google released the browser's public beta in early September 2008. Two months later Google, which has a long history of keeping products in beta for years -- certified version 1.0. It was a dramatic change in Google software development. The company continued to rapidly iterate Chrome throughout 2009 and 2010, significantly outpacing Apple, Microsoft and Mozilla browser development. Chrome reached version 8 by end of last year. In July 2010, Google announced an accelerated release schedule of new Chrome versions every six weeks.

    According to NetApplications, Chrome usage share rose from 2.64 percent in 2009 to 9.98 percent by early January 2011. That's less than Firefox two years after its November 2004 release, but Chrome is available in more places. Every Android phone ships with Chrome (as does every iPhone with Safari). If Android sales keep or increase pace, Chrome should have the largest install share of any mobile browser by end of 2011. Wild card: iPad, which first two quarters of sales are remarkably strong.

    Apple defenders will squawk that Mobile Safari's usage share is higher, based on monthly data released by several ad metrics companies and also NetApplications. In December, iOS browser usage share was 1.69 percent on all devices -- iPad and iPod touch as well as iPhone, according to NetApplications. By comparison, Chrome usage share was .40 percent but with faster month-on-month growth of 29 percent. Chrome's mobile usage share is immaterial right now; Google is laying foundation for future. Meanwhile, Chrome is itching to break out. In November 2010, Chrome 7.0 had the second largest monthly usage share gains in NetApplications tracking history. In mid December, Google claimed there are 120 million Chrome users.

    Then there is what Chrome is becoming. In early December, Google dispatched 60,000 test laptops running Chrome OS. The Linux-based operating system is planned for summer release. Amazingly, many of the same critics calling Google a floundering has-been also claim Chrome OS will fail or that Google will give up development. Well, hell, Chrome OS hasn't even launched yet. Assuming the laptops only cost Google $500 to purchase, receive and dispatch to testers, that's a $15 million investment. That sure seems like commitment to me.

    Rapid Iteration makes for Quick Product Cycles

    Google did something quite remarkable in 2010, building on foundations started during the era of forever betas and from process of shorter development cycles beginning in 2008: Products and services rapidly improved through iteration, and many on an accelerated schedule. As important, Google seemed to iterate everywhere at once, blogging about updated features or new products at least weekly and often much more frequently. For example, Chrome advanced from version 4 to 8 in 2010 and Google Maps for Mobile from version 3.4 to 5.0.

    By just about every other measure, Google set rapid pace in 2010 that sets foundation for this year and the next few to follow. Among the many, many, many new products/services or updated ones released in 2010 (seriously, this is a short list):

    • AdMob acquisition
    • Android 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
    • Android and iPhone apps (simply too many to list)
    • Blogger Template Chooser
    • Chrome (v4.0.249 - v8.0.552)
    • Chrome Web Apps Store
    • Caffeine search engine
    • E-mail Delegation (for Gmail)
    • Gmail phone calling (US/Canada free for 2011)
    • Gmail multiple accounts in one browser
    • Google Apps Marketplace
    • Google Books
    • Google Buzz (desktop and mobile)
    • Google Earth for Android
    • Google Instant search (desktop and mobile)
    • Google Maps for Mobile (v3.4 - v5.0)
    • Google Place Search
    • Google TV
    • Google Voice (public availability)
    • Google Voice for iPhone
    • "Near Me Now" for mobile
    • Priority Inbox for Gmail (and Gmail mobile)
    • YouTube updates (simply too many to list)
    • "Where Am I?" for mobile

    Why is all of this lost on the people asserting that Google has lost its mojo or simply has lost its way? Some of them can't get over calling Nexus One and Google TV failures, sure signs to them Google has lost its way. Then there is Wave, which Google retreated from; the product had little traction and was too difficult for most people to grasp. But Wave was a brilliant concept that was simply ahead of its time. If Wave doesn't come back, it surely will power other Google products or services. In some ways, Facebook Messaging is what Wave could have been minus the complexity, collaborative features and real-timeness. That Google is trying new things like Wave, Chrome OS or Google TV and so constantly and consistently releasing new features or products are signs it's still surging. Wave is sign of Google's wave of continued success.

    Google doomsayers also point to Facebook's 2010 successes, which definitely shouldn't be understated. Some of them seemed to rejoice over Facebook topping Google.com as most visited website in the United States during the first 11 months of 2010, according to Hitwise. But Google properties still ranked No. 1.

    For traffic, YouTube is hugely important to Google. Based on ComScore data, YouTube searches often are greater than second-ranked Yahoo. If ComScore counted these searches in monthly data, Google would hold the No. 1 and No. 2 spots some months and one and three other ones. YouTube had 2 million viewing sessions in November 2010, and the average time spent online by viewer was a gigantic 4.5 hours, according to ComScore (For comparison, second-ranked VEVO was 85.4 minutes). Hulu generated more ad impressions, but that will change in 2011, I predict. Time online is hugely important to advertisers, and Google repeatedly tweaked the YouTube ad model in 2010. Time is ripe for the advertising to match potential ad impressions; Google should get there this year.

    What It All Means for 2011 and Beyond

    Search and advertising may pay Googlers salaries, but all the other products and services generate information and other content that extend search, keywords and ads' reach. The big growth market is mobile, where Android and Chrome will be hugely important in 2011 and beyond. There Google is fanatically innovating and iterating with features like voice search that make finding stuff that matters to people now easier to find. During World Mobile Congress in February 2010, CEO Eric Schmidt said that Google's priority would now be mobile applications "first" before desktop apps: "Our programmers are working on things mobile first." That's certainly clear from looking at the speed of Google's mobile product/services iteration and its focus: cloud-connected devices.

    Many Google critics and Apple defenders share similar flawed thinking: They assume that iOS will be the platform of choice because of applications. But the app-centric model is transitional. Businesses and consumers love apps in part for their familiarity -- what they use on PCs. Developers love mobile apps because they're generally easier to create than desktop applications and there's more money to be made (its an economies of scale thing, there being so many more mobile than PC users). But feature phones and smartphones are fundamentally different from PCs -- the devices are more personal and they're carried everywhere.

    There is something like 4 percent difference between human DNA and that of chimpanzees. But, whoa, what a difference. Likewise, smartphones and PCs may be computers capable of similar tasks but they aren't the same things. Smartphones are smarter. They can locate themselves geographically (GPS and compass) and spatially orient themselves (gyroscope). They respond to human touch (capacitive screen) and interaction (accelerometer, proximity sensor). They can take voice commands and help people find their way (maps). And so on. Smartphones are multifunctional and personal, and fundamentally they're still about communications and connections: Voice or video; texting, IM and e-mail; and search for stuff nearby or what people want to buy.

    Google Voice for iPhone

    The person who might spend hours in front of a PC, spends seconds or minutes at a time on a smartphone (though many more interactions). Phone behavior is more about utility but personally in ways that matter to the user. Google rival Microsoft has the right approach with Windows Phone 7: Get on and get off the device quick; bring relationships closer through built-in features or extended apps.

    I'm not suggesting that mobile applications will disappear, but there must come a point when the number of them overwhelm people as they settle down to using smartphones every day, all day in spits and spurts. Do you really want to go to three or four different apps to get news or would you prefer to get it one place? That's utility. Providing what you want, where you need it. With search and other mobile facilities, Google has got utility cold. Perhaps this essay could be titled "2011: The year of mobile utility." Google has it.

    In looking at Google in 2011 and beyond, five technologies will define products as the company iterates existing ones and releases others:

    1. Search (including keywords and advertising)

    2. Android

    3. Chrome/Chrome OS

    4. Messaging (e.g. Gmail, Google Talk, Google Voice)

    5. Cloud sync/identity

    Perhaps if Google wasn't investing so much to extend what it offers customers, the lost-mojo doomsayers might be right. But Google invested in the right places from 2005-2010, and it iterated products at breakneck pace in 2009 and 2010. Is your computer running Mac OS or Windows better this week than it was last week? Did Apple or Microsoft add new compelling features to your browser in the last six weeks? Sure, these companies are improving their products, but nothing like Google's pace. In the race to lead the next computing era -- cloud-connected devices -- speed and utility are everything. Google delivers both.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/08/Why_Verizon_won_t_let_Apple_announce_iPhone'

    Why Verizon won't let Apple announce iPhone

    Publié: janvier 8, 2011, 10:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Verizon isn't taking any shit from Apple.

    Late yesterday, the wireless carrier set Wall Street and the Web abuzz with invitations to a mysterious January 11 event in New York. Several Apple journalists reported receiving the invites, including veteran Mac reporter Jim Dalrymple (disclosure: we're friends, and I hope will still be after this post). The timing fits with other rumors about the imminent launch of iPhone 4 -- let's call it iPhone 4.5 for this post -- on Verizon Wireless. I say iPhone 4.5, because this isn't your daddy's GSM handset. Verizon's network is CDMA, and it's moving to LTE.

    Not surprisingly, Apple journalists and Macheads speculated about why Verizon sent the invitation. Surely it should have come from Apple. In a TechCrunch post, "Why Apple will let Verizon announce iPhone," Dalrymple offers explanation (The headline to this post play's off his headline). "The most important reason Apple would let Verizon make this announcement is that Apple is managing expectations," he writes. "If Apple sent out its typical invitation to join them in California for an event, the speculation would be that Apple was going to release the iPhone 5 or perhaps the iPad 2. I believe when the Verizon-compatible iPhone does come, it will simply be a CDMA version of the iPhone 4."

    We can Agree to Disagree

    I'm with him regarding a CDMA device but disagree with the rest. Dalrymple has reported about Apple for more than 15 years, and he is remarkably astute in his observations and he is careful about story sourcing. But for once -- in the rarest of instances -- Apple Kool-aid poisoned his judgement. Dalrymple wrongly assumes Apple is driving the announcement --  that Verizon needs iPhone. Machead John Gruber expressed similar sentiments. Gruber and I rarely agree on anything. This is a rare instance where Dalrymple and I disagree. Sorry, Jim.

    Make no mistake, Apple has no problem sending out event invitations that generate rumors. Every Apple event generates broader rumors about what's coming than what actually does. More significantly, Apple had good reasons to churn up some speculation and rumors this week, drawing attention away from the Consumer Electronics Show. Apple CES oneupmanship is a seemingly annual activity.

    It makes more sense that Verizon had reasons to hold back any invitation and also to be the one sending it. One Betanews commenter almost gets it right. Bay Area CA Male writes: "Anything that Verizon could possibly want to announce and was allowed to would have been done at CES that started yesterday and ends Sunday. Now to most people out there, it's pretty obvious what this means. The only thing Verizon was not allowed to announce at CES is the iPhone." It's not that Verizon wasn't allowed, the carrier didn't want to take away from other new handsets on its network before they were announced -- that the more sensible conclusion. This week Verizon announced some of the hottest Android handsets available on any US carrier -- from HTC, Motorola and Samsung.

    Verizon isn't AT&T. The United States' largest cellular carrier isn't accustomed to taking crap from handset manufacturers. Verizon controls everything on its network and is quick to customize handsets with its software and services. AT&T is different, or was when Apple launched the original iPhone in June 2007. AT&T made lots of concessions to get iPhone, such as granting Apple control over the software and updates. The company then known as Cingular was relaunching as AT&T; iPhone would anchor the brand change. But Apple made concessions, too, as a handset manufacturing newcomer, granting AT&T exclusive US iPhone distribution rights for what was then reported to be five years.

    Perhaps 18 months ago, Verizon would have ceded more to Apple. After all, AT&T was stealing away customers who wanted iPhone, and Verizon had nothing even remotely comparable to offer. But then in autumn 2009, Verizon launched the Droid -- a cool, Android 2.0 handset supported by a $100-million marketing campaign. Other hot-in-demand Droids followed. The Verizon that once desperately needed iPhone could continue on without the handset, even if painfully.

    What Sales and Subscriber Numbers Reveal

    The numbers tell the story, but it requires digging deep to get the ending. During third quarter 2010, Verizon Wireless added 997,000 net customers for a total 93.2 million. A year earlier, the carrier added 1.2 million net customers for a total of 89 million. Both quarters followed new iPhone launches, 4 and 3GS, respectively. Not surprisingly, AT&T hugely benefitted from new iPhone launches. In third quarter 2010, during which Apple launched iPhone 4, the carrier added 2.6 million net customers, for a total 92.8 million. A year earlier, AT&T added 2 million subscribers, for a total 81.6 million. So in a year, with iPhone available, AT&T grew by 11.2 million net subscribers, while without Apple's handset Verizon grew by net 4.2 million. During Q3 2010, AT&T activated 5.2 million iPhones and 3.2 million a year earlier. Those numbers would certainly suggest Verizon desperately needs iPhone, but let's look at them from another perspective.

    For the first three quarters of 2010, AT&T's net subscribers increased from 87 million to 92.2 million, for a 5.2 million subscriber gain. During the same time period, AT&T activated 11.1 million iPhones, or more than twice the number of net subscriber gains. Carrier switching, or what the industry calls churn, is one reason for the difference; existing subscribers purchasing iPhone is another. By comparison, Verizon's wireless subscribers grew from 92.8 million to 93.2 million, for a gain of only 400,000. That would again suggest that Verizon desperately needs iPhone.

    But Verizon's bargaining positon is stronger than it seems because of bigger trends and the large number of successful Android phones the carrier and others sell. Apple claims to have sold 14.1 million iPhone during third calendar quarter, but the company measures sales into the channel. Gartner, which measures actual sales to users, put the number sold at 13.5 million. Assuming AT&T Q3 iPhone activations were for devices sold during the quarter, the one carrier in one market accounted for about 38.4 percent of global iPhone sales in Q3. The United States' second largest carrier is hugely important to Apple, but adding the nation's largest would be even more important, particularly when looking at larger trends related to Android device sales.

    Google claims it is activating 300,000 Android handsets a day, which works out to 27 million per quarter or more than the most generous Wall Street analyst projections for Q4 iPhone shipments. Every major US carrier offers Android handsets, but only one sells iPhone -- and, again, in the market accounting for more than one-third of global sales.

    More troublesome, despite AT&T's subscriber gains, iPhone is losing sales to Android. This week, ComScore and Nielsen both announced new data on US cell phone sales. There is one consistent trend: iPhone market share is flat, which is surprising considering iPhone 4's June launch. ComScore's data compares two separate three-month periods, ending in August and November. Android's share of smartphone subscribers rose from 19.6 percent to 26 percent, while iPhone's nudged up from 24.2 percent to 25 percent, according to ComScore.

    Nielsen used a different measure -- smartphone OS share -- which puts iOS ahead (28.6 percent share) of Android (25.8 percent share). However, iOS isn't really gaining, while Android experiences dramatic growth. From June to November, with some fluctuations, iOS smartphone operating system market share rose from 27.9 percent to 28.6 percent. Meanwhile Android's share leaped from 15 percent to 25.8 percent. More revealing: November, 40.8 percent of new acquirers bought an Android smartphone -- that's up from 27.3 percent in July. By comparison, iOS share among new purchasers was flat, going from 26.2 percent to 26.9 percent during the same time period.

    Verizon takes No Crap from Suppliers

    Is the point obvious enough? In iPhone's home -- and arguably still most important -- market, iPhone is stalling against the Android onslaught, which is everywhere. That makes Apple's need for the nation's larget carrier hugely important, perhaps more so than Verizon's need for iPhone. At the least Verizon is on fairly equal footing negotiating terms and selecting launch venue. Dalrymple's mistake is the same as many other people watching Apple -- assuming the company. will set the terms of the deal and lead the launch. No way, Jose.

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs is worshipped by many people. He's a cult leader, an iconic CEO. Some analysts, bloggers and journalists have called Apple's handset the Jesus phone. Maybe, but Jobs isn't the Almighty, and he has met his match before. For example he backed down before record labels and their demands for fluid rather than static music prices at iTunes Store. Verizon is a hugely successful and aggressive company. Verizon Wireless CEO Daniel Mead worked his way from within Verizon to assume the leadership position. He is a tactical and loyal operator. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg is a formidable figure in American business. His cunning acquisitions brought together Bell Atlantic, GTE and (and earlier NYNEX) to form Verizon in 2000. He didn't need an iPhone to relaunch or rebrand. Seidenberg isn't the type to cow before Jobs, no matter how revered.

    So, I'm not surprised the invitations came from Verizon, and, again that's assuming all the rumors and speculation are right about the iPhone 4.5 launch. The venue is hugely sensible. Apple knows something about influencing Wall Street through rumors. Verizon knows perhaps even more about influencing through execution. The New York venue is well chosen for that. Verizon has something it wants to communicate to Wall Street analysts and to investors. Microsoft also typically launches major new products from New York -- that is when holding special events. It's the right place.

    No one should expect Verizon to take a backseat to Apple, the way AT&T has. Verizon will be ruthless promoting the benefits of its network over AT&T's for iPhone. But Verizon also sells many other smartphones, Androids among, and announced many new handsets during this week's Consumer Electronics Show. Verizon won't depend on iPhone the way AT&T has. Apple is just another phone supplier, albeit a hugely successful one. Verizon proved its mettle in its competitive marketing campaign against AT&T reliability and when launching Droids. If Verizon does announce iPhone 4.5 next week, the event won't be about Apple but Verizon and its customers.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/08/Could_it_be_iPhone_really_and_finally_is_coming_to_Verizon_'

    Could it be iPhone really and finally is coming to Verizon?

    Publié: janvier 8, 2011, 12:01am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What would another day be without somebody, somewhere having some kind of inside information -- from (gasp) unnamed, so-called reliable sources -- that the iPhone is coming to Verizon? Next year. Next month. Next week. Next day. Next minute. Two new dates have popped up -- January 11 and February 3 -- over the last 24 hours. Could it all be true this time?

    January 11 is interesting if no other reason than it's closer. Today, several journalists received invitations to a special, unnamed Verizon event in New York City next week. My buddy Jim Dalrymple received an invite. He writes: "While it doesn't mention anything about Apple this could be the Verizon iPhone." TechCrunch's MG Siegler got one, too. Now there's someone who is an Apple hugger du jour.

    "I don't typically get invites directly from Verizon to anything," Siegler writes. "At least not that I can recall. They usually send those directly to the MobileCrunch and CrunchGear guys. But this invite appears to very specifically be for me -- it's non-transferable. Would Verizon send me such an invite unless it was specially about Apple?"

    That's a good question. Siegler ranks high on my list of journalists who I expect would glowingly praise a poop-colored Mac (you know, like the 30GB brown Zune). "Steve Jobs is now earth mother to us all with this fashionable beauty," I imagine Siegler writing. Nudge me, please, when I stop puking.

    Then there is the wannabe admission. A no-byline post at Gizmodo offers other so-called evidence: "We're great friends with Verizon. (Hi guys!) We've worked with them for years, and we've been to like every event they've had over the last three years. We haven't gotten an invite. Which is weird. We've reached out to Verizon to see why, exactly, we weren't invited...The only reason we can think of is that it's an Apple event, and Steve [Jobs] doesn't want us there. You know the story."

    Yes, we do. Apple payback for Gizmodo paying $5,000 for that lost stolen iPhone 4 prototype is never going to end. But maybe the invite got lost in the spam filter. There could be other explanations. I'm not on Apple's love list either, and I also received no invite. So what? That's supposed to lead to the conclusion Apple must be launching iPhone on Verizon? Oh, please, get a life!

    iPhone 4How convenient, January 11 could conceivably fit in with another date: February 3. Apple and Verizon announce on the 11th and preorders start soon after for delivery on release date nearly four weeks later. Yeah, but wouldn't the announcement put some AT&T iPhone sales at risk? Surely Verizon wouldn't mind, but how about Apple? A lost sale is a lost sale.

    Where does the date come from? Early this morning, I spotted an interesting post at the Boy Genius Report. Jonathan Geller writes: "BGR has confirmed with a source close to Apple that the company has blacked out employee vacation requests between February 3rd and February 6th -- Thursday through Sunday. The four-day vacation freeze has been confirmed to be in effect in several regions in the United States." Geller notes that iPhone 4 launched over a Thursday through Sunday weekend and that Verizon typically launches new phones on a Thursday.

    In a follow-up post, at 2:25pm ET, Geller firmed up the speculation, emphasizing: "We're predicting that Apple will send out media invites for its Verizon iPhone press event within the next week." Dalrymple posted about the Verizon invite at 3:07pm ET -- about 45 minutes later. Oh, how the plot thickens.

    Now perhaps something really is going to happen this time. Here are three solid journalists putting forth information that may reveal the when about something long rumored: iPhone on Verizon. I'm puzzled why the invite didn't come from Apple. The company seems to defy logic when it comes to new product launches, which is why the rumors are often partially right at best and often wrong. But Apple also is known for controlling events like this. Something is missing here.

    One of my favorite plays is Eugene Ionesco's "The Bald Soprano." London couple, Mr. and Mrs. Smith are entertaining Mr. and Mrs. Martin when the doorbell rings. Mrs. Smith goes off to answer it, but no one is there. The doorbell rings again and again, and Mrs. Smith dutifully gets up to answer but finds no one there. The doorbell rings again, but Mrs. Smith refuses to answer because she has learned that when the doorbell rings it's because no one is there. Someone is there, it turns out -- the fire chief.

    I take the scene to be an indictment of the scientific method, in an absurd comedy rife with backhanded (and quite funny) ridicule about many sacred things. The doorbell keeps ringing, and rumor chasers get up to answer it. Sometimes they go down the wrong hallway and open a different door. Like Mrs. Smith they draw the wrong conclusions about what the ringing means. But surely sometime, like with the fire chief, Apple CEO Steve Jobs will be at the door. Is this that time?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/07/Can_you_feel_the_noose__Apple__Android_gains_against_flat_US_iPhone_market_share'

    Can you feel the noose, Apple? Android gains against flat US iPhone market share

    Publié: janvier 7, 2011, 7:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What do the US market share leaders for cell phones and smartphone operating systems have in common? Android.

    Yesterday, ComScore released September to November US mobile subscriber market share. Yes, I initially thought to cover it then, but there was simply too much news from the first official day of the Consumer Electronics Show. So here we are a day later.

    Most of the news reports about the data has focused on Android passing iOS for smartphone market share. But there's more interesting in the numbers than Android's ascendence. Comparing the three months ending in August and ending in November, Android's US market share rose from 19.6 percent to 26 percent. Apple's share rose slightly, from 24.2 percent to 25 percent. The data is fairly consistent with numbers released earlier in the week by Nielsen: Flat iOS market share growth and Android rapidly rising -- 40.8 percent of recent purchasers chose a smartphone running Android.

    It's revealing that iOS market share is flat, at least compared to Android, following release of iPhone 4, which, according to Nielsen, only gave iPhone a modest bump. Perhaps iPhone could really use that big price cut AT&T instituted today -- iPhone 3GS for a cool 49 bucks. Or perhaps that oft-rumored Verizon iPhone could help boost sales. After all, Android is available on phones from all US carriers. Poor little iPhone only has AT&T. Please, take out your handkerchiefs.

    Microsoft's mobile operating system declined during the same period from 10.8 percent to 9 percent. Lost market share isn't surprising. That it wasn't more is. Sales decline ahead of Windows Phone 7's release is to be expected. The first handsets shipped at the end of the forecast period.

    Top Smartphone OS Nov 2010

    On the hardware side, Samsung ranked No. 1, with its share up to 24.5 percent from 23.6 percent between the two three-month series. Samsung is having a good run with Android-based Galaxy S series smartphones, selling over 10 million from June to end of 2010. In December, I bought the Galaxy S-based, Google-branded Nexus S. Two days ago, at CES, Samsung announced the SH100 digital camera, which uses Galaxy S phones as remotes, viewfinders and geotaggers.

    Among the other top five, Numbers 2 and 3 -- LG and Motorola -- announced new Android-based smartphones and tablets this week at CES (Can you feel the noose tightening, Apple?)

    Top Mobile OEMS Nov 2010

    ComScore's data is for Americans 13 and older, 234 million of which used "mobile devices" (e.g. handsets) during the three months ending in November. The data is based on mobile phone subscribers. Smartphone ownership jumped 10 percent to 64.5 million during the same time period. What do people do with these devices? The majority of cell phone subscribers sent text messages (67.1 percent), while 35.3 percent used a browser and 33.4 percent downloaded apps.

    Which smartphone do you use and which mobile operating system? Please feel free to answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/07/Mac_App_Store_tops_1_million_downloads_during_first_24_hours'

    Mac App Store tops 1 million downloads during first 24 hours

    Publié: janvier 7, 2011, 6:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple just won't let it go. While the rest of the industry is focused on the Consumer Electronics Show (Apple isn't there), the company keeps trying to steal other tech vendors' thunder. ;-) First, Apple launched the Mac App Store on CES 2011 Day 1. Now it's announced that Mac users downloaded 1 million apps within the first 24 hours. Yeah, but how many people paid?

    "We're amazed at the incredible response the Mac App Store is getting," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said in a statement. "Developers have done a great job bringing apps to the store and users are loving how easy and fun the Mac App Store is."

    The Mac App Store opened with about 1,000 free and paid apps, which I must concede are nicely presented. Snow Leopard users can get the store simply by downloading Mac OS X 10.6.6. The store will be integrated into v10.7, which is scheduled to release around summer. Apple's revenue-sharing deal gives developers 70 percent of sales (assuming they charge, of course). Other developer benefits:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices -- Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.

    2. Developers can now scale their applications across devices.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they will be paid; the app store deters piracy.

    4. Rights protection is built in so that customers aren't exposed to onerous piracy-deterring activation mechanisms.

    5. The store makes applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    6. Developers can easily get digital shelf space -- and, therefore greater exposure -- where they might not get retail shelf space at all in stores like Best Buy.

    7. Usage rights are assigned to a person, not a PC. There is an identity, which is potentially good for additional marketing efforts and establishing meaningful relationship with software buyers.

    Mac App Store Featured

    Apple's 1-million downloads is overshadowed by ominous news. A group calling itself "Hackulous" claims to have developed Kickback, a mechanism for cracking some applications' digital rights protection. However, as of this posting, Hackulous hasn't publicly released Kickback, reportedly waiting until the Mac App Store builds a larger library. Oh, 1 million downloads isn't enough? I've got to wonder: Will news of the crack lead to even more downloads?

    In answer to my earlier question "How many people paid?", Apple offers some insight in Mac App Store charts. The 11 top-grossing apps:

    • Apple Aperture
    • Apple iPhoto
    • Angry Birds
    • Pixelmator
    • Sketchbook Pro
    • Apple iMovie
    • Apple Pages
    • Apple Remote Desktop
    • RapidWeaver
    • Apple GarageBand
    • Apple Keynote

    Uh-oh, seven of the 11 top-grossing apps are from Apple. That benefits developers of the other 993 apps exactly how? Apple slashed the price of Aperture from $199 boxed to $79 in Mac App Store. Remote Desktop got a hefty price cut, too. When reporting anything my first question always is: Who benefits? Well, who benefits here? You tell me, please, in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/07/5_things_you_should_learn_from_CES_2011'

    5 things you should learn from CES 2011

    Publié: janvier 7, 2011, 3:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today may officially be Day 2 of the Consumer Electronics Show, but, based on vendor announcements, it's really the fifth day. CES has a few lessons for those who live and breath tech, whether they work in the industry or follow it as analysts, bloggers, investors or journalists.

    1. Rumors are often false. I shouldn't have to state this. Short of a reliable gadget blog/news site getting hands on a verifiably-authentic photo or video of something new -- or actual product -- rumors can't be trusted. The more general or speculative, the more likely to lead nowhere.

    For example, it was widely rumored that Microsoft would debut during the opening keynote a Windows version for tablets, show off tablets running the new operating system and announce a new settop box to compete with Apple TV and Google TV.

    It's unconscionable, or at least irresponsible, for so many people responsible for getting out accurate information to parlay this rumor game.

    2. Everyone is asking about the tablet not here -- iPad 2. Apple isn't participating in CES, but its presence is as specter -- the ghost in the trade show. Perhaps iPad 2 would cast shorter ghostly -- or should that be ghastly -- shadow if more of the new tablets were releasing sooner. Many of them are tied to Android 3.0 (aka Honeycomb), and it's simply not yet ready.

    I've spoken to a couple analysts and journalists who already are calling the tablet wars over, with Apple the sure winner. That's simply an outrageous assertion to make based on two (soon to be three) quarters of iPad sales. Apple may have reinvigorated the category in 2010, but tablets have been around and will be around for some time.

    The category's sudden resurgence is reason enough to watch for Apple to shake out. There's recent precedent: smartphones. The category was slow growing before Apple released iPhone in 2007, then jumpstarted. Soon after, many of the same voices bullish about iPad today predicted iPhone would dominate the smartphone market. They were wrong. Android suddenly and unexpectedly stormed the smartphone OS market, passing iPhone -- at least in the United States -- in late 2010.

    3. Many tablet vendors are pursuing a flawed go-to-market strategy. Any tablet that requires carrier contractual commitment is already doomed. Apple was right to make data plans optional for iPad. Tablet technology will change too quickly over the next 18 to 24 months -- the typical contract length either in Europe or the United States. Carriers and manufacturers are asking too much of consumers to lock into one device for so long.

    Motorola XOOM tabletMotorola XOOM tablet

    The strategy reminds me of 2000 and 2001, when consumers could get PCs for cheap or free with two- or three-year ISP commitment. Many of them came to regret the deals. If iPad appeals for no other reason, contract-free for affordable price will be among the most important.

    4. CES is Apple's treasure trove of competitive information -- hell, it's better than corporate espionage. Most of the tablets and many of the hot new smartphones announced at CES won't ship for months. Apple is likely to announce iPad 2 first. While it's too late in the development process for Apple to make substantive design changes, marketing can be fine-tuned. Apple now knows what to expect from the fragmented market of tablet competitors, and those offering Android or Windows Phone 7 smartphones.

    Apple also can better play its announcement. There's a lot of angst among vendors about what Apple will do and, as I've asserted so  many times, the company's stock thrives on rumors. Apple can effectively shut out competitor sales simply by announcing iPad 2 before many of the tablets ever ship -- even if Apple doesn't ship for a month or even more.

    5. CES is too big to be any longer relevant. The trade show exploded in size after Comdex's demise in the early Noughties. It's now an enormous venue, where many new products are announced too many months before they're released to market and too many others are lost in the noise. There's more to gain in competitive insight than the real value of networking with customers or partners.

    Endpoint president Roger Kay pegs it: "Once upon a time, vendors met developers and distributors at the show. A trade booth was a modest enough affair, a place where vendors could show their proposed wares to people who might actually buy them. All that is long gone. These days, the venue is stuffed to the gills with 'students' and industrial spies. Mostly, your competitors, in various guises, come to your booth to see what you have."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/07/Apple_s_Mac_App_Store_fundamentally_changes_PC_software_usage_rights'

    Apple's Mac App Store fundamentally changes PC software usage rights

    Publié: janvier 7, 2011, 3:52am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mac App Store Featured

    Earlier today, Apple officially launched its application store for Macintosh, with about 1,000 free and paid applications available. Snow Leopard users download the Mac OS X 10.6.6 update, and the store is included. But people using the software are in for a change. Consumers typically buy software by machine. Those people buying from the Mac App Store purchase by person. The software is attached to an identity. This is a dramatic departure from how consumer software is typically licensed.

    Licensing agreements typically restrict installation on one PC, sometimes two or even three. If a consumer goes into a store and buys, say, Microsoft Office, the purchase ultimately is tied to a computer. For years, Microsoft took machine purchases on trust, but in 2001 added product activation to Office and later Windows. Office 2011 is the first Mac version of the productivity suite to require product activation, which essentially locks the software to a computer. Not a person. Similarly, when a new PC ships with Windows, the license is tied to the machine not the buyer.

    The problem with machine licensing is piracy. The licensor expects to be paid for additional software installations, but many, probably most, consumers buying software for one machine don't see a problem with putting it on others. Microsoft developed product activation to prevent this activity, which it calls "casual piracy." Other software developers, Adobe among, use similar activation mechanisms.

    Thinking Differently about Software Licensing

    The Mac App Store changes the paradigm and usage rights associated with it. Buyers use an existing Apple ID (usually from iTunes) or create another. Software purchases are tied to that identity, not the PC. If a licensee buys another Mac, he or she can redownload the software using the same ID without paying again. People buying music from iTunes or apps for iPad, iPhone from iTunes are used to this kind of identity approach, but it's not common for computer software.

    But uncommon doesn't mean non-existent. Some software developers offering digital downloads use an identity approach. Adobe does this. Customers set up an Adobe ID to which the purchase is tied. This allows the buyer to redownload the software and to reactivate it. But the process feels restrictive, because there are really two rights protection mechanisms -- the ID and password to download the software and product activation when entering a serial number.

    Mac App Store Aperture

    Will History Repeat in 2011

    Apple's approach is simpler and feels familiar; repeating history, the company doing in 2011 what it did in 2003 -- fundamentally changing content licensing policy. Before the April 2003 launch of the iTunes Store, major labels applied different licensing rights to digitally downloaded music, confusing consumers and deterring purchases. There were restrictions on CD burning and listening to music on different computers. Apple negotiated uniform rights for all music, and they were generous -- up to three PCs (later extended to five) and multiple CD burns from a single playlist. All this started on the Mac, which was a safe experiment for record labels considering Apple's tiny PC market share.

    Apple fundamentally changed how rights-protected digitally downloaded music is licensed, particularly after iTunes Store released for Windows in October 2003. One person in a household could buy music and make it available to others simply by authorizing the computer using the Apple ID associated with the music purchase. The same principle applies to Mac App Store but with a slightly different process. Each application is authorized using the Apple ID when downloaded -- like the iOS App Store.

    The rights are hugely generous and more in line with consumer expectations: That they buy software once and use it anywhere within the household. According to the Mac App Store FAQ: "Apps from the Mac App Store may be used on any Macs that you own or control for your personal use." Emphasis: Any. Not three Macs, or five or any other number. Considering that most software is licensed for one PC -- although many developers probably don't have realistic expectation of 1:1 installation -- any is quite a change. Something else: applications purchased from the store do not require activation keys, registration numbers or serial numbers. Only the Apple ID and password are required.

    Mac App Store Categories

    Your Identity is Your Right to Generous Rights

    Identity licensing isn't new, and it's widely used for content licensed for other purposes or mobile devices. Content streamed from Hulu Plus or Netflix uses an identity scheme. E-books stores like Amazon Kindle tie purchases to an identity. But rights are restrictive compared to Mac App Store. Amazon and Barnes & Noble offer limited, 14-day lending rights for e-books. This can be somewhat circumvented by having all the people in a family use the same Kindle account, since Amazon licenses the content for on up to five different devices associated with the account. But it is nevertheless restrictive. Apple's approach is better, and it could quite possibly change usage rights elsewhere, as iTunes did in the mid-Noughties. The place for Apple to start is in its backyard, securing more generous rights for e-books purchased from iBookstore.

    The question developers and other licensors surely must ask: How will we get paid? The one software application-to-one computer approach theoretically means the developer makes money on each installation. But, c`mon, who really buys three copies of software for three home computers, unless forced to (say, by onerous product activation)? On the other hand, a consumer might pay once at the Mac App Store and use the application on four or five computers. What developer wants to get paid once when there is chance to collect several times?

    To both scenarios, I say this: The Mac App Store provides a secure place where people can easily find the software; where they will pay for it at least once and where digital rights management technology deters (or prevents piracy). It's better to sell something than nothing at all -- and if the iOS App Store is any indication most developers will sell their wares.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/06/Olympus_woos_enthusiasts__photo_pros_with_XZ_1_and_PEN_E_PL2_digicams'

    Olympus woos enthusiasts, photo pros with XZ-1 and PEN E-PL2 digicams

    Publié: janvier 6, 2011, 9:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Olympus XZ-1

    Olympus announced two new cameras at the Consumer Electronics Show, and, man, are they hot -- the diminutive XZ-1 and classy PEN E-PL2. Both cameras should appeal to enthusiasts and to pro photographers looking to carry a lighter kit. Honey, get the credit card. I want both.

    The XZ-1 is Olympus' response to other high-end compacts, such as the Canon S95, Nikon Coolpix P7000, and Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5 (I got the Lumix DMC-ZS7 for Christmas; get the gift receipt because it's going back for refund). These cameras generally pack high-end features, such as big-aperture lenses and RAW-capture capability. The XZ-1's f/1.8 lens is remarkable in a compact and will let in lots of light (the PowerShot S95 is f/2.0) for shooting in dimly-lit areas or for better producing the bokeh, or background blur effect, popular for portrait photography. Perhaps more than any other feature, the lens distinguishes the XZ-1 from other high-end compacts.

    Another characteristic among this class of camera: 10 megapixel. Contrary to marketing convention, in compacts more megapixels often isn't better. The more pixels squeezed onto the senor, the more artifacts and other distortions produced. The XZ-1's 10 megapixels is about right for the 1/1.63-inch CCD sensor.

    There are features aplenty. Zoom range is 28mm to 112mm (film equivalent); the 3-inch OLED monitor is 600k resolution; auto ISO range is 100 to 3200; shutter speed is 60 - 1/2000 sec; 720p HD video records in stereo sound, among other features. The XZ-1 measures 110.6 mm wide by 64.8 mm high by 42.3 mm deep and weighs 275 grams. The camera is available this month in white or black for $499.99.

    Olympus PEN E-PL2

    For $100 more, Olympus also offers the new PEN E-PL2, micro four-thirds camera. Unlike the Olympus XZ-1, the E-PL2 can swap lenses. Olympus and Panasonic co-developed the micro four-thirds standard, which puts a dSLR-size sensor in a much smaller body and with generally smaller lenses. The E-PL2 measures 120.5 mm wide by 70 mm high by 35 mm deep and weighs 335 grams. For comparison, the Nikon D7000 dSLR measures 132 mm wide by 103 mm high by 77 mm deep and weighs 690 grams. It's a substantial difference. I've used Nikon dSLRs and own the PEN E-P2 and can attest to the portability advantages.

    Olympus Fisheye ConverterThe 12.3-megapixel sensor is the same found in Olympus E-30 and E-620 dSLRs. The standard E-PL2 kit comes with updated f/3.5-5.6 and 14mm-24mm lens. Olympus has added new accessories, and one is surprising -- what Olympus calls the MAL-1 "macro arm," for positioning light for close-up shots or shooting HD video. Also new: Bluetooth accessory called PENPal. Olympus chose Bluetooth over WiFi for sending photos wirelessly. Both accessories fit in the camera's flash hot shoe.

    The E-PL2 is a modest upgrade from the E-PL1, although features are now a bit more comparable to the higher-end E-P2. The sensor is the same as the E-PL2. Many other features are either the same or tweaked. The camera is available this month, in four colors, for $599.99 with kit lens.

    Besides the camera, Olympus also announced three new compact conversion lenses: fisheye, wide-angle and macro.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/06/Sony_Ericsson_packs_big_features_into_the_ultra_thin__curvy_Xperia_Arc'

    Sony Ericsson packs big features into the ultra-thin, curvy Xperia Arc

    Publié: janvier 6, 2011, 6:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sony Ericsson Xperia Arc

    The days of teasers and rumors are over. At the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Sony Ericsson unveiled the sleek and sexy Xperia Arc. Hell, I thought my Nexus S was bendy-looking with its curved screen. Curved doesn't aptly describe Sony Ericsson's new handset. It truly is arced.

    The Xperia Arc has a curved 4.2-inch screen and measures a slim 8.7 mm, which makes it thinner than yesterday morning's CES hotness, the LG Optimus Black. Oh, how quickly these phones are outdated. ;-)

    Unlike many other handsets announced over the last few days, Arc will ship with the newest Android version -- 2.3, or Gingerbread. The smartphone packs a 1GHz Qualcomm processor, 8GB microSD (upgradable to 32GB), 8.1-megapixel camera with LED flash, FM radio and all the expected goodies, like Bluetooth and assisted GPS. Surprisingly, there is only 512MB internal phone memory, which looks paltry compared to many other new handsets. The phone captures 720p HD video, and the display has 854 x 480 resolution.

    The phone measures 125 x 63 x 8.7 mm and weighs 117 grams (4.9 x 2.5 x 0.3 inches; 4.1 ounces).

    Operation frequencies: UMTS HSPA -- 800, 850, 900, 1900, 2100MHz; GSM/GPRS/EDGE: 850, 900, 1800, 1900MHz. That's good for AT&T subscribers looking for 3G data. T-Mobile is DOA without 1700MHz support.

    According to Sony Ericsson's Arc product website, there is "possible limited market availability." Generally, the manufacturer's hottest phones release internationally before ever reaching the states.

    My colleague Tim Conneally plans to offer hands-on, first-impression experience with the Arc -- photos, too -- later today. Watch for it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/06/Text_me_it_s_not_true__iPhone_3GS_costs_49_bucks'

    Text me it's not true: iPhone 3GS costs 49 bucks

    Publié: janvier 6, 2011, 5:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Is iPhone 4 too rich for your recession-weary wallet? Can't spare $199 or $299 for Apple's newness but iPhone-envy is making you an insomniac? Today, AT&T announced the deal, or is that steal, of the week: iPhone 3GS for a sweet 49 bucks. Starting January 7.

    The timing is baffling with the Consumer Electronics Show officially starting today and so many hot, Android phones being introduced -- the Motorola Atrix 4G and LG Optimus Black, among them. These are dreamy handsets. Who can get any work done just thinking about them?

    But iPhone-envy is a documented psychological syndrome -- OK, well it should be -- and those craving 4 but can't afford it could still take 3GS. AT&T will offer the phone online and in its 2,200 retail outlets. Standard eligibility and contractual requirements apply.

    Would you commit to a two year-contract for a year-and-a-half-old smartphone? I wouldn't. But for teenagers, it's a helluva a deal. The iPhone 3GS is simply the cheapest iPod touch they could buy -- oh, and it texts and makes phone calls. Too bad about those pesky monthly data fees.

    Forgive my reporter's cynicism, but I've got to wonder if AT&T isn't making a last-ditch effort to pull in as many new iPhone subscribers as possible before a Verizon iPhone is announced.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/06/Hey__Steve_Ballmer__where_s_the_beef_'

    Hey, Steve Ballmer, where's the beef?

    Publié: janvier 6, 2011, 3:59pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Steve Ballmer CES 2011

    Critics, and even customers, accuse Microsoft of being empty, of having exhausted its innovation -- and for many of them that means imitation. Microsoft is often called he great imitator. At first glance, last night's opening Consumer Electronics Show keynote given by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer fits the bill. The keynote felt empty, and short. Microsoft didn't even show off something substantially new about tablets, which is one of the event's hottest product categories this year. The rumors about a tablet operating system were wrong.

    What is Las Vegas? It's a place to be entertained (and, yes, gambling is one of the recreations). I think of Vegas as where entertainers who have passed their peak of popularity go. It is the city of celebrity has-beens. Perhaps then, Ballmer was where he belonged.

    But from a different perspective, Ballmer and Microsoft aren't has-beens at all. Microsoft isn't a consumer company. Sure, hundreds of millions of consumers use Microsoft software, but the company earns most of its income selling to businesses, particularly enterprises. Microsoft has yet to see its star really rise over the consumer market. Sure, Xbox, Xbox Live and Kinect are popular consumer products, but they don't sustain Microsoft and they are no means its primary focus.

    Over the consumer market, Microsoft's star is still rising. Last night, Ballmer and the Microsoft employees giving product demos peeked into Microsoft's consumer -- and even business -- market future. The stage delivery was tame, but the implications are ferocious. Microsoft wants to fundamentally change how we interact with computing devices. The company is in process of redefining user interfaces, and Xbox Kinect shows the way. Users command Kinect with their hands, arms and voice. A new forthcoming feature responds to facial expressions. Then there is Surface, which responds to touch.

    We Are Tool Users

    Human beings are tool users who experience and manipulate the world through five senses. Eyes are passive instruments, while hands and fingers are more important because they are active -- they're how people tactilely manipulate the world around them.

    For example, how important is touch? Watching how people interact with items for sale reveals much. First people look -- and then they touch. Surely, many retailers find all that touching and handling of their goods to be irritating. People examine objects they desire as much with their hands as their eyes.

    Too many technological devices are too difficult to use because they expose too much complexity. Compare to the human body: The underlying biological mechanisms behind hand movement may be complex, but for most people the complexity is largely hidden. The keyboard is unnatural user interface; it exposes too much complexity. There is little in human biological or cultural experience that supports use of the keyboard. It's a particularly unnatural construct, in which organization is based on the number of times letters are likely to be used. The mouse is more natural than the keyboard, because of the hand and finger-clicking movement. But the mouse is still a makeshift extension of the human being.

    The finger and touch are more natural, because they extend you. Good user interfaces build on the familiar -- and there is nothing more familiar than me, myself and I. Successful user interfaces of the future will have similar attributes.

    Ballmer showed the future last night, and some of it is here and now with Kinect and Surface 2.0. Microsoft is looking to make technology device interaction more meaningful by using all five senses and making hands, arms, facial movements and voice means of commanding and controlling tech gadgets. There was substance -- and lots of it -- in the keynote, after all.

    This morning, I've read several commentaries asserting that Ballmer's keynote lacked substance. They're asking, as did the grandma in 1980s Wendy's hamburger commercials: "Where's the beef?" I say that Ballmer merely set out the entrees -- that the meal is yet to come. The chef is preparing the food fresh, and it's not quite ready to serve. Be patient. Wait for it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/06/Ballmer_CES_keynote__Microsoft_sells_8_million_Kinect_controllers'

    Ballmer CES keynote: Microsoft sells 8 million Kinect controllers

    Publié: janvier 6, 2011, 4:14am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Steve Ballmer CES 2011

    It wouldn't be the Consumer Electronics Show without Microsoft kick-off keynote. For about a decade, cofounder Bill Gates assumed the role. More recently the burden belongs to CEO Steve Ballmer.

    Considering all the accolades given Apple chief executive Steve Jobs during 2010, I wonder if he would give the keynote if asked. After all, Job's is tech's CEO-darling of the hour, he runs the tech company with largest valuation and Apple's most successful products -- at least released during the new millennium -- are consumer electronics: iPad, iPhone, iPod touch and newer MacBook models. Apple's products have lots more to do with consumers and electronics than do Microsoft's. Ballmer's company mostly sells to enterprises and earns nearly all its profits from software. Apple sells hardware, and of course bundled software and services, to consumers.

    But Ballmer bears the burden, which during his short tenure is more polished and approachable than his predecessor's keynotes. Gates often seemed to be talking to the wrong audience. Gadget geeks and massmarket CE manufacturers aren't IT pros or software developers. Gates often struck me as being out of his element speaking at CES. These weren't his people. Ballmer is more comfortable, and he commands the stage with gusto, prancing about like a lion. He's king of the jungle.

    Ballmer AvatarSteve Ballmer Xbox Avatar

    But I was surprised at the size of the jungle. As the CES kick-off keynote, I expected topics more appropriate to the entire industry. At first, I thought he would do that, as Ballmer alluded to three screens -- PC, TV and smartphone -- which are priorities for many CE companies. However, he reduced their relevance to Microsoft products.

    Ballmer started by touting Xbox, particularly the Kinect controller. Some news: Controller-free Netflix and Hulu Plus will be available on Xbox in a few months. Another new feature coming is Avatar Kinect, which Xbox Live Gold members will get for free this Spring. The technology uses facial and body recognition to generate the avatars.

    Avatar KinectAvatar Kinect

    Ballmer said Xbox Live has 30 million members, or two new ones signing up per second. But the big news was about Kinect. Microsoft expected to sell 5 million Kinects during the holidays "In the first 60 days we sold over 8 million Kinect sensors worldwide," Ballmer said. Whoa.

    Ballmer switched topic to Windows Phone 7, touting the 5,500 applications and 2,500 developers. Whoa, and that compares how to the 200,000 - 300,000 apps at the Android Marketplace and iTunes App Store? "Job No. 1 is showing this phone to people," Ballmer said. "Once they see the phone, they fall in love with it." It's a good goal. Ballmer said that Windows Phone 7 would come to Sprint and Verizon during the first half of the year. "Windows Phone is the best phone out there," he boasted.

    Tablet PC CES 2011Tablet PC

    Microsoft's CEO moved on to Windows. Ballmer left the stage for a demo and then returned to talk about the day's earlier announcement -- next version of Windows running on ARM processors and System on a Chip (SoC) architecture. Ballmer described Windows support for SoC as "an important step for Microsoft and the industry."

    Ballmer emphasized that Windows would continue to support x86 processors, but Microsoft's strategic shift raises questions about the chip architecture's future. While Ballmer repeatedly touted the 1 billion Windows customers, the number of cell phone subscribers is 5 billion, according to the United Nations. The majority of those devices and the seemingly bazillion tablets announced over the last three days don't use x86 processors.

    Pixel SenseSurface 2.0 Pixel Sense

    In some ways, "what was missing" overshadowed Ballmer's keynote. Contrary to rumors, Ballmer didn't dedicate any meaningful time to tablets -- at least not directly. Microsoft didn't launch a tablet operating system or show off dozens of slates running Windows 7. Yes, some devices made the demo, but with the emphasis on multifunctionality, such as Tablet PC with stylus and touchscreen.

    From a public relations perspective, the approach has merit. Any zealous tablet push would have led to bloggers and journalists making iPad comparisons. By staying away from Apple and iPad, Ballmer kept the message Microsoft pure, which is good marketing. Microsoft sets the agenda on its terms rather than taking the position of following a competitor.

    The biggest Microsoft news came more than five hours earlier, during a press event for ARM and SoC support. It is simply unprecedented for Microsoft to upstage its keynote like this.

    Nevertheless, Ballmer commanded the stage, shining confidence and capability. He's got plenty of fight yet to give Microsoft.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/05/Are_this_year_s_CES_attendees_afraid_of_Apple_'

    Are this year's CES attendees afraid of Apple?

    Publié: janvier 5, 2011, 11:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    CES 2011It's the question I've been asking all week. The Consumer Electronics Show doesn't officially start until tomorrow but unofficially tonight with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's 9:30 ET keynote. Yet there have been major announcements and press briefings all week. It's as if vendor attendees are rushing and stumbling over one another to get out their news before January 6. Now why is that?

    There's more than CES going on tomorrow. Apple will launch the Mac App Store. In mid December, when the launch date was announced, I asserted: "Apple crashes CES party with Mac App Store." Perhaps many vendors fear the same. I don't recall there ever being so much news before the show's start. Amazon, ASUS, AT&T, Intel, Lenovo, LG, Netflix, Samsung and Vizio are just a sampling of major vendors holding big press events and/or making major announcements since Monday.

    Microsoft Preempts Its Own Keynote

    This afternoon, Microsoft held a press event at 4 pm ET. It's simply unprecedented for the company to preempt its own keynote with major news. Perhaps Microsoft wanted to make tomorrow's newspaper deadlines and get its news out for tonight's newscasts. Also I suspect there is fear of Apple's App Store launch sucking away CES attention tomorrow.

    Think about it. Wall Street lives on Eastern Time, when Ballmer's keynote will finish late. By the morning, Ballmer's announcements would be considered old news, particularly with the news media's love-child Apple making a major announcement. Microsoft would miss the news cycle.

    Certainly the news will interest Wall Street analysts and investors. During the press briefing, Windows and Windows Live President Steven Sinofksy revealed what had been rumored: Next version of Windows support for ARM processors. The recent days of X86 exclusivity are over. Windows will embrace System-on-a-Chip, or SoC. From one perspective, SoC isn't new for Microsoft; after all, the company has shipped embedded operating systems for many years.

    But this is the first public instance of Microsoft demonstrating a future version of Windows on SoC -- from Intel. The demo also included Windows running on a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor -- yeah, that's ARM-twisting to you, baby.

    So far, and as widely predicted, this year's CES has very much been about tablets and also smartphones. Microsoft's pitch is that Windows 7 requires less hardware oomph than its predecessors and mobile devices are getting faster processors and larger storage that makes them more like PCs. Apple isn't at the show, but its presence is everywhere, if no other reason than the number of tablets being launched that will eventually compete with iPad. If no blogger or journalist makes iPad vs everything else today, someone will tomorrow when Mac App Store is news of the day.

    Windows Has Fallen and Can't Get Up

    But those comparisons are warranted, and I wonder if Microsoft should have opted for missing that news cycle after all. During today's press event, Sinofsky revealed that the next version of Windows supporting SoC wouldn't be available for some time. In response to a question about when, Sinofsky responded: "There's a cadence that people would like...we try to aim for a release somewhere between 24-36 months between releases seems right." That would put the next Windows version in market as early as late 2011. Given Apple's recent enormous success selling iPad, the rapid iteration of Android and iOS mobile operating systems and this year's planned release of Google's Chrome OS even late 2011 seems 24-36 months too late.

    The Microsoft news of the night should be not just that Microsoft has fallen behind in key, mobile OS categories but that it can't even execute a plan to catch up. In my January 2 post "11 resolutions Microsoft should make for 2011," I set as 10:

    Set shorter marketing and product development goals. Microsoft, you aren't keeping pace with Internet time and haven't for sometime. Meanwhile, Google sets a rapid pace -- in little more than two years going from nowhere to somewhere with Android (US smartphone OS leader last year, according to NPD) and Chrome (six Windows iterations released in 2010). Both products launched in autumn 2008. Then there is Facebook, which iterates with a vengeance. Pace of innovation keeps nimbler companies in the news, on the blogs, generating positive perceptions.

    There's nothing short or competitive enough about the timeframe given today. Whether or not Microsoft held the briefing out of fear Apple would steal any news thunder is now immaterial to what the software giant announced.

    Clearly Apple has got nothing to fear from Microsoft.

    Tim Conneally contributed to this post from CES

    [Editor's Note: In response to a reader's comment, we got exact quote about 24-36 months. The time horizon was adjusted in the text and Sinofsky quote added.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/03/BitTorrent_reaches_100_million_subscribers_monthly__400k_downloads_daily'

    BitTorrent reaches 100 million subscribers monthly, 400k downloads daily

    Publié: janvier 3, 2011, 7:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Holy downloads, Batman, BitTorrent has 100 million monthly active users -- 20 million per day. Average daily downloads: 400,000. That's a whole lot of file sharing, and I wonder: How active are Betanews readers on BitTorrent?

    BitTorrent revealed the subscriber data in one of many tech announcements leading into the 2011 Consumer Electronics Show, which kicks off with Wednesday evening's keynote delivered by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer.

    "This is an exciting day for our team," Eric Klinker, BitTorrent CEO, said in a statement. "Our vision is to build a complete technology ecosystem comprised of software, content and devices, designed to connect modern content creators with a massive digital audience. This milestone highlights the size of our user base and the power of our software."

    That software is BitTorrent Mainline and µTorrent. BitTorrent allows users to download software in distributed bits from among many computers, making it easy to download -- some Hollywood studios might say "steal" -- large files. However, there is conflicting analyst data about whether this kind of downloading hurts or helps movie sales or TV watching.

    File trading contributed to network's streaming TV shows over the Internet. Back in 2004-2005, NBC Universal's Syfy (previously known as SciFi) network broke into limited streaming after observing the strange benefits of pirating. Mindjack's May 2005 story on BitTorrent trading of "Battlestar Galactica" episodes is a harrowing tale of piracy boosting TV viewership. "Battlestar Galactica" aired in the United States before the United Kingdom, making its way to BitTorrent in the between time. Mark Pesce explains the outcome:

    While you might assume the SciFi Channel saw a significant drop-off in viewership as a result of this piracy, it appears to have had the reverse effect: the series is so good that the few tens of thousands of people who watched downloaded versions told their friends to tune in on January 14th, and see for themselves. From its premiere, 'Battlestar Galactica' has been the most popular program ever to air on the SciFi Channel, and its audiences have only grown throughout the first series. Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about 'Battlestar Galactica.'

    NBC Universal and Syfy responded by streaming select "Battlestar Galactica" episodes by summer 2005. Full-episode TV streaming was pretty novel in early 2005. YouTube hadn't yet opened to the public (but would later that year).

    Returning to the here and now, BitTorrent is available in 52 languages with "clients checking in from over 220 countries every day." BitTorrent didn't release what subscribers might be downloading. But surely you know. For what it's worth "Lost" and "Heroes" were the top two pirated TV shows in 2010, according to TorrentFreak. The week's top downloaded movies on BitTorrent: "Little Frockers" and "TRON: Legacy."

    I've got to ask: Do you use BitTorrent, and what for? Are you more or less likely to pay for a new movie after downloading it? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/03/41%_of_new_smartphone_buyers_choose_Android'

    41% of new smartphone buyers choose Android

    Publié: janvier 3, 2011, 5:39pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    "The race for the lead in US. smartphone operating system (OS) consumer market share is tighter than it has ever been," begins a blog post today on Nielsen Wire. The winner is? No one yet. Apple's iPhone leads in total US consumer market share, while most people who recently bought a smartphone chose Android. I'm among them. "This race might still be too close to call," Nielsen asserts.

    Perhaps the more important data point is about the broader smartphone category. "In November, 45 percent of recent acquirers chose a smartphone over a feature phone," according to the Nielsen post. That's up from 34 percent in June. Apple and Research in motion are "statistically tied" with respect to US smartphone OS market share -- 28.6 percent and 26.1 percent, respectively. Android's share is 25.8 percent.

    However, 40.8 percent of recent acquirers chose a smartphone running Android, compared to 26.9 percent for  iOS and 19.2 percent for BlackBerry OS. Perhaps the longer trend is more interesting; Nielsen's data is for the six months from June to November 2010. BlackBerry share as measured by new acquirers, fell about 10 percent in June, when Apple released iPhone 4, and continued to decline thereafter. After a nearly 5 percent surge between June and July, iPhone share was flat through November. By stark contrast, Android share increased during the entire six months, undeterred by iPhone 4.

    Apple is hobbled by single-carrier distribution in the United States, while Androids and BlackBerries are available through all major carriers. That said, Android's dramatic surge against iPhone's flat sales raises doubts about how much boost Apple might eventually get from a distribution deal with Verizon, as oft is rumored.

    Nielsen Smartphone OS

    Nielsen Smartphone OS

    Samsung is one of  the beneficiaries of the Android surge. Today, the company revealed that it sold 10 million Galaxy S smartphones since June. In December, Samsung extended the S line to include the Google-branded Nexus S.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/02/11_resolutions_Microsoft_should_make_for_2011'

    11 resolutions Microsoft should make for 2011

    Publié: janvier 2, 2011, 9:35pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What should be Microsoft's top priorities for 2011? I've got an answer for that, as I have for seven years now. Rather than make predictions about what the company will do in the coming year, I offer what it should do. The advice is unsolicited, but given nevertheless with the hope Microsoft will make 2011 better than 2010. As I asserted on December 14: "The year 2011 will be make or break."

    Unlike past years' advice -- eh, resolutions -- this list is more thematic. Microsoft has a huge perception problem, and as I've so many times asserted: In business perception is everything. The people with the loudest voices, such as analysts, bloggers, journalists, marketers and software developers are pining for companies like Apple or Google. This translates directly to Microsoft's share price, which is moribund and undervalued. In November I asked: "Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?" Perception is a major part of the answer.

    Perception management is a good 2011 priority for Microsoft, with no new versions of its flagship products planned for the year. The company needs to give consumers, developers and IT Pros reasons to get excited again about Microsoft software and OEM products. With that introduction, I present 11 resolutions for Microsoft in order of importance -- from least to most.

    11. Appoint a Chief Startup Officer. Microsoft, many of your 80,000-plus employees have great ideas, but they're frustrated about not being able to do something with them. Office and Windows, as products and the management structure supporting them, are in the way. You need someone internally responsible for encouraging internal incubation projects and bringing them to market -- outside the normal management structure (see #1 for why this concept is so important).

    10. Set shorter marketing and product development goals. Microsoft, you aren't keeping pace with Internet time and haven't for sometime. Meanwhile, Google sets a rapid pace -- in little more than two years going from nowhere to somewhere with Android (US smartphone OS leader last year, according to NPD) and Chrome (six Windows iterations released in 2010). Both products launched in autumn 2008. Then there is Facebook, which iterates with a vengeance. Pace of innovation keeps nimbler companies in the news, on the blogs, generating positive perceptions.

    Your long-standing strength is executing on long-term plans, whereas many public company competitors set quarterly goals that change too often. The Microsoft that released three versions of Internet Explorer in about 18 months during the late 1990s executed tactically while keeping long-term plans in place. You need to do more of this, Microsoft. Setting and achieving short-term goals can boost mindshare -- that you're truly innovating. Innovation sells, imitation smells (see #1 for more on how to do this).

    9. Hold smaller, more-intimate product events. Microsoft, you should learn from Apple, Facebook and Google about maximizing buzz without investing in big events. Sure, you make ongoing product announcements outside of tradeshows, but most of the events you participate in or hold are big. Hold more intimate events for bloggers, customers, enthusiasts, news media or partners -- lots of them. I'm not talking about the ongoing marketing and sales roadshows you already do, but invitation-only gatherings, like Apple's. They will generate buzz, particularly if the target audience doesn't officially include bloggers or journalists (but they can get in with a little prodding).

    During 2010, Facebook and Google pulled off some seemingly last-minute events that were webcast. They weren't flashy, but they felt intimate, a quality that is lacking from your other forms of outreach, such as Channel 9. Please don't misunderstand; I'm not maligning Channel 9, merely suggesting that live events are newsy and will draw more attention.

    Intimacy is hugely important to any relationship. It's easy for anyone with a keyboard to write bad things about an amorphous, distant corporation. It's something else when those same people interact with real executives and product managers. Personal contact changes everything. Walmart is a good example. Those greeters at the door aren't just there to be friendly. Walmart has learned that people who identify the store with a real person, the greeter, are less likely to steal.

    8. Bring back Bill Gates -- to sell Microsoft products, vision. You've got an identity problem, Microsoft. You're too good at too many things, which makes your products hard to sell. In last year's resolutions, I suggested that you need a frontman to help build positive perceptions and better sell your stuff. On reconsideration, perhaps you should bring back cofounder Gates in a more visible role. I'm not suggesting Gates should replace Steve Ballmer as chief executive. Gates should be the person selling Microsoft's vision for the here and now and, more importantly, the future.

    The technosphere is overly-obsessed with Apple CEO Steve Jobs, who is viewed as being visionary, ultra cool and having good taste. But the majority of people aren't like Jobs. They're more like Gates, whose stilted speaking and awkward manner is more like them. Sure Gates is smarter than most people, which makes him unlike most everyone else from another perspective. But he's also the American Dream, the self-made and shrewd billionaire whose products are used by most of the world's population. Success commands respect, as does his philanthropy. Even better, bring in the Gates family, talking about how they use Microsoft technology in their home or when traveling the globe.

    7. Resume giving financial guidance to Wall Street. Once again, this resolution makes the list, and it's up three places from No. 10. This month, two years will have passed since you stopped giving guidance for future earnings. Microsoft, how can Wall Street have confidence in you when you don't show confidence enough to give them quarterly guidance -- like other major public companies? Sure there is some risk that weak projections will hurt the stock. But by withholding guidance, you let uncertainty and gossip determine perceptions about sales and earnings performance -- particularly when Wall Street love child Apple now has larger market capitalization and quarterly revenue than you. Microsoft, take charge of perceptions by giving information, rather than withholding it.

    6. Release reference designs -- and give them away or sell them (cheap). Google had the right idea with Nexus One (released in January 2010) and followup Nexus S (December 2010): Design and brand a product, even at the risk of causing conflict with retail or manufacturing partners. I'm surprised how many analysts, bloggers and journalists got hung up on Google direct sales or number of handsets sold -- and by those measures called N1 a failure -- while missing why it was a huge success. Nexus one appealed to enthusiasts and developers and established a baseline for manufacturing partners. More recently, Google gave out 60,000 laptops running Chrome OS, as part of a six-month test.

    Microsoft, you're no stranger to this approach, you just haven't gone as far as Google. During PDC 2009 you gave away Microsoft-designed, Acer manufactured thin-and-light laptops to paid attendees. The laptop's features set a baseline around which developers could create applications. Then for Windows Phone 7, you set minimum hardware configuration for your mobile OEM partners. These are great strides that could be much more meaningful by:

    • Offering a Microsoft co-branded baseline laptop and mobile phone
    • Providing branded reference-design products to developers at cost or for free
    • Giving away the same products to select enthusiasts, user groups or IT managers

    (See #2 for more on enthusiast advantages.)

    5. Open a unified applications store. Microsoft, I've been encouraging you to sell third-party software from within the operating system for about as long as Office and Windows have had product activation (2011 is the 10th anniversary). I made several formal recommendations during the mid-Noughties, when working as an analyst. If you can activate your own stuff and distribute updates through a download mechanism built into Windows, surely you could make the technology available to third parties. Let them offer products for sale and activation through Windows -- from a branded Microsoft store.

    If you're afraid of causing trouble with European or US trustbusters, don't be. Take the risk. Apple is selling iPads and Macs hand over first. There is plenty of PC competition, much of it from mobile devices. Apple will open the Mac App Store later this week. You should have been there first, but you can still do better.

    Google has the Apps and Chrome Web stores offering apps in the browser/cloud. Apple and Google both have mobile app stores. You should combine the concepts into a unified applications store for mobile and PC applications and those running in the browser (or widgets) connected to the cloud. It's an ambitious project that would generate helluva lot of buzz and could shift some developer excitement winds back your way. Give developers a way to distribute their software anytime, anywhere and on anything, in a way that discourages piracy and makes bundles of money, and they'll love you. Or at least embrace your approach.

    4. Step up the "value marketing." One of Microsoft's founding principles is value -- making computing affordable enough to put a PC on every desktop, in every home. Your marketing messaging has drifted from the value principle, Microsoft -- although Windows Phone 7 marketing shows right refocusing.

    Apple commands a high price for cool, and there's a place for that. Apple is the Neiman Marcus of computing. There's no shame in your being Walmart. The giant retailer generates more revenue in one quarter than Target does for a whole year. Emphasis: Value. The cool, rich kids can have Apple. Microsoft should be computing for the rest of us.

    Contrary to popular convention, value isn't about low pricing but getting the most from what you spend. For enterprises, isn't that what ROI (return on investment) and TCO (total cost of ownership) are all about? Perhaps one reason Apple focuses so little marketing efforts on enterprises is that it has so little value -- ROI and TCO -- to sell them.

    Value matters to consumers, too, and not just by how much they spend. For families, there is the value products bring to them. The measure is often emotional. McDonalds succeeds for many reasons, but family values is among them. Happy Meals help make McDonalds an affordable place to bring the kids to eat. Later, as teenagers, they go there and shop the "value menu." Microsoft CEO Kevin Turner is a 20-year Walmart veteran and someone who should know something about value and family marketing (see #3).

    3. Open 50 more stores or cafés. In my past three years of resolutions for you, opening retail stores ranked near the top of the lists (No. 4 last year). In little more than a year, you opened 7 stores, which is good start but not start enough. You need to open another 50, this year. After experiencing the store here in San Diego over six months, I see a winning retail formula. Families fill Microsoft Store here, in contrast to the Apple Store just four shops away. Microsoft Store should be a destination for families, gamers and computer enthusiasts -- and people seeking real value from their technology purchases. (see #4 for more on this advantage).

    Don't be afraid of losing money on the stores, at least early years. They are marketing investments for better building your brand and for selling the Microsoft lifestyle. Among the metro areas I recommend launching stores: Austin, Boston, Chapel Hill-Raleigh-Durham Triangle, Columbus, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Make cities with high student populations a priority.

    Internationally, open stores in Beijing, Berlin, London, Mexico City, Moscow, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Seoul and Tokyo. Make cities with large numbers of tourists a priority. Localize the stores -- don't make them all the same like Apple does. Also use them to educate people about the benefits of buying software over pirating it.

    2. Engage enthusiasts. This one makes my list most every year, and it's up six places from 2010. You did much better engaging enthusiasts in 2009 and 2010 than all the rest of the millennium's first decade. But you're not doing enough. Enthusiasts are any company's best marketers. You need to step up enthusiast engagement and extend it with more outreach, freebees and contests during 2011. It's more important this year than during the last five, because you're on the other side of major new product announcements -- Windows 7 (October 2009), Azure (February 2010), Office 2010 (May 2010), Windows Phone 7 (October-November 2010) and Xbox Kinect (November 2010).

    With the big product launches behind, it's time to engage enthusiasts tactically -- as much for the future. New mobile products, Bing advancements and Office 365 are among the opportunities to generate excitement; 2011 should be the Microsoft year of the beta, where there is seemingly thousands of new products for enthusiasts to try and get excited about. Reward loyal customers with goodies, freebees and intimate engagement and they'll pay you back with praise that's the most valuable marketing ROI.

    1. Empower internal "cloud" startups. You really upset this journalist when gutting Windows Live Labs (April 2009) and later shuttering the incubation project (October 2010). Live Labs was but one of many incubation projects whacked in 2009 and 2010. How dare you, Microsoft. Some of the best, mid- to-late-Noughties products or services came from incubation projects.

    You've got to bring them back and focused on mobile and the cloud. Incubation groups should operate like mini-startups, free to develop unfettered by any requirement to connect any of their work to any other Microsoft product, particularly Office or Windows. Let them run free, run wild, wildly innovate. Reward innovation, with pay incentives and other goodies. Appoint a chief startup officer (see #11), whom employees can submit their projects, getting them outside stifling bureaucracy and mid-managers' self-preserving priorities.

    Empowered employees will produce, Microsoft. You just need to let them.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2011/01/01/Techmeme_s_top_50_tech_stories_show_the_influence_of_Apple__Google_and_corporate_blogs_and_press_releases'

    Techmeme's top-50 tech stories show the influence of Apple, Google and corporate blogs and press releases

    Publié: janvier 1, 2011, 4:32am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This afternoon, Techmeme published its top-50 tech stories of the year. What's crazy is how few of them are actually news stories. Twenty-one of the top 50 are either tech company blog posts or press releases -- that means corporate issued. Six of the top 10 stories came directly from companies, such as Apple CEO Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" (ranked No. 2) or Andy Rubin's Google blog post about the changes in Nexus One availability (No. 4). The list says something about the tech news you read and who really influences it.

    Take for example Rubin's post on Nexus One. Many tech blogs or new sites are still calling Nexus One a failure (I'm not one of them). But clearly somebody was interested in the Google smartphone for it to rank in Techmeme's top 5. Nine Google blog posts appear on the list -- get this -- four in the top 10. Two are about Google's search policy changes in China. With all talk about Apple, Google's influence shouldn't be underestimated -- at least as measured by Techmeme. Including actual news stories, Google makes the list 13 times.

    By comparison, Apple makes the list 19 times, which includes 5 press releases and the 1,700-word Jobs missive on Flash. The number is a little higher when adding stories where Apple is included but not the main topic. So combined, Apple and Google account for 64 percent of the stories in Techmeme's top-50 stories of 2010.

    Another measure of influence, or lack of it: Facebook and Twitter make the list. Facebook is topic five times, twice from company blog posts. Twitter's presence is by its own blogs -- three times. Microsoft made the list once. For all the hype about Kinect for Xbox or chatter about Windows Phone 7, neither product made Techmeme's top-50 list. Microsoft's lack of showing is surprising, considering how many of the other companies show up by their blog posts and how many Microsoft blogs there are.

    If making any kind of showing on the list is sign of influence, then Opera, which also shows up once, rivals Microsoft. Again, it's another press release -- Opera Mini for iPhone. Speaking of iPhone, it directly made the list 13 times, not counting several related to operating systems and analyst data on market share. Four of the top 10 stories are about iPhone, including Consumer Report's blog post refusing to recommend iPhone 4 -- after the organization rated the handset best among all smartphones tested.

    No surprise, No.1 story is about iPhone -- Gizmodo's big scoop on the lost prototype.

    Gabe Rivera writes about the top-50: "We crunched Techmeme's historical data, cancelling out the influences of our editors, essentially ranking stories by links and citations, to produce the following quasi-objective' list of the year's biggest tech stories." Rivera makes a few observations about the data, one I wholly agree with: "iPhone's lead in media coverage greatly exceeds its technical and profitability edge (er, arguably)." More than arguably, I say.

    "Google's major announcements continue to be bonanzas for the tech media," Rivera continues. "While the Facebook juggernaut blew past half a billion users this year, their individual announcements rarely produced Google-scale excitement among the broader tech press."

    Yeah? I'll assert something else: Corporate blogs and press releases continue to be bonanzas for the tech media -- or readership.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/31/10_for_2010__Apple_stories_that_mattered'

    10 for 2010: Apple stories that mattered

    Publié: décembre 31, 2010, 7:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    My last set of year-end retrospectives surprises me, and some Betanews readers may feel the same. Many commenters accuse me of shilling for Apple, of being a fanboy, which I always dismiss. But in looking over my own Apple posts over the last year, I see just how biting are the topics or analyses and wonder what are these fanboy claimers reading. As a group, the posts are insightful -- even though some Macheads' blog rebuttals will assert otherwise. From some one in the Mac camp will come the PC fanboy accusation, which also is untrue.

    Unlike the top-10 story lists for Google and Microsoft, this one is more thematic, in part because of CEO Steve Jobs' incredible visible influence over Apple in 2010, following a media leave due to liver-transplant surgery in 2009. One of the best ways to understand how Apple operates and where it's going is to understand the mind of Jobs. He gave unusual opportunities to do just that this year. Among the top-five stories on this list, four are specifically about him.

    These are the 10 of my Apple stories I believe that you should have read in 2010. The stories are organized by importance, from least to most -- that is 10 to 1. I weighed importance based on relevance of the analysis to Apple in 2010 and even in coming years. Not all readers will agree on which is more or less important, or perhaps not at all.

    I would like to call out several posts that would have made a longer list: "Apple's five stages of Google Grieving" (May 24); "Apple's HTML5 Showcase is rigged" (June 4); "Does Apple demand too much to be cool?" (April 13); and "Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web" (April 8). I excluded the last one simply because it made my Google 10 stories list. With that introduction, I present 10 Apple stories that mattered in 2010.

    10. "Apple can still win the mobile platform wars, but it won't be easy": Which mobile platform will be more successful? Smartphones are but one small measure of success. In October 2009, I asserted that "Apple cannot win the smartphone wars." Pundits predict iPhone's death brattle before the great Android god. I wouldn't write off Apple just yet. The mobile wars are bigger than smartphones, as Apple already has shown. Also, market share is but one measure of success. Money is more important, and Apple rakes in nearly $600 for every iPhone. I don't believe that Apple can win the smartphone wars, but there's still a chance to win the broader mobile platform device wars. It won't be easy. Posted: August 13.

    9. "Is Apple No. 1 and not No. 3 in U.S. PC shipments?": It's a follow-up question to another question posed in late August: "Is Apple the real U.S. PC market share leader -- or soon will be?" I ask both questions based on another: Is iPad a personal computer? I assert "Yes" based on function, but neither Gartner nor IDC, which both released preliminary third-quarter PC shipment data in October, classify iPad as a PC. Right now, iPad isn't really counted anywhere, despite generating $2.17 billion in new revenue during the launch quarter. If iPad is counted as a PC, then based on analysts' projected tablet shipments and IDC's Q3 data, Apple could rank as No. 1 in the United States. What is iPad then?

    The analyst firms later released data classifying iPad as a media tablet. Gartner predicted media tablets would cannibalize 10 percent of PC sales in a few years. If tablets are replacing PCs, shouldn't they be counted that way? Posted: October 14.

    8. "I was wrong about Apple iPad": The world does need an Apple tablet -- and perhaps others -- contrary to what I asserted in late January post: "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other." Gloaters will circle my admission like vultures pecking a carcass, but that's the penalty for being wrong. Yes, I was wrong. I admit it.

    The gloaters came, and supporters too. Some people wrongly presumed I changed my position because of iPad sales, which were mere projections then. It was the immersive reading experience that got me, particularly after seeing the "Wired" app -- and months later Virgin's "Project." Additionally, I asserted: "The iPad is a remedy for distraction while letting users reap the Internet's benefits." Posted: June 15.

    7. "Of course media bias favors Apple": This commentary and its companion, "Be smart, don't buy into iPad hype", question why analysts, bloggers and journalists give so much positive attention to Apple. The state of the news media: Gossip and rumors are rapidly replacing factual reporting -- in large part driven by the Google economy. No company is benefitting more than Apple. The hype is in part driven by the large number of bloggers and journalists using Macs -- the same kind of inherent bias (from Windows users) benefitting Microsoft a computing generation ago. There are also the investors and Wall Street analysts who recognize how much rumors can lift (or collapse) Apple's share price. Who benefits when analysts write favorably about Apple, but don't disclose theirs or their clients' investments and potential conflicts of interest? Posted: March 21.

    6. "iPhone 4 isn't one launch but a series of smaller announcements timed to drive up Apple's stock price": Apple is carefully manipulating its share price by the timing of certain product announcements; iPhone 4 is the clearest, recent example. Not that the manipulation is new. In December 2009 I asked: "Are Apple stock price gains the reason for recent tablet rumors?" The answer was an unequivocal "Yes!" based on how share price gains align with rumors -- and Apple announcements that follow. To be clear: In asserting manipulation, I don't suggest someone is breaking the law or acting unethically. I liken it to a puppeteer masterfully and artistically moving marionettes across a stage. With respect to its share price, Apple is carefully timing certain announcements for maximum share gains.

    I'm surprised how little analysis there has been about how Apple manages perception through carefully timed announcements or leaks. The stock hit a 52-week high this week, of $326.66, by the way. Posted: June 21.

    5. "Sorry, Steve Jobs, search is happening on smartphones": In early summer, Compete put to shame Jobs' ridiculous April assertion that "search is not happening on phones." According to the analyst firm, search is indeed happening on mobile phones -- 55 percent of smartphone owners have searched locally from their handsets; on average, 15 percent locally search at least once a week. The news that search is happening on phones is good for Google, which has continually updated mobile search features, particularly in 2010, with Android getting a little extra juice over iOS (at least with what rolls out to which mobile operating system first). Then there is all the "stuff" Google wraps around mobile search, particularly the local variety, such as keyword advertising.

    Smartphone owners use of local search in part explains Google's attempt to buy Groupon, which rejected a $6 billion bid in early December. Posted: July 6.

    4. "What is Steve Jobs Afraid of?:" Apple's CEO made a surprise appearance during the company's fiscal 2010 fourth quarter earnings call. Jobs said he couldn't resist participating, given Apple's record $20.34 billion revenue. But he leveled most of his comments at competitors, and in quite defensive posture. Nearly every Jobs' statement effused defensiveness. I expected more confidence from the legendary Steve Jobs and speaking from position of strength.

    Several commenters pointed to Daniel Eran's post ripping me and defending Jobs. Eran's core defense was simply that Jobs made the kind of competitor comments that any CEO would make. Right, but other chief executives often do that from position of weakness -- bravado by, say, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer talking about catching Google in search or dismissing iPhone or iPad as insignificant. That Jobs' competitor attacks came from a position of strength, where he shouldn't feel insecure, reveals something important about his psychology and thinking that is essential to understand when looking at where Apple is going and what its influence will be. Posted: October 19.

    3. "Steve Jobs shows little remorse about iPhone 4 Death Grip -- should he?": Apple CEO's handling of the press conference announcing free iPhone 4 cases reveals something more about the psychology and thinking of the man. Jobs was harried and hurried and didn't play the "We're sorry" role very well. There was no real apology, but plenty of justification. Death Grip, where the signal strength meter declines when iPhone is held in the hand, was the gripping business and tech story of the summer. I found Jobs' excuse for why people are seeing Death Grip the lamest of all -- the relatively small number of cases available at launch. The reasoning: If there had been more cases, fewer people would be holding the phone directly. Posted: July 16.

    2. "Steve Jobs 'Thoughts on Flash' is just smoke": Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" memo is a rare glimpse into the mind of the rarest breed: A high-tech, cult figure who isn't a geek. Apple posted the nearly 1,700-word essay earlier in late April, in response to the ongoing debate about Adobe Flash on iPhone OS devices. One-sidedness seeps through nearly all of Jobs' six no-Flash justifications. I don't doubt his sincerity about wanting to protect the iPhone OS device user experience, but there's more. Apple calls iPad "magical and revolutionary," but the same phrase applies to Jobs' ability to make so reasonable arguments that emphasize the positives benefitting Apple products, while de-emphasizing or even ignoring the negatives -- or facts! As I stated in February, "Apple's problem with Flash is mobile applications competition." Apple wants to control the development stack -- plain, pure and simple.

    Apple later shipped two new MacBook Air models without Flash installed. Posted: April 29.

    1. "Apple is the new AOL and new Microsoft, and whoa that can't be a good thing": Two astoundingly good analyses hit the InterWebs over the US Memorial Day holiday weekend: John Battelle's "Is The iPad A Disappointment? Depends When You Sold Your AOL Stock" and Kroc Camen's "Will Apple Embrace the Web? No." Battelle and Camen come at the topic from different directions, but end up at the same destination: The web will be easier to use on iPhone OS devices, but Apple will confine consumers and developers to its, ah, walled apple grove. The open web ultimately threatens Apple's business model. Posted: June 1.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/30/Should_Apple_stop_selling_software_in_its_retail_stores_'

    Should Apple stop selling software in its retail stores?

    Publié: décembre 30, 2010, 7:31pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mac App Store

    It's the question to ask with the Mac App Store launching in one week. Software takes up valuable shelf space Apple could use for other things, particularly in many of its smaller boutique-sized shops. I've asked Apple PR if the company plans to stop selling software at its retail stores but received no answer before posting.

    Apple is notorious for pulling the plug on something and pushing the consumer market forward, whether or not it's ready to move. I remember when in 1998, with launch of the Bondi Blue iMac, Apple removed legacy ports, shifting to FireWire and USB. A decade later, Apple ditched the internal optical drive on the original MacBook Air. The newer model replaces the hard drive with solid-state storage. There are many other examples and some quite displeasing to consumers, when Apple releases something new incompatible with what its customers already have.

    Should digital download delivery only be the next push?

    The Mac App Store offers many advantages developers can see from selling applications through iTunes for iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Among the other advantages:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices -- Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.

    2. Developers can now scale their applications across devices.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they will be paid; the app store deters piracy.

    4. Rights protection is built in so that customers aren't exposed to onerous piracy-deterring activation mechanisms.

    5. The store makes applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    6. Developers can easily get digital shelf space -- and, therefore greater exposure -- where they might not get retail shelf space at all.

    Would Apple be so bold regarding software, by making the Mac App Store its sole distribution channel? It's not like Apple runs a record shop, selling CDs. There is iTunes for that and for selling mobile apps. Surely the developer benefits are compelling.

    "I can't imagine them doing that," says Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis. "I suspect they would lose a lot of support from the major third-party software producers." Oh, yeah? But no one complains about selling mobile apps digitally.

    "I think the genius of any app store for mobile was that it puts all the products together in one place for people to find, that was the challenge for mobile," he responds. "For computers we already had that, it is called a retail store. So yes, I think apps for a computer is just another name for a DDL [direct download] store."

    Baker backs up his assertion with some convincing numbers. First, he concedes, people do buy software online -- about three-quarters of US computer users. "Of that, about one-third were subscription renewals, one-quarter were digital downloads and one-quarter were CDs," he explains. So while the majority of computer users have purchased software online, not many bought direct digital downloads.

    "Only 43 percent of online software buyers want a digital download only," Baker says. "Thirty percent want a box and 22 percent want a download and a box."

    Still, 43 percent represents a helluva lot of people, and right now Apple only needs to be concerned with Mac owners, as the store won't be available to Windows users next week. Like lemmings, so-called Macheads seem all too willing to leap over the cliff with Apple to the next big thing. No push required.

    How do you buy or want to buy software? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/30/iPhone_4_vs_Nexus_S__Which_smartphone_is_right_for_you_'

    iPhone 4 vs Nexus S: Which smartphone is right for you?

    Publié: décembre 30, 2010, 4:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPhone 4-Nexus S

    Six months after moving to Apple's smartphone, I'm back on Android. On December 17, I bought the Samsung-made Google Nexus S from my local Best Buy. Days later, my iPhone 4 sold on eBay for $575, which will cover my early termination fee with AT&T and some of the new phone's cost. Like any other tech purchase, I did research beforehand but couldn't find what I most wanted: iPhone comparison to Nexus S reviews -- Apple's flagship smartphone to Google's superphone. After nearly two weeks using Nexus S, I'm ready to offer some experiential comparisons for other shoppers.

    To be clear, I wasn't dissatisfied with iPhone 4. On the contrary, I was hugely satisfied with the phone and the user experience. Apple's smartphone feels solid to hold, offers breathtaking display and shoots pleasing photos and videos. With the exception of ongoing Bluetooth earpiece problems, iPhone satisfied -- perhaps too much. Psychologists say that marriages often break up not in a flurry of anger or arguments but silence. Two people drift apart, one day realizing they have little left in common. That sentiment in some ways describes my feelings about iPhone 4. Three-and-a-half years after the original phone launched, the iOS user interface is pretty much the same. The UI feels stale, uninviting and too PC-like. I love the hardware, but no longer pine for the software.

    An iPhone 4 Divorce

    My software breakup started months earlier, when my 89 year-old father-in-law switched to iPhone 4. In process of watching him struggle to use the device, I suddenly saw in a new way the inconsistencies of the user interface, such as the button in the left hand corner  of some standard phone functions leading "back" but doing something different, too (text messaging is good example). There was a consistency about his confusion -- when encountering UI inconsistencies and oddities.

    Other things bugged me. For example, photo sharing is cumbersome on iOS compared to Android. The iOS presents a few standard sharing options, like e-mail and MMS, but the services are all Apple's. By comparison, Android exposes APIs to third-party developers. When using the Nexus One, the newer Google phone's predecessor, I could upload photos directly to Facebook, Twitter or Tumblr immediately, without having to truck over to their apps (unlike iPhone). This example represents the difference in openness of the two mobile platforms.

    In June, I switched to iPhone 4 from Nexus One, which my wife still uses. I generally liked the Android phone but there were accuracy problems with the touchscreen and the AMOLED screen washed out in sunlight, making the phone essentially unusable. When I had the Nexus One, it ran Android 2.1 (now 2.2). I like versions 2.2 and 2.3 less; there are more steps required for some really basic functions, like making phone calls. The point: Android's user interface is becoming unnecessarily complex in some respects. However, in many others, such as adjusting settings or getting notifications, even Android 2.3 is superior in its simplicity compared to iOS.

    Nexus SGoogle Nexus S side view showing curvy screen

    Some reasons why Nexus S appealed to me compared to iPhone 4:

    1. It's the new Google phone. Nexus S is Google branded, with no carrier crapware installed. The smartphone is based on the popular Samsung Galaxy S series, and it will be first to get the newest Android operating system version updates.

    2. Nexus S runs Gingerbread. Android 2.3 is tasty. What can I say? I like sweets.

    3. The Super AMOLED screen overcomes Nexus One's sunlight blindness -- and it's crisp and clear enough compared to iPhone 4.

    4. I like the Samsung Galaxy S series -- too bad the Nexus S misses some features. I'd be happier if like T-Mobile's Samsung Vibrant variant, Nexus S had 720p video and microSD slot to augment the 16GB internal storage. That said, the Nexus S is gorgeous and loaded with goodies.

    5. I was bored with iOS and longing for Android. As aforementioned, I was ready for the iPhone 4 divorce. I just wanted the right phone to switch to-- something like the Nexus One in concept but not the shortcomings.

    How Do the Phones Compare?

    There is no apple (or is that Apple?) to apple comparison. Each smartphone appeals in its own way. I mostly prefer the Nexus S to iPhone 4, but I could just as comfortably use Apple's smartphone. These are both exceptional quality phones. For many people, one or the other will be a matter of taste, assuming they're not contractually committed to the wireless network supporting the other phone.

    Quick Specs: iPhone 4

    • Processor: Apple A4.
    • Storage: 16GB or 32GB; available to applications.
    • Dimensions: 115.2mm high by 58.6mm wide by 9.3mm deep, weighing 137 grams.
    • Display: 3.5 inches, with 960-by-640 resolution; 326 dots per inch; 800:1 contrast ratio.
    • Wireless: UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA -- 850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz; GSM/EDGE -- 850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz; 802.11b/g/n WiFi; Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR; Assisted GPS
    • Cameras: VGA front-facing and 5-megapixel back-facing (backlit CMOS and high-dynamic range capabilities); VGA video from front and 720p from the back, both 30 frames per second; LED flash on back camera.
    • Claimed battery life: 7 hours talk, 5 hours Internet
    • Carrier locked: Yes, in most geographies
    • US price: $199 for 16GB and $299 32GB with two-year contractual commitment to AT&T. No commitment: $599 and $699, respectively.

    iPhone 4iPhone 4

    Quick Specs: Nexus S

    • Processor: 1GHz Samsung Cortex A8 (Hummingbird).
    • Storage: 16GB; 1GB available to applications.
    • Dimensions: 123.9mm high by 63mm wide by 10.88mm deep, weighing 129 grams.
    • Display: 4 inches, with 800-by-480 resolution; 235 dots per inch; 100000:1 contrast ratio.
    • Wireless: HSDPA/HSUPA -- 900, 1700, 2100 MHz; GSM/EDGE -- 850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz); 802.11b/g/n WiFi; Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR; Assisted GPS; Near Field Communication.
    • Cameras: VGA front-facing and 5-megapixel back-facing; VGA video from front and 720 x 480 from the back, 30 frames per second; LED flash on back camera.
    • Claimed battery life: 6.7 hours.
    • Carrier locked: No
    • US price: $199 or $249 with two-year contractual commitment to T-Mobile. No commitment: $529.

    In the United States, iPhone 4 is locked to AT&T's network; even when unlocked by the user, high-speed data is not available on the other major GSM network, T-Mobile. The Nexus S is unlocked and uses T-Mobile's data frequencies. The phone is good for voice on AT&T but only EDGE for data. Note to T-Mobile subscribers: The Nexus S tops out at 7.2Mbps; it does not support T-Mobile's so-called 4G network speeds.

    First-Hand User Experience

    The Nexus S' most distinctive feature is the curved screen, which feels noticeably more comfortable against the face than iPhone 4 or other smartphones I have used. The screen is bright, with rich contrast that is superior to iPhone 4. The capacitive touchscreen is scarily responsive, like it's reading my mind and producing letters before I touch the screen. That's not too far from the truth. In testing, I find the screen responds without touch, if I hold my fingers just above the letters.

    Nexus SBut it is the speed I first noticed. The Nexus S is fast, noticeably more than iPhone 4, which is saying a lot, since Apple's smartphone is no slouch. From a usability perspective, I much prefer Android's simply inspired notifications compared to Apple's seemingly hacked on approach. If, for example, Facebook isn't on the main iPhone screen, the user might not realize he or she has notifications, which appear as a numeral against the application icon. On Android, a unified notifications bar appears at the top of screen and pulls down to reveal them.

    Android also places phone function or application settings on the same screen (after you untuck them), rather than how iPhone forces the user to go to a separate, consolidated "settings" application. Another nicety: Widgets running on the desktop. I use the featured "Google News/Weather" widget throughout the day. I'll add others to one of the home screens, as I find time.

    Nexus S' battery life, while good, simply doesn't compete with iPhone 4, which is an exceptional performer. I would guess Nexus S delivers about 80-85 percent the time of iPhone 4. Strangely, I find talk time to be longer on Nexus S compared to iPhone 4, while Apple's phone lasts longer for data usage.

    As a journalist, the camera is a high priority for me. Unquestionably, iPhone has the edge, particularly for video. But I find the Nexus S delivers satisfying performance -- certainly good enough -- and there are some actual controls for adjusting settings while taking pictures, such as white balance and exposure compensation.

    Like other Android handsets, Nexus S syncs to the cloud -- no PC required, unlike iPhone 4. Apple offers some cloud sync capabilities, but users must still backup the device to a computer and receive updates there. Android updates OTA -- over the air. I presume that Nexus S, like the N1, will restore all apps and settings OTA if the phone is reset.

    I find call quality on both ends to be excellent with both phones, but better with Nexus S. Several people have asked about the difference, which they noticed. Switching carriers -- T-Mobile from AT&T -- could be a factor. Here's something, and I have no explanation why: Nexus S screen is noticeably less smudgy than iPhone 4.

    There remains the question of mobile apps. Apple claims 300,000 in the App Store, but what about Google? According to AndroLib, the Android Marketplace now has more than 200,000 applications. I won't quibble the number, which isn't Google official, but will say this: I had absolutely no problem finding all the applications I needed.

    Which phone is right for you? I can't say. Hopefully this post will help your decision-making process. But nothing beats actually handling a phone, which I suggest you do on several trips. It's an important commitment (if bound by carrier contract that you'll live with for years) that deserves some hands-on experience. The Nexus S is right for me, and I have no regrets.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/29/What_does_Paul_Allen_need_to_win_his_patent_lawsuit_against_Apple__Facebook__Texas'

    What does Paul Allen need to win his patent lawsuit against Apple, Facebook? Texas

    Publié: décembre 29, 2010, 7:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen really needs a lesson in how to effectively file and win patent lawsuits. For starters, you don't file them in a Washington State federal court. Other patent plaintiffs seem to get what Allen doesn't: You file in East Texas, in what is affectionately or unaffectionally called -- depending on which side of the verdict you're on -- the "rocket docket." Instead, Allen is back in a Seattle court, refiling a patent infringement case that got tossed about two weeks ago.

    US District Court Judge Marsha Pechman vacated the original complaint for being too vague -- "spartan," she wrote -- listing infringers but offering no real examples of infringement. Based on my long experience reporting about technology patent cases, such little details probably wouldn't have stopped Allen in East Texas. The new lawsuit is more explicit, citing examples of real products that allegedly infringe on his patents. The lawsuit names Apple, eBay, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo and YouTube -- but, hey, not Microsoft.

    The 35-page refiled lawsuit, dated December 28, officially lists Allen's Interval Licensing LLC as plaintiff. The lawsuit alleges that the infringers violate United States Patent No. 6,263,507, which "was duly and legally issued for an invention entitled 'Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data.' The '507 patent describes an invention that enables a user to efficiently review a large body of information by categorizing and correlating segments of information within the body of information and generating displays of segments that are related to the primary information being viewed by the user."

    The infringement claim against AOL sums up the kind of allegations made against other defendants. According to the legal document:

    AOL operates many websites that provide articles, videos, advertisements, and other types of content to users. In order to help users find additional content items that may be of interest, the software and hardware that operate the websites compare the available content items to determine whether they are related. When a user views a particular content item, the AOL websites generate displays of related content items so as to inform the user that the related content items may be of interest.

    Apple's alleged infringement applies to iTunes Store, the App Store and even Apple TV. "Displays of related content" is one of the major themes running through all the claims.

    Where Patent Trolls Go

    Perhaps these patent nuances would be too difficult for some juries to handle -- and, yes, Allen asks for a jury trial. East Texas juries seem to cut to the chase, frequently siding with patent holders. Three Texas towns stand out for delivering big payoffs for patent plaintiffs: Beaumont, Marshall and Tyler. Beaumont achieved notoriety in 1999, when a lawsuit against Toshiba led to a $2.1 billion settlement. Tyler is about 196 miles north of Beaumont, in southeast Texas. Marshall, located 62 miles east of Tyler, is another popular patent lawsuit venue. Tyler, with a population over 98,000, is the second-largest of the three towns. Beaumont: 111,000; Marshall: 24,000.

    The so-called rocket dockets of Marshall and Tyler have been good to patent plaintiffs over the years. Randomly chosen from among the many wins:

    • In October, a federal jury awarded Mirror Worlds $625.5 million in damages against Apple.
    • In May 2009, a jury found that Microsoft violated i4i patents for XML.
    • In November 2008, a jury found that Sony violated an Agere patent and ordered payment of $18.8 million.
    • In July 2007, a judge in Tyler ordered Nintendo to pay $21 million to local company Anascape for patent infringement related to Wii and GameCube controllers.
    • In April 2006, a jury ordered Microsoft to pay $115 to z4 Technology; a judge later increased the damages against Microsoft.

    Most patent-troll cases filed in Eastern Texas share fairly common characteristics:

    • Most plaintiffs are companies or individuals, rather than, say, Apple, IBM or Microsoft.
    • Patents tend to have been recently issued, typically not long before an infringement claim is filed.
    • Plaintiffs typically don't produce actual products or offer services, which in many other court jurisdictions would raise questions about the patent's legitimacy.
    • Plaintiffs demand a jury trial, and the case either goes to jury or to settlement.
    • Area of filing is well known for either judges or juries favoring patent holders over defendants.

    Allen's patent lawsuit shares some of these characteristics. By the numbers -- and they have nothing to do with the merits of Allen's lawsuit - East Texas is more popular venue than Washington State. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts tracks the number and kind of cases filed each year. Through March 31st (the most recent data), there were 767 civil cases related to copyrights, patents and trademarks filed in Texas federal courts -- 299 in the Eastern Texas U.S. District Court (the so-called rocket docket). By comparison, there was a total of 90 similar cases filed in all of Washington State.

    Perhaps Allen should rethink his legal strategy.

    [Editor's Note: Distance between Tyler and Beaumont, Texas corrected.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/28/10_for_2010__Google_stories_that_mattered'

    10 for 2010: Google stories that mattered

    Publié: décembre 28, 2010, 10:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google logo

    My second set of year-in-review retrospectives is 10 stories in disguise. The number is closer to 20, because I combined together the 7-part Chrome OS laptop review series into one. While I wrote fewer stories about Google than Microsoft, I found this list harder to create than the first one -- "10 for 2010: Microsoft stories that mattered."

    These are 10 (OK, nearly 20) of my Google stories I believe that you should have read in 2010. You still have time! The stories are organized by importance, from least to most -- that is 10 to 1. I weighed importance based on relevance of the analysis to Google in 2010 and even in coming years. Not all readers will agree on which is more or less important, or perhaps not at all.

    The year 2010 was tremendously significant for Google, which started off in January with release of the Nexus One, followed by a huge surge in Android handset sales. Google announced its TV product in February, and the first Google TV settop boxes shipped in time for the holidays. New Android tablets released this year, and Google debuted a Chrome OS pilot, with 60,000 laptops for lucky testers, in December. By many other measures -- improvements to Gmail and rapid-fire Android and Chrome releases -- Google showed its stuff as a maturing company.

    I will followup with similar post about Apple, highlighting the important stories about it, too. With that introduction, I present 10 Google stories that mattered in 2010.

    10. "The Google-Verizon proposal is worse than evil": The Google-Verizon proposal for an "open Internet" would empower the Federal Communications Commission to exert more control over the wired Internet. But the proposal also would strip the government from exerting authority over the wireless Internet, in process allowing services like Verizon to throttle back some services while giving preference to others, like Google's YouTube. It's a devil's agreement. Posted: August 11.

    9. "10 reasons I dumped iPhone 3GS for Nexus One": The official Google phone running on T-Mobile is, for me, a better experience and value than iPhone 3GS and AT&T. Among the reasons: AT&T dropped calls; Google leapfrogging Apple in mobile operating system development; and Android notifications bar.

    Six months later, I gave up iPhone 4 for the Samsung-made Google Nexus S. But that's a story not yet written. Posted: May 25.

    8. "I sold my soul to Google, can I get it back?": Google's free worldview and business approach is fundamentally changing the value of content and other intellectual property produced at cost. Google services are compelling and well connected, making it hard to resist the devil's deal -- taking for free things people usually pay for. Posted: December 1.

    7. "Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was": The European Union's preliminary antitrust investigation into Google practices isn't surprising. Google increasingly is becoming gatekeeper to the Internet. Fear that Microsoft would take such a role precipitated a landmark US antitrust case filed in May 1998. Google's intentions aren't the issue so much as its influence.

    In late November, the European Union made the investigation official. Posted: February 24.

    6. "Why is Google suddenly so evil?": It was the question to ask after Google launched Buzz with privacy controls wide open. How evil this and other actions are depends on viewpoint. To whom is Google's first obligation? Itself? Its shareholders? Or its customers? Sometimes what is evil to one group is sheer goodness to the other. Posted: February 11.

    5. "Google soars past Apple and Microsoft with Nexus One superphone": The Google Nexus One launch is as game changing as Apple's June 2007 release of the iPhone. Perhaps, Nexus One is more important, although judging from blogs and tweets, geekdom doesn't yet get it. Apple supercharged the smartphone category with a more natural user interface. Google turned on the superpowers, by finally starting to integrate cloud services into its mobile platform in a hugely useful way.

    Many blogs and news sites wrongly reported that Google was pioneering a new direct sales method with Nexus One (I disagreed). Others reported sales had flopped (again, I disagreed). Nexus One succeeded because of its objective -- to establish a baseline reference model for Android manufacturers. It's not surprising that Google later released the Nexus S, as the N1's successor. Posted: January 5.

    4. "Like I said, Apple can't win the smartphone wars": As expressed in October 2009 and reiterated here, iPhone is to Android -- and somewhat Symbian OS -- handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. The analysis responds to Mark Sigal's April 26 post: "Five reasons why iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows." He couldn't be more wrong.

    By end of the year, Google reported activating more than 300,000 Android handsets a day. Meanwhile, globally, Gartner projected that Android handsets would catch mark-leading Nokia Symbian phones by 2014. Posted: May 10.

    3. "I don't need 10 reasons why Google TV will succeed": Three are enough: Search, advertising and Android. But if you need seven more: Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google. The problem right now with Google TV isn't the product but bloggers and journalists spouting off rumors and nonsense and Google failing to respond to them. Google product managers had better get off their duffs and defend their TV software soon, lest the rabble writing top-10 lists creates negative perceptions that could stall Google TV's adoption among manufacturers and content partners.

    Related and absolutely worth reading: My Google TV first impressions review. Posted: December 28.

    2. "Who really needs a Chrome OS laptop?": You do. On December 7th, Google announced a pilot program, distributing some 60,000 unbranded Cr-48 laptops running Chrome OS. The ambitious undertaking is necessary for manufacturers, developers and potential customers to test the cloud-connected operating system.

    A seven-part hands-on using the Cr-48 laptop series followed:

    1. "Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web": The two companies likeliest to have long-term influence over the mobile web take fundamentally different approaches. Apple favors apps, while Google prefers the browser. Behind these approaches are strikingly different worldviews that compliment and conflict. The winning platform, if one is to dominate, will make lots of people rich. Posted: April 8.

    Photo Credit: Hadi Carbon

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/28/I_don_t_need_10_reasons_why_Google_TV_will_succeed'

    I don't need 10 reasons why Google TV will succeed

    Publié: décembre 28, 2010, 7:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Three are enough: Search, advertising and Android. But if you need seven more: Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google, Google.

    Last night, while reading news on my Nexus S, I came across this little ditty: "Google TV Is Failing: 10 Reasons Why," by freelancer Don Reisinger, writing for eWeek. Judging from Reisinger's eWeek profile, he seemingly only writes top-10 lists. His reasons appear to be sensible but lack depth regarding the consumer electronics industry, Google or television networks. Google is as committed to television as it is to mobile -- and look how well Chrome and Android are doing two years out of the gate.

    The problem right now with Google TV isn't the product but bloggers and journalists spouting off rumors and nonsense and Google failing to respond to them. Google product managers had better get off their duffs and defend their TV software soon, lest the rabble writing top-10 lists creates negative perceptions that could stall Google TV's adoption among manufacturers and content partners. What incentive does Hulu have, for example, to deal with Google if the Reisingers of the InterWeb predict failure?

    The Google TV rumors and innuendo are deafening. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Google had asked its TV manufacturing partners to pull their products from next week's Consumer Electronics Show. Over the Christmas holiday, new rumors spread like wildfire about Google asking Logitech to either suspend production or shipments of the Google TV-based Revue. Yesterday, Logitech responded in a statement and also blog post by Ashish Arora, vice president of the Digital Home Group, denying any Revue suspension. "Suggestions that production of the Logitech Revue companion box might need to be halted to address software issues are unfounded," according to Logitech's statement. Now why can't Google be as explicit? It's long past time for Google to defend itself against the top-10 marauders and rumormongers.

    Bad Tech Reviews?

    Yesterday, I recorded a segment for Tech Night Owl Live that will air New Years Day. Host Gene Steinberg and I got into an argument about Google TV, which he hasn't experienced, the bad reviews and networks blocking content. This morning, I looked for those bad reviews and didn't really find them. Yes, Google TV failed to get the seal of approval of hugely influential tech columnist Walt Mossberg. He writes: "For now, I'd relegate Google TV to the category of a geek product, not a mainstream, easy solution ready for average users. It's too complicated, in my view, and some of its functions fall short."

    But different reviewers have different experiences. Mossberg writes: "I was similarly frustrated by finding and using regular TV shows from my cable box. Unless you have a box from Dish network, Google TV can't search in your recorded shows, or allow you, when it finds a show coming up, to set it to record." That's not my experience. I have AT&T U-verse, which runs Microsoft's MediaRoom software, and Google TV could search for TV programs and schedule them to record them just fine. Mossberg and I both tested the Logitech Revue. I gave my first-impressions "I love my Google TV" review on December 26. Mossberg's review posted on November 18. Perhaps the user experience changed between our reviews. Logitech's Arora emphasized the benefits of "software updates."

    Engadget's October 29th review more reflects my experience. Nilay Patel writes:

    Google TV is a success. Features like the search bar and integrated browser are so fundamentally good on a conceptual level that they seem destined to forever change our perception of TV user experience, regardless of how well Google TV itself fares in the market, and that's no small accomplishment. Other features, like apps and smartphone control, seem equally ambitious and worthy of praise because of promise alone.

    But Patel acknowledges rough edges I will concede: "The problem, of course, is that it's really execution that counts, and little else. By that much more exacting standard, Google TV feels like an incomplete jumble of good ideas only half-realized, an unoptimized box of possibility that suffers under the weight of its own ambition and seemingly rushed holiday deadline."

    Betanews Reader Reviews

    Betanews readers responding to my two Google TV posts during the last week generally raved about the product. Stephen Schwartz writes:

    I own the Sony Television version of Google TV and I love it with the exception of the remote. Very cumbersome to use the mouse/touch pad thingy. Other than that, I use it every day for surfing, and playing flash games. Also the sites that have converted to a Google TV wide large HTML 5 format (USA Today and NY Times are a couple) look great. I really believe in Google and believe that if something is not baked 100 percent yet, they will keep striving until it is 200 percent to 300 percent perfect. (doesn't anybody remember the first release of Gmail -- look at it now).

    He makes the right point about Gmail. Look at how the service has evolved or how quickly Google has iterated Android and Chrome over two years. Betanews reader Murray Hill writes: "I think that all the various news media types give [p]oor reviews of the Google TV have not even tried it themselves...According to my neighborhood Best Buy sales dudes and duddess, they have not seen any returns on the GTV products."

    Commenter lindafus writes:

    I just received the Logitech Revue for Christmas and set it up today. I have not been able to put it down. It hooked up easily to my Dish network 722 -- Samsung LN46A850 -- and Sony Soundbar and PS3. I am loving this device and have no clue why anyone would give it bad reviews. It is great to be able to watch movies and surf the net and control it all with one controller! I would recommend this to anyone who loves their internet and TV to be all in one! I have not found any bugs yet.

    Saadbox13 writes: "Same here we simply love it! Don't understand how googletv got bad reviews in the first place, we did not buy it to watch cable on demand, if that's what you were expecting it is definitely not for you."

    But not all Betanews readers buying a Google TV device shared this enthusiasm. Commenter sir-isaac griped:

    Most of the channels I was hoping to watch ended up blocking Google TV, I was under the impression Google has some arrangements with content providers but now I know they were just 'hoping' they won't block because it's "Google", I have no idea what they were thinking. It's consumers who put up hard cash to buy these that ended up paying for this little experiment.

    It's true that major networks are blocking browser-streamed content on Google TV. Commenter dc2003va has a temporary fix for sir-issac's viewing problems: "If you go to the setting for the Chrome browser simply change the user agent to "DESKTOP" and it will unblock most of the channels. The only things that are still blocked will be Hulu and ABC (they are using adobe Flash signature to block)."

    Three Reasons

    Now for those three reasons against Reisinger's 10:

    1. Search. Television is ripe for Google's core competency. Search can unify video content broadcast live, streamed from the Web or recorded locally. Right now, search on television is about as bad as it was on the Web circa 1999. Google TV search has flaws, which isn't surprising for a version 1 product, but it works a helluva lot better than search does (in my experience) on Comcast, Cox and U-verse services. The search experience reminds me of the "wow" using TiVo, back when most people couldn't understand DVR benefits without using it. Many early reviews described the ability to pause live programming or record shows from a program guide as "life changing." Google search for the TV is simular, IMHO.

    2. Advertising. As I explained in February post "Google TV is all about blood sucking television ad spending," the search and informational giant is looking to extend its advertising and search reach to the living room. That's no easy task:

    To push into the living room, Google is going to have to push somebody out. As Microsoft learned -- and even TiVo -- that's not so easy. Cable and telco providers covet their subscription fees and local advertising revenues. Surely the big networks will fight against Google's free economy, which could reduce the value of their ad space. Why pay networks big bucks when Google will sell ad space for much less?

    I'm not surprised then that some networks are blocking Google TV from receiving streamed content. According to MagnaGlobal, US television advertising revenue is more than double online ad revenue, something the firm predicts won't change during the next four years. But Google wants some of those ad dollars, and Google TV is a way to get them. Perseverance has paid off for Google before.

    3. Android. Google's operating system opens the possibility of many useful and convient applications on the TV. I'm simply shocked Apple doesn't make apps widely available for its iOS-based TV product. Apps on television might seem strange at first, but what are console games but applications consumed on the TV? Surely Google will seek to unify the Android mobile experience (beyond acting as remote control) to Android in the living room. For the Millennial generation or older, busy professionals, there is opportunity to play games, while watching that slow-moving football game broadcast in a minibox (and to rewind and watch interesting plays) and in another window monitor traffic spikes to the work network.

    If Google iterates its TV software as quickly as Android or Chrome, the rough edges will smooth out quickly. I agree with Engadget's Patel. "Google TV is a success," or soon will be -- that is if the Internet rabble doesn't generate brand damaging negative perceptions first. Google should defend its software. What irony. The naysayers subsist off the pageviews and advertising driven by the Google-free economy.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/28/2010_Technology_of_the_year__Synchronization'

    2010 Technology of the year: Synchronization

    Publié: décembre 28, 2010, 12:40am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's iPad surely doesn't deserve the designation, although some other news sites or blogs are giving it. Instead, sync is my choice as technology of 2010. Sync by far is the year's most useful and widely beneficial technology. Sync wasn't invented this year, but the technology reached a crescendo of usefulness -- anytime, anywhere and on anything.

    I first started writing about the importance of content synchronization in 2003, arguing that the utility belonged in the operating system. In January 2004, I blogged for JupiterResearch: "Controlling synchronization at the platform level would help Microsoft protect its Windows monopoly." Microsoft planned to integrate sync into Windows Longhorn, but later pulled the plug. Apple brought sync into Mac OS X with limited utility and later to iOS, where it is much more useful. Google trumped both companies, by taking sync somewhere even more useful: To the cloud. Android and the Chrome browser sync to Google datacenters and back to software, quite marvelously. But sync's reach and utility go much farther than these three companies-- from Amazon Kindle to Facebook and beyond.

    In March 2008 Microsoft Watch post "Do IT Simply with Sync," I expressed the technology's importance, but many shortcomings, as then available: "Synchronization is the natural killer application for the connected world. People use multiple devices, software products and IP/Web services. Information spreads out across these devices, requiring unnecessary rekeying and duplication. Synchronization would solve these problems and make content more useful across devices or services."

    Suddenly, Sync is Everywhere

    Twenty-one months later, sync has become a huge utility. What once was about keeping contacts and calendars or even e-mail in sync among multiple PCs or other devices touches just about every product or service used on the go. For example, Amazon uses sync to keep Kindle users reading in the right place. When someone starts reading a book on Kindle ebook reader but then continues on a smartphone running the Kindle software, sync brings him or her to the last page read. Kindle sync came of age in 2010, as Amazon brought the software reader to most smartphone and desktop operating systems (a process that started in 2009).

    Facebook sync deserves to be utility of the year, IMHO. In January, Facebook released a new version of its application for iPhone that added contact sync and push notifications. The technology later released for Android and other mobile operating systems. During initial setup, users can choose to sync information with the contacts in their phone's address book, all of their Facebook friends or none at all. Facebook sync helps keep contact information up to date. It's the perfect antidote to annoying Plaxo spam mails, which for me all but disappeared in 2010.

    Synchronization is also a vital utility for hundreds of thousands of mobile applications. Using sync and so-called push technologies, Android and iOS check to make sure the newest applications are installed -- that is synced up -- on the smartphone. Sync also lets people recover apps or even the entire desktop. T-Mobile automatically syncs contacts to the cloud, which are resynchronized when the subscriber changes devices. Google uses sync connected to one account ID to keep bookmarks synced among Chrome browsers, say, on a PC and with Android smartphone. Sync also benefits Android phone users in other ways. For example, when I changed Nexus One phones this year, Google cloud sync restored all the settings (even desktop background) and applications to the new device.

    What's different about sync as it evolves and extends to more services, software and devices is transparency -- you set it and forget it.

    Five Sync Trendsetters

    While sync is becoming more pervasive, five companies stand out for technologies and their usefulness: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft. All five services share something in common: They use a single user e-mail as synchronization hub ID -- @amazon.com. @me.com, @facebook.com (or other e-mail address), @gmail.com and @live.com, respectively.

    Facebook sync is perhaps the most interesting right now, seemingly because it is so quickly evolving. Facebook's new messaging service is one place to watch for rapid changes, particularly syncing up content between the cloud and mobile devices. Also, Facebook is becoming the default ID used to sign into other services, opening huge opportunities for extending sync benefits beyond the social network.

    Apple sync is messiest, because there are two synchronization engines -- iSync/MobileMe (from device to the cloud) and iTunes (from device to PC). The two sync engines don't, well, sync up, and the latter is hugely unappealing to IT organizations. C`mon, what IT manager wants to sync corporate-issued iPads or iPhones with iTunes? That's not to say iTunes sync works poorly. It actually sets a standard for ease and effectiveness. But success has a price: Apple has gone too far down the iTunes sync path to easily change course, which is one of the major reasons there are two sync engines. However, the Mac App Store, which launches on January 6, could be catalyst driving unified sync.

    Microsoft is the granddaddy of sync, and its progeny are competitors, like Apple and Google, that license ActiveSync. It's still the standard for syncing content with Microsoft Exchange. Microsoft is improving sync, and made some interesting strides in 2010. Among them: Windows Phone 7, which People Hub offers social sync across several services, including Facebook and Windows Live.

    Google has removed the need for the PC in the sync equation. It's all done to the cloud. I expect sync to be the glue making Google services work even better together in 2011. I've already mentioned some of what Google has done, so I'll add just one thing: Google is the other company doing or looking to do interesting things with sync. Anytime, anywhere and on anything.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/27/10_for_2010__Microsoft_stories_that_mattered'

    10 for 2010: Microsoft stories that mattered

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's that time of year when everybody who is anybody or nobody writes retrospectives. I start with Microsoft, by highlighting 10 of my stories you should have read in 2010. You've got time now during the end-of-year lull or even a week off before the New Year. They're organized by importance, from least to most -- that is 10 to 1.

    I didn't easily choose just 10. I weighed importance based on relevance of the analysis to Microsoft in 2010 and even in coming years. Not all readers will agree on which is more or less important, or perhaps not at all.

    I will say this now: 2010 was an important year for Microsoft -- and not just because the company launched Azure, shipped new Office version or saw enterprises upgrading Windows and Windows Server again. Microsoft made an important course correction that I'll write about in a few days. The old dog is learning new tricks.

    I will followup with similar posts on Apple and Google, highlighting the important stories about them, too. With that introduction, I present 10 Microsoft stories that mattered in 2010.

    10. "It's a shame about Ray Ozzie": Microsoft's chief software architect fell on his sword for the good of the company. Ozzie and his supporters lost the internal squabble between the Office-Windows-Windows Server hawks and the open cloud computing doves. Not that he was ever one of "Ballmer's boys." This post presents the negative perspective on Microsoft's Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack push to the cloud. See #2 for the positive benefits. Posted: October 25.

    9. "Windows Phone 7 is doomed": Microsoft's problem isn't technology, but time. Short of bribing developers and customers to use Windows Phone 7, Microsoft cannot correct its mobile platform mistakes fast enough. Apple and Google will lock in customers the way Microsoft and its partners did with DOS/Windows PCs during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

    To be clear: I rather like Windows Phone 7. Whether or not I eat crow about "doomed" in 2011 or even 2012 may depend on the continued Windows 7 marketing push, which is simply exceptional. See #7 for a more positive perspective of Windows Phone's future. Posted: July 2.

    8. "Three post-CES goals for Microsoft": This post will get some followup by me as the Consumer Electronics Show approaches on January 6, 2011. Two of the goals: Set shorter marketing and product development goals and hold smaller, more-intimate product events. Posted: January 8.

    7. "The bright spot in Microsoft's mobile OS disaster is...": ...There's no place to go but up. But up doesn't have to be an arduous climb. To regain mobile momentum lost to Apple, Google and Research in Motion, Microsoft must change the rules of engagement, like David did in the Biblical battle with Goliath. Already, with the approach to the Windows Phone 7 user interface and product marketing, Microsoft is applying "David thinking." Posted: September 27.

    6. "I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership": The June 17 Windows Embedded Handheld announcement shattered my remaining confidence in Microsoft's CEO. A long-time Ballmer supporter, I could do so no longer. I stood by my man, but he failed me.

    However, Ballmer renewed some hope following the company's annual Financial Analysts Meeting. See #5. Posted: June 18.

    5. "Steve Ballmer has one more chance to save his job": Going into Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting, calls increased for Ballmer's ouster as CEO. The challenge: For Ballmer to show he is in charge. The post highlights 10 Microsoft weaknesses going into FAM and 10 strengths for fiscal 2011. By the way, Ballmer did surprisingly well showing vision during the keynote. Posted: July 28.

    4. "Five reasons why Microsoft can't compete (and Steve Ballmer isn't one of them)": Microsoft's problems are strategic and structural, and they're by no means unresolvable. Among them: US and European antitrust cases put lawyers and non-technologists in charge of important final product decisions, which negatively has affected development for nearly a decade. Another: Microsoft lost control of file formats, during Ballmer's 10-year tenure. Posted: June 22.

    3. "Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?": Microsoft's stock has been moribund, rarely rising about $30 a share since 2000, the same year Steve Ballmer became chief executive. Revenue rose from $5.8 billion in fiscal 2001 first quarter to $16.2 billion during same quarter in FY 2011. The company is consistently profitable, and its products are used everywhere. Why doesn't Wall Street get it? Part of the problem is undeserved negative perceptions about Microsoft and even more undeserved positive perceptions about Apple. Posted: November 7.

    2. "Microsoft shouldn't break up, but break away from its antiquated business model": On the tenth anniversary of Microsoft's antitrust settlement with the US Justice Department and eight states, it was appropriate to look back at the breakup question. In early 2000, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered that Microsoft break up into two companies for violating US antitrust law. Should Microsoft break up now, creating smaller, more flexible companies capable of stronger stock performance?

    "No" is the answer. This post explains five hugely important problems Microsoft's cloud strategy solves for the company. It puts another perspective on Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack push to the cloud discussed in #10. Posted: November 17.

    1. "The Windows era is over": Prediction made in the post: The year 2010 will mark dramatic shifts away from Microsoft's monopoly to something else. Change is inevitable, and like IBM in the 1980s, Microsoft can't hold back its destiny during this decade. Mobile device-to-cloud competition's shifting relevance bears striking similarities to the move from mainframes to PCs, and it is a long, ongoing trend.

    Whether the measure is Microsoft's push into the cloud, smartphones' dramatic sales gains (pushed by iPhone and Android handsets) or the success of cloud-hosted social sharing services like Facebook, the prediction has punch for the first half of decade 2010. Posted: May 26.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/26/First_impressions__Google_TV_delights'

    First impressions: Google TV delights

    Publié: décembre 26, 2010, 9:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Logitech Revue

    I simply don't understand all the fuss about Google TV delays. I set up the Logitech Revue on Christmas Eve and the family is absolutely loving it. Revue/Google TV delivers one of the best non-cable-provider set-top box experiences I've ever had testing these devices. In fact, setup and benefits make up for all the pain encountered with similar class products running other operating systems.

    First the news that gets stranger: Following rumors that Google TV asked partners to pull their products from next month's Consumer Electronics Show, there's now buzz that Logitech has either suspended Revue production or shipments until Google releases a software update.

    Oh yeah? I don't see a problem, whether or not the rumors are true. I'm dumbfounded by how good Google TV is right now. I can compare to Apple TV, but not Xbox 360's integration with AT&T U-verse (I don't have one of Microsoft's game consoles).

    12 Steps to TV Bliss

    Initially, I found Revue setup to be daunting. I received the Google TV device late afternoon on December 22d but waited another day before installation. Based on my past bad experience with this kind of product -- and, yes, including Windows Media Center -- I was flummoxed by instruction to connect my IPTV settop box to the Revue. I figured that could only lead to trouble. How wrong I was.

    Logitech provides an HDMI cable in the box, which I used to connect my AT&T U-verse tuner to the Revue, which in turn got the other cable already connected to the TV -- a three year-old 42-inch Vizio model VU42L. So HDMI goes out from the tuner into the Revue and out to the Vizio. I then turned on the Revue and TV, which launched a 12-step setup process and notification 20 minutes time would be required.

    I balked at the 12-step process, which was more than Apple TV ever demanded. But Revue/Google TV would be doing more -- gulp, controlling the AT&T settop box and television. For this first impressions review, I won't go through step by step. At some point I entered my Google account ID, zip code, service provider, settop box brand and model and TV brand and model. The process seemed straightforward except for setting screen size, which required using buttons on the Revue keyboard to widen the black display area to cover over blue background.

    Say Your Hail Marys

    After the setup process concluded, Revue rebooted and I said my Hail Marys (Heck, I'm not even Catholic, but it was Christmas Eve!). What happened next shocked me. Revue provided unified and flawlessly functional access to AT&T U-verse features, the TV and Google TV. Based on past bad experience using this kind of device, I expected either U-verse features to be unavailable or somehow compromised. Not the least. If anything, U-verse is now better, because of Google search.

    Revue's mini-keyboard replaces the U-verse and TV controllers and, quite surprisingly, offers all the functionality I normally use. I was skeptical of the keyboard, which proved to be too cumbersome with other products I've tested. But, because all the functionality I expect is there and because of the ease of searching, the keyboard is handy and confortable to use -- even for my tech-adverse wife.

    Google TV starts from Revue's Home button, which serves up appropriate services/applications, such as Amazon Video-on-Demand, Netflix, television and other services. Chrome browser is also available, and it's surprisingly useful and integrated into other experiences. For example, Chrome launches access to Amazon VoD, for renting or buying movies. The experience looks like the Amazon service would in a browser. I've never been a fan of Internet on the television, with screen resolution problems being one of several reasons. But I found the browser experience to be surprisingly pleasant considering the TV is more than three years old. One browser gripe: No bookmarks sync with Chrome on PC that I can see.

    Google Search opens Doors

    Pretty much any content available in a browser is accessible on Google TV, although the exceptions are perplexing. Hulu isn't available as a service or application (because Google TV uses Android, applications are available, too). This morning, I went to Hulu in Google TV's Chrome browser and immediately received one of several notices the service wasn't available -- yet. But I persevered, getting as far as the video window for a TV show, at which point the final prompt stopped me. Surely, it's a licensing thing, or so I guess after observing that Starz Play is available from Netflix on my laptop but not Google TV.

    From a user interface perspective, Apple TV is much more visually appealing. But I found searching for and renting movies from Amazon VoD on Google TV to be much more functional. On Christmas Eve, I rented "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" for $3.99. A notice indicated that Amazon VoD HD was coming soon for Google TV, but the quality looked plenty good enough to me. On Christmas Day, my wife and father-in-law rented "That's Entertainment" for $2.99 (for 48-hours), and my daughter and I later watched "Die Hard" streamed from Netflix. I often search Apple TV and can find nothing to watch, because of the presentation and cumbersome search capabilities. So less than two days using Google TV, that works out to two more movies rented using Google TV (and one streamed for free) than Apple TV (for the month). The Apple TV is boxed; I'm done with it.

    Google search is what makes the experience so far superior to using either U-verse alone or another settop box. For example, this morning I wanted to go from a Web page to Google's main page -- something really unnecessary for searching, which can be done from the address bar. But I was fooling around. Typing "Google" brought up some unexpected choices, including "Google Baby." WTH? There's a new Google service oriented to kids? No. "Google Baby" turns out to be a program airing on HBO in nine days. Google search didn't just cover the Web but future U-verse programming. Clicking "Google TV" took me to information about the show and option to record using the U-verse DVR. Hell, that's slick, and remember AT&T's service runs Microsoft's MediaRoom software. Google search is simply amazing and, as I'll explain in a later post, may fundamentally change how I use the television -- perhaps as much as the DVR did.

    That's a wrap. I may do a full review in a couple weeks, particularly if Google really does issue a major software update.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/24/Talking_about_Microsoft_Store'

    Talking about Microsoft Store

    Publié: décembre 24, 2010, 8:10am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft Store sign

    Last night, while walking around Fashion Valley Mall here in San Diego, I spent some time sizing up the Apple and Microsoft stores, which are just four shops apart. The Apple Store was busier, but I found the Microsoft Store to be more charming. More than any other time viewing the stores, I saw in Christmas shoppers dramatic differences in clientele.

    Microsoft Store attracted a crowd, inside and outside the glass windows, as two teens frenetically danced using Xbox and the hands-free Kinect controller. Everyone was having fun. It was raucous with some cheering, a gravity well pulling passersby; I among them.

    The Apple Store was frenetic, too, but with the charge of bustle -- there being too many people for the confined space. I'm amazed the fire marshall doesn't cite Apple Store, about three times a week, for the flood of humanity swashing against the display tables and one another.

    Young, hip or chic defined Apple Store shoppers. I immediately thought 1980's Yuppies. Predominately: Twenty-something couples, Neiman Marcus-stylized thirty- forty- and fifty-something couples and teens with one parent  -- not two but one. It was a money, upper middle-class crowd.

    Microsoft Store is where families meet -- parents and plenty of kids or teens. I at first attributed it to Xbox, but parents and kids milled throughout the store, not just the game area. Shoppers looked more middle and working class than those in Apple Store.

    The atmosphere felt different, too, in a lighter way. I looked at the store's layout differently, seeing the brown and wood tones as being more inviting, more homey than Apple Store's white on seemingly white -- a canvas against which splashes of color draw attention to products for sale. But there was an art gallery sterility to Apple Store.

    Apple Santa

    Apple's idea of Christmas: a big Santa Claus in the display window, hunched forward reaching for iPhone (or perhaps iPod), with his backside sticking out at passersby. Inside Microsoft Store, by comparison, the display panels circling the store greeted: "Merry Christmas."

    It's unlikely that either store had a good sales week. Torrential rains pounded San Diego for most of the previous five days, leading to flooding that filled the back parking lot with water and closing off several of the mall's major entrances. Fashion Valley wasn't the best place to be a shopkeeper during the biggest sales week of the year.

    But on the evening of December 23rd, with the rains gone, shoppers fell on the mall with even greater deluge. Apple and Microsoft stores were among the mall's busiest shops.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/23/Please_be_our_Ghost_of_Christmas_Past_or_Future'

    Please be our Ghost of Christmas Past or Future

    Publié: décembre 23, 2010, 6:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's two days to Christmas, and I'm mulling Christmas Past and Christmas Future (You are familiar with the Charles Dickens' classic tale, yes?) I request your participation. Like most other journalists or bloggers, I will post year-end retrospectives and year-ahead prognostications next week. I ask you to contribute. Choose your ghost and your Scrooge. What do you think were the most important events affecting the technology industry in 2010 -- and why? They don't have to be industry shaking, but merely important to you. What would you like to see next year from the tech companies that matter most to you?

    I often crowdsource material for posts, but this request is different from others. Typically I ask readers to respond in comments and by e-mail (joewilcox at gmail dot com). The e-mail responses tend to be long and thoughtful, and I often feel guilty about not being able to use all the contents. I will ask some responders to this question for permission to post their entire response (or a good chunk of it) as a guest contributor. I'll edit your writing, and we can banter back and forth to get it just right. Other e-mail responses and those in comments to this post will go into stories I write about the year past and year ahead.

    One of my goals during 2010 was to include Betanews readers more in stories. We have an active commenting community. But there are two problems with comments -- most of the commenters aren't identified and, too often, insightful mini-analyses are simply lost in the flow. I want to bring your valuable insight to the surface. Reader contribution will be a top priority for 2011.

    I've already started reaching out to some readers, asking them to make contributions. You know who you are. This request is broader, and it's an opportunity for you to express what you think mattered in 2010 and what will, or at least should, be important for 2011. There will be plenty of year-end, year-ahead stories as January 1st approaches. Why shouldn't you have a say? Some of you will in blog posts, but here's a chance to reach your community here.

    Then there's the Joe factor. Some very vocal commenters clearly don't like what I write about. You bash, but often aren't specific. Here's your chance to have your say -- about what you think mattered this year and what should matter in 2011. Any guest posts will be edited for style, not content (unless offensive). The point is to get reader perspectives. If something comes across as fanboyish, commenters can filter it out.

    For year-end, year-ahead, I will write at least about Apple, Google and Microsoft as companies and cloud computing, mobile devices, security and home/work digital lifestyles as broader topics. You can contribute to these topics, or write about others.

    Ho Ho Ho Ba Humbug, please comment here or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/22/Earth_to_Microsoft__Two_years_to_ARM_is_too_late'

    Earth to Microsoft: Two years to ARM is too late

    Publié: décembre 22, 2010, 7:30pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Machead John Gruber and I often don't agree on much. We've had some fairly public spats over the years, regarding Apple. But for once, we do agree on something. "This must be a mistake," he says about a report dated today from Wall Street Journal asserting that at next month's Consumer Electronics Show Microsoft will unveil a version of Windows for low-powered chips, "though it isn't expected to be available for two years." Two years? Two years is three years too late.

    The rumor, first reported by Bloomberg, makes sense of others: That Microsoft would show off new Windows tablets at CES and preview Windows 8. Two years would be about right for Microsoft to release the next version of Windows. It also makes sense for Microsoft to broadly support ARM and other low-powered processors, particularly for devices like e-book readers, tablets and even smartphones. Microsoft announced a licensing agreement with ARM in July.

    The strategy might even lead to -- and, honestly, it should -- a unified operating system for devices of all sizes. Right now, Microsoft's operating systems are fragmented, with separate embedded, mobile and PC versions of Windows. Also, to be absolutely clear: Microsoft already supports ARM-like processors today, just not on all operating systems.

    If the rumors are correct, Microsoft will modularize Windows, something it already does on the server. Windows Server administrators have the option of choosing among different profiles when setting up the operating system. They can load as little or as much of Windows Server as needed. So, modular isn't new for Microsoft just the application as it applies to Windows 7 and/or its successor.

    The approach is sound, but the timing isn't. With iPad gobbling up PC sales, Microsoft and its partners or competitors must rush to market. Gartner predicts that by 2014, media tablets will cannibalize 10 percent of PC shipments. Right now, iPad is market share leader.

    But there is a much bigger problem for Microsoft. Last week, Goldman Sachs analyst Bill Shope published his tablet forecast, predicting about 55 million units shipped next year and 79 million in 2012. He observes:

    What is surprising is that many of these products are not utilizing Intel microprocessors or a Microsoft operating environment. [We] expect the vast majority of these devices to run the ARM architecture with either iOS or [Google's] Android as the operating environment. If this is the case and our tablet forecast is anywhere near accurate, this would be the first time in three decades that a non-Wintel technology has made legitimate inroads into personal computing.

    Microsoft has few options, and going down this path will likely disrupt the Wintel hegemony even more than competition would. Writing for GigaOM, Kevin Tofel rightly observes:

    If reports from Bloomberg are accurate, the 25-year paradigm of Windows computers running mainly on Intel processors is likely to be turned on its head, due largely to the need for devices that are more mobile and can run all day on a single battery charge.

    It's not surprising then that Microsoft is suddenly, if belatedly, taking tablets more seriously. There's an irony. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates introduced the tablet PC concept at Comdex in November 2000. Little more than a decade later, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will stand on the CES stage, assuming the rumors are true, and show off new Windows-powered tablets. But unlike Gates, who looked ahead to another future for the PC, Ballmer will look from behind at competitors marching before him. Like smartphones, where Microsoft was an early operating system leader and innovator, the company squandered its tablet lead.

    Catching up won't be easy, and Microsoft simply doesn't have two years to do so. More importantly, the problem is much bigger than tablets, which are nascent. The smartphone market is much larger and more immediate -- and there Android is a big Pac-Man gobbling market share. For example, 25 of the 45 smartphones available in Western Europe launched in third quarter. Android is nipping at iOS -- 23 percent to 24 percent market share, respectively, according to IDC. Android already is the top smartphone OS in the United States, and, globally, Gartner predicts Android will catch market leader Symbian for all phones within four years.

    Smartphones -- and, frankly, also feature phones in emerging markets - are where a Windows 7 or 8 Lite needs to be, as part of the aforementioned broader, unified operating system approach for many devices. Microsoft has got to strong-ARM Intel to get there. Two years is too late.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/21/What_s_wrong_with_Google_TV_'

    What's wrong with Google TV?

    Publié: décembre 21, 2010, 7:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    By measure of sheer punditry, rumors and competitor jocking, Google TV is dead on arrival. Hardly. But rumors -- hey, published in the mother of business reporting, the Wall Street Journal -- claim that Google has yanked the software (and, therefore, third-party hardware) from next month's Consumer Electronics Show. Meanwhile, today, Apple gave Google a noggie by announcing Apple TV shipments would reach 1 million units this week. Perhaps worse, Chip Trick is reporting a tempting last-minute holiday deal -- the Roku XDS for a cool 80 bucks. The cheapest Google TV device costs $300. Yeah, Google TV isn't having a good week, and it's only Tuesday!

    Google TV has a future, despite all proclamations of its early death. Television is important to Google, because of advertising competition. According to research released this week by MagnaGlobal, US online ad revenue surpassed newspaper advertising in 2010, with projections of topping all print ad spending in 2014. But TV still tops all categories, and by considerable margin -- more than twice as much as Internet advertising, and that continues through MagnaGlobal's forecast period when in 2015 TV ad revenue will near $100 billion and online ad revenue tops $44 billion. Ad dollars aren't moving fast enough online for Google, with TV being the jewel the information giant needs to add to its advertising and search crown.

    Google has good reasons to be committed to its TV software. But there are problems, otherwise Google TV's situation wouldn't look so perilous so early on. That said, peril is business as usual for Google. Starting in 2003, when Google moved to first place in US search share and stayed there, pundits warned the company was a feeble, one-trick pony. People could switch search engines by typing a new Web address, and that would be the end of Google. Then Google moved into e-mail, with a Gmail beta that lasted five years. Critics circled like vultures, as they did for other products, like Google Docs. What about Android? US analysts, bloggers and journalists pined for iPhone when T-Mobile shipped the one and only available Android phone in autumn 2008. Now look where the mobile operating system is today. It's US share is greater than Apple's iOS -- 44 percent to 23 percent in third quarter, according to NPD.

    Still, Google TV could go to the great settop burial ground that Microsoft knows so well. I see fundamental issues that Google (and its partners) must immediately address. Confession: I've only used Google TV at my local Best Buy store. I've asked Logitech for a Revue review unit but haven't heard that one is available.

    1. The first devices cost too much. How strange is that, considering Google is the king of free? Apple TV and Roku have set the price bar at $99, which is an easy purchase for most consumers. Google TV devices cost so much more -- $299.99 for the Logitech Revue and $399.99 for the Sony Internet TV Blu-ray Disc Player (Logitech is running a $50 discount, so $249.99, for the holidays). It's hard from the demos to see the benefits over Apple TV or Roku, which offer many of the same streaming services, such as Netflix. Apple TV has got drop-dead-simple rentals -- 99 cents for TV shows and $4.99 for HD movies.

    2. Consumers don't want Internet on the TV. Just ask Microsoft, which bought WebTV in 1997 and could never make a business of it. Consumers are more likely to watch television and access the Internet from a tablet while sitting on the couch (gasp, can you say iPad?). But TV-like content, such as Hulu Plus, Netflix or YouTube makes sense. So do applications, particularly games, that consumers are already accustomed to doing on the TV. From my small experience using Google TV in stores, it's not enough about TV-like content, which, by the way, fits better with Google's advertising objectives. Something else: Consumers would benefit, if finding stuff to watch was easier -- that's something Google TV offers. Google should better promote content search benefits for helping TV watchers find content that matters most to them.

    3. CES could be but shouldn't be Google TV's funeral. The rumors had better not be true. It seems inconceivable that the prince of betas would leave hardware partners crying at the Consumer Electronics Show alter. Google and its partners absolutely should show off Google TV during CES, even if the software changes in just a few months. Consumer electronics manufacturers typically showcase stuff that won't ship for months, often not until the holidays --so what if the software changes later? It's better that Google show off something, even if changes will come later on. More importantly, Google shouldn't peeve its partners. The next iteration of Google TV doesn't need to be ready for primetime during CES, it just needs to put on a good show.

    Want do you with your television? Would you buy Apple TV, Google TV, Roku or something similar. Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/21/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_7__Settling_in_for_the_long_haul'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 7: Settling in for the long haul

    Publié: décembre 21, 2010, 12:24am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google Cr-48 laptop

    On December 13th, I received from Google the unbranded Cr-48 laptop running Chrome OS, which I've been using and writing about for the last seven days. Whew, it has been quite the journey and not one that's over. I will continue using the Cr-48 as my primary computer through the end of December and quite likely much longer. I say primary, because testing Mac OS and Windows apps will require some time on the other operating systems. I'll be front and center looking at the Mac App Store, for example, when it launches on Jan. 6, 2011.

    How much longer I can use Chrome OS for daily work (including Betanews writing) greatly depends on how quickly Adobe Flash is fixed to run right. Many of the Web services that replace my desktop apps require Flash, something I discover as things go wrong. While writing this post, for example, the Flash plugin crashed, pulling AIM Express offline and stopping Mog streaming. AIM Express replaces the IM client I used previously (and I will switch to an alternative Web service in the next day or so). AIM Express is a real hassle if the Net connection goes down or Flash crashes. There's no indication of a problem, unless I go to the tab and check -- and logging back in is a manual process (It's not automatic like the desktop client).

    Mog replaces iTunes (for now). I found that Pandora's Flash implementation demands too much from the Cr-48 battery. So far I like Mog, which claims to have a 10-million song library -- all available for $4.99 a month, or $9.99 for mobile phone and PC. The fidelity sounds good to my aging, but fairly discerning, old deejay's ears. Actually, I hear more definition, particularly the higher tones, from Mog streamed songs than AAC files purchased from iTunes Store. I'm a big fan of subscription services like Mog. Unless you need to listen to the The Beatles, subscription services offer music for a fraction of the cost of buying. They also can improve music discovery. I'll save a bundle of money using Mog over iTunes, a switch that I should have made ages ago.

    The Flash problem cannot be understated, however. Surely Adobe and Google will fix Flash long before Chrome OS is commercially available. But for committed, full-time testers it's a burden, and one I'm willing to carry for weeks -- during the holidays when the writing load is lighter -- but not for months. The Consumer Electronics Show, which opens with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's keynote on January 5th, will really show my commitment. Would I take the Cr-48 to the show (if I attend), where there might not always be persistent Net connection? I'm cocky and confident enough to say yes now, but the real test is what I'm really willing to do.

    Before continuing, the previous posts in this series:

    Cloud Sourcing

    Chrome OS has brought out my inner geek in a way I haven't experienced in about a decade. I always assumed that with age I just tired of beta testing. But I now see that with software there wasn't enough interesting to test. Chrome OS appeals because it demands adopting a different computing lifestyle, as I explained in Day 5 and Day 6 posts, and that's exciting. It also represents a technology change I've been writing about for about six years -- shifting computing and informational relevance from the PC to the cloud.

    Six years ago this month, I wrote in a blog post for JupiterResearch about Microsoft's emerging cloud competitive problem:

    The real threat remains the web and how a vendor like Google has found a new way to exploit the Internet's utility beyond Windows. Additionally, consumer interest in digital content and non-PC devices and the possibility another platform might rise to dominance has to scare the hell out of some Microsoft executives. Microsoft knows, because the company has been there. IBM's mainframe monopoly didn't dissipate because of the PC; it's relevance diminished as the new platform soared to dominance.

    In later posts, starting in early 2005, I explained about the many advantages of having access to business or personal information anytime, anywhere and on anything. Chrome OS is helping me to see these advantages in a new way. Perhaps that also explains my so easily committing to testing the Cr-48. Software testing, particularly operating systems, requires steely willpower. There is always the risk of fatal crashes that wipe out all your precious data. I don't worry about data loss with Chrome OS because the stuff is stored elsewhere. I've experienced one fatal crash running Chrome OS, which I was sure would wipe out the unsaved writing done in the browser. But Chrome restored to where I left it, without data loss. This sense of safety makes long-term testing enticing.

    When I started writing about the cloud and cloud-connected devices displacing the PC's relevance six years ago, it was unthinkable that Microsoft would make any change risking products like Office. Now "to the cloud" is a Microsoft marketing slogan. This is a good development for many Betanews readers -- Microsoft software users who would scoff at working in Google's cloud. "Google Docs? Ba Humbug! Gimme Microsoft Word." No problem, you can work in Microsoft's cloud. Office Web Apps is a hosted Microsoft service, and Office 365 is testing now. While I found performance to be a tad slower than Google Docs, Office Web Apps is plenty usable on Chrome OS. It helps that the hosted productivity suite is cloud by design, with storage on Microsoft's SkyDrive. The point: Chrome OS is about the cloud, not just Google's. If the Web app or service works in standalone Chrome on Windows, it likely will run on Chrome OS.

    The question is more: Is that Web app good enough to replace something on the desktop? In many cases, the answer is no. I can't replicate all my computing needs, particularly photo and video editing in the cloud. But it sure is fun looking for alternatives. Of course, I'm unusual in seeing change as being good. Forgive the accidental pun, habits cloud the mind. For many businesses looking to minimize costs, change is viewed differently, which I appreciate. Living Like Superman.

    Still, there are identifiable advantages I'm seeing using Chrome OS and many apply to Chrome on other operating systems:

    1. Sync is exceptionally seamless. As I explained in a May 2008 post: "Synchronization is today's killer application." It's even more so in 2011. I warned: "Should Google get synchronization right before Microsoft, it would be game over. Google would be able to extend the relevancy of the Web platform back to the desktop on its terms -- think invading army -- and across many devices or services." Google sync is that good now, and automatic, Chrome to Chrome OS and also from Android. It's pure cloud sync-driven. But Google will have to do more, helping third parties to offer as seamless sync. It's an essential utility for working in the cloud.

    2. The browser is the most natural motif. For years, Microsoft pitched the value of Office and the extension of its user interface motif. Rationale: The number of people who work in Office make the UI natural. Yeah, but the Internet population using browsers is larger. After seven days working almost exclusively in the browser, I see its greater value as the most natural user interface -- not for being better but for being ubiquitous.

    3. Cloud computing can be liberating. Not everyone will agree with this sentiment. Other people argue the cloud is risky, dangerous -- as GNU founder Richard Stallman has done. The contention: Businesses or consumers using cloud services lose control over their data. But isn't this already the situation for anyone using Facebook, e-mail, instant messaging or simply connecting to the Internet? Local storage creates illusion of control. But any computer connected to the Internet risks data theft or loss. I worry more about local hard drive failure or malware compromising data or stealing vital information from the PC. Perhaps I'm naive trusting, say, Google or Microsoft with my data. Like I said, many people won't agree.

    Superman soars above the clouds, where he is energized by the yellow sun. I feel energized from the cloud flight using Chrome OS. It's not for everyone and won't be when released. But there's real vision behind Google's attempt to remake the PC operating system for the cloud era.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/20/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_6__Adopting_a_new_lifestyle'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 6: Adopting a new lifestyle

    Publié: décembre 20, 2010, 5:42am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google Cr-48 laptop

    Chrome OS demands computing differently, but not as radically as some people think, or so I have concluded six days into using Google's unbranded Cr-48 laptop. Persistent Net connection is required and storage is generally on the InterWeb rather than on the computer; these changes take some adjustment.

    I'm accustomed to running applications locally. I can't on Chrome OS.

    I'm used to having offline access to applications. I can't with Chrome OS.

    I'm used to managing files stored locally. I can't easily with Chrome OS.

    Google's cloud-connected philosophy and approach to Chrome OS security necessitate these usability compromises. The promise is something better. But it requires adopting a different computing lifestyle some consumers or businesses won't want to.

    Security built like a Tank

    Chrome OS security reminds me of Windows NT 4: Hardened, in some ways to a fault. NT 4 remains my favorite operating system of its era. Running NT 4 is how I imagine driving a tank should feel like. Microsoft's circa 1996 OS felt solid and unapproachable, so much so many applications and peripherals wouldn't work. NT's security model restricted access to key parts of the operating system, including the kernel. But Microsoft also made compromises, such as moving graphics inside the kernel, which was good for developers but not as good for security. It was a usability tradeoff. Then Microsoft made the disastrous mistake of incorporating Internet Explorer (packing the ActiveX plug-in architecture) into future Windows versions. The company sought to make Windows more usable for the Internet age, but at great security cost to the company, its customers and developers.

    Google stands where Microsoft did in the late 1990s, trying to bring a robust and secure new operating system to market. Google's challenges are greater. For starters, the OS isn't that new. Chrome OS is open-source Linux running Google's browser. But Google made changes, such as read-only root partition, restrictions against running executables and plugins running as separate processes, among others. Chrome OS also sandboxes applications, limiting their interaction with one another and the operating system. Considering the ongoing security problems with Adobe Flash, which Google has committed to supporting, sandboxing is helluva good idea for this software, if no other.

    The security approach meets specific design goals: Google sees the first commercially-available Chrome OS devices being used in public places, such as libraries and coffee shops, or shared at work and home. The security model must protect two intertwined points of public access: The Internet and other users. In the Chrome OS build shipped on the Cr-48 laptop I'm using, Google provides a guest account that meets the sharing design goal while better protecting the default user from information or identity theft.

    The security approach limits local usability while in concept enhancing it from the server-side -- the cloud. Google doesn't want executables running locally, nor let Web applications, extensions or plugins have too much interaction with the operating system or one another. It's important for anyone evaluating Chrome OS for business or personal use to fundamentally understand that Google isn't just building an operating system designed to be persistently connected, it's enforcing this behavior with the security model. Cloud philosophy and security approach are inseparable.

    Balancing Security and Usability

    Operating system security is difficult because of usability; balancing the two is challenging. Microsoft takes some mighty big lumps for Windows security. But the company could solve the problems tomorrow by simply locking out access to third-party everything -- applications, data, dlls, software drivers, etc. Lockdown wouldn't make Windows very usable, but it would be more secure. Take as analogy the shopkeeper who's store window of display goods is smashed and robbed. He responds by putting up bars over the windows, which makes it harder for people to see what he is selling. Maybe he is robbed again, responding by locking the door and opening it when customers buzz. Each security measure makes it harder for the storekeeper to sell his stuff. It's a usability problem that can be tough to balance.

    Philosophically, I like Google's approach to Chrome OS security. It's like the shopkeeper moving his sales online -- asking shoppers to change their buying behavior -- while keeping the store open for customer service. In the interest of security and operating his business, the shopkeeper changes the usability model. Google is making a similar demand with Chrome OS -- that users change their habits, adopt new behavior.

    However, critics -- and some of them are Betanews commenters -- scoff at the idea of keeping data in the cloud and needing to keep a persistant Net connection. They assert that Google asks too much -- and it's unnecesary. Betanews reader Chad Keith in comments:

    For the consummate computer user who computes in a variety of places, scenarios and both online/offline (whether for work or for leisure) I hold reservations about Chrome OS's ability to serve. My opinion, Chrome OS will be another hobbyist operating system like Linux. It will be tough to get the casual computer user to switch from Windows (and even from Apple) because of the fear of uncertainty about a strange operating system.

    Remember, that Chrome OS is still testing and will be until summer 2011, if the schedule doesn't change. I expect that, as long as the security model can be maintained, Google will eventually provide some offline access to its own services, like Docs and Gmail, and perhaps others. Offline mode would mean even less disturbing computing lifestyle change. Google's challenge will be balancing security against usability and long-time PC user/administrator expectations.

    How Google defines, or redefines, usability will be interesting to observe during the testing process. Will Google stick to its cloud usability model, which gives up usability computer users are accustomed to now and trades it for presumably as good or better usability in the cloud? Or will Google compromise, providing users and Web applications more offline access? And if the latter, can Google do so while keeping the security model intact (or even improved)?

    Personally, after several days disorientation, I'm adapting comfortably to this new usability model and feeling good about Google's security approach -- granted, which must still prove its wherewithal. I can live in the cloud, and I'm convinced that many business users and consumers can do so, too. Remember that cloud doesn't have to mean Web service run by a third party on the Internet. It can be a corporate hosted service that users access across their network or Intranet. Chrome OS promises to meet the demands of both.

    Before concluding, links to the first five parts of this series:

    For the Day 7 installment I will discuss Web applications/services I use in the browser and how they are beneficial. It's the "how I live in the cloud" post.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/19/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_5__My_life_in_the_cloud'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 5: My life in the cloud

    Publié: décembre 19, 2010, 1:48am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Chrome Web Store

    Settling into the cloud is taking longer than I expected, as I try to root out enough applications to make up for what I used locally on my last laptop -- the 11.6-inch MacBook Air. The simple reality: There aren't enough good applications yet, or perhaps I'm just too slow finding them. Strangely, if I were living in a different cloud -- from smartphone or tablet -- I could choose from plenty of apps and many of them would be better than those available on the PC (the difference, of course, being something running locally and connected versus something running in the browser that must be connected).

    I got a stronger-bitter sweet taste of the difference between the clouds on the evening of Day 5, when I bought the Nexus S smartphone running Gingerbread (aka Android 2.3) from the local Best Buy Mobile.

    Another hardship is unnecessary: The touchpad on the Cr-48 is so miserable to use, Google should package the hardware and supporting software for sale to the military. It's torture to use. I'd confess to just about anything if forced to use this damn touchpad long enough. It's an absolute misery maker that has sucked up about all my holiday cheer.

    What If There's No Internet Connection?

    Still, five days into running Chrome OS on Google's unbranded Cr-48 laptop, I'm starting to see how I might continue for 10 days -- or even 30 -- particularly if Google issues regular updates or suitable applications magically appear. I'm not struggling with the always-connected lifestyle change because it's not much of one -- remember, Chrome OS demands a constant Internet connection. Since switching to ISDN broadband in 1997 and DSL 18 months later, I've nearly always computed connected. What good is any computer without the Internet? It's an important question because what it means to living in the cloud. Many consumers and IT decision makers will have to get beyond the "What if?" question. "What if I can't connect to the Internet?" My answer: It's more a psychological than real world problem -- at least for most businesses.

    On December 15th in comments, a Betanews reader simply identified as Jonah challenged: "Shut off your internet, then tell us your experience and estimate the billions of dollars lost in productivity for any corporation that debates a full cloud solution and loses connectivity for a day? Seriously, would love to know how good this computer is without internet."

    If I shut off the Internet connection for a regular laptop my experience would be abysmal. There is very little I do that doesn't require a constant Net connection, regardless where the applications run -- locally or in the cloud. Isn't that your experience, too? Don't most businesses already depend on persistent Net connections? Not every employee needs Net access, but those that do won't get much work done without it. Jonah's challenge is ridiculous. It's like asking: "Shut off your electricity, then tell us your experience and estimate the billions of dollars lost in productivity for any corporation that debates a full cloud solution and loses electricity for a day? Seriously, would love to know how good this computer is without electricity." For most businesses and consumers, the Internet, like electricity, is a necessary utility.

    More people are connected. According the United Nations, the number of people globally with Internet connections will top 2 billion by the end of the year. Internet penetration in developed countries is 71 percent and 21 percent elsewhere. Sixty-five percent of the 226 million Internet users added this year live in emerging markets. Meanwhile, mobile phones are making Internet connections where broadband or dialup don't reach. Mobile telephony is now available to 90 percent of the world population. Subscribers are projected to reach 5.3 billion by end of the year, with 3.8 billion of them in developing countries, according to the United Nations. The latter statistic is important to Google's other operating system, Android.

    If the "What if?" question is a problem for businesses or consumers considering Chrome OS, why not smartphones? Mobile handsets also require constant connections -- for telephony and data (where service is available for the latter). Subscribers may choose one service over another based on real or perceived service reliability, but they must still commit to a wireless carrier -- often accepting at least one-year contract (In the United States, typically two). Businesses deploying handsets, particularly smartphones, depend on their being connected -- and willingly take the risk of failure. Should it be such a leap to make the same commitment to an Internet provider, something IT decision makers already do? There's paranoia and then there's realism. No one should disregard Chrome OS simply because their reliable Internet connection might not be available someday. Like their cell network or electricity. By the way, the Cr-48 ships with Verizon data service -- 100MB free a month -- and more available starting at $9.99 a month. So there's backup Net service to WiFi.

    Being Connected Doesn't Mean Connecting

    Chrome OS naysayers should worry much less about "What if?" and more about "What can't I do?" Early days testing, it's a surprising list. While researching about Internet usage for this review, I came upon an Excel spreadsheet posted by the US Census Bureau. Clicking the link downloaded the spreadsheet, which generated "unknown file type" warning. Eh, I had Google Docs open in a tab, shouldn't that somehow open the spreadsheet? I resorted  to "Uploading Files," dragging the file from "Downloads" to "Drag and drop files here" in the browser. No luck. I eventually uploaded the file from Downloads, but once on the server I couldn't open it. Uh-oh.

    On Day 1 of testing, I spotted in my RSS feeds "Dp1x winter raw pack" -- a collection of holiday photos by Carl Rytterfalk. He packaged them up as a zip file, which I downloaded. Whoops: "unknown file type." I couldn't find in the Chrome Web Store an archive utility by searching for "compressed file" or "zip," although the latter keyword strangely and unexpectedly revealed the NPR app for Chrome. That's good to have for my daily dose of program "All Things Considered."

    Printing is another hardship. The Cr-48 has WiFi. I own the Epson Artisan 810 printer, which supports WiFi printing. I've got it setup for the family's other computers. But the Cr-48 and Artisan 810 don't talk -- Google has got a cloud printing setup utility instead. At this point in Chrome OS development, the setup process requires connecting the printer to a Windows computer and accessing a Google webpage. Well, hell, I don't have one of those PCs. I lent out my Windows 7 laptop to a friend, so he could experience the new operating system's wonders. I'll wait until he's finished or Google releases a Mac utility.

    I plopped my Leica X1 camera's storage card into the Cr-48's SD Card slot, but I couldn't access it. There's no file manager that I can find in Chrome OS; granted, I looked quickly. I typically edit photos using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (currently version 3.3), which isn't an option here. I'll report on using cloud alternatives on either Day 6 or Day 7.

    The Android Cloud Feels Better

    I can't help comparing the Chrome OS cloud to the Android cloud. While Android runs apps locally, connectivity is still paramount. Android phones are also supposed to maintain persistent connections for data and voice. The experience there is just so much superior, Chrome OS feels less than what it is by comparison. For example, I can do so much more with photos taken on the phone, such as editing and applying effects (using one or more apps) or quickly uploading to virtually any service from Android's photo Gallery. There's greater utility in almost every way.

    Still, developers are rustling the leaves, and beneath them placing new Chrome apps to discover. I haven't counted the apps available from the Chrome Web Store, but there sure feels like many, many more on Day 5 compared to Day 1. My Day 6 report will focus on the more positive cloud experience and some of the benefits I have found there.

    Before concluding, links to the first four parts of this series:

    If you're a Cr-48 tester and have some time or inclination, please share a little about your experience in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/18/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_4__Who_is_the_cloud_for_'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 4: Who is the cloud for?

    Publié: décembre 18, 2010, 12:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Cr-48

    Few months ago, while walking around Apple Store, minutes after leaving Microsoft Store, I suddenly thought: "My next laptop will run Chrome OS." Well, almost. I ended up with 11.6-inch MacBook Air first. But four days into using the unbranded Google Cr-48 laptop running Chrome OS, I can see living in the cloud as a reasonable future -- not just for me but many other computer users. Problem: It's a residence not quite finished. There's a roof overhead and enclosed walls, but rooms are drafty, electricity works only in some places and the appliances are portable temporaries.

    Running Chrome OS on Cr-48 reminds me of testing Windows NT 4 and Mac OS X 10.0 as beta and final release. Windows NT 4 debuted ahead of its time. The hardened security model meant problems connecting peripherals and running many applications. NT 4 was a lonely domicile -- analogous to the first house finished in a new community. Mac OS X 10.0 was similar. Apple made the outrageous decision to ship the operating system before there were adequate drivers for optical drives on existing Macs. Mac OS X also was a new platform for which there were few applications and for which Apple's low PC market share gave developers little incentive to write native ones.

    Windows NT 4 and Mac OS X 10.0 represented platform shifts. From NT 4 evolved Windows 2000 and XP, which were more mass-market friendly. Mac OS X 10.0 begat six more direct versions and iOS running on iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Chrome OS has same potential, even though from reading Betanews comments and other web commentary many people don't yet see it. Google is plotting a fundamental platform shift to the cloud. Everything about using Chrome OS feels the same as early NT 4 and OS X testing. I expect similar adoption pattern -- slow at first, then accelerating.

    Before continuing, links to the first three parts of this series:

    Cloud Critics Speak Out

    Many people already are asking about Chrome OS: "Who is it for?" Three days ago, ZDNet blogger Mary Jo Foley confessed after using the Cr-48: "I'm stymied as to who the real Chromebook user is supposed to be. So far, I don't see myself in that category."

    A day later, Gmail creator Paul Buchheit, who no longer works for Google, predicted: "Chrome OS will be killed next year (or 'merged' with Android)." More: "Chrome OS has no purpose that isn't better served by Android." Even more: "I'm surprised that an OS with approximately zero users would have so many fans." Surely some critic or competitor said something similar about the early Gmail beta. :)

    Same day, Guardian tech reporter Charles Arthur quoted GNU founder Richard Stallman as (once again) condemning cloud computing but renewed in context of Chrome OS. Stallman asserts that people will lose control of their data should they store it in the cloud. His statements have a conspiracy quality about them, and they're eerily familiar. Surely someone made similar assertions about the PC in the early 1980s -- that by letting employees use personal computers instead of terminals connected to mainframes that businesses would lose control of their data. So much for ragged-hair doomsayers holding "End of the World" signs, 30 years ago and in 2011.

    Buchheit's and Stallman's statements spread like fire across the Wild Wild Web on December 14th and 15th. Many Chrome OS critics see Google returning to the failed network computer effort of the late 1990s. They observe that Google CEO Eric Schmidt worked for Sun, which during his tenure was a big network computing advocate. Like Foley, they can't fathom who the "Chromebook user is supposed to be."

    You Belong in the Cloud

    On December 12th, before receiving the Cr-48, I asked: "Who really needs a Chrome OS laptop?" After four days using the laptop, I can answer the question. You do. TechCrunch's MG Siegler expresses it better than I would:

    In many ways, Chrome OS is the anti-OS. And that's refreshing. It's not where it needs to be yet, but when and if it gets there, it could be really, really great. Imagine a computer that boots in two seconds. Imagine one that lasts for an entire day on a single charge. Imagine one that costs less than $100. It could change the world.

    Just think about what you use your computer for these days. There's a very good chance that it's mainly to use the web. I'm at a cafe right now. Looking around, every single screen has a web browser open. That's important. That's why Chrome OS was created.

    Responding to Buchheit, web marketer Brad Nickel asserts:

    Browser based OS in the mainstream [is] long past overdue and really a reality today with Windows -- just track my wife's usage. I could...plop a well configured Chrome OS notebook or tablet down in front of her and she wouldn't lose a beat and nor would probably about 75 percent of her world (friends, family, etc.), and we geeks would love not to have to deal with more support than a browser based OS.

    I concur, particularly having used Chrome OS and being cut all to hell on its bleeding edge. Two years of brisk (but now somewhat waning) netbook sales show there is demand for cheap, small, lightweight laptops with long battery life and constant Net connections. That said a netbook is different, because there is big, local storage. As I learned using the Cr-48, there's thinking you live in the cloud and really living there. It's one thing to mostly use the browser on a laptop with local storage and something else to always be in the browser with required Net connection and data stored elsewhere. It's a lifestyle change.

    Resistance is Futile

    Chrome OS is no more ready for commercial release today as was Windows NT 4 or Mac OS X 10.0 when beta testing. Like these operating systems, the market likely won't be ready for Chrome OS in summer 2011, assuming Google keeps to the release schedule. Instapaper creator Marco Arment is convinced inertia and switching costs will hold back business adopters:

    Most businesses that could use such a setup are large, and deploying a major technological change to their staff is a huge and very expensive undertaking. Even if Google somehow gave them thousands of Chrome OS netbooks for free, any company attempting this will need to spend a ton of money in IT labor, employee training, and increased help-desk needs as the organization deployed the new setup.

    I agree to a point. Many enterprises are already deploying cloud solutions now. Whether they outsource to companies like Microsoft or Salesforce.com or self-host, the clouds servers are there, or will be. Chrome OS is simply the client, and arguably a secure one. Many businesses will already have made the painful backend transition before Chrome OS ships.

    Richard Stallman is full of crap talking about losing control of data in the cloud. Many enterprises will regain control of data there. Right now they've got all kinds of valuable data leaking out on laptops and smartphones. These devices present huge privacy and security risks if lost or stolen. Businesses need to get this data back where it belongs -- behind the firewall. The commonsense behind Chrome OS is providing a reliable and cheap frontend for accessing data safely-stored behind the firewall.

    Chrome's critics miss the point: Technology innovation isn't about giving people what they want but what they don't know they need. Google is looking ahead with Chrome OS, and, yes, some businesses or consumers won't get it right away and may balk at how they must change behavior. Windows NT 4 and Mac OS X 10.0 had their critics, too, although the demands asked were less. Over the years, I talked to many IT managers and CIOs who refused to deploy Mac OS X. The demands Arment identifies -- costs associated with switching, employee training and helpdesk support -- often topped their reasons. Now many of those same people are deploying iPads and iPhones -- running iOS, which derives from OS X.

    "Chrome OS remains a good idea," Siegler asserts. "And it seems like one that ties directly to Google's entire essence. If they put the resources necessary into it, and give it time, I do think it has a good chance to succeed." I agree. The only question is Google's commitment. Dispatching 60,000 test laptops sure looks like Google is committed. Time will tell who is right.

    For Day 5, I will return to hands-on experience, sharing about living in the cloud and the changes Chrome OS requires to live there.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/17/Somasegar_gets_it__do_you_'

    Somasegar gets it, do you?

    Publié: décembre 17, 2010, 6:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The end-of-year retrospectives are popping up everywhere as Christmas and New Years approach. This morning, Soma Somasegar's walk down 2010 memory lane caught my attention. He posted "A Year of Excitement" late-day yesterday (Eastern Standard Time). Whether or not there is any Microsoft "excitement" is topic for discussion in comments. But the tone of his post and emphasis is something other Microsoft bloggers -- and employees from other tech companies -- should try to imitate as they look back on the year or even ahead to 2011.

    Somasegar writes: "I'm always impressed with the work we do here at Microsoft -- you can see how unbiased I am :) -- but this year I'm especially proud to see some of the work having a real impact in my house and with my family members." Stop right there. Somasegar is senior vice president of Microsoft's Developer Division. He's not a consumer evangelist but a developer. He works for a company selling most of its products to businesses, and he engages developers among them.

    Lifestyle Marketing

    Companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Research in Motion, Samsung and Sony, among many others, don't just sell products -- they sell a lifestyle around them. Each has a clear digital lifestyle philosophy and worldview. Apple's digital lifestyle marketing is exceptional, as is Nokia's (regardless of its declining mobile phone/operating system market share) and Sony's. These companies tell a good story about how their interconnected products benefit you.

    Microsoft told a good story during the 1990s, particularly to beta testers, developers, enthusiasts and IT pros. As Microsoft developed more products and trenched in the enterprise, the lifestyle message scattered. Not that Microsoft failed to try. For years the company has talked about converging personal and professional lifestyles -- work and home -- and how its products could meet the needs of both. It was the right idea, but unbalanced; there was too much marketing emphasis on work compared to home. Much changed over the last 18 months, as Microsoft hired a new ad agency, shipped Windows 7 and prepared to launch Kinect and Windows Phone 7 for holiday 2010. Somasegar's post captures some of that rebalanced emphasis of home-work lifestyles.

    "Several weeks ago, my family became Windows Phone 7 users," he writes. Microsoft gave out Windows Phone handsets to all employees. Family members, too, or did he buy those? Somasegar shows a picture of the personalized phones that he, his wife and daughters use. He then highlights features that are meaningful to his family, such as Bing search and personal connections:

    I have hundreds of Outlook contacts, Hotmail contacts, and Facebook friends. I have contact information for some of my friends in more than one of those sources, and I was impressed with the People hub's automatic contact linking so that each person had just one contact card with information from all my sources, including their photos.

    He praises the number of applications -- a measly 4,000 -- but, hey, is a developer guy that sees the richness of the apps. Somasegar moves on to Xbox:

    We have an Xbox Kinect at home, and I was amazed at how fast my daughters got the hang of controlling the Xbox and playing games using motion and gestures. Dance Central is popular at my house, but for all my years of software experience, this is one place where my wife and daughters have me beaten hands-down.

    There's a photo of his daughters playing games. Somasegar concludes by briefly praising Internet Explorer 9, which is still in beta. The blog post isn't exceptional writing, but it's personal and approachable, providing a homey perspective. And it feels genuine, rather than being crafted or vetted by one of Microsoft's outside PR agencies.

    Apple's Serotonin-rush Mob

    Somasegar is a developer, like many Betanews readers. He's a father and husband, too. These familial roles are worth remembering and emphasizing during the holiday season. They're part of our lifestyle, particularly during an era when home and work lifestyles often overlap so much. There's a humility, too, that I often see among Microsoft employee bloggers and the lifestyles they tout compared to competitors.

    Take Apple as example; messaging is tightly controlled. Where are the employee bloggers to be found? Where are they hiding? Apple runs a great lab rat experiment, where many bloggers, enthusiasts, investors and shareholders feed off rumors. They chase them through mazes looking for the next product announcement. Many people writing about Apple live the mouse-in-the-maze lifestyle -- or rat race, if you prefer.

    What about people adopting the modern Apple lifestyle? It's a serotonin-rush mob. Macheads buy into feelings of exclusivity (based on price), superiority (from product design and bleeding-edge technologies) and belonging (the so-called community of Mac hardcores and, for Generation Y, using what their friends do). I'm often galled by many Macheads' sense of superiority and closed-mindedness, where their lifestyle, regardless of how they define it, is the only one acceptable.

    Unlike controlling Apple, among Microsoft's lifestyle attributes -- and I would assert much the same about Google -- are availability, choice, cooperation and ubiquity:

    • Making personal computing's benefits available to all (derived from cofounder Bill Gates' quest for a PC on every desktop).
    • Providing customers with a wide choice of products (by the software licensing model that leads to many products released from the software platforms).
    • Collaborating with customers, developers and testers (as demonstrated by tools for feedback, employee blogs and commercial products like SharePoint).
    • Seeking standards, and arguably formats Microsoft controls, that make information easily consumed anywhere (successful efforts that solved 1990s' problems of sharing documents created by different applications).

    The Internet platform and rise of ubiquitous search has diminished the last attribute's significance -- and there Google deserves credit. But I digress. Somasegar stepped out of his developer role into another, there peeking into the Microsoft lifestyle that is for most people the most meaningful: Family.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/16/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_3__Living_with_Flash'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 3: Living with Flash

    Publié: décembre 16, 2010, 11:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Cr-48

    I've spent the last six weeks living the serene computing life, like being back on a Maine farm, with dusty roads, upward-reaching pines and Milky Way spanning night skies. Switching from the 11.6-inch MacBook Air to Google's Cr-48 brought back city congestion and bursting neon signs. Adobe Flash is back in my life, and it's hurting my Chrome OS experience.

    "Whether or not Flash?" is topic for Day 3 of my week-long usage experiment, and it's a question many other people are sure to ask. Previous posts in this series: "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 1: Getting acquainted" and "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 2: Becoming a cloud citizen."

    Quick recap: Starting last week, Google dispatched 60,000 12.1-inch laptops with a 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor running Chrome OS to lucky testers. I received my unbranded Cr-48 laptop on December 13, then embarked on a week-long user journey and storytelling.

    Google doesn't plan on ever selling the Cr-48 or anything like it. But the laptop is a reference design for PC OEMs to follow. I presume that six months or so from now, commercially shipping models will have faster processors and better something. Surely Chrome OS will shape up in the interim, too. But I must evaluate based on the reference design and software available now; Google wants feedback, and testers like me are supposed to give it. Simply put, Flash sucks.

    Flash Video Is Not

    Chrome OS running on the Cr-48 feels fast enough, except when it doesn't. Generally, it doesn't when even one tab is open to a page with Flash ads. Rotating Flash ads are the worst performance suckers. The little frakkers are seemingly everywhere. I had forgotten because MacBook Air's Safari browser doesn't come with Flash, and I refused to install it.

    On Day 1, I went to YouTube and watched Sara Bareilles' "King of Anything" music video in full-screen mode. The video played smoothly and sounded good. On Day 3, I casually conducted another test expecting similar results. I went to Hulu and chose December 11th's "Saturday Night Live." The video played in spurts -- totally unwatchable -- even small size, although audio was clear enough. What the frak? I replicated similar behavior. Perhaps Chrome OS is optimized for YouTube or, even, gasp signaling HTML5 video instead of Flash. All I know, where I can identify video content as Flash, performance disappoints at best.

    Now compare this to iPad, which offers Hulu Plus as an app. I watched the same clip on iPad, where it looked and sounded great. By the raw hardware specs, Google's unbranded laptop should do as well or better. But there are other considerations. In a Cr-48 review posted today at the Droids, Ryan Trevisol sizes up Flash video performance:

    Let's talk about Flash. It's been mentioned numerous times that Flash sucks on Chrome OS. For Flash video, it does, to the point of being unusable. However, other flash-intensive uses are plenty usable...The thing to remember about Flash on Chrome OS is that it's built on Linux, and Linux doesn't have a hardware-accelerated h.264 API, meaning it can't use CPU or GPU hardware directly to decode most Flash video. Adobe has acknowledged this, and I'm sure in future versions of Chrome OS we'll see performance improvements.

    Adobe isn't shy about admitting there's a problem. In a December 9th blog post, Adobe's Paul Betlem explains:

    In terms of Chrome notebooks specifically, as with many aspects of the device, Flash Player 10.1 support remains a work in progress. Video performance in particular is the primary area for improvement and we are actively working with the engineers at Google to address this. Enabling video acceleration will deliver a more seamless experience on these devices...The work we're doing on acceleration for video in Flash Player is a top priority because the vast majority of video on the web is delivered using Flash.

    Sucking Up the Battery

    Perhaps, there will be better video performance someday. Even so, Flash video is hardly the only problem. On Day 2, I signed up for Pandora and started streaming music. The service requires Flash to use, and pesky Flash ads continuously run. Before the first song played the length of an iTunes sample, battery at 73 percent charge immediately dropped to 4 hours 23 minutes remaining from more than 7 hours. Soon as I closed the Pandora tab, battery time remaining jumped to 5 hours 17 minutes, then 5 hours 57 minutes before topping 6 hours 20 minutes.

    For comparison, on Day 3 I started up MacBook Air and unplugged the power. Charge remaining: 4 hours 28 minutes. I opened up Pandora in Google Chrome and started playing music. Within 10 seconds, charge remaining time dropped to 2 hours 20 minutes. Whoa. Results might vary -- perhaps even be better -- in other browsers. Only Chrome matters here because Flash is baked into Google's cloud-connected OS.

    So I wonder why Google is pushing Flash and if perhaps Apple has a point after all. One of Apple's major Flash gripes is battery consumption. Another is the user experience, which Apple Steve Jobs has faulted. But Chrome OS is supposed to be all things Web, and right now Flash is very much apart of the Net-connected experience. More significantly, many of the Rich Internet Applications Google should want Chrome OS users to have require Flash.

    I've been a happy camper running Safari on MacBook Air without Flash. The browser is more responsive, and I'm less distracted by the ads while reading, which increases retention. I hadn't realized how annoying are Flash ads, until going without them for nearly two months. More significantly as someone trying to evaluate Chrome OS, I'm appalled by how much Flash negatively affects the experience. As expressed earlier. Chrome OS performs well when it doesn't, and when it doesn't Flash usually is the reason.

    Day 4 will focus on my life in the cloud and using applications there who the cloud is for. If you're up in the Chrome OS cloud, too, please share in comments about your Cr-48 user experience.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/16/It_s_the_holidays__how_do_you_use_your_phone_to_shop_'

    It's the holidays, how do you use your phone to shop?

    Publié: décembre 16, 2010, 7:57pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Holiday 2010 shopping survey

    I ask because of a surprising mobile shopping report made available today. What caught my interest was methodology -- survey by mobile phones -- and sample size of 12,533. Briabe Media put together the survey, conducted on MocoSpace's mobile network of 14 million registered users. Among the 31-page PowerPoint report's findings: 62 percent of respondents used their phones to research products or pricing before going shopping. Forty-six percent used their phones to comparison shop once in the stores.

    Can you say personal shopping assistant? What the report doesn't reveal is where mobile users do their comparison shopping. Is it using the Amazon app or perhaps Google Googles? Something else? I rarely buy anything selling for more than $20 without comparison shopping in the store. What about you?

    I generally look lightly on reports like this one -- built-in conflict-of-interest. Both parties directly benefit from promoting the data, meaning it's not conducted by a neutral third party. But the methodology is interesting enough and information provided in the report detailed enough for me to reasonably trust the findings. Additionally, there is excellent attention given to demographics, such as race and age. That said, the data is somewhat skewed by the disparate gender representation -- 71 percent female and 29 percent male. By age: 14-19, 22 percent; 20-29, 35 percent; 30-plus, 43 percent.

    Holiday 2010 shopping survey

    Some quick findings:

    • 32 percent of respondents consider their mobile phone as "very important" during this holiday shopping season
    • 76 percent give some level of importance to their mobile phones for holiday shopping
    • 40 percent of African Americans consider their mobile phone as "very important" this holiday shopping season -- caucasians ranked lowest, 24 percent
    • Half of Asian Americans have used their phones to comparison shop while in the store
    • 14 percent of respondents have used mobile coupons, and 30 percent are more likely to do so during the holidays

    Holiday 2010 shopping survey

    As I've for so long asserted, mobile phones are more personal than the personal computer. The PC's biggest benefit is it's unusual Jack-of-all-trades characteristic, something smartphones share but more portably. The phone goes everywhere, including the mall.

    Holiday 2010 shopping survey

    I'll ask again: How do you use your phone to shop? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/16/Apple_crashes_CES_party_with_Mac_App_Store'

    Apple crashes CES party with Mac App Store

    Publié: décembre 16, 2010, 5:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Suddenly, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's Consumer Electronics Show keynote is a heavier burden. Ballmer will open CES, with a 9:30 pm EST keynote on Jan. 5, 2011. On January 6th, Apple will officially launch the Mac App Store, exclusively for Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard). Earlier this morning, Apple announced the store opening date, and you can be sure timing is deliberate.

    For years, Apple has played a game of oneupmanship with CES, timing announcements so that they would suck away some of the excitement and press coverage around products debuted or updated there -- iPhone in 2007, MacBook Air in 2008 and iPad in 2010. Then there are the rumors, often obviously from internal leaks, ahead of big Apple announcements. Apple has a knack for marketing manipulation -- controlling the message and perception. Blogs' and news sites' ever quest for pageviews makes every Apple rumor worth another story. Then there is clear media bias favoring Apple.

    But there's more than CES oneupmanship at work. I've long asserted that much of Apple's recent stock performance is as much about perception as corporate execution. About a year ago I asked "Are Apple stock price gains the reason for recent tablet rumors?" The answer was yes, when looking at share rises against the rumors. I'd argue that throughout much of 2009 and 2010, Apple rumors and product announcements pushed shares ever higher. Apple has gotten very good at managing perception. The best perception opportunity comes when there is something for comparison.

    So, as Ballmer takes the keynote stage, many heads will be turned away to the Mac App Store. Apple will launch the store in 90 countries. Assuming global means local time, the store will already be available in some countries before Balmer takes the keynote stage. Even if Apple sets a Pacific local time for January 6th, the buzz will be deafening.

    The good thing for Microsoft is the announced date; Ballmer and his executive team now know when. Previously, Apple had only indicated January. Ballmer knows what he's up against, and in a way Apple CEO Steve Jobs has issued a challenge. I say that because of the rumors Ballmer will show off OEM partners' new Windows-powered tablets and slates during the keynote and possibly Windows 8. It is against these products that analysts, bloggers and journalists will compare the Mac App Store. Jobs and Company are cocky, confident, that Microsoft won't have anything really exciting to show -- or anyone else during CES.

    It's a strange attitude. The Mac App Store's value is marginal. "The App Store revolutionized mobile apps," Jobs asserted in a statement. "We hope to do the same for PC apps with the Mac App Store by making finding and buying PC apps easy and fun. We can't wait to get started on January 6." If not for Apple's mobile App Store success, its Macintosh counterpart would be nearly meaningless. Despite recent Mac market share gains, Apple cannot deny that the world runs on Windows. Presumably, the Mac install base is equally split, at best, between Snow Leopard and earlier Mac OS X versions. Remember, the Mac App Store is for Snow Leopard only, significantly reducing the real number of people who can use it. Something else: If mobile is the future, why is Apple investing so much in the PC past? Mac App Store is at best three years too late.

    But the buzz, as it is with all things Apple, will make the announcement seem larger than life. The store isn't insignificant, as I explained in October, it's for now simply not as big as InterWeb gossipers and Apple cheerleaders make it out to be. The benefits as limited to Snow Leopard and iOS users and developers:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices -- Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.

    2. Developers can now scale their applications across devices.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they will be paid; the app store deters piracy.

    4. Rights protection is built in so that customers aren't exposed to onerous piracy-deterring activation mechanisms.

    5. The store makes applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    Given the scope of availability, Mac App Store is more a perception builder than announcement worthy of the buzz I'm already seeing today. Big would be Ballmer unveiling a Windows application store, opening on January 5th. Such a store would reach hundreds of millions of Windows users and offer developers a reason to get excited again about desktop operating systems. Now there's a helluva perception builder.

    If Ballmer focuses on tablets or Windows 8, and little else, analysts, bloggers and journalists will write, again, about visionless Microsoft poorly imitating Apple and missing out on yet another important market. Those claims would likely be made about a Windows app store, but they ultimately would be meaningless for the sheer number of people who would benefit.

    Ballmer, some advice: You know what's coming. Change your keynote now. Do something better, and better means that generates some positive perceptions about Microsoft innovation and delivering something good that people can use January 6th -- not many months later.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/15/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_2__Becoming_a_cloud_citizen'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 2: Becoming a cloud citizen

    Publié: décembre 15, 2010, 11:07pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    cr-48 keyboard

    I've long prided myself on being a good cloud citizen. I seemingly live in the browser. But using the Cr-48 laptop running Google's Chrome OS, I discovered the number of important but small apps that are vital to my daily computing. I have been living a double life, meandering as nomad between two computing domiciles, never really settling into one or the other.

    All the blogging or reporting I do takes place in the browser. It's where I use Twitter and collect RSS feeds. But I rely on clients for instant messaging and email. I run Skype, too, and most importantly a media client -- right now iTunes, with 90GB of music stored on an external hard drive. The biggest challenge on Day 1 got unexpected relief on Day 2: Gmail. How do you manage separate Gmail accounts -- I've got four of them -- when each requires separate sign-in? I used a different account to set up the laptop than the domain attached to Google Apps. I'll answer the question in a few paragraphs.

    Touchpads and Tabs

    First, a few updates following yesterday's post "A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 1: Getting acquainted." While proofing before posting, I removed a sentence that I deemed too harsh. I described the touchpad as the "worst I had ever used." At TechCrunch, MG Siegler stated what I redacted: "It's maybe the worst excuse for a piece of technology that anyone has created in the past five years. It's so much worse than any other trackpad I've ever used in recent memory, it's almost unbelievable." Siegler observed similar problems, one of them being accuracy. Often when pressing the touchpad, the cursor moves up, so the click occurs in the wrong place. While the problems are almost certainly software related, they are simply inexcusable. What's really annoying: The inaccuracy problem reminds of the Google Nexus One smartphone.

    OK, so I'm writing about Day 2 on Day 3, where I've had the first crash, while writing the above paragraph. Scrolling down bookmarks for the link to Siegler's post locked up Chrome. If there is a recovery option I don't know about it yet. The lockup was complete, which surprised. On other operating systems, Chrome runs each tab in separate sessions. I expected only a single tab crash, but the whole browser froze up. That meant rebooting, and, frak, I hadn't saved. Luckily, like Chrome on Mac OS or Windows, "restore session" retrieved everything; I quickly saved draft to the blogging system.

    I received the Cr-48 with about 50 percent charge, and I ran the battery down until the computer shut down. I started writing this post with 100 percent charge and the laptop claiming 9 hours remaining. We'll see about that. Less than an hour later, percentage is 86 percent and 7 hours 43 minutes remaining. LOL, I think leaving TechCrunch open explains the sudden battery zap. Flash ads, baby.

    Some radio interference causes my Bose speakers to buzz when unplugged from a computer. This is new. There is no hum when plugged into MacBook Air, but a slight buzz remains when attached to the Cr-48. I'll need to test more for the source. I'm too far behind writing this post now.

    It's Moving Day

    I only spent part of Day 1 using the Cr-48. I simply wasn't ready to move in, and email was the major reason. I actually had some boxing up of stuff for the movers. I hadn't cleaned up my inboxes for months or filed away important messages. That was priority No. 1. I have accounts with four services, Google among them. I strictly use IMAP to keep messages in sync everywhere and to easily file saved messages from all accounts into one. That's something I can easily do in a local client but with greater difficulty in the browser. Packing up also required syncing contacts and calendars to Google's cloud. For about the last two months I've been using Apple's MacBook Air and iPhone 4 for a little longer. Apple's Address Book and iCal can be set to sync with Google Conracts and Calendar. Problem solved.

    I used Cr-48 for most of Day 2 while I figured out how to solve the problem of easily managing multiple Google accounts. I was really only concerned with the domain attached to Google Apps Premier Edition (GAPE) and my all-purpose Gmail account. After breathing deeply, I experimented, signing into both Gmails in separate tabs and crossing my fingers Chrome OS wouldn't melt down or explode. Trepidation's cause: Chrome OS setup required using a single Gmail account. I wasn't sure the extent of account integration between the core Linux OS and browser.

    What I wanted more was the ability to manage mail from a single account. Gmail will collect email from up to five accounts using feature "Mail Fetcher"; but it requires POP3, and for other Gmail accounts no IMAP. Switching to POP3 on the other Gmail accounts would cause sync problems on my smartphone. No way, Jose. Then came an unexpected remedy. On December 14 afternoon, Google announced a new feature: "Gmail Delegation." The feature is promoted for allowing you to give someone else with Gmail access to your account. But it could just as easily be used for account consolidation. Problem solved.

    Storm Clouds Ahead

    Instant messaging was my next area of concern, for which there are several obvious solutions. Google Talk is built into Chrome OS. There's a core of less than 10 people I need ready access to. I will see how many use Google Talk or are willing to. Facebook Chat is a really good option, and the one I'm favoring long term. For moving day, I simply logged into AIM and Windows Live messaging on the Web. I had forgotten that AIM works with Facebook, which is an AIM Express log-in option. The AIM Express user interface is unappealing when maximized full screen. Windows Live Messenger for the Web is much more appealing, in part because of its tidy integration into the personal Live home page.

    Skype proved to be a real problem. A client is required to use the service. I could find no official Chrome app or extension. However, I easily installed the Google Voice extension. I'm debating options.

    For music, I signed up for Pandora -- finally. I've been threatening to do so for years. Pandora provides a Chrome app that easily installs. I set up the initial profile based on band "Brand New." Music sounded pretty damn good streaming, but a gotcha appeared. Battery percentage at 73 percent immediately dropped to 4 hours 23 minutes remaining. Goddamn Flash! Pandora runs Flash ads. Soon as I closed the Pandora tab, battery time remaining jumped to 5 hours 17 minutes, then 5 hours 57 minutes before topping 6 hours 20 minutes.

    Moving into a new place isn't finished overnight. There's still unpacking and decorating to do. I consider most of my Day 2 moving choices to be temporary. No doubt, some Betanews readers will scold in comments about what I should have done instead. Hey, I'm trying to file stories and move to the cloud at the same time. I'll figure it out with enough time, and, yes, gladly accept suggestions about what to use.

    Day 3 or Day 4 will focus on my life in the cloud. Will I meet you there?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/15/Google_releases_Chrome_IT_deployment_tools'

    Google releases Chrome IT deployment tools

    Publié: décembre 15, 2010, 6:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google just announced availability of IT deployment tools for Chrome in a blog post (I also received email from the PR team). The deployment tools step up Google's assault on Internet Explorer turf, earlier with Chrome Frame.

    "We've created an MSI installer that enables businesses who use standard deployment tools to install Chrome for all their managed users," according to the blog post. "We've also added support for managed group policy with a list of policies and a set of templates that allow administrators to easily customize browser settings to manage security and privacy."

    Google's IT pitch is threefold. For starters, easy and customizable installation and availability of a modern, HTML5-supporting browser for Windows XP. Rationale for the second: Internet Explorer 9, which is beta testing, only runs on Windows 7 and Vista, while the majority of the enterprise install base is still on XP. Google also touts Chrome as means of enterprises certifying Web apps that could later be deployed on Chrome OS.

    "By deploying Google Chrome, organizations can take advantage of improved security and web application performance without needing to upgrade other expensive software licenses or buy new hardware," according to the blog post. That's a polite way of saying IT organizations can keep running Windows XP longer. More:

    Deploying Google Chrome also gives users access to productivity-enhancing HTML5 web applications. Since Google Chrome is the same as the browser on Chrome OS, admins considering Chrome OS for their organizations can start testing their mission-critical web applications by deploying the Google Chrome browser.

    The Chrome test is a polite way of saying "for you IT managers not lucky enough to get one of the Cr-48 Chrome OS test laptops." I'm on Day 2.5 using one. I posted about Day 1 "first impressions" yesterday.

    The administration tools are part of Google Apps for Business, which isn't surprising. Google's clear development priority are Web applications over those resident on the computer. Chrome is the gateway. While any browser conceptually will do, Chrome assures support for standards like HTML5. Enterprise adoption is crucially important for Google Apps deployment and building up the ecosystem of Web-based applications from Google Apps Marketplace.

    Google claims there are 120 million Chrome users.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/15/Would_you_pick_Mark_Zuckerberg_as_Person_of_the_Year_'

    Would you pick Mark Zuckerberg as Person of the Year?

    Publié: décembre 15, 2010, 4:47pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

    The editors of Time magazine have done just that. But is he worthy?

    Time readers chose WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange; Time editors put him as fourth runner up. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg ranked 10th among Time readers. It's a question I pose to Betanews readers: Would you chose Zuckerberg, or someone else, as Person of the Year?

    Sure this isn't the kind of topic Betanews typically covers, but Zuckerberg is a geek, programmer, entrepreneur and cofounder of one of the most globally influential products ever -- all in just four-and-a-half years (I count from when Facebook opened to the public in 2006, not to Harvard students in 2004). I pose the question to you and ask for response in comments. Please, let's have some gingerly and feisty but civil debate.

    I won't argue with influence. With over 500 million users, up from an already impressive 30 million in Q1 2007, Facebook is a hugely successfully service. Time editors write:

    For connecting more than half a billion people and mapping the social relations among them; for creating a new system of exchanging information; and for changing how we all live our lives, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg is TIME's 2010 Person of the Year.

    Zuckerberg has defied detractors. All Things Digital's Kara Swisher once called him the "toddler CEO." In a recent 60 Minutes interview she recanted, saying that the child turn out to be a "prodigy." Zuckerberg defied takeover bids, with AOL, Google and Microsoft among would-be buyers.

    Zuckerberg instead negotiated a Microsoft investment, $240 million, in October 2007. Pundits and Wall Street analysts criticized the investment, which looks smart today. Zuckerberg also resisted calls to open up the service to the Wild Wild Web, but held tight-fisted onto his property, granting limited access where Facebook benefitted. Facebook's new messaging service, which launched last month, may be the greatest coup of all. All the while, he navigated ongoing criticism about privacy. Zuckerberg held his ground and stuck to the vision.

    Facebook's CEO reminds me of young Bill Gates. Both men launched globally-influential companies. They're cunning and competitive programmers with shrewd business sense, questionable social skills (about the same age) and tenacious drive. Microsoft built an operating system for PCs, while Facebook is an operating system in the cloud. Developers write applications for both. Both men benefitted from timing -- Gates the shift from mainframes to PCs and Zuckerberg cloud-connected social sharing.

    Does any of this make Zuckerberg worthy to be Time's Person of the Year 2010? Is there someone else you would choose. These are questions for you to answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/15/A_week_with_Google_s_Chrome_OS_laptop__Day_1__Getting_acquainted'

    A week with Google's Chrome OS laptop, Day 1: Getting acquainted

    Publié: décembre 15, 2010, 12:26am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google Cr-48 laptop

    "Just when I thought I was out -- they pull me back in," says Michael Corleone in movie "Godfather III." I understand the sentiment. Two weeks ago I asked: "I sold my soul to Google, can I get it back?" The answer is no. On December 13, I received from Google the Cr-48 laptop running Chrome OS. They pulled me back in.

    Google sent the 12.1-inch notebook as part of a 60,000-unit pilot program. The company seeks to shakedown Chrome OS in preparation for commercial release sometime in mid 2011, to provide IT organizations opportunity to test the cloud-dependent operating system and to churn developer interest and new applications. Google is clear that the Cr-48 is a test bed not really ready for primetime.

    Over the next seven days, I will share the highs and lows of living in Google's cloud, from the perspective of this black, and arguably sleek, laptop. There will be one post per day. Already I can see that Days 1 and 2 will be the hardest, in part because I'm moving from the simply awesome 11.6-inch MacBook Air. More problematic, a real and meaningful test requires commitment, which is proving to be more difficult than anticipated. These difficulties, which are mainly about moving to the cloud, will be Day 2's major topic.

    Out of the Box

    The Cr-48 is impressive for its spartan, black matte finish with no logo. There's not even Google stamped on the case. It's a stealth laptop that immediately evokes espionage and intrigue. Everything about the design is minimalistic, and this is important preparing the user for Chrome OS (more on that in a few paragraphs). There are just three ports -- audio, USB and VGA out.

    When seeing the Cr-48, my daughter asked: "Is it a MacBook?" The color, case texture and keyboard remind of the circa 2006 black MacBook. Depth and length are about the same as Apple's current 13.3-inch MacBook Pro, but the Cr-48 isn't as wide. Thickness surprised considering there is no optical drive. Google doesn't provide specs on the computer -- more minimalism. But a pilot program participant posting to the ChromeOS Site offered specs, after tearing down the laptop:

    Processor: Intel Atom Processor N455 1.66GHz 512K Cache
    Chipset: Intel CG82NM10 PCH
    Motherboard: Tripod Motherboard MARIO -- 6050A240910 -- MB -- A03
    Ram: Hynix 2GB DDR3 1Rx8 PC3 -- 10600S Ram

    Read Only Memory: ITE IT8500E Flash ROM
    SSD Drive: SanDisk sdsa4dh-016G 16GB SATA SSD
    Wireless Wan: Qualcomm Gobi2000 PCI Express Mini Card
    3g Adapter: AzureWave 802.11 a/b/g/n PCI-E Half MiniCard
    Bluetooth: Atheros AR5BBU12 Bluetooth V2.1 EDR

    Opening the Lid

    Initial setup is surprisingly quick and easy. There are no onerous activation mechanisms or annoying prompts. The user chooses WiFi or 3G -- "Chrome OS needs the Internet to work," the simple documentation claims -- and then signs in with a Google account, or creates one. The setup process also offers to snap an account photo using the built-in WebCam.

    Bootup and wakeup are blazingly fast. Once powered up, flipping the lid instantly reawakens the laptop. It's actually faster than MacBook Air, which is puzzling. What could be faster than instantaneous? The Cr-48 has got it.

    The keyboard layout stomps and proclaims, "Look, Bud, this isn't your daddy's PC." There are no F keys. In their place are dedicated function keys, half of which are browser controls: back, forward, reload, full screen and next tab. The keys are comfortable to use, which surprised since I was accustomed to using MacBook Air.

    The "giant touchpad," as Google documentation says, frustrated me to all hell. The touchpad produced jerky, jumpy movements. I'm super unhappy about the experience. We'll see if I feel as cranky about the touchpad at the end of the week. There is no option I can see to add a Bluetooth mouse. I don't have a wired one, and wouldn't take up the single USB port for it (Hehe, we'll see if I feel that way in a couple of days).

    Less is More

    As the name indicates, with Chrome OS the browser is the operating system. Chrome fills the entire screen, which I immediately found disconcerting. I usually only let the browser fill four-fifths of the display, so I can keep some stuff at ready access on the desktop. D`oh, there is no desktop. I'll just have to adjust. Over the coming days, I will go deeper into the Chrome OS/cloud user experience but will stick to first impressions for this Day 1 post.

    Minimalism even more defines the operating system than the hardware. In its current form, Chrome OS offers little access to settings from the user interface. For someone used to personalizing and adjusting settings, I felt an uneasy lack of control when looking at what can be adjusted. The settings option is accessed from an icon to the far right top corner of the browser window. Everything is streamlined, much as the early Chrome browser betas were. Google added features before Chrome 1.0 released, which surely should be expected here, too. One option will surprise Google pundits; there is a choice of default search engines, including Bing and Yahoo.

    New York Times Chrome App

    There aren't a whole lot of apps, either. Adobe Flash is built in and sandboxed, much as the standalone Chrome browser. Google Talk is built in, too, and I like it -- as first impression anyway. Other preinstalled apps include Google Maps and Poppit, among others. The Chrome Web Store offers more apps, which can be used in standalone Chrome browser, too. For my first impressions test, I installed the New York Times app. The layout reminds of the Times Reader, which I haven't looked at for some time, so memory is talking here. I much prefer the Chrome OS app, which loads quickly, to the iPad app.

    Window to the Web

    As a browser, Chrome OS delivers much the same experience as the standalone browser. Cloud sync is automatic. My bookmarks automatically imported from my other computer, eliminating any onerous setup. They were just there. Visually, the browser is appealing, and fonts throughout are readable enough. The screen isn't as bright or as crisp as MacBook Air, but it's plenty usable. The matte finish is a refreshing change from reflective, glossy displays. The display and browser viewing suit one another well -- as a first impression.

    MacBook Air feels faster than the Cr-48. Webpages load snappier, which surprised. I expected better from the Cr-48, a computer and OS that are supposed to be always Net connected. That's not to say performance is slow; it's just not exceptional. What matters most: Is performance good enough for what it's supposed to do? I'll answer that question over the next six days. I initially found performance to be frustrating, but that changed over a couple hours. It could be a subjective reaction or Chrome OS settling in, such as caching Web images or other stuff happening under the hood.

    Again, simply as first-impression measure, I went to YouTube and watched Sara Bareilles' "King of Anything" music video in full-screen mode. Holy frak, the laptop's tiny little speakers sound great. The video looked good, too, with no noticeable dropped frames. I was surprisingly impressed. I expected less.

    Overall, the first impression is a good one, but there is much more getting acquainted ahead. As I'll explain in the Day 2 post, moving to the cloud is more difficult than I expected. I pride myself on being a good cloud citizen. Turns out that I'm no such thing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/14/IDC_predicts_mobile_apps_will_drive_the__Appification_of_Everything_'

    IDC predicts mobile apps will drive the 'Appification of Everything'

    Publié: décembre 14, 2010, 6:15pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last week, I took my daughter to Los Angeles for a TV commercial audition. About 20 other teen girls waited with their parents, and all -- every single one and parents, too -- had out a smartphone. Tap, tap, tap text and apps. It's an anecdotal moment supporting an IDC prediction: By 2014 the global market for mobile applications will surpass $35 billion.

    IDC published the findings in a new report "Worldwide and U.S. Mobile Applications, Storefronts, and Developer 2010-2014 Forecasts and Year-End 2010 Vendor Market Shares: The 'Appification' of Everything." The analyst firm is quite serious about so-called "appification" (God help us if the word makes the Oxford English Dictionary by end of 2011). There are two main trends: Lighter, mobile apps popping up in more devices -- some stationary like settop boxes -- and mobile applications impacting virtually everything people do. Personal example of the latter: During the drive back from LA, my daughter downloaded an app that turned her smartphone's LED camera flash into a light, so she could do homework.

    "Mobile app developers will 'appify' just about every interaction you can think of in your physical and digital worlds," Scott Ellison, IDC vice president of Mobile and Wireless research, said in a statement. "The extension of mobile apps to every aspect of our personal and business lives will be one of the hallmarks of the new decade with enormous opportunities for virtually every business sector."

    It's a bold prediction with huge implications. For starters, it's yet another sign that the PC epoch is receding before the cloud-connected device era. IDC observes that developers have churned out 300,000 mobile apps in three years -- 2.5 really. In July 2008, when Apple launched its App Store, I asserted: "Mobiles will replace computers as the most widely used personal devices; today, they're more adjuncts." A smartphone is more personal than the personal computer. People carry 3G handsets everywhere, and there is more intimacy using the applications. Users can pick and choose smaller apps that are meaningful to them. Developers already follow the money, which is away from the PC to the cloud and the mobile device.

    Something else: The personal versatility that IDC associates with mobile applications reminds of what analysts said about the early PC. The personal computer is unusual for being a jack-of-all-trades rather than single-purpose device. Same can be said of smartphones, ebook readers like Barnes & Noble Nook or media tablets like Apple's iPad or the Samsung Galaxy Tab. IDC also sees theses devices driving developer opportunities for creating useful mobile applications.

    CNN iPad appCNN iPad app, which released today

    There is another implication, which is more strategic. My April post "Clash of the Titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web," focused on two divergent strategies -- Apple pushing resident apps and Google favoring browser consumption. Will users consume separate mobile applications or use the browser? The Chrome OS PC pilot shows how much Google is committed to the browser model. But devices running Google TV and improvements to the Android Marketplace also emphasize local apps.

    IDC makes a point of calling out settop boxes running mobile applications, among other devices. I've been wondering about Google TV. Logitech Revue and Sony Internet TV Blu-Ray Disc Player sell for $299 and $399, respectively; both devices run Google TV. By comparison, Apple TV and Roku sell for about $100. That's quite a price difference. Could it be for the apps? I wonder and can't answer, having not used a Google TV device.

    How would you say that mobile applications/devices "appify" your life? Is the more meaningful appification on your phone or PC? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/14/I_ll_tell_you_something_about_Microsoft'

    I'll tell you something about Microsoft

    Publié: décembre 14, 2010, 6:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The year 2011 will be make or break.

    Early year, make or break will be one of perception, whether or not customers and shareholders see the glass as half full or half empty. From the half-full perspective, Microsoft has bet big on the cloud, and at the right time. From the half-empty viewpoint, Microsoft muffed mobile, by first fumbling smartphones and later tablets. The company started pushing the latter category a decade ago, only to lose it to Apple during 2010.

    The half-empty soothsayers aren't waiting until the new year to predict doom. Goldman Sachs analyst Sarah Friar penned a nasty note over the weekend. Her already sour outlook turned bitter. For 2011, she predicts year over year growth of 7 percent, not 12 percent. For fiscal 2011, which ends June 30, Wall Street consensus is 9.8 percent sales growth and 10.9 percent earnings-per-share growth. Friar faults Microsoft's tablet fumbling, weak consumer strategy and uncertain cloud computing future. She's prognosticator of doom.

    Get the Fire Hose

    Many of the news reports about Friar's note focused on her comments about Microsoft's execution with tablets. I had to laugh. A year ago, the tablet was a struggling category without clear market focus and to which Apple was rumored to soon enter. Sure, Apple's iPad proved to be a fast sales success, and What? That's reason to suddenly write off Microsoft? Oh, please, someone fire hose these analysts. In early November I asked: "Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?" One answer is a question: Where else are Friar's clients invested?

    Sure, Microsoft muffed the tablet opportunity, and surely it's no coincidence that late-afternoon yesterday New York Times reported that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer would debut new slates during next month's Consumer Electronics Show. Of course, Microsoft and its OEM partners will announce new tablets. It would have been news had Microsoft nothing to show. You can bet the story was leaked to counteract all the bad buzz generated by Friar.

    How bad was the buzz? Geez Louise, at ZDNet Sam Diaz likened Microsoft to Titanic -- "we all know how it ends":

    Like the Titanic, Microsoft was once the darling among its peers. But unless it starts positioning itself to be more reactive to new trends, technologies and competitors, it too could find itself alone in the middle of the ocean, left to perish because it couldn't move fast enough.

    Titanic had two sister ships, Olympic and Britannic. Germans sunk Britannic, while Olympic served the White Star Line until 1935 (the steamer launched in 1911). Microsoft could easily be "Old Reliable," as Olympic was nicknamed, as it could be majestic but doomed Titanic.

    'Old Reliable' sails

    Microsoft has bet its business on the reliability of Office and Windows and extending them to cloud. Along that strategy there is a case to be made for "Old Reliable." As I explained in mid-October post "It's a shame about Ray Ozzie," the economic downturn put an end to the struggle between cloud doves, who sought to build an interoperable datacenter-based operating system, and hawks, who sought to extend the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack to the cloud.

    From the half-empty perspective, Microsoft has bet on the PC past rather than embrace the cloud-connected device future. But by the half-full viewpoint, Microsoft has done something seemingly impossible even 12 months ago. The company's biggest challenge is success -- enterprises use its products everywhere, and they've got little reason to buy again and again. By extending the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud, Microsoft gives existing customers in established markets something new to buy -- and there are many benefits, such as anytime, anywhere access on anything. Customers also can benefit from lower upfront pricing, lower long-term costs (which includes maintenance and hardware) and access to the newest Microsoft software (with no physical upgrade required). These benefits apply most when customers adopt hosted software.

    Analysts offer mixed predictions about 2011 PC sales. In November, Gartner lowered its 2011 PC shipment forecast to 15.9 percent from 18.1 percent. Other analysts put growth in the single digits, in part because they claim corporate upgrade cycles are over and tablet sales will surge next year. Goldman Sachs analyst Bill Shope wildly predicts that because of growing tablet sales, with iPad the big beneficiary, Apple's global PC market share will grow from 4 percent to 12 percent.

    Doomsayers are Icebergs

    Slowing PC sales won't impact Microsoft as much in 2011 as 2008. I predict they'll be a positive. Just because companies aren't upgrading new PCs doesn't mean they won't need to make new technology investments. By buying into Microsoft's cloud strategy, enterprises can get access to hosted versions of Exchange, SharePoint and even Office using existing hardware. Hosted services are a sales opportunity if PC upgrade cycles retract.

    Similarly, Microsoft doesn't need to sell bazillions of Windows tablets to leverage its cloud. The company can tactically offer cloud services/apps for Android and iOS tablets. It's a sensible way to help businesses to maximize their investment in existing Microsoft software and/or hosted services. Ideally, Microsoft should control more of the applications stack, but "not ideal" doesn't mean the Titanic sinking.

    Yes, 2011 looks challenging for Microsoft, but it's also chock full of opportunities. Microsoft marketing has never been better. Hosted services are poised to open up existing customer upgrades impossible a year ago. Microsoft's brand is stronger than it has been in years. Technology deals with Facebook are hugely important (and they're topic for another post). I should remind that doomsayers have predicted Microsoft's demise for years. Eleven months ago, I declared that "Microsoft Office is obsolete, or soon will be." But projects like Office 365 and Office Web Apps access within Facebook revitalize Office's future.

    Microsoft isn't sunk yet. The largest icebergs aren't competitors or management malease but negative perceptions fostered by people by Friar. Do you agree?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/13/I_m_changing_my_passwords__shouldn_t_you_'

    I'm changing my passwords, shouldn't you?

    Publié: décembre 13, 2010, 5:42pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's something unbelievable about Gawker claiming to be "embarrassed." Considering the amount of raunch and rumor Gawker sites like Gizmodo publish, editors show no signs of being embarrassed by anything they do. Yesterday's hack, which exposed 1.3 million Gawker usernames and passwords and some of the content management system source code, can only be good for churning pageviews. How funny if "embarassed" turns out to be ashamed of profiting so much from readers' hardship -- Gawker having an unusually good month of traffic.

    The Gawker hack and other mischief and mayhem going on this month should be warning to everyone on the InterWeb: Nothing is private. Amazon, Facebook or Google mine your private information, while some hacker or insider makes it available for everyone to read, whether on some torrent or even WikiLeaks. There's no such thing as privacy on the Internet, and there never really was. People acknowledge this all the time, then flip on the denial -- "It could never happen me" -- switch. No doubt, many Betanews commenters speak out elsewhere. If that's Gizmodo, you've been hacked, baby. It's time to change passwords anyplace using the same one(s) at Gawker.

    The Gawker hack should disturb anyone living in the cloud. Imagine the consequences of your Facebook password being compromised and through Facebook Connect unlocking other accounts. Already, the data exposure led to Twitter account compromises. Then there are Google or Windows Live services. Loss of one password could expose the kit and kaboodle. Single sign-on is convenient as is choosing one or even a couple passwords to use everywhere. The latter is my habit and something that changes today.

    You shouldn't trust anyone to protect your data or identity. You are the best defense. Gawker shows how little you can trust any cloud service, particularly those offering something for free (while likely mining some of your information for profit). Its statement about being hacked:

    Our user databases appear to have been compromised. The passwords were encrypted. But simple ones may be vulnerable to a brute-force attack. You should change your Gawker password and on any other sites on which you've used the same passwords. We're deeply embarrassed by this breach. We should not be in the position of relying on the goodwill of the hackers who identified the weakness in our systems. And, yes, the irony is not lost on us.

    There's no "appear" about it. Hacker(s) Gnosis has already posted names and passwords. "Encrypted" by what means, if the account information for even Gawker editors and writers was published, too? Perhaps for legal reasons -- can you say lawsuits -- Gawker must cage its statement for protection against future litigation, or even current cases; surely there is some juicy internal Gizmodo communications about the stolen -- eh, lost -- iPhone prototype.

    Trust no one. Not even us.

    There is something else really important to note here. Fourth quarter 2010 has seen an observable rise in activist hacking, such as denial-of-service and other attacks by WikiLeaks supporters and detractors. Gnosis targeted Gawker for "outright arrogance." That sounds like hacktivisim to me, with a message: No one is safe, and that means you and me, bud.

    I'm adopting a new password policy today. I thought to write a password primer, and may still, but wanted to open up the topic to discussion first. How do you protect your identity and accounts in the cloud? What would you recommend that others do? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/12/Who_really_needs_a_Chrome_OS_laptop_'

    Who really needs a Chrome OS laptop?

    Publié: décembre 12, 2010, 10:53pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday in comments, Betanews reader DaveN asked why anyone would make the sacrifices he believes necessary to run a Chrome OS laptop. "If you're going to carry around a device in the laptop format, why would anyone want something so limited?" It's a good question, that necessitates two answers -- one for now and another when the first units are commercially available.

    On December 7th, Google announced a pilot program, distributing some 60,000 unbranded Cr-48 laptops running Chrome OS. I expect to receive one for review as early as this week. That's a helluva pilot program, which has me laughing. I don't hear anyone fussing about Google handing out laptops the way they did about Microsoft with Windows Vista. That's some double standard. Microsoft offered bloggers and reviewers free Vista notebooks four years ago this month. Happy Christmas! I publicly supported the Vista program -- "Microsoft's Laptop Giveaway is About Influence Not Bribery" -- even though I didn't get a computer; there was no conflict of interest in my support. Microsoft handed out the notebooks before Windows Vista released. How else were reviewers going to use and test the operating system? Google's situation is similar, with commercial units six months, perhaps more, away.

    The ambitious pilot is necessary, but I wonder if it's big enough. Google's Android success is as much about lucky timing as good technology or execution. Chrome OS butts up against Windows and even Mac OS laptops and now media tablets like iPad or the Samsung Galaxy Tab, which runs Android. Then there is the fundamental concept of storage in the cloud and, for the immediate future, missing applications categories.

    Google isn't shy about the risks or the lifestyle changes pilot participation might necessitate: "Chrome OS is for people who live on the web. It runs web-based applications, not legacy PC software. The pilot program is not for the faint of heart. Things might not always work just right."

    Rain Falling from the Cloud

    DaveN wonders who those web dwellers might be. He writes: "I can understand living with the limitations of a smartphone, iPad, or other tablet due to increased portability and easier use while on the go. But if you're going to deal with the inherent limitations of a laptop -- size, weight, keyboard -- why not have something that will run a real app, store data, play a DVD, sync your mp3 player, work without a network connection, etc?" It's a good question for the pilot and future commercial products. The pilot isn't just necessary. It's a necessity:

    1. The Cr-48 establishes a base configuration for Chrome OS OEMs. I'm hoping that's bare-minimum config. As I explained in my 11.6-inch MacBook Air review, PC manufacturers need to pay attention to a buyer's initial reaction and ongoing product usage -- that starts with adjusting priorities so they're more about making the customer exclaim "wow" and less about trimming production costs. Windows Phone 7 shows the problem of setting a minimum configuration bar. Microsoft was right to do this, but how did OEMs respond? The first Windows Phone handsets adhere to the minimums and not much more.

    2. Chrome OS is a development platform misnomer. Android is hugely successful, with Google now activating 300,000 phones a day -- 27 million a quarter -- and Gartner predicting the mobile operating system will catch Nokia's Symbian by 2014. Android runs on dumb phones, smartphones, ebook readers, tablets and TV settop boxes. There are about 100,000 applications already available. Chrome OS faces as much developer competition, perhaps more, from Android as Windows or Mac OS. If Google is going to credibly make a case for yet another PC operating system -- and one with a cloud-connected approach -- developers have got to experience it firsthand.

    3. Google needs more applications. One of Microsoft's newest marketing slogans is "to the cloud," but the benefits aren't divorced from local applications. Google is more ambitious, by shifting computing to the browser, something Netscape wanted to do in the 1990s. Clouds exist to make rain, and right now there is a drought of web applications in some critical consumer and business categories. Google will need developers to fill these if Chrome OS is going to succeed. The Cr-48 pilot makes the case stronger, along with the Chrome Web Store.

    4. IT organizations need to evaluate Chrome OS -- now if they're going to deploy second half 2011. Timing is important for another reason: More IT organizations are evaluating Google Docs against newer offerings from Microsoft. Google can make a stronger pitch by offering a more unified stack -- applications and operating system -- much as Microsoft does today with legacy applications stack Office-Windows-Windows Server. Gartner has observed a marked increase in enterprise adoption of cloud computing solutions. "Cloud computing heralds an evolution of business -- no less influential than the era of e-business -- in positive and negative ways," Stephen Prentice, Gartner vice president, said in a statement over the US Thanksgivng holiday. It's not a question of if enterprises are moving to the cloud but to which one(s)?

    Who Is It For?

    That's the "now answer" to DaveN's question. But what about the future? "If you're going to carry around a device in the laptop format, why would anyone want something so limited?" There is a market for such a device, or underpowered netbooks wouldn't have sold so well over the past two-and-a-half years. Price and size are compelling attributes. Then there is the tablet surge. Gartner predicts that tablets will displace about 10 percent of PC shipments by 2014. I predict that's a way-to-conservative estimate.

    Still, DaveN has a point. The Cr-48 is a 12-inch laptop running an Intel Atom processor. By the specs, it's not exactly a sportster. Still, Betanews commenter Neemobeer sees an audience for Chrome OS portables:

    Most people on here are not typical computer users. If you think of it from the typical user perspective this is an amazing OS. Think of all the people you know that are average computer users; what do they do 90 percent of the time? Web, email, maybe a little bit of docs and pictures. This is perfect for those people and a great and probably afforable way for them to get in the technology train.

    PC_Tool answers: "'Where is Works?!? Where are the MSN and Yahoo! messengers? What? You cannot even install them???!? Where's my Windows Live Mail client? Why can't I find anything on this thing?!?!' Yeah. The average consumer? Doesn't handle frustration well."

    Steven Watson (aka swattz101) answers:

    Where is Works -- probably an icon to Google Docs on the interface. Where are MSN and Yahoo Messengers -- there are web based versions, and I expect versions to show up in the Chrome App Store. Windows Live Mail client -- there is a link to Gmail where you can have a unified inbox. You can still access your webmail clients, and I would not be surprised if there is eventually some sort of email app added to the Chrome app store. I think something like this would be great for my wife. All she does on our computer is Facebook and Yahoo webmail over our home WiFi network. I doubt she would even use the 3G option much, so 100MB would proabably do ok for her.

    This exchange among Betanews readers is enough to show why the Cr-48 pilot is necessary and to wonder about what market niche Chrome OS might fill. The answer to DaveN's question is another and another. Will Chrome OS even be relevant in six months? What about a Chrome OS tablet? Google's operating system kind of made sense when announced two years ago. But in 2011, with smartphones better offering cloud-connected apps, Android crushing rival phone operating systems and tablet sales soaring, will Chrome OS be irrelevant before its official debut? That's a question I hope to answer while testing the Cr-48 over the next couple of months.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/11/Apple_s_11.6_inch_MacBoook_is_all_the_Air_I_need'

    Apple's 11.6-inch MacBoook is all the Air I need

    Publié: décembre 11, 2010, 2:33am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    MacBook Air

    I haven't been this satisfied with a laptop since purchasing a 266MHz PowerBook G3 in February 1999. Apple's smaller MacBook Air is unexpectedly satisfying. By the specs, the little laptop should disappoint. By the experience, it's a delight. I'm simply stunned by how much I enjoy using this notebook -- or should that be netbook?

    Design Matters

    Many vendors miss the importance of the out-of-box experience -- the positive emotions a well-packaged, well-designed product elicits and how important the reaction is for the broader brand or for people pining about their satisfaction to others. The best marketer is a delighted customer.

    The aforementioned PowerBook was the second Mac I ever purchased, refurbished, from MacConnection. Apple was the first major PC manufacturer to ship laptops with DVD drives; I watched my first DVD, from Netflix, on the notebook. Screen resolution (1024 x 768), graphics memory and other features set apart the Mac portable from Windows laptop alternatives. The out-of-box experience was like nothing I had before it. In my March 2002 review of the 15-inch iMac G4 -- the one with the pivoting arm -- I emphasized the importance of "wow," long before Microsoft used it to market Windows Vista:

    Anyone who has used PCs for a long time knows the joy has gone out of computing. The 'wow' experience from setting up that first computer or exploring the vast information riches of the Internet are memories. It is like the first time having sex, only sex is still great other times. Getting another new computer just doesn't reach the same level of excitement or joy. Until now. I cracked open the box on a new iMac in mid March 2002, the midrange model with 700MHz PowerPC processor, 256MB of RAM, 40GB hard drive and CD-RW/DVD combo drive…For the first time in as long as I can remember, working on a computer is fun. And that's doing work. Other activities just get better from there.

    Surprising Performance

    Fun -- better stated, joy -- is the best way to describe using the 11.6-inch MacBook Air. The delight started from booting up the notebook, which took about 13 seconds. Wakeup is nearly instantaneous. Bootup time is crucial to endearing a positive emotional response about a computer. Who doesn't get frustrated, or even angry, when being forced to wait for the desktop to appear, wait again for the network connection and wait longer still for apps to be useable? I've long asserted that Windows Vista got its bad rap in part because the bootup time was too long. It created the perception, along with annoying security prompts, that Vista was slower than Windows XP. The "wow" Vista marketing promised became "oh noooo!" Microsoft was right to make shortening bootup and wakeup times priorities for Windows 7.

    Screen is another measure of satisfaction, and it too often is overlooked by PC OEMs looking to squeeze every penny of margin out of a laptop. The 11.6-inch MBA's display is exceptionally bright, clear and crisp. The 1366 by 768 resolution, at 135 pixels per inch, is just right. The glossy display is considerably more muted than MacBook Pro -- kind of a comfortable midway to matte. The display delights the eyes. Considering that the screen is the main way the eyes engage a laptop, it's surprising how few PC OEMs make the visual experience important enough priority. I actually prefer the 11.6-inch Air's screen to the 13.3-inch model, which resolution is 1440 by 900 pixels. Perhaps dimensions are one reason. The smaller Air is 16:9 ratio, not 16:10 (as the larger Air is).

    The laptop is quite speedy, which mystifies considering the meager specs: 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB L2 cache, 11.6-inch LED display with 1366 by 768 native resolution, 800MHz frontside bus, 4GB DDR3 memory, 128GB flash storage, nVidia GeForce 320M graphics with 256MB shared memory, 2 USB ports, WebCam, WiFi N, Bluetooth 2.1, Mac OS X 10.6 and iLife `11. By the way, I upgraded from 1.4GHz processor and 2GB of memory. I strongly recommend against buying the base configurations Apple's retail stores offer. Apple treats Air as much like a consumer electronics device as computer. Like most CEs, nothing is upgradeable. Buyers are stuck with their configuration of purchase.

    At a time when Windows laptops ship with Intel Core i3 or i5 processors for less money, MBA's older, lower clockspeed processor sure looks like a compromise. But that's not my experience consuming Air. The 11.6-inch MBA feels fast. The 128GB sold-state drive absolutely is major reason. But there's more to it. Air is a sum of little tweaks and tucks that maximize performance from the seemingly meager hardware. I'm truly surprised.

    Following my first week-and-a-half consuming Air, I used the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro my wife inherited from me. That laptop has a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo processor. It feels slow after using Air for awhile. I run the same apps, without compromise or slowdowns. Even photo editing, using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.2, is quick -- actually quicker than the larger laptop. I disagree with reviewers recommending Air as adjunct to another computer. Perhaps users with specialized demands would need more, but not most people. I've been using the 11.6-inch model as my only PC since November 1st. Happily.

    Size matters in laptops, where smaller often is better. The 11.6-inch MBA measures 0.3-1.7 cm high, 29.95 cm wide and 19.2 cm deep and weighs 1.06 kg (2.3 pounds). I'm now much more likely to grab the Air and go, something I rarely did with the MacBook Pro. However, while the battery life is good, I don't find it to be exceptional. I typically get a little more than 5 hours, which is about the same as the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro.

    Changing Habits

    My computing habits have changed since making MacBook Air my primary computer. I now:

    1. Work more in the browser. I've abandoned apps like NetNewsWire and Tweetie for Google News and Twitter Websites, among others. I moved to the browser in anticipation of performance issues, but they didn't come. The browser is convenient, and I can easily kill and relaunch apps in two clicks. I'm enjoying the different way of working, although it's fresh, not new. I've merely increased the amount of productivity done in browser.

    2. Kiss off Adobe Flash. Not that anyone reading Betanews would know, I agree with Apple CEO Steve Jobs that Flash is a resource hog. My Air's Safari browser came Flash-free, and I'm keeping it that way. I'm rather enjoying not being assaulted by Flash ads on many Websites. For those times when Flash is absolutely necessary, I use Google Chrome, which puts Flash where it belongs -- in a sandbox.

    3. Use more external storage. Even with a beefier hard drive, I always use an external disk for my music library, which is closing in on 100GB in size. I had been using a 500GB LaCie Little Disk. I moved up to the Rikiki Superspeed 1 TB USB 3.0 external hard drive; it's backward compatible with USB 2.0.

    A few months ago, while looking around an Apple Store, I suddenly thought: "My next laptop will run Chrome OS." That didn't happen. Apple sapped my tight budget for MacBook Air. But Chrome OS is coming. As early as next week, I expect to receive a Google Cr-48 laptop running Chrome OS, which I plan to use as my main machine for quite awhile. I've procrastinated this review long enough. I wanted to finish it while still using Air as my only PC.

    Conclusion: 11.6-inch Air is highly recommended for people looking for netbook-like size without netbook performance compromise -- and with money to burn. Base configurations are $999 and $1,199 but optimum configure-to-order option is $1,399. MBA is an investment.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/06/Is_someone_fixing_ebook_prices_'

    Is someone fixing ebook prices?

    Publié: décembre 6, 2010, 10:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google's rumored ebookstore is here at last, begging the question: Who has the better price on ebooks? It's certainly the question I'm asking looking ahead to holiday shopping. Ebooks are definitely on my list of gifts this year -- and yours? Early this afternoon, I did a quick comparison, so you won't have to. The results are disturbing. Something stinks like a diaper. It's not the differences in pricing but the uniformity across ebookstores that surprises. Shouldn't competition in a hot new category drive pricing variations?

    The first consideration buying ebooks is consumption. On what device? Google's new store appeals for much the same as Amazon's: Broad device support. While Amazon and Google approach the solution in different ways, the result is essentially the same -- ebooks available for reading on Macs, PCs, smartphones and tablets. Uh-oh, there's no native Google ebookstore app for BlackBerry, Kindle or Windows Phone 7. Hey, but Google has got Barnes & Noble Nook and Sony Reader. Eat those bananas, Amazon. Of course, Nook does run Android. I wonder how those B&N folks are feeling about open source -- in this case open competition -- now?

    I started my ebook comparison with an obscure but classic 1930's science fiction novella: "Who Goes There?" by John W. Campbell. Amazon's Kindle store describes: "A terrifying shape-changing alien at a frozen research station challenges its crew for survival in the most memorable sci-fi story of its decade." Amazon and Google approach reader reviews differently. Amazon customers post reviews in the Kindle store, while Google pulls them from social site GoodReads. I chuckled at the second Google ebookstore review, which begins: "I read the Kindle version of this short story." Oh, yeah.

    I was most interested to see if Google would better Amazon pricing. After all, Google is king of free. I also checked pricing and availability at Apple's iBookstore and the Nook store. I expected that "premium-pricing everything else" Apple would ask the most for the novella? It's $6.99, and only available for iOS, which means iPad, iPhone and iPod touch, baby. But Barnes & Noble charges more: $7.19. Not even Apple could top the Nook ebook. Google does a little better than Apple -- $6.15. Amazon: $4.79. Well, hell on wheels. Amazon will get my money.

    Perhaps old is unfair. So I searched for something more recent and more popular. Stieg Larsson's global bestseller The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo ebook is available from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Google for $5.20. Ho. Ho. Ho. Equal pricing. But, whoops, for all Apple marketing blathering about convenience, the title doesn't show up in searches.

    How about something really new and from the New York Times bestseller list: Decision Points by (cough, cough) former president George W. Bush. Once again, three ebookstores offer the title for the same price -- $9.99. I came up with nothing searching Apple's store. One more: Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card. It's available from all four stores for $5.99.

    If this little exercise is any indicator, pricing won't be much of a differentiator among these four stores during the holidays. Google's entering the game isn't changing anything today. But shouldn't it? After all, the king of free pulls down prices and/or value pretty much everywhere else. Nearly uniform pricing is highly suspicious. Brick-and-mortar retailer book pricing does vary more, depending on initial discount, volume of inventory to sell (or unload if too many) and time on shelf, among many other factors. Remember: Ebooks don't grow old on the shelf. Retailers can't over-order or be compelled to offer overstock deals.

    In looking at these four ebookstores, pricing is too similar. It stinks of publishers demanding prices be such and such to grant distribution. It wasn't that many months ago, that in a disagreement with publishers Amazon was forced to raise ebook prices and adopt an agency sales model. I have to wonder: Are major publishers fixing prices? (Or even the bookstores? After I posted, someone asked if I knew the ebookstores were using the agency model, which in theory gives them some discretion over price. Of course, I knew, which is why I expected more price variances. If there is little or none, the first question to ask is "Why Not?")

    US Antitrust law looks harshly on price fixing, because it causes harm to consumers. They don't receive the benefits, lower pricing among them, of companies vying for the same customers. What's missing from my casual review is truly fluid pricing. I randomly selected another five titles, with similar result: Same prices across all the stores (and some more titles not available from Apple). The more recent, or more popular the title, the more likely all the stores sell the ebook for the same price. Does that sound right to you? Is that also your observation? Please respond in comments.

    [Editor's Note: This analysis started out simply as a price-comparison story, assuming that prices would vary across ebookstores. Uniform pricing was unexpected.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/12/01/I_sold_my_soul_to_Google__can_I_get_it_back_'

    I sold my soul to Google, can I get it back?

    Publié: décembre 1, 2010, 7:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For about six months, I've pondered writing this post asking the dreaded Google question. Following yesterday's announcement that the European Union has opened a Google antitrust investigation, I can wait no longer. My life, and perhaps yours, is immeshed in Google products and services. If there is a devil, a Great Satan of modern technology companies, Google is it. I sold my soul to Google for free services, which are disrupting -- some would say destroying -- businesses that produce valuable content and other intellectual property. In the 1970s, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates warned of the very problem Google is creating today: Making things that are inherently valuable nearly worthless.

    The problem is simple: Google's business model is fundamentally about free. Someone else pays to produce content or other valuable intellectual property, around which Google wraps search keywords, adverts and services. The information giant doesn't produce content, but its entire business model is about cannibalizing others' valuable intellectual property. Google's search dominance -- anywhere from 65 percent to 90 percent share, depending on the geography and analyst crunching the numbers -- means that content creators must pay homage to free. The content's base value to the producer is at least the cost of production, but content creators are compelled to give away their stuff for less and often for free. If not, the content becomes invisible to the Internet -- or at least to the majority of people who use Google search and other services.

    On my own blog, I write about broader topics than at Betanews. But sometimes there is overlap. In August 2009 I asked: "Can you Charge for News? Ask Google," which I followed up a year ago this Friday at Betanews with "Can there be a free Web if no one makes money?" The August post looked at three organizations -- Advertising Age, GigaOM and Wall Street Journal -- using different paywall mechanisms. While the organizations all charge something, not one puts content behind a true paywall. To do so would prevent Google search bots from indexing the content. In April 2010 I posted to my blog: "The Price You Pay Google for Paywalls," which explains what happens when a site fails to make offerings to the great Google god. The post profiled Reid Reviews, which is nearly invisible to Google search, because the content is behind a paywall.

    What's the saying? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound? Does Reid Reviews exist? You wouldn't know from Google search, which indexes just two pages -- home and index. That's the dark secret behind true paywalls and why there is so much talk about them and so few content creators truly adopting them. I wrote in April:

    If your business is content and selling online advertising around it, you must pay homage to the great Google algorithm. As was with previous age's deities, the minions must make their sacrifices before the great Google god. To receive its blessings, they must do Google's bidding -- quite literally on keywords -- and give away all their worldly possessions (e.g., content, for free). But can they give to Lord Google and keep something for themselves, too?…Yes and no. For the true worshippers, those willing to make their offerings to the Google god, the answer is yes...For others, paywalls will come at a price, in terms of traffic, pageviews and incoming links.

    Heeding Bill Gates' Warning

    One year ago this month, I posted "Google's 'Open Definition': Simply brilliant business, but is it evil?" The post contrasted Google and Microsoft worldviews. Microsoft produces valuable intellectual property for which it expects to be paid. Google profits from others' intellectual property, while producing little valuable content of its own. Google uses "open" to describe its business model, but that's a misnomer. I wrote in December 2009:

    This so-called open approach fundamentally opposes longstanding principles of intellectual property ownership. Copyrights are a barrier to Google gaining information that it can monetize. Google takes what it gets for free -- but which someone else may have paid to produce -- gives it away for free but with eventual profit motive.

    Google free isn't some altruistic openness but a business model, which its search monopoly anchors. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates laid out a different business, one where people get paid for production, in 1976 "An Open Letter to Software Hobbyists." Gates wrote:

    Most of you steal your software...One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?

    Gates' question "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?" is strangely prescient of today's expanding Google free -- supported by advertising -- business model. The question also defines one of the principles behind Microsoft's worldview -- that people (or the businesses they work for) who create something have a fundamental right to profit from it.

    Google defenders argue that the Web free model has in television a precedent -- people consuming content for free supported by advertising. That's no comparison at all. Television content distribution is limited by the number of broadcast networks and cable, IPTV or satellite services delivering the content. Broadcast or cable networks don't receive programming for free, they pay someone to create it. Then there are the fees paid by consumers for non-broadcast distribution, like cable or satellite services. The Web is different because there is so much content available, which dramatically reduces advertising value and for which there is more space than advertising can fill. Additionally, Google's search dominance mandates the distribution of valuable content for little or nothing. The models aren't comparable at all. In fact, free is a flop on TV. So-called free or open TV is so-called public access, and who really watches these channels.

    Breaking Google's Contract is Hard

    Google's search monopoly wouldn't be a problem if not for its pervasive, and often compelling, supporting free services. Seven years ago, when working as a JupiterResearch analyst, I made the same observation as some of my colleagues and peers from other firms -- that Internet users could easily give up Google by typing in another search engine's Web address. At the time, Google was the US search leader but with nowhere near today's usage share. I warned that without sticky products or services, Google couldn't rely on search because users could so easily switch.

    Now Google has those sticky products and services, and it has rapidly expanded into new markets, like phone operating systems and Web browsers. Wherever Google goes, free follows. For example, Microsoft licenses Windows Phone 7 for a fee, while Google's Android is available for free. Sure Google collects fees for keyword bids or advertising, but bundled with free search and other services. Google deserves praise for making search sticky, in part by wrapping so many supporting services around it. But is the approach evil, or at least disruptive?

    I'm astounded by just how many Google products or services that I use, and ask: How many and which Google services do you use? That's a question for comments. Please respond and generate some debate about Google. What do I use:

    • Chrome
    • Gmail
    • Google Alerts
    • Google Analytics
    • Google Blog Search
    • Google Books
    • Google Buzz
    • Google Checkout
    • Google Docs
    • Google Goggles
    • Google Earth
    • Google Maps
    • Google News
    • Google Reader
    • Google Search
    • Google Talk
    • Google Voice
    • Google Webmaster Tools
    • YouTube

    Until June, when I switched to iPhone 4, Google's Nexus One was my smartphone. So I used Android, and even more Google products and services, just a few months ago. My wife still uses Nexus One, and she loves it. This is a staggering list of Google products and services. From one perspective, Google's success selling me -- and many other Internet users -- testifies to software/services development and distribution excellence. But behind it all is the free economy of search and creating products and services that stick Google users to the search monopoly. I'm here to confess that I've sold my soul to Google, but I want it back.

    In the folklore of selling souls the to devil, the contract is seven years. If I count Gmail as the starting point of my first Google non-search product then seven years would be sometime in Spring 2011. I'm baffled seeing where I could replace all the Google stuff used today with something as good for less. What's cheaper than free? But my goal is to cut back something. Facebook is one option that is more attractive because of the new messaging service and some of the search and supporting services provided by Microsoft. But I wonder: Is the devil you know better than the one you don't? Content going into Facebook doesn't easily come out. I could, or you, trade one devil for another.

    Bottom line: As I asserted in February, "Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was." The post is a good primer for understanding why the European Union is investigating Google. But that investigation may miss the broader context beyond the search monopoly -- how Google's free worldview and business approach is fundamentally changing the value of content and other intellectual property produced at cost. I'll end with this question: Should people be paid for things they produce?

    Quick reminder, I am on sabbatical for most of December as I work on a book project. Posting will be considerably lighter than usual.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/24/Will_Santa_stuff_your_stocking_with_Windows_Phone_'

    Will Santa stuff your stocking with Windows Phone?

    Publié: novembre 24, 2010, 7:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Two days from now, Black Friday officially kicks off the holiday buying season -- although some retailers are off to an early start. I've been wondering; What about Windows Phone? I recall how last holiday sales season, Verizon cranked up Droid sales with two-for-one deals. Yesterday, I got e-mail from AT&T announcing four days of Windows Phone buy one get one free, or what Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, calls BOGO. Can the offer, presumably others coming later in the holiday season and Microsoft's aggressive Windows Phone 7 advertising campaign jumpstart sales? I refer to jumpstart in context of new software and devices, like Verizon Droids were last year.

    BOGOs, whether the one for free or another for half price, are common during the holidays, along with rebates and other discount incentives. AT&T's promotion starts on Friday and applies to all three Windows Phone 7 handsets it carries: HTC Surround, LG Quantum and Samsung Focus. There also is a free accessory offer. Deal takers must agree to a new two-year contract.

    "I think the BOGO has nothing to do with sales to date or specifically with Black Friday," Baker said. "It is a good time to sell stuff and AT&T is taking advantage of it. Phones have pretty hefty deals even beyond the subsidy around price cuts, like the [BlackBerry] Torch, or BOGOs that Verizon has used very effectively. It has high visbility right now with the dollars Microsoft is throwing at it -- and that is a good time for AT&T to try to pump up the sales a bit, and drive a bit of traffic into the stores."

    Skydiving for Sales

    How effective is that Microsoft advertising? I've got nothing quantitative but something anecdotal to share. In early October, I expressed just how much I like Microsoft's Windows Phone marketing campaign, which is clever, funny, memorable and oh-so yeah. It's lifestyle marketing done right, challenging people to step away from their phones and get back to living. My artist wife is simply non-tech. She doesn't give a hoot for gadgets, and when I show her techie TV commercials she yawns and walks away. But, yesterday, my wife got all hyper about the Windows Phone commercial embedded above. She called me over to watch the TV spot, which she played three times. "I love it!" she exclaimed. She since has posted the video to Facebook.

    The Windows Phone skydiving commercial is exceptional. Two guys jump out of an airplane, and both are taking photos with their phones. Time means something when you're falling to earth. The guy with the Windows phone says he can shoot in seconds so he can get to pulling his parachute's cord. "I just point, shoot and post to Facebook." Meanwhile his buddy fumbles with his phone. Good advertising is about showing customer benefits. There are two obvious ones here, not that most Windows Phone users would be in the skydiving situation: Picture taking and posting speed and getting back to what's important.

    I asked Baker about the commercials. "I like them fine. I wish they were a bit more product focused, but that is just an old retail guy talking."

    If you are planning on giving or receiving a cell phone this holiday season, which of these descriptions best describes your primary planned purchase or gift?survey software

    Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 campaign really does hit the point, which was an undercurrent to this week's Fox drama "Lie to Me." Too many people are too obsessed with their phones. In the opening sequence, teenager Emily Lightman, nearly runs down an Alzheimer's victim while texting and driving (there is impact). At the show's close, parent and main character Cal Lightman gives his daughter a choice: The car or the phone for a month. She chooses the phone and bumming rides.

    Can Microsoft save us from our phones or help people to use them better -- and in process pump up Windows Phone 7 handset sales? I'm a huge believer in the power of effective marketing, and Microsoft is going further by rightly asking who's running your life? You, or your cell phone?

    Smartphone Novelist

    Something else, and here comes one of my rare mea culpas. I've been critical of Microsoft's mobile Office push. I mean, frak, who really needs to do documents on their cell phones? Yes, of course, some business users. But the majority? I doubt it. Consumers? Surely not many. But I had a stunning change of perspective two days ago. I met a high school student who is writing a novel on an Android smartphone. The high schooler has finished eight chapters already. I asked why? The student gave three reasons:

    • The teen is more accustomed to typing on the cell phone because of texting. "I'm too lazy to use a computer keyboard."
    • "My phone is with me everywhere," meaning whenever the inspiration to write comes.
    • "I couldn't have done this if there wasn't an app in the Android store."

    I immediately wondered: "What about Office?" The high schooler uses a Verizon Android phone. What if the teen had Windows Phone on AT&T, would writing be even easier using mobile Office? I don't have an answer for that, but please feel free to offer yours in comments. By the way, my fail; I should have told the student about Android's voice-to-text feature, which could make writing on the go even easier. The point: Younger Millennials -- Generation Y, if you prefer -- having different habits than older users. For this student, the cell phone is primary writing device, not the PC.

    There remains the question about Windows Phone 7 smartphone holiday sales. Will Santa stuff his sack with Windows Phones this holiday, helping Microsoft and its partners snatch market share from Android, BlackBerry and iPhone? Please answer the question in comments.

    One more thing: Starting with this post, I will throttle back Betanews posting until January; I'll continue blogging but at much slower pace. I'm starting a book writing project and want to put aside the daily grind, which includes monitoring RSS feeds and Twitter. I've allotted six weeks to the first draft; the book isn't fiction and has nothing to do with technology.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/19/I_don_t_believe_that_25%_of_Betanews_readers_are_Linux_PC_users'

    I don't believe that 25% of Betanews readers are Linux PC users

    Publié: novembre 19, 2010, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Twenty five percent. Well, 25.82 percent to be exact, so closer to 26. That's the number of respondents claiming to be Linux PC users in my poll: "How would you identify yourself as a computer user?" The number is seemingly credible: 2,014 votes from 94 countries -- 988 from the United States. There are 1,858 unique IP addresses, which along with cookies blocking repeat votes suggests the results are largely clean of Linux enthusiasts stuffing the ballot box, so to speak. Something else: After the poll reached the 25 percent Linux PC threshold, it stayed there even as votes accumulated -- that's another indicator the results are good. But I don't believe them, certainly not that only 60 percent of respondents are Windows PC users.

    I do believe that Betanews has among its readers very enthusiastic and credible Linux PC users; some of them will share their stories in this post. But the Windows community is much larger, something reflected by other metrics, such as comments or download forums. Additionally, the poll results are unqualified, meaning I don't know who the respondents are. Therefore, I must consider the data to be unreliable.

    It would be oh-so easy to make a sensational story out of the data, emphasizing the lower number of people identifying themselves as Windows PC users or the surprisingly high number of Linux PC users. Instead, ahead of this post, I wrote on my blog: You Can't Trust Polls or Surveys." The misuse of poll or survey data is rampant, and major blogs or news sites -- and OMG Facebook -- post new polls and results every day. You can justify just about anything with a simple poll and loose interpretation of the data. It's a rampant -- and from personal perspective as a journalist, disgusting -- problem.

    That's not to say all this asking people questions is useless. I asked my poll question in a way to deliberately gauge sentiment -- what kind of PC user people feel they are rather than which operating systems (likely more than one) they use on a daily basis. I do believe that the poll in conjunction with reader response in comments and e-mail reflects something important about Linux. There is likely a larger minority of Linux PC users than broader business or consumer research indicates. Based on the consistency of one data point throughout the entire poll, I would comfortably assert that more Betanews readers identify themselves as Linux PC users than Macheads (12.02 percent, by the poll).

    Ian Brunton: Linux Newbie and Happy About It

    Who are these Linux PC users and why? That's a question I posed in post "Do more Betanews readers use Linux PCs than Macs?"

    Ian Brunton isn't "professional in IT in any sense," but a "hobbyist programmer. I've used Windows most of my life, from 3.1 through 7, skipping lightly over Vista." Ten years ago, as part of a summer job, he learned Perl and dabbled in Linux. "At that point, desktop Linux was rather clunky." Last year, Brunton gave "Linux another shot, with, Ubuntu 9.04. This went quite well until the automatic upgrade to 9.10 gave me some very disturbing error messages and did not work well. I migrated back to XP, and shortly thereafter bought a new desktop with Windows 7." Linux still wasn't good enough. Or was it? After additional experimentation, Brunton "switched to OpenSuse 11.3 in August 2010, and have stuck with it."

    Brunton is exactly the kind of customer Microsoft shouldn't want to lose -- he switched not from XP or Vista but Windows 7. His problem is longstanding: "I always disliked the default interface," something Windows 7 didn't change. Not surprisingly, among his reasons for choosing Linux: "The ability to customise it is probably the biggest. I can have all manner of different themes without the least bit of trouble. On Windows, getting a dark theme required hacking the system, because for some reason Microsoft won't let you install one, and dark themes are what I find most comfortable. OpenSuse 11.3 came with one ready to go."

    The "other big reason" surprised me: "Command-line interface." Windows most certainly has one of those, as does Mac OS X. "I've found Microsoft's version clunky, stunted, and counter-intuitive," he explains. Another reason: "Programming is simple. Since my primary language is Perl, a good command line is important to me. Perl on Windows never seemed to work quite right. I also like the bash shell as a scripting language." Brunton gives other reasons, and of one of them I'm not surprised at all: "I appreciate the repository approach to software, which automatically takes care of dependencies and conflicts with minimal effort on my part." Even Windows enthusiasts complain about the registry and multiple DLLs.

    I asked Brunton about Linux drivers, as this is a common complaint about Linux (or at least something Microsoft evangelists like to call out): "I have not had any problems with drivers. Both Ubuntu and OpenSuse worked  just fine with my hardware 'out of the box.' This was a pleasant surprise. I installed Ubuntu on a small Compaq, and OpenSuse on a powerful new Dell."

    Does he have any other reasons for choosing Linux. A big one. "Finally, I love the philosophy behind Linux. Note that I have not actually saved any money by using Linux, since while it's free I bought the computer and its licensed copy of Windows first," he further explains. "I decided I wanted to support the philosophy of GNU/Linux and open-source software." Brunton emphasizes: The bottom line is that I find GNU/Linux more compatible with my (non-professional) needs and desires than Windows, and a lot of fun. With GNU/Linux I can have exactly what I want, not just something I can live with."

    Jean Hominal: Geek, Programmer and Linux User

    "I identify myself as a geek and a programmer. I am also a Linux user," Jean Hominal explains. Hominal gives four reasons why Linux, which I fully quote:

    1. There is a range of excellent software that I use every day (GIMP, Git, Apache, PostgreSQL, Tomboy) that works better with Linux than with Windows. Of course, there is selection bias here -- I have chosen that software because it was excellent and ran very well on my computer.

    2. The variability of Linux distributions, and the open-source nature of most of Linux software, ensures that software packaged with a decent Linux distribution will be of better quality than nearly all third-party software for Windows. Variability is important because it forces developers to establish and document the assumptions (required APIs, libraries, administrator rights) that their program will need to function. Open-source is important because it ensures that problems can be easily fixed once discovered, and dodgy software can be exposed.

    3. My package manager makes keeping software up-to-date a lot easier than Windows' updater.

    4. The laptop I am currently using was taken from my brother, who had installed Windows 7 on it (it was pre-installed with Vista). As he has since used that copy of W7 on another machine, and as I have been unable to reinstall Vista using the recovery partition of the laptop, my only choice to get Vista legally would have been to send a letter to HP and pay them so that they can send me a DVD of Vista. No.

    Hominal identifies two drawbacks: Can't play Blu-ray discs, and limited game support; Brunton also identified the latter as a problem.

    Martin Lindhe and Other Betanews Readers: Why Linux?

    Martin Lindhe is a long-time betanews reader  -- "7-8 years now?" -- he doesn't remember exactly. About 4 years ago he "switched from Windows to Linux and now I run only Linux on everything: My media center PC, my laptop, my home stationary PC and my work PC." Like Brunton and Hominal, Lindhe is a programmer. He first tried Linux, Mandrake, around 1997, but it wasn't good enough. Since making the switch, "I have never looked back."

    Like Brunton and Hominal, Lindhe finds Linux's customizability to be appealing. "Linux gives me so much more features and abilities than I ever had with a Windows system, and since I like tinkering with my system it allows for great stuff." Lindhe switches to the evangelist role: "These days Linux is working quite well even for end users; and I have a few non-tech friends who made the switch to linux also. If most of what you do with a laptop takes place in a web browser session, the underlying OS matters less."

    I asked Lindhe if he has ever used Mac OS X. "No, I never really considered using Mac OS due to the pricing. Last time I really used it was before version X, and that was quite crappy experience. I do use my second iPhone all the time though, so I do like their stuff. However, I sync it in Linux with Rhythmbox, which gives me many features not even available in iTunes, such as playing songs directly from the device, mounting the full file system to change sound files etc." I also asked Brunton and Hominal about Mac OS X. Like Lindhe, they haven't used modern Macintosh.

    As I write there are 114 comments to the aforementioned post asking the Linux PC versus Mac question. The responses above are from e-mails. I've left out most of the best Linux comment responses, because the commenters aren't identified. Among the few readers who are identified, Brian Masinick proclaims: "I prefer GNU/Linux based software." Linux appeals to him in part because of a long personal history using Unix.

    Bobby Russ asks and answers: "Do you identify yourself as a Linux user? Yes." He pounds out more questions with answers:

    Which Linux version do you run? Linux Mint 9 and Ubuntu 10.4 LTS. What are the primary benefits you see from Linux over Windows? Quick start up, No start-up cost to install, Very little chance of dealing with Trojans, adware, spyware and other malware. Used to run all Windows-based machines, but it seems they are more and more bloatware. The cost of the OS is no longer worth the Windows environment. Linux is fast and free. Security updates come as quickly if not quicker.

    In closing, there is a reasonable question to ask: Could I be wrong about that 25 percent? I think not, based on aforementioned reasons and data from other sources. For example, according to NetApplications, which measures operating system usage share by Website access, year to date: Windows, 91.46 percent, Mac OS 5.13 percent and Linux 0.98 percent. If you have evidence that the percentage of Linux users is much higher -- at least among the readers here -- please present it in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    [Editor's Note: Spelling of Ian Brunton's last name corrected.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/17/Microsoft_shouldn_t_break_up__but_break_away_from_its_antiquated_business_model'

    Microsoft shouldn't break up, but break away from its antiquated business model

    Publié: novembre 17, 2010, 8:13pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Ten years ago this month, Microsoft settled its antitrust case with the US Justice Department and handful of suing states. The settlement eventually ended government plans to break up Microsoft into two companies. Yesterday, a Microsoft shareholder asked why the company doesn't breakup now. It's a good question. From a shareholder perspective, breakup is probably the best way to return value back to company owners.

    Strategically, however, such action would undermine Microsoft plans to reinvent itself for the post-PC era, in part by dragging on the personal computer's relevance long beyond its obsolescence. Breakup's timing would cripple Microsoft competitively, too. But that doesn't mean Microsoft should stick together. There is a case for bringing back internal startups like Live Labs or spinning out one or more companies from the core.

    There is no easy answer to the breakup question, because of where Microsoft is today compared to 2001 or even 2007. CEO Steve Ballmer and his subordinates have bet the company's future on extending the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud. It's a bold preserve-the-status-quo strategy that promises to solve Microsoft's biggest problem: Finding new stuff for long, established customers to buy. But to get there, Microsoft must fundamentally rethink its partner-dependent software distribution model.

    Asking the Breakup Question

    The breakup question isn't a new one. I long ago advocated Microsoft voluntarily splitting into three or more separate companies. Shareholders are the main reason. Nimbler breakoffs freed from development obligations to integrate could innovate, rapidly growing and returning greater value to shareholders. There are plenty of precedents for such a divide-and-conquer strategy. Instead, Microsoft not only stayed intact but took on weight, nearly doubling payroll between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2009 -- 48,030 to 92,736 employees.

    Investors have punished bulging middle-aged Microsoft. Last week, I asked "Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?" The stock has been moribund for a decade. On Nov. 2, 2001 -- the day Microsoft announced its U.S. antitrust settlement -- the stock sold for $30.70. Microsoft shares have since only occasionally risen above $30. Microsoft opened today at $25.91. For some comparison, Apple traded for $9.28 on Nov. 2, 2001, and opened at $301.08 this morning. Surely some investors are asking if Apple, why not Microsoft?

    Near the end of Microsoft's annual shareholders meeting yesterday, one questioner expressed dismay about the stock and corporate strategy:

    I'm another frustrated shareholder for more years than I'd care to admit...I'm a shareholder of another very large software company that's up 12 percent this year. Microsoft is down 12 percent. Is it time to consider breaking this company up, taking these great core businesses that we have, and getting shareholder value by divesting them into maybe not eight -- maybe four, maybe six, I don't know what the right number is -- but is it time to break up Microsoft?

    Part of Ballmer's response:

    I obviously don't think it is time. I don't think it would be useful. I think it creates economic dissynergies, in fact. It's not -- you know, how do I say this -- it's not in my natural genetic makeup to think that way, but when you get enough people telling you to think that way, you at least go through the proper discipline kind of look.

    And in almost all cases the market goes the other way. All of the people we compete with in devices will be in phone, PC, and TV, which in our case means Xbox, Windows, and Windows Phones. It's Apple, it's Google, it's us. I mean, divesting something only means creating a harder time competing for all relevant parties.

    When Synergy Isn't

    Microsoft's CEO is talking about two seemingly related things that, looking at the historical Microsoft, aren't practically or strategically connected at all. Ballmer talks about the problem of creating dissynergies as one reason not to break up. But synergy may be the core problem. Since the early 1980s, synergies between products is a core Microsoft development objective. In the early 2000s, company executives and product managers referred to this synergy strategy as "integrated innovation." Microsoft accelerated the vertical feature integration among Office, Windows and server software after completing the antitrust settlement in November 2002. Over the last decade, synergy failed to return value back to shareholders, by in part creating the perception Microsoft is no longer a growth company. More importantly, the synergy mandate means that Microsoft developers have a greater priority to integrate new stuff with cash cows Office and Windows than to truly innovate. At Microsoft, innovation is all about integrating with status quo products. Azure is classic example.

    Ballmer wrongly relates synergy to changes now taking place as computing and informational relevance shifts from the PC to cloud-connected devices. There, some of the most successful companies offer complete hardware, software and services solutions. The synergy that, say, Apple creates is different from Microsoft. Apple controls everything. Microsoft doesn't and won't as long as third parties build stuff around its software. Ballmer is wrong if he sees Microsoft's past approach to synergy as being validated in the shift to cloud-connected devices. Microsoft is trying to have it both ways -- be a developer of platforms and applications. The two approaches are incongruous and are a major reason why Microsoft has failed to grow the majority of profits beyond Office and Windows.

    Office's debut in the early 1980s put Microsoft in competition with its developers. Today, among Windows developers, their largest competitor is Microsoft. In the mid Noughties, Microsoft tried to establish Office as a development platform (again), but really went on to extend applications competition to its server software. Microsoft is now at a juxtaposition: Is it going to be a platform developer or applications supplier? That's the essence of Microsoft's push into the cloud. Ballmer and his subordinates can't have it both ways, something I'll better explain in the next section.

    Microsoft Chairman also answered the breakup question:

    If you look at the evolution of Office and how it uses the cloud, if you look at the evolution of some of the gaming assets and how those connect to the communications things we're doing, you know, I don't think there's a line where you'd find net simplicity by trying to create a new company.

    He is absolutely right. Microsoft has gone too far down the path of extending its core Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud. There is no turning back now. But how should Microsoft go forward?

    'To the Cloud!'

    Microsoft's newest marketing tagline is "to the cloud." It pops up in new commercials aimed at businesses and consumers. The tagline is more than marketing. Ballmer and his subordinates have bet Microsoft's future on extending its core software stack to the cloud. What's uncertain -- and as I'm hearing even still being debated within Microsoft -- is where that strategy ends up. Can Microsoft continue to be, or even should it be, a company supporting a broad partner ecosystem? Right now, Microsoft is dependent upon third parties to distribute, to sell and to service its software. The approach worked for Microsoft when it was younger and growing but in some ways has worked against growth in the new century. Microsoft's current business model of licensing software that others sell and service precipitates five related strategic and competitive problems:

    1. Since most businesses or consumers already use some Microsoft product, the company is essentially reselling to the same customers over and over.

    2. Microsoft's biggest competitor is itself. Customers with Microsoft software that they find to be "good enough" have less incentive to buy the newest thing. Upgrade cycles stretch out, particularly for businesses finding it cheaper to stick with what they've got than to invest in something new.

    3. Microsoft has a huge fragmentation problem, since so many versions of its software are in use. Developers must support multiple software versions over many years, and customers grow dissatisfied when they encounter problems using older software no longer supported by newer third-party products.

    4. Many Microsoft partners make much more from servicing than selling Microsoft software or supporting hardware. This despite Microsoft fees for selling licensing contracts. As such, some partners have more incentive to maintain fragmentation than end it. For cost reasons, many IT organizations want to upgrade piecemeal, an approach that also benefits integrators' long-term business prospects with their customers. The point: There is built-in conflict-of-business-interest between Microsoft's objectives and many of its partners.

    5. Microsoft's second-biggest competitor is the software pirate. The company still has lots of sales growth headroom in emerging markets, which, according to Business Software Alliance, generally have the highest piracy rates. Additionally, much of the pirated software reaching mature markets comes from some of the larger emerging markets with high software piracy rates. Related: These same markets also account for the bulk of Internet spam and scams, and from them criminals infect pirated software with Trojans and other botnet-creating malware.

    The cloud strategy solves all these problems, eventually. It's also the fundamental reason why Microsoft shouldn't break up now. I'll couch by explaining how the cloud strategy solves the five problems:

    1. By extending the Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud, Microsoft gives existing customers in established markets something new to buy -- and there are many benefits, such as anytime, anywhere access on anything. Customers also can benefit from lower upfront pricing, lower long-term costs (which includes maintenance and hardware) and access to the newest Microsoft software (with no physical upgrade required). These benefits apply most when customers adopt hosted software.

    2. Market saturation becomes an asset rather than liability. Now, millions of customers have something better to get from Microsoft. Cloud customers buy differently, whether they go hosted-only or not. Hosted-only means committing to subscription contracts that give customers access to applications and always the newest stuff, without the hassle or expense of maintenance and upgrades. Customers with existing software gain benefits by adding on the cloud; Microsoft gains when these customers upgrade to newer software better supporting cloud services.

    3. Ideally, if all Microsoft customers choose host-only, there would be no fragmentation. For certain, there will be lots more customers using the current versions of Microsoft software and so much less fragmentation.

    4. The cloud, whether hosted-only or software hybrid, removes customers' incentive to use older software. What that means for Microsoft partners is uncertain. Microsoft should commit everything to the cloud and provide an end-to-end software, datacenter and services stack to customers, pushing partners to hardware and services supporting other software and some local integration of Microsoft stuff.

    5. There can't be software piracy if there is no software to steal. The more Microsoft offers in the cloud, the more it can sell to every market, particularly growth ones, without hefty losses to piracy. Plan, pure and simple.

    Now isn't the time to break up Microsoft. But it is time for Microsoft executives to decide what the company will be. The cloud strategy is pulling away from an older software distribution strategy that is antiquated in the cloud-connected device era. Applications will remain important, but they will be lighter than bloaters like Office. The question shouldn't be about Microsoft breaking up, but whether it should break away from a business model that competes with developers and depends too much on third-party partners to sell and service the software.

    It's Microsoft's midlife crisis. What do you want to be, Microsoft?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/16/Meet_the_Beatles_on_iTunes____and_nowhere_else_'

    Meet the Beatles on iTunes -- and nowhere else?

    Publié: novembre 16, 2010, 7:29pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As widely rumored and confirmed ahead of time by the Wall Street Journal, the Beatles debuted on iTunes today in an exclusive distribution deal. I contacted Apple, Apple Corps. and EMI about exclusivity and heard back from Apple early this afternoon. "The Beatles will be exclusively available on iTunes, with exclusivity expiring in 2011," said Apple spokesperson Tom Neumayr. Uh-oh. Exclusivity could bring Apple under fire for violating antitrust laws. The Beatles deal is representative of exclusives available only from iTunes.

    Depending on the analyst firm doing the counting, Apple's market share for U.S. digital downloads ranges from more than 70 percent to about 90 percent. Meanwhile, Apple's command of the portable music player market is 75 percent or more, again depending on who's doing the counting. Apple's market-leading position -- not just in the United States -- means that antitrust enforcers apply different rules, so to speak, to Apple compared to its competitors. One thing they'll watch for: Actions that forestall competition or compel consumers to pay higher prices for music.

    Exclusive distribution from a market leading -- some would call dominating -- position is a potential problem for Apple. Three quick reasons viewed from the 1890 Sherman Act and jurisprudence based on precedent-defining antitrust cases:

    1. Exclusive distribution discourages -- or prevents -- competition, causing consumers harm. They don't receive the many benefits of competition, among them better pricing.

    2. The exclusive distributor is in position to set prices at a higher rate. Consumers have no other choice.

    3. In the case of Apple, with arguable monopolies in two markets, exclusive distribution is leverage into other markets and could create what antitrust enforcers call a "barrier to entry" for competitors. That position not only harms consumers and competitors but can stifle innovation.

    Exclusivity Doesn't Start with the Beatles

    Monopolies aren't illegal in the United States. But abuse of monopoly power is. I covered Microsoft's U.S. antitrust trial from the late 1990s through the 2001-02 settlement and beyond. Nearly all the antitrust academics and lawyers I consulted agreed on one point: Microsoft's exclusive distribution deals for Internet Explorer, which shut out rival Netscape, precipitated the case; no exclusive deals, likely no antitrust prosecution. 

    Already several governments, including South Korea and the United States, are investigating Apple's competitive practices. The European Union has eased off a separate antitrust investigation. Exclusive Beatles distribution could add fuel to the fire. It's not so much the Beatles but what the distribution deal represents -- Apple's ability to affect digital download pricing and distribution.

    Apple could argue that exclusive distribution of one band's music should hardly be called monopoly abuse. But as aforementioned, the Beatles deal is representative of Apple's ability to offer exclusive deals from an overwhelming market commanding position. The iTunes Store offers a large amount of exclusive content, much of it for higher pricing than some other content at the store or from competitors. For example, the iTunes version of Rihanna album "Loud" contains an album-only track not available from AmazonMP3 store or on the physical CD. Rihanna fans wanting the song must buy from iTunes and pay for the whole album. Looked at one way, there is consumer-friendly competition, because AmazonMP3 offers the digital album for $7.99; Apple charges $9.99. But exclusive distribution for a song available only on the album means some buyers are compelled to pay more. This isn't an isolated example. This kind of exclusive is commonplace at Apple's music store. Is iTunes just a better-run music distributor than AmazonMP3, or is monopoly leverage at work to get exclusive content?

    Something else: Then there are the partners making the pricing decisions to consider. Apple doesn't have sole say in music pricing; the company licenses the content. Music labels have monopolies over music content and pricing. Antitrust enforcers are particularly sensitive to monopolies controlling prices or distribution -- Apple and music labels like EMI. Is that the situation here? The Beatles distribution deal is reason to ask the question. The answering is up to trustbusters, assuming they choose to investigate.

    Microsoft Antitrust Comparisons

    There are several striking similarities between Apple's and Microsoft's monopoly positions and how trustbusters might view them. The U.S. Justice Department narrowly defined Microsoft's core monopoly as PC operating systems. Apple might argue that it has no monopoly since people can get music other places, such as CDs. The last number I saw on Apple's U.S. music distribution market share -- from May -- was about 27 percent. There's hardly any monopoly in that. But as much as 90 percent in digital downloads market share most certainly is a monopoly, using Microsoft's 1990s Windows dominance as measure.

    Microsoft used its monopoly position to reset the price of a Web browser to zero. Netscape charged for its browser and couldn't compete with free. By integrating Internet Explorer into Windows, Microsoft made distribution of its free browser easier to get than downloading Netscape over slow dial-up Net connections. Arguably, IE-to-Windows integration eventually raised browser pricing, since the operating system with browser cost more than what Netscape charged for its stand-alone Communicator.

    Exclusive distribution allows Apple, Apple Corps. and EMI to set the price for Beatles digital downloads from iTunes' monopoly position. For Beatles downloads, iTunes store charges $1.29 for singles, $12.99 for albums and $19.99 for so-called double albums (there arguably is no such thing as double for a non-physical product). The pricing is higher than most music sold from iTunes but by no means overly high. The albums are comparably priced to CDs sold by Amazon. However, there is no AmazonMP3 store option to offer competitive pricing. To reiterate, Apple could argue there is no problem at all, because many more Beatles CDs are available than digital downloads and other purchasing options give Apple no monopoly at all. But as aforementioned, much depends on how narrowly trustbusters might choose to define music distribution. They chose a narrow market for Microsoft.

    Wrapping up, to Apple, Apple Corps. and EMI, I asked:

    • Is the Beatles digital download catalog exclusive to iTunes?
    • If so, for how long?
    • If not, what other services will be able to distribute the music, and how soon?
    • Are the songs being distributed DRM-free, meaning iTunes Plus, like other music in the store?

    Neumayr answered the first and second (without specific end date) questions and confirmed that the Beatles music is DRM-free.

    Apple marketing describes the Beatles as "the band that changed everything." How true for Apple if exclusive distribution draws antitrust fire.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/16/What_if_Apple_s_day__you_ll_never_forget__is_really_a_day_you_ll_never_remember_'

    What if Apple's day 'you'll never forget' is really a day you'll never remember?

    Publié: novembre 16, 2010, 3:41am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Beatles on iTunes....zzzzz

    Today's Apple homepage iTunes teaser -- "Tomorrow is just another day. That you'll never forget." -- sent the rumormongers howling and Mac fanatics salivating. And I looked on, groaning: "Oh, please, get a life." I really couldn't care less about Apple's so-called "exciting announcement," which distracted from other big tech news, like Facebook's messaging service or Microsoft's 1 million Kinect sales, and from global stories like the coming vote that could divide Sudan into two countries. Apple's little teaser has geek bloggers and reporters once again doing the hamster dance in the proverbial wheel. Steve Jobs has you trained well, and he's promising some sweet kibbel as reward.

    I've been chuckling, wondering what would make me never forget. Some days I won't forget: My daughter's birth; my best friend's death; my 14th birthday (I had appendicitis); Sept. 11, 2001; the D.C. Snipers' first day of killing; and Black Friday weekend 2009 car accident. What could Apple do tomorrow that would make it unforgettable? In marketing, smart companies always deliver more than promised. I can't imagine what Apple could deliver tomorrow that would even meet the implications promised.

    It's certainly not the Beatles, which is what the Wall Street Journal claims Apple will announce at 10 a.m. ET tomorrow -- new music Tuesday. If the Journal is right, Beatles songs are coming "soon," which had better be tomorrow for there to be any chance of it being unforgettable. But what's really memorable about that? I agree with Jim Dalrymple, who this evening tweeted: "The Beatles on iTunes would have been huge news in 2005. In 2010, I'm not sure it even deserves a story."

    I suppose exclusive Beatles catalog distribution would be somewhat memorable. But it's surely trouble. If Apple cuts an exclusive deal, not 30 seconds will pass before someone cries antitrust foul. I covered Microsoft's U.S. antitrust trial from the late 1990s through settlement and beyond. Nearly all the antitrust academics and lawyers I consulted agreed on one point: Microsoft's exclusive distribution deals for Internet Explorer, which shut out rival Netscape, precipitated the case; no exclusive deals, likely no antitrust prosecution. Apple's commanding music distribution has already drawn the ire of trustbusters. If there is no exclusive distribution agreement, what's so memorable about that? AmazonMP3 store and others could sell the Beatles catalog, too, and probably for lots less.

    So what's really big enough to make tomorrow a day "that you'll never forget?" That's a question I ask you to answer in comments. Meanwhile, I've got a shortlist of things that would make me not forget the day anytime soon:

    1. Steve Jobs steps down as Apple CEO, which of course hasn't much to do with iTunes. But, sure, I'd remember that day -- when thousands of Mac fanatics and Wall Street analysts and investors simultaneously had cardiac arrest.

    2. Apple gives away music for free. Who could forget that day, which would kind of be the antithesis of the "day the music died." It's like Napster's rebirth only better.

    3. Apple offers your purchased music streamed from the cloud anytime, anywhere and on anything. It's nowhere as good as free, but still memorable. Apple already knows what you bought from iTunes. Only licensing rights and infrastructure prevent people from streaming stuff they already purchased everywhere.

    4. iTunes switches to lossless distribution (without raising music prices). I would remember that day, when digital downloads finally offered fidelity comparable to CDs. Wouldn't you?

    5. Apple brings back DRM to all music sold by iTunes. Now there's something that would really make tomorrow a day "that you'll never forget." Better: Apple exclusively offers Beatles catalog, but unlike other music locked down by DRM.

    I could go on to 10 things, but I've forsworn top-10 lists (Yes, it's intentional not putting five things in the headline of this commentary; I've sworn off top-5s, too). Already, I expect a few Mac attacks for this post. To the flamers I say: Stuff it. More Betanews readers identify themselves as Linux users than Macheads.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/08/Why_did_Steve_Ballmer_sell_12_percent_of_his_stake_in_Microsoft_'

    Why did Steve Ballmer sell 12 percent of his stake in Microsoft?

    Publié: novembre 8, 2010, 9:19pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    MSFT Shares Jan-Nov 2010

    Perhaps he knows something you don't.

    I've been asking myself the question all weekend, and now I'd like to pose it to you. I ask Betanews readers to respond to the poll below and to answer in comments; please do both. You can choose up to two answers. I wanted to leave an option for your own reasons, but I worry that trolls would be obnoxious. Sorry. If readers respond favorably, I'll do more polls like this. The poll expires on October 16, 2010 at Midnight PT. Embedded poll below requires JavaScript. If you have disabled JavaScript or otherwise can't see the poll, please go to this link.

    Over three days last week, Ballmer unloaded 49.3 million shares for average price of $27.03, netting about $1.3 billion. It's as if Microsoft's CEO was saving up, looking for a lift in the share price -- perhaps even expecting that solid financial results for year to date or some recent new product releases would lift Microsoft share price. In late April, Microsoft's stock price climbed above $31 a share, before dropping to about $23 a share in early July. Only since Microsoft's fiscal 2011 first quarter financial report, on October 28th, have share prices consistently pushed above $26. Ballmer may have shrewdly picked about the best time to sell since April. The chart above shows Microsoft share price year to date.

    But what if the share sale signals something else? It's a hefty volume, and Ballmer isn't done. He plans to sell about 75 million of his 408 million shares by end of year. That means about another 25 million share sales are coming; he owns 358,911,338 shares following last week's three sales. Has Ballmer lost confidence in Microsoft? Perhaps his confidence problem is with Wall Street, which as I explained yesterday would be justified; Microsoft's stock is moribund below $30. Gasp, could it be that Ballmer is on the way out, and he is unloading now ahead of time? Many Betanews commenters and investors posting elsewhere have demanded Microsoft dump Ballmer. Or could the sale simply be Ballmer rewarding himself for Microsoft's 2010 performance -- the old self slap on the back? Another: Ballmer's huge sale came right after the U.S. election. Perhaps he sees Republicans taking over the House of Representatives and split government as being bad for businesses like Microsoft.

    What did Steve Ballmer suddenly sell 12 percent of his Microsoft shares?customer surveys

    None of these are the reasons given in Ballmer's official November 5th statement: "Even though this is a personal financial matter, I want to be clear about this to avoid any confusion. I am excited about our new products and the potential for our technology to change people's lives, and I remain fully committed to Microsoft and its success."

    Ballmer isn't the only Microsoft executive unloading shares. On November 1st, second-in-command Kevin Turner sold 48,956 shares for an average 27 bucks a piece; he also sold shares in September. Turner is by no means as large a stakeholder as Ballmer and owns 71,4801 shares following his recent sales. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates also is unloading stock -- 2 million shares on November 2nd and another 1 million shares a day later, leaving him with 617,973,551 shares. Gates shares sold for $27.23 and $27.19, respectively. Three days later, Microsoft chief accounting officer Frank sold 15,000 shares for $27.13 a piece.

    Perhaps the sales mean nothing; they're just routine. After all, the SEC restricts when top executives can sell stock. There are other considerations like when stock vests. Gates routinely sells his shares -- 12 million of them in early August. That's routine for Gates. But it's the volume of Ballmer's shares and percentage of them that draws questions to this sale. Then there is the man. What kind of confidence in Microsoft does the CEO generate by unloading 12 percent of his shares over three days, with more sales coming (if they haven't happened already but not been formally filed with the SEC)?

    It's conspiracy theory Monday and your chance in comments to offer reasons behind Ballmer's stock sale and how -- or not -- his action affects your confidence in Microsoft.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/07/Why_won_t_Wall_Street_give_Microsoft_a_break_'

    Why won't Wall Street give Microsoft a break?

    Publié: novembre 7, 2010, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Betanews reader Robert Johnson wants to know the answer to the question, which he asked me on Friday night. His short e-mail "I'm Confused About Microsoft" got me to reflecting again about Microsoft's performance under Steve Ballmer's executive leadership and the stock's moribund consistently sub-$30 over the last 10 years. Microsoft is a hugely profitable company that likely will be for many years, so why won't industry and Wall Street analysts and investors give Microsoft a break?

    Before getting to Johnson's e-mail and my response to it, some context: Ballmer ascended to the chief executive's position in January 2000. In October of that year, Microsoft announced fiscal 2001 first quarter income of $2.58 billion from $5.8 billion revenue. An accounting change affected earnings, which were 46 cents a share without it and 40 cents a share with it. By comparison, for fiscal 2010 first quarter, Microsoft reported operating income of $7.12 billion and net income of $5.41 billion, or 62 cents a share, from $16.2 billion revenue. Assuming income in the past means "operating," Microsoft's percentage of income derived from revenue is statistically equivalent for the recent quarter and the one 10 years ago.

    Some more context-setting statistics: For fiscal 2002, ended June 30, 2001, Ballmer's first full operational year as CEO, Microsoft reported operating income of $11.72 billion, or $1.32 earnings per share, from $25.3 billion revenue. For fiscal 2010, Microsoft reported operational income of $24.1 billion and net income of $18.76 billion, or $2.10 earnings per share, from $62.48 billion revenue. Over nine years, Microsoft's revenue increased by nearly 2.5 times. Income grew by less. Again, assuming Microsoft's past income means operational, income as percentage derived from income declined to 38.5 percent from 46 percent.

    On Nov. 2, 2001, Microsoft shares sold for $30.70. The stock reached $34 a share two months later. Microsoft shares stayed below $30 a share until January 2006, before falling to $22 a share six months later (During this time period Microsoft announced that Windows Vista wouldn't ship for Holiday 2006). Shares again rose about $30 in January 2007, right before Microsoft publicly released Office 2007 and Windows Vista. The stock rallied to $37.06 on Nov. 2, 2007. By mid March 2009, the stock had fallen to $16.65 a share. During 2010, Microsoft's share chart looks like a roller coaster ride, repeatedly rising above $30 and falling far below it. Microsoft closed at $26.85 on Friday. Is there a disconnect between Microsoft's share price and performance, which is consistently good over the past decade?

    Johnson and Wilcox exchange E-mails

    Johnson's e-mail starts with the "I'm confused" subject line and continues:

    • PC's have seen an increase in sales.
    • Windows 7 is the fastest selling OS in history.
    • Office 2010 is the fasting selling consumer version of office.
    • MS raised its Kinect sales forecast from 2 million to 5 million for the holiday season.
    • XBOX Live is a new billion dollar business for Microsoft.
    • XBOX 360 is now the #1 selling console.
    • Windows Phone 7 has been getting some very positive reviews.

    All of this and analysts at Gartner (?) have MS stock at neutral and the stock price is stagnant? What's wrong with this?

    I responded:

    I can explain some of it, Robert,

    Simply put: Microsoft isn't really opening up new major markets but sustains on monopolies built during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

    PC sales: Mature markets are saturated, meaning OEMs and Microsoft are selling to the same customers. There is rapid growth in emerging markets, but people there are more likely to steal software than to pay for it. More importantly, in most emerging markets, the cell phone and not the PC is often the first Net-connected device people own. It's a phenomenon sometimes described as technology skip.

    Windows 7: By all indications, Microsoft isn't gaining new customers but selling to existing ones, and the majority of these run nine year-old Windows XP. Fastest-growing is misleading because: 1) The install base is larger today; 2) There is pent-up demand because of the Vista flop; 3) Sold really means license shipped, not deployed.

    Office 2010: By what measure is this claim? I simply don't believe it based on the revenue numbers I see.

    Xbox: The console and service generate lots of revenue but low margins. It's not a hugely profitable business and one that, depending on the quarter, loses money.

    Windows Phone 7: The mobile landscape has changed. Microsoft has released a 2007-08 vintage operating system, having already lost developer mindshare to Android and iOS.

    Please don't take this as a necessarily dismal view, because:

    1. Microsoft marketing is sizzling hot, and that's great for generating positive perceptions about the brand and for product sales.

    2. Microsoft's strategy of extending its Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud is fundamentally sound for reselling stuff to existing customers. They get benefits of desktop software presumably for lower costs (including upgrades and maintenance) and greater convenience (including instant updates and anytime-anywhere-on anything access).

    3. Windows Phone 7 demonstrates how Microsoft can approach a tough competitive market by changing the rules and delivering a forward-thinking user interface.

    That's a shortlist.

    Many analysts are status quo thinkers. That's one reason so many projections turn out wrong and why so few analysts predict real innovation. Which Gartner or IDC analyst foresaw the changes Apple or Google would bring to mobile five years ago? But I recall reading in 2005 (and I don't have handy sources ready) analyst projections that Windows Mobile 5's Exchange support would crush BlackBerry. Well, that sure as hell didn't happen.

    So don't despair, Robert. What do the analysts know more than you? That said, qualifying I'm no financial analyst, it's hard to see after Microsoft delivered such strong revenue growth during the last decade but with fairly stagnant stock prices how the share price can change any time soon.

    It's All About Perception

    I want to add some things left out in my rush to respond quickly to Johnson. The real measure of a public company's value is perception -- how investors and other people value the company and how much confidence they have in it. That's a seeming simplification. After all, institutional investors (who are in a stock for the long haul) and day traders (who seek the quick profit) are among the many influencers on share price. Then there is the movement of the whole market to consider. But ultimately, a stock's price depends two things: Performance and perception. Microsoft has got performance -- sure it's no longer a major growth company, but there's sustained growth over its lifetime and more recently the last decade.

    Fundamentally, Microsoft has a perception problem. I can see why Johnson is "confused," when looking at Microsoft financial performance and recent product and services announcements. Investors have shown little love towards Microsoft for a long time, regardless of performance. It's a vicious cycle: Stagnant shares don't grow because the volume of investors don't see enough potential return, which further holds back shares from growing.

    By the numbers -- and, yes, there are many more measures than presented here (like a division-by-division view, among others) --  Microsoft revenue and income performance look pretty good (that's conceding margins are declining). Microsoft is executing tactically, in ways that appeal to the head but not enough to the emotions. For all the talk of numbers and data driving investor decisions, emotions have a huge role -- particularly people's fear of losing money.

    I have a question for Steve Ballmer: If investors are going to punish you anyway, why not give them a reason now that later could give them more reason to reward you? Middle-aged Microsoft doesn't take the kind of risks that made it a wunderkind in its youth. Take risks that give investors confidence in Microsoft's can-do spirit -- that the next mind-blowing "Oh, my, God, why didn't I think of that" innovation will come from Redmond, Wash., and not some Silicon Valley-based company like Apple. Blabbering about how many Windows 7 licenses sold doesn't generate confidence. Windows represents Microsoft's past -- and still hugely profitable -- legacy. Steve-o, don't leave loyalists like Johnson confused.

    For Betanews readers, I have three questions marginally related to this analysis: What do you think of Steve Ballmer selling $1.3 billion in shares, or about 12 percent of his stake in Microsoft? Does that make you feel any less confident in the company? Timing is interesting, considering where share price was last week. Could it signal Ballmer is on his way out? I leave the answers to you and for debate in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/04/Will_you_connect_with_Xbox_Kinect_'

    Will you connect with Xbox Kinect?

    Publié: novembre 4, 2010, 4:37pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Overnight, Microsoft launched its innovative and somewhat imitative Kinect game controller ("Look, ma, no hands!"). If you stood in line at Midnight -- and, more importantly, if you used Kinect in the wee hours afterwards, please share your story, either in comments or by sending email to joewilcox at gmail dot com. I would prefer email because you can be identified and I can more easily ask followup questions. If you're planning on Kinecting, particularly if you preordered, I ask you to share that story, too. Most importantly is why. Why Kinect?

    The game controller's success is hugely important to Microsoft, which needs something more to reinvigorate its consumer brand image. Good start: Successful game titles like Halo Reach, next week's Windows Phone 7 U.S. launch and great TV commercials for Bing, Internet Explorer 8 and Windows 7. Kinect is about generating buzz by generating long lines of Xbox enthusiasts. From marketing and branding perspectives, the games begin outside stores before one controller is sold.

    Ahead of today's launch, buzz spread across the InterWebs that Microsoft had upped its Kinect sales forecast by 2 million to 5 million units by year's end. While seemingly ambitious, Microsoft knows how many preorders are already in.

    Last night, I stopped by Microsoft Store San Diego, where employees prepared for Kinect launch festivities scheduled to start at 10 p.m. ahead of Midnight sales. Had I been on the East Coast in New York or Washington, D.C. instead of San Diego, or had there been a long line, I would have camped out and done a live report. But I figured the news would be over by more than three hours long before I could post. Hey, look, I was an energetic 20 year old three decades ago.

    My colleague Tim Conneally stopped by a Baltimore, Md. GameStop around 12:30 a.m. EDT today. "I went out and there was nothing going on." I asked if there was a line, to which he responded "nope" but then qualified: "I'll be precise, the store was open and there were people there, but no lines. It wasn't like the Halo launches or anything."

    Outside a real Microsoft Store, seven people waited for Kinect around 8 p.m. PDT last night. The line had doubled an hour later, when I gave up any pretense of hanging around for the fun and freebees. The first person in line wasn't even sure about buying Kinect, but she defied gamer stereotypes, and that could be good for Microsoft if it's a trend: African-American woman in her early twenties. She gladly spoke to me. The hardcores -- those stereotypical young and male Xboxers -- were too engrossed in playing games on cell phones.

    Kinect Launch PrepMicrosoft Store San Diego employees prepare for Kinect launch

    "I came here to find out about the new Kinect," said first-in-liner Katrina. "I heard about it and wanted to see what it was about." I asked if she planned to buy one. "I'm not sure. I'm really into Xbox, so I'm really contemplating about doing it." Katrina is into role-playing games. Favorite series include Sonic the Hedgehog and Spyro the Dragon. I asked if Katrina roleplayed with other gamers via Xbox Live. She tried but couldn't stick with it. "They're kind of mean online," she said. "But I'm starting to think about going back online. I'm in the military, so I don't have much time to really do that." I couldn't resist asking if she could justify buying Kinect as training. "Yes!" she exclaimed and laughed. "That's what I'm going to justify it as."

    Next to Katrina waited a twenty-something couple, who had preordered the Kinect Bundle, which includes Xbox 360. Neither of them gave names, and I didn't ask. The male gamer expressed enthusiasm for the bundle, which he ordered about a month a ago. The female gamer pushed in and interrupted: "Your Shape Fitness for Kinect!" She was "excited" about the game. I warned him to be careful about answering my next question -- whether he was excited about her getting Your Shape Fitness Evolved for Connect. Weight and women can be touchy subjects for men. The male gamer gave even worse relationship answer than I expected: "I'm not excited as much as her, because once she gets it, she's going to post all her stats and everything on Facebook for the world to see." She interrupted with a condemning giggle: "No." By the way, the male gamer likes Madden, among other series. While the female gamer prefers less combative titles, she expressed: "I'm really excited about Kinect. It's a good thing for girls." I said that would be a good slogan for Microsoft to adopt in its Kinect marketing.

    Further down the line -- and not really that far given the number of people waiting -- a mother prompted her younger son to answer questions. Mario was there with his brother, who also had preordered Kinect. I asked if the brother would share Kinect. "Yeah, he's pretty generous with his games." The teen plays his brother's action games, such as Halo 3. Mario is interested in Halo Reach, but his brother doesn't own that title. The brothers do Xbox Live, but I didn't hear much enthusiasm about it in the answer. Mario looked like a high schooler to me, but I've never been good at judging ages. So I asked if he goes to school. "Yeah." I wondered what he was doing in line for a Midnight sale on a school night. "I don't have a first period, so I start at 9:30." Lucky teenager.

    How was the launch elsewhere? The answer is interesting, because it looks like if you missed the festivities last night there will be more -- as in schwag -- for you today. At TG Daily, Mike Luttrell writes this morning:

    I'm still getting over my hangover from last night's festivities, but as I look over my more than a half dozen free t-shirts, umbrellas, beanie cap, ponchos, Burger King gift cards, Xbox Live Gold yearly membership, and two free Kinect games, I can only imagine how much money was poured into this illustrious event. Instead of taking my press pass and hanging out backstage with free food and drinks, I joined the throws of people waiting to get their hands on Kinect and, more importantly, free goodies. And boy were there a lot of them...

    An event representative told me that Microsoft printed up no fewer than nine thousand t-shirts for the event. The first 3,000 people in line got two free Kinect games with their Kinect purchase. From what I heard, the total number of people didn't even come close to approaching that, so people this morning can assumedly still cash in on that deal.

    Luttrell was lucky enough to catch the Kinect launch in New York City. Now it's your turn to share something. Did you Kinect? Will you Kinect? Why Kinect? Please answer in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/03/MacBook_Air_will_redefine_personal_computing'

    MacBook Air will redefine personal computing

    Publié: novembre 3, 2010, 6:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Numbers define us. Last night's U.S. election redefined government by numbers: 51 -- the number of Democratic seats remaining, and they are enough to retain control of the Senate; 239 -- the projected number of Republican House of Representatives seats, which is more than enough for the party to seize control. Birthday, social security, age, bank account and many other numbers define who we are and how we interact with things and people. This week and probably through much of November, I am defined by three numbers: 32, 64, 128 -- and they will likely impact you over the next couple years.

    Thirty-two is the GB storage capacity of my iPhone 4; 64GB is storage capacity of my iPad; and 128GB is my new 11.6-inch MacBook Air's storage capacity. I received the Air on Monday and started using it yesterday. These three devices share something more than an Apple logo in common. They represent for Apple, and eventually other computer makers, a shift towards consumer electronics-style design, manufacturing and marketing. The iPad and MacBook Air are industry defining and leading products, by the numbers.

    A 'Transition Machine'

    "I think this may be the transition machine from 'computer' to 'device,'" Betanews reader Jim Cooper says about MacBook Air. "Having replaced numerous hard drives, processors, memory, etc. on lots of computers, there is something elegant about not doing that. A 'self contained' device that functions as a computer, not a 'sum of its parts' -- I think this is part of the draw of the iPad. Techies want to tweak; consumers just want it to work."

    Cooper, who is a CIO, should know, and I agree with his assessment. Many Mac pundits have pined about newer MacBook Air models being revolutionary because Apple adopted solid-state storage. There's nothing trend-setting about that. The first netbooks sported SSDs, and Apple uses flash memory in other products. Air is noteworthy for the sum of its parts -- what they do or don't add up to.

    Configuration and customization have long defined the personal computer. I bought my first PC, running Windows 3.1, in January 1994. A friend built the machine from parts; 486, 120 and 4 defined it -- Intel processor, megabytes of hard drive and megabytes of memory, respectively. Two months later, I doubled the RAM to 8MB and upgraded the graphics card to 1MB. I didn't have much upgrade options when choosing MacBook Air, which as Cooper observes "does not look upgradeable without serious modification." That's an understatement, based on iFixit's 11.6-inch MacBook Air teardown. MacBook Air's design is compact and tidy, packing some proprietary components in a package not meant to be touched after manufacturing.

    In configuring my MacBook Air, I had to make certain feature decisions -- and Apple doesn't give many options to choose from -- at time of purchase. Rather than one of the two preconfigured models, I went for the max, which seemingly isn't much compared to other computers. Three numbers define my custom-configured Air: 1.6 (the gigahertz of the Core 2 Duo processor), 4 (the gigabytes of memory) and 128 (the gigabytes of flash storage). I'll live with these numbers for the life of the computer and the consequences should one of the major parts fail. MacBook Air shares much more with consumer electronics devices than PCs. Apple CEO Steve Jobs was right when during last month's "Back to the Mac" media event he said: "We asked ourselves, what would happen if a MacBook and an iPad hooked up? Well, this is the result. We think it's the future of notebooks."

    Consumer Electronics Shift

    The iPad is even more consumer electronics-like than MacBook Air; there are no optional configuration options. Like with most CE devices, buyers make their final features decisions at point of purchase. While applications can extend functionality, the core hardware is locked in place. Gartner and IDC are both on record as asserting that iPad is pulling sales away from netbooks, yesterday, Changewave pined in. "The decline of Netbooks is attributable to a combination of factors including the end of the recession and the mounting penetration of tablet computers -- notably the Apple iPad," writes Paul Carlton, ChangeWave's vice president of research. "Moreover, in a close-up look at tablet demand trends for the holidays our ChangeWave survey finds continuing momentum for the iPad." Oh yeah? Why in a weekend visit to my local Fry's Electronics store did I find 17 netbooks on display?

    I'm not a big fan of the netbook category, which analysts define by various criteria and not all of them simultaneously -- atom processor, size and weight, display and low cost; all measured by numbers. I use different criteria: Netbooks are so-called industry-standard PC makers' first real forays into consumer electronics-style manufacturing. Netbooks are more CE-like than are larger notebooks, based on size, cost, portability and more limited -- but not prohibitive like MacBook Air -- upgradeability.

    Convergence is pushing the other way, too, as traditional CE manufacturers adopt PC or PC-like operating systems, such as Google's Android for TVs and set-top boxes or Microsoft's MediaRoom for IPTV services and supporting set-top boxes. By whichever measure -- more PC-like CE devices or personal computers as more CE-like -- the future is clear: The days of tech tweaking are fast-fading. Netbooks, tablets and smartphones are consumer electronic devices and personal computers. The trend isn't new. But how Apple embraces the model -- increased emphasis on end-to-end design, manufacturing, distribution and user experience -- defies nearly 30 years of Wintel convention.

    End-to-End's Defining Future

    Some long-time computer users won't easily make the transition. In October 26th post "Who is buying MacBook Air?" some Betanews readers answered why or why not. The majority of respondents said they won't buy the Apple portable, with many citing price and system configuration as reason. I must say that the 1.6GHz processor challenged me, too. How could I step down from a laptop running a 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo processor? But after trying out 11.6-inch Air at Apple Store, I put aside these numbers. The laptop was responsive and speedy -- as is the one I started using yesterday. Apple had done something with all that integration to produce a zippy "little engine that could."

    With MacBook Air, Apple shifts priority to other numbers, like dimensions (for smaller Air, 0.3-1.7 cm high, 29.95 cm wide, 19.2 cm deep and 1.06 kg weight), battery life (5 to 7 hours, depending on model) and startup time (basically instant on when lifting up the cover). Then there are other numbers Air owners may not see, such as the speed of the drive controller or read-write time of the flash memory. The approach shows the benefits of offering a complete software and hardware package -- and it's likely to become more Apple proprietary over time. Surely, for example, the next MacBook Air rev, or perhaps the one after, will replace the Intel processor for Apple's A4 chip. It's no coincidence that Research in Motion and HP are producing, respectively, BlackBerry and WebOS tablets using the end-to-end model.

    Quick clarification: Intel and Microsoft may have defined the system building associated with personal computing for nearly three decades, but end-to-end is a longstanding model. IBM built its mainframe monopoly of the last major computer era by offering hardware, software and support services. Same end-to-end approach can be said of Cisco routers or Unix servers from HP and Sun (now absorbed by Oracle).

    In a way, Microsoft is adopting a similar model for its business. Rather than sell separate bits, Microsoft wants corporations -- and even consumers -- to bite into the concept of software as a cloud service. Make no mistake, for all Microsoft's current dependence on its partners to sell and service software, the company is charting a future of direct sales. It's the core strategy behind Azure and online services like Office 365. Businesses buy hosted services from Microsoft, which provides real-time, always-on access and manages the updates. Instead of corporations rolling out the newest business critical software over several years, they get the newest stuff from the hosted Microsoft service without all the management headaches or expense. I'll write more about this topic in the future. Suffice for today, I'll say that end-to-end software services is the sense behind Microsoft extending its Office-Windows-Windows Server apps stack to the cloud datacenter.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/11/01/Most_desired_Windows_Phone_7_smartphones__Samsung_Focus_and_HTC_HD7'

    Most desired Windows Phone 7 smartphones: Samsung Focus and HTC HD7

    Publié: novembre 1, 2010, 7:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    One week from today, the first Windows Phone 7 handsets go on sale in the United States. The international furor is over, but Microsoft's home country remains. The question: "Which Windows Phone 7 smartphone will you buy?" I asked in mid October, and Betanews readers answered in droves. Of course, since we have a global readership some of the respondents may already have purchased their phones. I asked the question before international sales started.

    Microsoft's handset partners are offering nine Windws Phone 7 models this year, with a tenth model coming in early 2011. There are five choices here in the United States. On AT&T: LQ Quantum, HTC Surround and Samsung Focus. On T-Mobile: HTC HD7. The Venue Pro is available from Dell. Other models include the HTC Mozart, HTC 7 Pro, HTC 7 Trophy, LG Optimus 7 and Samsung Omnia. The majority of readers responding by e-mail and in comments choose Focus, although the HD7 is close runner up.

    Windows Phone 7's Focus

    "My first choice is the Samsung Focus," says Joel Brache. "Unless I am mistaken, it appears to be the only phone of the bunch that has a front facing camera. This is very important to me as I believe that the lack of a front-facing camera will be the one feature that will make most of today's smartphones obsolete in 6-9 months. I believe video conferencing is the next 'big thing' for smart phones and that ignoring that feature will make people want to upgrade phones much sooner than expected."

    I should point out that Nokia has shipped front-facing cameras for years. U.S. carriers don't yet fully support video-calls over 3G -- and that's despite all the noise Apple has made about FaceTime calling using iPhone 4's front-facing camera. But who knows about six months from now, as Brache suggests. "I don't understand why there aren't more front-facing cameras," he wonders. "This is a shocker to me."

    A reader who goes by The Blanc Manba is "thinking of the Samsung Focus due to the microSD expansion. I will definitely get the 32GB so that I have a total of 40GB. After all how, I am going to store all my music with the unlimited songs that I have with my zune pass?"

    Samsung FocusSamsung Focus

    Robert Johnson will switch carriers to get a Windows Phone 7 handset: "Samsung Focus for me. I am very encouraged by the OS and its connected services. I am currently on Verizon using the original Moto Droid running Froyo. I will be calling Verizon to figure out how much it will cost to break my contract." Uh-oh, Johnson is an Android switcher -- exactly the kind of customer Microsoft should want to promote in its marketing material.

    The Features That Matter

    "I wish I could get the Dell because it seems to be right size for me (not too big) and has a portrait keyboard," says Romit Mehta. "But I am an AT&T customer and have no reason to switch really. So, Samsung Focus it is. It has a good screen -- a good size -- and the bonus feature was that it will have a place to put microSD and expand the somewhat low initial storage of 8GB. Next option was the HTC Surround. However, I will go to the store and check them out in person before making the final call."

    In typical fashion, Microsoft is touting "choice" as a customer benefit, and this resonates well with Mehta. "I believe it is a good message to send to customers that if you want WP7 you've got a choice of devices." But what is the measure of choice? I don't see enough differentiation among Windows Phone 7 handsets. Microsoft has smartly established a minimum configuration that handset manufacturers must comply to. Unfortunately, OEMs tend to save every penny they can in manufacturing. Minimum is just that, the least they're often willing to do. As such, the nine Windows Phone 7 handsets all seem pretty much alike to me.

    Brache makes similar observation -- not that it deters his purchase enthusiasm. The aforementioned front-facing camera is his top feature. "Since most of the other specs are the same from phone to phone, I have to look at the small details that differentiate one phone from another. These four (or three) features: 4-inch Super AMOLED screen, front-facing camera, and thin form factor without keyboard make the Samsung Focus the number one choice for me." How soon will Brache buy? "As soon as the AT&T store opens on November 8th."

    HTC HD7HTC HD7

    Johnson and Mehta both pine for something missing. "I only wish the [Focus] had DLNA capability," Johnson says. "In the future I hope Microsoft makes this standard since it is standard in Windows 7." Mehta is intrigued by DLNA but not enough to "buy the LG [Quantum] because of the landscape keyboard, but I love the DLNA feature."

    What About the HD7?

    I'm perplexed by all the Focus enthusiasm. Is it because of larger carrier AT&T, I wonder. I have accounts with AT&T and T-Mobile and would choose the HD7. As if in answer, Terry Hamilton comments: "I'm on AT&T but would love to get the HTC HD7; beautiful phone. But since I cannot my next choice would be the Samsung Focus; have had very good experiences with Samsung phones in the past and hopefully this one won't disappoint."

    "I think the HD7 would be my choice but I would love to try the Trophy since I'm a gamer," writes commenter testmenot (Hey, buddy, you should test me not by using a real name). Bijuishere: "HTC HD7 from T-Mobile. The metro UI needs screen real estate and 4.3 inch screen should help with that. If the phone UI does not work for me then I will readily return [it]."

    Down Under, Betanews reader Craig Deubler wants what most Betanews readers responding to the question want: "Why the heck didn't we get the Focus?" He posted before Windows Phone 7 devices went on sale in Australia, having narrowed down the choice to the Mozart and Trophy, "because of price and network." Say, doobiwan, if you bought one these phones, please share with the class. I asked Deubler for an update, and he hasn't bought a phone yet.

    "There's been a huge shortage of phones," he says. Even though they were launched on the 21st [of October], they only started trickling into retail last week, and that was only the Mozart on a single carrier. They're starting to become available more readily now; I had a chance to play with the Trophy yesterday -- nearly bought it, but the sales guy managed to convince me to hold out for the Omnia 7, which should arrive some time later this week...Of all the phones I've played with -- LG Optimus 7Q, Mozart and Trophy -- none are bad. I'd be happy with any of them, which is a testament to setting standards and baselines."

    Jim Prod, who is in Sweden, comments: "Leaning towards the HTC Mozart, but the HD7 is still in the picture -- help me decide."

    I will be doing a follow-up story, maybe two, with reactions from Windows Phone 7 early adopters. If you've got a handset already, well, hell, don't be secret about it. E-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com with your authoritative reaction. Be specific, please. What do you or don't you like about the operating system and the hardware.

    [Editor's Note: Updated with comments from Craig Deubler.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/29/Why_is_Microsoft_suddenly_so_hot_for_HTML5_'

    Why is Microsoft suddenly so hot for HTML5?

    Publié: octobre 29, 2010, 7:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, it's not about customers.

    Microsoft has quite aggressively touted HTML5 during PDC 2010, which wraps up today. It's seemingly inconsistent with Microsoft's revamped cloud strategy, which is very much about taking propriety software to the cloud. How then does Microsoft's platform-independent HTML5 approach reconcile with extending the proprietary Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack into the cloud?

    Microsoft product managers talk about customer benefits, and perhaps some of them truly believe that's the reason for supporting HTML5. But there is a more fundamental reason: Apple. Some readers will cock back their heads and ask: "WTF?" Apple also is a big HTML5 supporter. Maybe, but the two companies have very different reasons, with similar objective: Gaining developer and user momentum for their mobile platforms.

    For Apple, Adobe's Flash is a competitive threat. If Apple allows Flash free reign on the iOS app store, some developers would use Adobe's technology to create applications. Flash already is used to develop Web applications and has a huge developer following. As such, giving a centimeter to Flash would give it a kilometer. Apple doesn't want a competing development platform on iOS. HTML5 is a better choice, allowing Apple to support standards and its own platforms while beating back a potential competitor.

    Suddenly, the context for Apple CEO Steve Jobs' repeated attacks against Flash is clear. I often puzzled about his motives. Last week's announcement that Apple will launch a Macintosh applications store within 90 days makes sense of Jobs' anti-Flash position, which is as much about the computer as the mobile phone. Flash apps are widely available for Macs (and Windows PCs), and Apple's app store will soon enter the competitive space, wooing developers and users. While pundits focused on Flash and mobile as reason for Jobs' anti-Flash rhetoric, he had yet another reason for striking out against Adobe's rich Internet applications toolkit: The Mac. This also makes sense in context of Apple shipping the new MacBook Air without Flash.

    By comparison, Microsoft gains against Apple, not Adobe, by supporting HTML5. The problem: Mobile applications. Effectively, Microsoft has none for Windows Phone 7 -- as measured by a couple thousand against the iOS App Store's 300,000 or even the Android Marketplace's 100,000. Microsoft is starting too far behind the new mobile applications race to catch up, let alone win. Perhaps Microsoft's competitive position would be stronger if Windows Phone 7 could leverage more from Office or Windows.

    Microsoft's best strategy is to change the rules of engagement -- to use David Thinking. In his 2005 book, How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Tactics, political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft explains how seemingly weaker opponents can prevail against stronger ones by changing the rules of engagement. He produces excellent historical data showing that, in wars, when smaller rivals use such tactic they are more likely to win, even against mightier opponents. The Biblical example of David vs. Goliath is good analogy. Rather than fight like Goliath -- and almost certainly lose by dawning armor and sword -- David relied on his own strengths. A slingshot and stone kept him out of Goliath's reach but still on the offensive. I call this approach David Thinking.

    HTML5-support lets Microsoft change the rules of the engagement, by moving the applications battle to the browser and to the cloud rather than to mobile applications. Microsoft's cloud platform is already ahead of Apple's. The strategy is also counterintuitive. Microsoft successfully built its business by popularizing its own proprietary technologies and extending the benefits (and customer and developer lock-in) through integration. There is no obvious Windows Phone 7 (or Internet Explorer 9) integration benefits to supporting cross-platform HTML5. That's OK. The short-term objective is to make mobile applications less important; apps favor Apple's rival software-services-hardware platform.

    The David Thinking approach also explains something that Mary Jo Foley noted earlier today in the post "Microsoft: Our strategy with Silverlight has shifted." If Foley is right, Microsoft has sidelined Silverlight to Windows Phone 7 development, pushing HTML5 for Web applications. That resonates with a broader approach of leveraging Microsoft's existing development tools/platforms to mobile, while more broadly supporting HTML5 for RIAs.

    Last week, Gartner predicted that mobile would be a trillion-dollar industry by 2014. It's a market Microsoft doesn't want to be shut out of. One question remains: Will the mobile Web be about the browser or applications? In April, I explained how Apple and Google are fighting over the future of the mobile Web by focusing more on applications or the browser, respectively. Like Google, Microsoft is betting on the browser -- for short-term strategic advantage -- while also trying to leverage existing applications like Office and newer cloud-based offerings. It's a bold approach worthy of praise, regardless of the competitive outcome.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/29/Apple_pushes_into_global_phone_shipments_top_5'

    Apple pushes into global phone shipments top 5

    Publié: octobre 29, 2010, 5:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple is now No. 4 in global handset shipments -- not smartphones, but all mobiles. The share gains also put Apple ahead of Research in Motion in third-quarter data that IDC released late yesterday (presumably while I covered Microsoft earnings). Apple's ascension pushed Sony Ericsson out of the top 5 for the first time since IDC started tabulating mobile shipments six years ago. The top 5 achievement is huge validation for Apple, which before the June 2007 release of the original iPhone had no presence in the global handset market.

    However, the more significant measure is yet to come, and it might explain comments CEO Steve Jobs made during last week's Apple earnings conference call. Jobs expressed displeasure about how some analyst firms count phones. "Unfortunately there is no solid data on how many Android phones are shipped each quarter," he asserted. "We hope that manufacturers will soon start reporting the number of Android handsets that they ship each quarter. But today that just isn't the case. Gartner reported that around 10 million Android phones were shipped in the June quarter, and we await to see if iPhone or Android was the winner in this most recent quarter."

    Whether or not intended, Jobs' assertion is misdirection. Based on these comments and others made on the conference call, he is dissatisfied with how Gartner tabulates its numbers. IDC measures manufacturer shipments, while Gartner measures actual phone sales. As such, Gartner's figures tend to be much lower than either Apple's or IDC's. By sales reckoning, iPhone might not rank as high, because of the difference between units in inventory and those actually sold.

    Still, No. 4 is no small achievement. Before today's announcement, Apple ranked in the top 3 based on smartphone shipments. Global handsets is a significantly larger category. During third quarter, manufacturers shipped 340.5 million phones, according to IDC. Shipments grew by 14.6 percent year over year. Apple, RIM and Samsung shipments all grew considerably faster than the broader handset market -- 90.5 percent, 45.9 percent and 18.6 percent, respectively. While Apple executives may gloat over passing RIM -- as Jobs did on last week's Apple earnings call -- BlackBerry was no laggard, growing nearly three times as fast as the broader handset market. RIM also shipped a record number of BlackBerries during third quarter. RIM shipped 12.4 million handsets compared to 14.1 million for Apple.

    IDC Q310 phones

    "The entrance of Apple to the top 5 vendor ranking underscores the increased importance of smartphones to the overall market," Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, said in a statement. "The smartphone is becoming the focal point of the personal communications experience. As a result, new market growth will be increasingly generated by smartphones. This year, we are expecting the smartphone sub-market to grow 55 percent year over year."

    Still, IDC's manufacturer shipment data gives an incomplete picture of the broader handset market, and Jobs was right to wonder about those numbers. Competitively, mobile OS shipments will put Apple's iOS in perspective of other mobile operating systems -- Android in particular. There, Apple may find itself the one running behind instead of ahead with respect to RIM.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/28/Microsoft_Q1_2011_by_the_numbers__Beats_consensus_but_not_Apple'

    Microsoft Q1 2011 by the numbers: Beats consensus but not Apple

    Publié: octobre 28, 2010, 10:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Editor's Note: This was a live document from about 4:36 p.m. EDT to 5:50 p.m. Refresh page for updates.]

    Microsoft started fiscal 2011, which first quarter closed on September 30, ahead of analyst consensus. Slower PC shipment growth didn't take the spark out of Windows revenues, and Office 2010 delivered during its first full quarter of license sales. Microsoft announced earnings after the bell, setting a record executives won't be touting: Revenues fell below Apple, by more than $4 billion, yet another sign that the aging Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack is declining in relevance before cloud-connected mobile devices.

    Microsoft revenue rose 25 percent to $16.2 billion, year over year. Operating income: $7.12 billion, up 59 percent. Net income: $5.41 billion, or 62 cents a share. Net income rose by 51 percent and earnings per share by 55 percent year over year. However, Microsoft stated growth rates when counting a $1.47 billion deferral related to Windows 7's launch. Without the deferral, revenue grew by 13 percent, operating income by 20 percent, net income by 16 percent and earnings per share by 19 percent.

    For more than 18 months, Microsoft has provided no guidance to Wall Street analysts, in a move that is highly unusual for so large and so successful a public company. As such, Wall Street analysts had to rely solely on their wits to call the quarter. Average consensus was $15.8 billion revenue and 55 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $15.32 billion to $16.18 billion. So Microsoft topped the Street.

    Fiscal 2011 Challenges

    By comparison, Apple reported $20.34 billion in revenue during the same quarter. However, and not surprisingly, Microsoft's net income beat Apple's net income of $4.3 billion by about $1.1 billion. Microsoft's greater net income isn't surprising, given how much richer margins are for software than hardware. Apple generates most of its sales from hardware (and bundled software and services), while Microsoft largely licenses software.

    In April and June posts, I asserted that with the new revenue stream opened up by iPad Apple revenue could pass Microsoft as early as second calendar quarter. Apple fell short by about $340,000. However, for third calendar quarter Apple easily whizzed past Microsoft, in a gesture that is as much symbolic as financially relevant. Apple has better adapted to the new mobile paradigm than has Microsoft -- and not just with iPhone. In just two quarters, iPad generated nearly $5 billion in new revenue for Apple. Combined, during third calendar quarter, iPad and iPhone accounted for 57 percent of total revenues. Apple is among the companies successfully selling a full stack of integrated hardware, software and services -- an approach Microsoft has taken for Xbox and Zune but not PCs or connected devices, like smartphones and tablets.

    Microsoft's major revenue streams today are pretty much what they were a decade ago: Office and Windows, with Windows Server making successive gains over many quarters. By comparison, in 2000, the Mac was Apple's major revenue stream. Since 2001, Apple came to dominate the markets for music players, digital music sales and mobile applications stores, also wildly succeeding with smartphones and media tablets. Microsoft's challenge, as it embarks into fiscal 2011, will be the successful expansion or extension of its push into cloud services, mobile operating systems, search and supporting services and desktop and mobile gaming. The point: Apple has reinvented its business and profited, while Microsoft has not.

    Q1 2011 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.76 billion, up 66 percent from $2.88 billion a year earlier (13 percent growth when adding deferral).
    • Server & Tools: $3.96 billion, up 12 percent from $3.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $5.126 billion, up 14 percent from $4.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $527 million, up 8 percent from $487 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.8 billion, up 27 percent from $1.4 billion a year earlier.

    Microsoft's most immediate challenge remains mobile, where upstarts like Apple and Google body slammed Windows Mobile into fifth place in global smartphone market share, according to Gartner. One week ago, Gartner forecast that, by 2014, mobility would be a trillion-dollar business. Among handsets, smartphones will play the most important role. For businesses, Gartner predicts that by 2015, IT management will no longer define corporate mobile strategy.

    "Many mobile business systems will exploit contextual cloud services hosted by others," Nick Jones, Gartner distinguished analyst, said in a statement. "It will also be a major commercial battleground with powerful vendors such as Nokia, Google, and Apple striving to own the consumer's context. Context will also be bound up with social relationships and social networks, illustrated today by services such as location-tagged posts to Facebook and Twitter."

    From that perspective, Microsoft's approach to Windows Phone 7, which emphasizes social and business and personal lifestyle contexts, is fresh and forward-looking. Microsoft also is investing heavily in cloud services. Mobile and the cloud are among the major topics being discussed at Microsoft's 2011 developer conference, which convened this morning for two days.

    Q1 2011 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $3.32 billion, up 124 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier (20 percent growth when adding deferral).
    • Server & Tools: $1.63 billion, up 32 percent from $1.24 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.39 billion, up 20 percent from $2.83 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $560 million, up 17 percent from $477 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $382 million, up 47 percent from $260 million a year earlier.

    Segment by Segment Results

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Microsoft revealed that OEM licensing now accounts for 75 percent of revenues, down from the longstanding 80 percent threshold. The 5-percent shift reflects a licensing change Microsoft implemented with Windows Vista and continues with version 7: Businesses must adopt Software Assurance annuity licensing to obtain licenses for Windows Enterprise Edition. The change is hugely significant. Microsoft long ago shifted about 40 percent of Office license revenue to annuity licensing and about 50 percent for Windows Server.

    Software Assurance customers pay upfront for upgrades, in yearly installments, which helps smooth out Microsoft revenues, insulating sales from changing market conditions. When customers buy software on new PCs, Microsoft is more susceptible to slow downs in computer sales. Two weeks ago, Gartner and IDC released calendar third-quarter preliminary PC shipment data that foreshadowed weaker-than-expected Windows license shipments. But Windows licenses rose above slower sales, buoyed in part by annuity license sales.

    IDC put year-over-year global PC shipment growth at about 11 percent, or nearly 3 percent below forecasts. Gartner gave a more tepid growth figure of 7.6 percent, rather than the forecast 12.7 percent. Microsoft projected PC shipment growth to be between 9 percent and 11 percent for third calendar quarter. Still, even with slower PC shipments, Windows OEM licenses sold surprisingly well, up 93 percent -- $1.8 billion -- year over year. Microsoft said that PC shipments to emerging markets grew three times that of emerging markets.

    Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements; annuity revenue grew by 15 percent year over year. Product revenue grew 12 percent, or $343 million, buoyed by Windows Server, SQL Server and Enterprise Client-Access License sales. Because of corporate layoffs, Microsoft has seen customers renewing license contracts at lower levels. However, IT spending is up. Microsoft estimated that server hardware shipments grew in the mid teens, year over year. Azure subscriptions increased 40 percent sequentially; there is no year-over-year comparison.

    Business. Microsoft's other cash cow division reversed several quarters of year-over-year declines, buoyed by Office 2010's release. Consumer sales also reversed a weak sales trend, with revenue growing 26 percent, or $216 million, on strength of Office 2010. More broadly, the division's revenue grew 14 percent.

    Online Services Business. The division's loss lessed, buoyed by ad sales increases. Online advertising revenue rose 13 percent, or by $55 million, to $473 million. However, cost of revenue increased by $74 million, largely related to Microsoft's agreement to provide Yahoo with search services.

    Entertainment & Devices. Microsoft shipped 2.8 million Xbox consoles during the quarter, up 38 percent, from 2.1 million a year earlier. Halo Reach generated $350 million revenue.

    {Editor's Note: Correction to Online Services net income.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/27/Is_MacBook_Air_a_netbook_killer_'

    Is MacBook Air a netbook killer?

    Publié: octobre 27, 2010, 7:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The answer to the question may be a question: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a goose?

    By analysts' criteria, the 11.6-inch MacBook Air is no netbook. Strange then that many Betanews readers regard Air to be a netbook -- and an overpriced one at that. But even if Air is classified as something else, it could easily suck away netbook sales, as analysts contend iPad has done. MacBook Air being a netbook or not is really independent of its impact on netbook sales. That said, in researching this story, I found that many readers (and real consumers) don't separate the two concepts. I wonder if they really need to.

    Last week, I asked "Will you buy MacBook Air?" and yesterday posted Betanews reader responses. Among the commenters to the stories, Douglas Utley says he has "no use for a thousand dollar netbook." Alan Clapsaddle: "No not buying, this is an expensive netbook." An e-mail responder, who asked not to be identified (I'll refer to him as Frank Payne): "It's basically an overpriced netbook, and I already have one."

    These three short responses say much about how potential buyers might classify MacBook Air: Benefits -- what will the computer do for me? Benefits that Air shares with smaller notebooks include size, weight, portability and battery life but not price. A low price tag is another benefit often associated with netbooks, and one these readers apparently don't see the 11.6-inch MacBook Air as sharing. Netbooks also tend to pack underpowered processors compared to larger notebooks or desktops and they are typically considered -- but not necessarily used solely as -- adjuncts to faster PCs rather than their replacements.

    What Is a Netbook?

    This morning I asked Bob O`Donnell, IDC's vice president of Clients and Displays, about netbook classifications. "The short answer is no, we don't consider the MBA a mininotebook/netbook -- it's an ultraportable notebook. Our mininotebook/netbook definition calls for an Atom or other low capability CPU." But what is an ultraportable? Sony's VAIO X Series portable is even lighter than the smaller MacBook Air. VAIO X dimensions: 0.14 cm high, 27.8 cm wide, 18.5 cm deep and 780g (1.6 pounds) weight. The 11.6-inch MacBook Air dimensions: 0.3-1.7 cm high, 29.95 cm wide, 19.2 cm deep and 1.06 kg (2.3 pounds) weight. The VAIO X uses an Atom processor, so does that make it a netbook then?

    If price is a major measure -- and it is based on several years discussion at Betanews and other tech sites -- the answer is likely no. VAIO X sells for even more than MacBook Air. Also, Sony shipped small ultraportable models with 11-inch displays long before there was a netbook classification. That said, I see the lower-gigahertz Core 2 Duo processors shipping on 11.6-inch MacBook Air to be much closer to Atoms than faster chips like the Core i3 or i5.

    This morning, I tweeted: "Today's Q for the Twitter intelligentsia: What is a netbook? Meaning, by what criteria do you classify a portable PC a netbook?" I got just a few responses, but they mostly divided the line at screen size. Steve McMex: "Around 10-inch screen, hard keyboard, lightweight, thin and not made for heavy processing." Andrea Smith: "To me it's a smaller screen, under 10-inches, and no optical drive."

    If Not for Price

    Based on Betanews reader responses by e-mail and story comments and ongoing discussions at other Websites, I believe that many potential netbook buyers will also consider 11.6-inch MacBook Air; major benefits are similar. However, price will prove to be a barrier for many people weighing benefits against low-cost netbooks.

    "I do not regard the smaller Macbook Air as a notebook killer -- but not because of any technical point," says Betanews reader Richard Windmann. "If you are calling a form factor of 10-11-inches a netbook, then the MBA is the best netbook ever created." However, Windmann's son will be carrying a Samsung netbook and not Air when he leaves for the Navy next week. Why, because Air is simply too nice. "I don't want him scratching it up, losing it, etc.," Windmann says.

    "The biggest reason the MBA will not be a netbook killer is simply price-point," Windmann asserts. "Aside from us geeks, there are people in the world, a lot of them, that will go '$269 or $999, hmmmm, $269!' It's a rough economy, things are tight...a cool $1,000 is a hard nut for people just managing to afford, and people just managing to get by just so happen to be most people. The MBA is not a netbook killer or competitor."

    Betanews reader Jim Cooper agrees. "I don't see the 11.6-inch MBA as a netbook killer. However, I do see many people replacing their netbooks (and travel notebooks) with one. It is just too expensive at $999, when you can get a $299 netbook for web/chat/Facebook, etc."

    Cooper, who is a CIO, believes that like iPad, Macbook Air will open a "new market." He adds: "I do foresee all the executives currently carrying an iPad to be purchasing a 11-inch MBA as a sidekick. IT executives who are not prepared for Macs in the enterprise will not like this development at all. Watch for it."

    Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, is one of the best retail analysts on the planet, because he tends to apply common sense to data -- a surprisingly rare talent. MacBook Air is "not a netbook killer but a netbook competitor," he says. "One problem is price. At $999, it costs too much compared to a netbook. But I agree that the 11.6-inch form factor is great. I have a gateway 11.6-inch, and I like it a lot."

    Competing Against What?

    The 11.6-inch portable segment is one where IDC's O`Donnell sees MacBook Air competing. "Given that the MBA is about 3-4x higher-priced than 'true' mininotes, I really don't see it impacting these devices. It does impact the ultraportable market, but to be honest, that's a small category -- especially for consumers."

    It's a small but growing category, and Microsoft is one of the drivers. A year ago, with the launch of Windows 7, Microsoft started pushing businesses, consumers and PC manufacturers to adopt thin-and-light notebooks over netbooks -- and for good reasons. The company generates more per-license revenue selling "premium" Windows 7 versions than Starter Edition, which is more typically installed on netbooks. The ultraportable category, which increasingly is defined by 11.6-inch models, also has expanded since Intel's release of Core i3 and i5 ULV processors; these chips are rapidly becoming the standard processor for 11.6-inch portables.

    Apple isn't offering more modern Core i Series processors but older Core 2 Duo chips on MacBook Air. Many readers answering the "will you buy" question, cited Core 2 Duo as reason not to buy MacBook Air. But one Betanews reader, who goes by Chopingman, offers surprising satisfaction with a recently-purchased 11.6-inch MacBook Air. The computer is for his wife. Chopingman used Apple's Bootcamp to scrap Mac OS X and to load Windows 7 Enterprise 64-bit Edition, and later Office 2010. "Using the Bootcamp drivers the thing has a Windows Experience Index of 4.2! This blows the crap out of the Atom netbook that is in the low 3's. The SSD makes the 1.4 gig Core 2 very snappy." I'd say that WEI number would be pretty good for many lower-cost, bulkier laptops, too.

    Chopingman's 11.6-inch MacBook Air buying advice:

    • If you are the kind of person that must make every penny count, this is not for you.
    • If you are the kind of person that can only have one computer, this is not for you.
    • If you want to rip your entire DVD and CD collection, this is not for you.
    • If you want to play (insert your favorite PC game here), this is not for you.
    • If you want to move effortlessly through an airport, pull some pictures or video off your camera [or] run mainstream business software, this definitely is for you!

    How strange. I would say the same about most netbooks.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/26/Who_is_buying_MacBook_Air_'

    Who is buying MacBook Air?

    Publié: octobre 26, 2010, 7:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple had better not do its market research at Betanews, and executives should hope that you, our readers, aren't the measure of interest in MacBook Air. In response to last week's question "Will you buy MacBook Air," the majority responded "No." However, as usual, there was a marked difference between those folks commenting to the story and readers responding by e-mail. A slightly greater number of e-mail respondents say they will buy one of Apple's two thin-and-light models.

    Apple unveiled new MacBook Airs -- in new 11.6-inch and updated 13.3-inch display sizes -- during an October 20 media event dubbed "Back to the Mac." Standard configs for the 11.6-inch model sell for $999 and $1,999 and $1,299 and $1,599 for the 13.3-inch Air. Many respondents used the more typical speeds-and-feeds measure to evaluate the, ah, Air quality. Nicholas Gerstenberger expressed sentiments shared by many other Betanews commenters responding in comments: "Old CPU tech, 64GB max drive (even if it is SSD) and a $999 price tag place way over a fully optioned laptop with optical drive 500GB 7200 rpm hard drive and loads of RAM. Sorry I'll pass."

    By What Measure Performance?

    Both MacBook Air models pack aging Intel Core 2 Duo processors -- ranging from 1.2GHz to 1.86GHz in standard configurations. Apple swapped out hard drives for sold-state storage, which some Betanews readers observe are puny. Apple offers 64GB or 128GB storage on the smaller Airs and 128GB or 256GB on the 13.3-inch models.

    Speeds-and-feeds is one way of measuring a computer's worth, and it's most certainly the method PC manufacturers and retailers push. But should speed be measured by the processor or by the storage disk? Richard Windmann, who has a computer sciences PhD, answers by e-mail: "The legacy processor will be fine for these laptops. The bottlenecks in these devices always have, and probably will remain to be, the non-volitale storage and bus capacity/speed."

    I was shocked just how fast the 11.6-inch Air feels. I've been to my local Apple Store a couple times to play around with both models. I went in with absolutely no interest in the smaller MacBook Air. Like many Betanews readers answering the question, I dismissed the 11.6-incher because of the older, slower processors. But experience changed my perspective. Windmann makes a very good point.

    So will he buy MacBook Air? "My work is done on a Macbook Pro 15-inch, 640 gig drive, 8 gigs of RAM. So will I buy one of them for me? No. But I will buy two this Christmas -- one for my daughter and one for my wife. If they make a 15-inch Air with at least 8 gigs of RAM and 512 Gig SSD for under $2000, I will buy one."

    iMac G5 with iSight Syndrome

    My problem with the specs is different from most readers responding to the question. I call it the "iMac G5 with iSight syndrome." In October 2005, Apple released the first iMac with built-in WebCam. I bought one of these computers, which my mom now uses (she gave up Windows after wrongly being accused of software piracy). In January 2006, Apple announced Intel-based iMacs about a half-year early, making obsolete the three-month old iMac G5 with iSight. Apple switched chip architectures. My mom's iMac can't run the newest Mac OS X version because PowerPC processors aren't supported.

    I strongly expect to see a similar scenario unfold with MacBook Air and, hopefully, not as soon as January 2011. I believe that a chip architecture change is coming as soon as the next release cycle, with Apple switching to its own A4 chips. All the reader complaints miss something: Apple clearly chose Intel Core 2 Duo processors for a reason. None of the current crop of mobile Intel processors met Apple's design criteria. Wired's "Why Apple Saddled the MacBook Air with Weak CPUs" is an excellent primer for the reasons. Big one: Apple made graphics processing priority over CPU. Read the Wired story for the details.

    Apple's challenge will be getting people to see past the processor and looking at other features -- size, weight, portability, full-size keyboard, speedy storage and robust graphics, among others -- as buying measures. If I hadn't experienced the new Airs, I would more likely share most Betanews readers' sentiments. Like many other commenters, Tenoq Xentuli sees the Air as offering too little value for $999 (or more depending on configuration): "I'd love to own one, but I wouldn't pay the asking price."

    Nathan Key would take an Air for free: "These new models are pretty damn thin, which is awesome but the prices for 6 month old hardware are just ridiculous. I don't think I'd get one. If someone were to give me one then that would be a different story."

    "I'd be happy to buy one if it was sold for what it's actually worth -- about $400," says Keith Watt. "As usual, Apple overcharges and the people lap it up." I must disagree with Watt. One analyst's estimate puts the low-end MacBook Air's product cost at $718.

    Ken Fose has no doubts: "Absolutely not, never, no way." But like many commenters, he gives no clear reasons why not Air.

    Seeing Past the CPUs

    Other Betanews readers see value in MacBook Air. "I have already purchased an 11-inch MBA (4GB RAM, 128GB HDD)," Jim Cooper explains in e-mail. Like me, Cooper owned the first MacBook Air -- Rev. A -- and experienced two hard drive crashes. "After the last crash, I refused to buy another Mac. Until now." Cooper, who is a chief information officer, views the 11.6-inch model as being like a netbook. "I currently carry an ASUS netbook with me, and hope to replace that with the 11-inch MBA," he explains. Among his reasons for buying:

    1. I agree with the shift to Flash drives. I have had great experiences with iPods (three -- all still working) and iPhones (two, both still working). No reason to suspect these drives will behave differently.

    2. There seems to be no significant 'price premium' for the flash memory vs. the previous generation Macs. Try pricing out a MacBook Pro with SSD....$1,549 is the cheapest you can get.

    3. 11-inch form factor. Expensive for a 'netbook', but it does what I need -- and for travel, you can't beat the size, weight and durability.

    4. I think this may be the transition machine from 'computer' to 'device.' Having replaced numerous hard-drives, processors, memory, etc. on lots of computers, there is something elegant about not doing that. A 'self contained' device that functions as a computer, not a 'sum of its parts' -- I think this is the part of the draw of the iPad. Techies want to tweak; consumers just want it to work.

    5. Two USB ports.

    6. 5-hour battery (seven on the 13-inch MBA).

    7. Instant ON.

    8. Already have the accessories I need from the Rev. A MBA (ethernet, SuperDrive, video out, etc...).

    Is iPad Better Choice?

    "If I were in the market to replace my present MacBook, I would definitely go with the smaller, lighter Air," Lou Miller writes by e-mail. "I was given an iPad for retirement, and it doesn't have a good keyboard or the type of word processing I need. The Air looks like I could use it like any other computer, but it would be lighter. Being an amateur, I don't know the innards well, but I think the big revolution is leaving hard drives behind. Mine is subject to bangs, my wife dropped hers and had to get a new computer. The little Air seems familiar, sturdy, light, adequate [and] cheap."

    Miller wasn't the only reader to bring up iPad. The question: Is iPad enough, particularly for people who already own one? "While the iPad satisfies the 'highly-portable, instant-on, and always connected requirement, it meets very few, if any, of the other needs," Alex Peltzer explains by e-mail. "Word documents are still impossible to do any serious work on through the iPad, and presentations from the iPad are not there. File access is possible, but not easy, and the same goes for printing. Serious note taking is only possible with a bluetooth keyboard, which ruins the 'portability' aspect."

    Peltzer is considering buying the 13.3-inch MacBook Air, "not because it is 100 percent of what I need, but because it's the nearest approximation." Air's "instant-on" capabilities appeal to him, but something is missing: "The one problem is the 'always connected' feature. An iPad is not only instantly available to pull things off the internet on command, it has a built in 3G modem that works in the background, when the device is 'off,' none of which is possible even on the new Mac Book Airs."

    Mark Spanner shares similar sentiments: "If the new MacBook Air had 3G, I would have purchased it yesterday, but without, it is a no-buy for me."

    What about you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/26/Frak_Firesheep__The_whole_Internet_needs_to_run_on_SSL____NOW'

    Frak Firesheep: The whole Internet needs to run on SSL -- NOW

    Publié: octobre 26, 2010, 2:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I used to like cookies. Oatmeal raisin. Chocolate chip. Oreos, if dipped in frosty milk. No longer. I hate cookies, thanks to all the privacy-snooping bits left on my computer -- whether or not I want these crumbs. Today, I've got another reason to hate cookies and to demand that all the frakers sending information in the clear over the Internet cease and desist: Firesheep.

    What? You haven't heard about the new Firefox plug-in that lets anyone as capable as four year-olds to snatch your log-in information out of thin air? Well, hell, put down your damn Starbucks cup and disconnect from the open WiFi network (after reading this post, of course)! This plug-in, which quietly released yesterday, is literally hacking for idiots. If you're smart enough to install a Firefox plug-in, you, too, can snatch credentials from backwater, unsecured services -- like Facebook.

    Firesheep developer Eric Butler explained just how easy the plug-in is to use: "After installing the extension you'll see a new sidebar. Connect to any busy open wifi network and click the big 'Start Capturing' button. Then wait. As soon as anyone on the network visits an insecure website known to Firesheep, their name and photo will be displayed...Double-click on someone, and you're instantly logged in as them."

    Ah hum. No more cheap coffee and free WiFi at the Internet cafe for me. "One word: Wow," Evelyn Rusli writes for TechCrunch. Rusli is freaking out, too. "It's not hard to comprehend the far-reaching ramifications of this tool. Anytime you're using an open Wi-Fi connection, anyone can swiftly access some of your most private, personal information and correspondence (i.e. direct messages, Facebook mail/chat) -- at the click of a button. And you will have no idea."

    The problem is this: Most -- not many, seriously most -- Websites using or requiring log-in information send it in the clear over HTTP. Encrypted communications require continuous HTTPS. Apple and Google have it for their Web-based mail services. Some sites that might appear secure probably aren't. When logging into the Wall Street Journal Online, I briefly see flashing HTTPS. But the session is otherwise HTTP.

    Butler created Firesheep, so I'll let him explain: "When an attacker gets a hold of a user's cookie, allowing them to do anything the user can do on a particular Website. On an open wireless network, cookies are basically shouted through the air, making these attacks extremely easy."

    Emphasis: Open. If your home WiFi network requires a password then your information is encrypted over the air. But sophisticated hackers can bypass some wireless security. HTTPS adds another layer of security for your secure network and provides one on open networks where there is otherwise none. In the case of an HTTP session, even where the log-in is encrypted, the cookie sent back to the computer can be in the clear or repeatedly reaccessed in the clear. Unless the site is HTTPS for the entire session, cookies can expose session log-ins.

    Giving Guns to Kids

    The plug-in is abominable but not the problem. No commercial Website, particularly those demanding log-in credentials, should send anything in the clear. On that I agree with Butler, who writes: "Websites have a responsibility to protect the people who depend on their services. They've been ignoring this responsibility for too long, and it's time for everyone to demand a more secure web. My hope is that Firesheep will help the users win."

    That's a nice sentiment, but does Butler have to make the point by giving loaded guns to kids? This plug-in can turn just about anybody into a hacker. Just point and click --- and you're dead. Oh, I can just imagine the hacked Facebook sites tomorrow as teens ride other kids' cookies to making fake Wall posts and doing much worse.

    I see two problems: Major services being too cheap or too lazy to buy SSL certificates and overuse -- I say abuse -- of cookies. For SSLs, Facebook's official response (given to TechCrunch) is indicative of the problem: "We have been making progress testing SSL access to Facebook and hope to provide it as an option in the coming months. As always, we advise people to use caution when sending or receiving information over unsecured WiFi networks." Yeah, so much for security being a priority.

    Regarding cookies, Wall Street Journal is running a fantastic, investigative "What They Know" series into online security. It's helluva great reporting. Ninth story in the series posted overnight. Contrary to popular convention that tracking services can't or won't identify people using cookies, reporter Emily Steel found a major service that does just that. I also recommend "Sites Feed Personal Details To New Tracking Industry," "The Web's New Gold Mine: Your Secrets" and "On the Web's Cutting Edge, Anonymity in Name Only." All four stories report, at least somewhere, how these frakers use cookies to pilfer personal information.

    Who can escape cookies? I pay for Wall Street Journal Online, which is one of the worst cookie poopers I've observed. If I don't accept cookies, I can't access WSJ content. Worse, some services require that the browser accept cookies from third-party domains to work. What the frak?

    As bad as cookies are, you know what really pisses me off? When, after setting up a new account at some Web service, I receive confirmation e-mail containing my password. In the clear. WTH?

    Fix It: Encrypt It

    It's time for serious changes:

    1. Major Web services should immediately turn on SSL and provide continuous HTTPS sessions. Google set a great example by doing this with Gmail. Voluntary action should become mandatory, with regulators the world over making rules, if industry doesn't change its behavior.

    2. Cookies should be abandoned (outlawed would be better), not that I believe free Web marketers will allow this to happen.

    3. There should be a single, standard secure sign-on mechanism built into browsers and other Net connecting software -- no cookies required.

    4. It should be (if it's not already) a crime for someone to release a hacking tool that is the equivalent of giving loaded guns to kids. I assert that Butler acted irresponsibly by releasing Firesheep into the wild.

    Bottom line: If nothing else changes, the whole Internet needs to run on SSL. Now. It's a drastic approach because of costs involved. If you have a better idea, please share it in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/25/Ray_Ozzie_falls_from_grace_but_not_the_cloud'

    Ray Ozzie falls from grace but not the cloud

    Publié: octobre 25, 2010, 7:51pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's former Chief Software Architect is blogging again -- after nearly five years' absence. Ray Ozzie has posted a disturbing memo, "Dawn of a New Day," sent to Microsoft "executive staff and direct reports." Eh, I thought Ozzie no longer had direct reports. The memo cheers Microsoft's services strategy extending Office and Windows to the cloud. Early sections of Ozzie's missive reads more like a press release for the past -- dawn of the old day -- and bears little resemblance to the interoperable, operating system in the clouds pitch that he made for years -- at least until PDC 2009. That said, he also issues a warning about a post-PC era Microsoft executives shouldn't ignore. Seeing as Ozzie was ignored before, what hope is there that they'll listen now? As I asserted 10 days ago, "It's a shame about Ray Ozzie."

    The memo's timing is most certainly not coincidental. October 18th news about Ozzie's demotion and imminent departure came the day before Microsoft announced Office 365, essentially a forthcoming extension of the existing cloud-based productivity suite strategy. Office 365 represents a cloud services strategy many steps removed from the one Ozzie originally articulated for Microsoft. Ozzie represented a different vision. Microsoft dispatched the visionary before asserting an extension to the Office-Windows-Windows applications stack, rather than fully embracing the cloud-connected -- anytime, anywhere and on anything -- strategy he long advocated. Ozzie's memo comes just days before Microsoft convenes PDC 2010, on October 28th. In the strangest of coincidences -- or not if Ozzie is trying to make another point -- the memo is dated the 28th. There is no date stamp on the blog post, but it looks like an October 25th posting. His last gargantuan memo was Oct. 28, 2005, so timing has two points of significance -- the five-year anniversary and his last word before the next Microsoft developer conference.

    Seeing Shapes in the Cloud

    What does that last word represent? I can only speculate, not having communicated with Ozzie about the matter. Perhaps he is being the good company man, in part siding with Microsoft's actuated strategy. Perhaps he is being compelled to support the position, as condition of severance (e.g., don't break rank). Perhaps he has truly changed his position about what is the correct strategy for Microsoft to reach the cloud. Perhaps he is living in denial about vision versus reality. Perhaps he is trying to assert his importance and relevance as a visionary by authoring a 3,400-word exit memo. More likely, the reasons are a mixture of some or all these speculations.

    Clearly, the early memo sides with the current cloud strategy. As I explained in the "shame about Ray" post, there was an internal struggle at Microsoft for years between the Office-Windows-Windows Server hawks and the open-thinking/cloud services doves. The hawks killed the doves, something I clearly and, quite unexpectedly, came to realize after Ozzie's PDC 2009 speech detailing Azure deliverables strayed so far from the vision articulated over the previous two years, most notably during PDC 2008.

    Some rah, rah, Microsoft-is-the-greatest-most-visionary-cloud-company-on-planet-earth snippets:

    We're truly all in with regard to services. I'm incredibly proud of the people and the work that has been done across the company, and of the way that we've turned this services transformation into opportunities that will pay off for years to come.

    In the realm of the service-centric 'seamless OS' we're well on the path to having Windows Live serve as an optional yet natural services complement to the Windows and Office software. In the realm of 'seamless productivity', Office 365 and our 2010 Office, SharePoint and Live deliverables have shifted Office from being PC-centric toward now also robustly spanning the web and mobile. In 'seamless entertainment', Xbox Live has transformed Xbox into a real-time, social, media-rich TV experience.

    Someone pinch me and explain exactly where in Ozzie's pre-PDC 2009 musings did he talk about Windows Live as having such a central services role and being the "service-centric seamless OS" for the cloud? Windows Live had a lesser role, which clearly has changed since the division was sucked into the Windows group (now called Windows and Windows Live). More from Ozzie:

    Our products are now more relevant than ever. Bing has blossomed and its advertising, social, metadata & real-time analytics capabilities are growing to power every one of our myriad services offerings. Over the years the Windows client expanded its relevance even with the rise of low-cost netbooks. Office expanded its relevance even with a shift toward open data formats & web-based productivity. Our server assets have had greater relevance even with a marked shift toward virtualization & cloud computing.

    It's interesting how Ozzie uses relevance with respect to Microsoft products. For years, I've argued -- and most certainly not by myself -- that cloud-connected devices are shifting computing and informational relevance away from PCs.

    Of all the statements that most disheartened me in the memo:

    Quite important to me, I'm also quite proud of the degree to which we've continued to grow and mature in the area of responsible competition, and the breadth and depth of our cultural shift toward genuine openness, interoperability and privacy which are now such key cornerstones of everything we do.

    I disagree. Microsoft largely muted talk about openness and interoperability from PDC 2009. Ozzie could claim to be "quite proud" should openness and interoperability be major themes of PDC 2010. Based on the current agenda, the focus will be very much about building for Microsoft platforms -- granted, with Azure being one of them -- not openness or interoperability.

    Gazing the Skies Ahead

    After delivering mountains of Microsoft praise and back-slapping self-congratulations, Ozzie demonstrates that he hasn't yet abdicated role of the visionary -- even if he states some of the obvious (as it is today but not as it was five years ago). In praising the PC's success -- and 25th anniversary of Windows 1.0 -- he acknowledges: "It's difficult for many of us to even imagine that this could ever change." But change it will, as Ozzie rightly asserts. In a seering indictment of the PC software model, Ozzie declares that:

    Complexity kills. Complexity sucks the life out of users, developers and IT. Complexity makes products difficult to plan, build, test and use. Complexity introduces security challenges. Complexity causes administrator frustration...so long as customer or competitive requirements drive teams to build layers of new function on top of a complex core, ultimately a limit will be reached. Fragility can grow to constrain agility. Some deep architectural strengths can become irrelevant -- or worse, can become hindrances.

    He's absolutely right. In a private presentation to Microsoft managers in 2005, I explained part of so-called Web 2.0's appeal to consumers and developers: Simplicity. In part because of constraints imposed by the Web browser, online user interfaces tend to be simpler by comparison, with functional complexity being shifted to the back-end server/data center. I referred to Web 2.0 in relation to the PC.

    This axiom applies even more so to cloud-connected devices, particularly sophisticated dumb phones and robust smartphones. Applications tend to be smaller and lighter-weight than their desktop counterparts but plenty functional. For the desktop, developers like Microsoft might make one big app like Office do more through iteration; on the smartphone, apps are more functionally specific. Mobile apps tend to provide singular, specific functions -- something users clearly don't mind given Apple's and, increasingly, Android Marketplace's success offering mobile applications.

    Ozzie rightly sees a post-PC world on the horizon, and offers warning to Microsoft executives and direct reports. Perhaps this warning could only be received after Ozzie delivered all the aforementioned praise. He writes:

    It's important that all of us do precisely what our competitors and customers will ultimately do: close our eyes and form a realistic picture of what a post-PC world might actually look like, if it were to ever truly occur. How would customers accomplish the kinds of things they do today? In what ways would it be better? In what ways would it be worse, or just different? Those who can envision a plausible future that's brighter than today will earn the opportunity to lead.

    Ozzie then goes on to explain how the change might occur. He rightly discusses "continuous services" reaching "connected devices." Others have articulated similar vision better and sooner, but it's important coming from the exiting Ozzie to the Microsoft faithful. The timing is crucial to Microsoft preparing for a developer conference where Ozzie will be a figure but not a presence.

    Yesterday, at Motely Fool, Tim Beyers asked "What is Microsoft?" It's a good question to ponder with Ozzie leaving and PDC 2010 coming in just a few days. Beyers presents a compelling by-the-numbers look at Microsoft divisions, which he casts in context of Ozzie's departure. He warns of what it means for Microsoft to lose someone so well respected and puts in context of laying off Don Dodge, who went on to work for Google. Beyers writes:

    You know who else is widely respected among developers? Ray Ozzie...If, like Dodge, Ozzie joins Google, Apple, or another of Microsoft's rivals to help create cloud computing's next great killer app, it would clarify just how out of touch with developers the company has become.

    I agree with Ozzie's importance, but given how rah-rah Microsoft is his memo, I wonder about him immediately landing at a competitor. If anything, Ozzie has shown great loyalty by praising an internally competing cloud services strategy -- and even greater tact politely warning Microsofties about the future.

    I see it like this: In Dante's "Inferno," Lucifer is cast down to earth, where he chooses to rule rather than serve in heaven. Strangely, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer as God and COO Kevin Turner as faithful archangel have cast themselves down to earth, clinging to the aging Office-Windows-Server applications stack. It is Ozzie who remains in heaven -- the clouds above -- from which vantage he sees what's coming on the horizon.

    I fault Ozzie for so supportingly praising the old day Microsoft's aging applications stack represents. But he shows wisdom by proclaiming the new dawn. Good luck to him wherever the wind blows his clouds.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/21/Will_you_buy_MacBook_Air_'

    Will you buy MacBook Air?

    Publié: octobre 21, 2010, 6:22pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    MacBook Airs

    It's the question I'm asking myself, so I'll ask it of you. Will you buy one of Apple's two thin-and-light laptops, either the 11.6-inch or 13.3-inch MacBook Air? Apple announced the new computers yesterday. As usual, please respond in comments, or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com. Please don't just answer yes or no, but offer reasons why or why not you would buy either of Apple's sleek, thin-and-light laptops.

    (For those readers wondering about answers to the question "Which Windows Phone 7 smartphone will you buy?" I'll post today or tomorrow. I waited for international sales to start and for the first reviews to come out (both yesterday). I'm on Microsoft's "frak you" short list, so there are no review units here.)

    I'm asking the "will buy" question as a previous MacBook Air owner. For thinness, lightness, beautiful display and striking beauty, the original Air hugely appealed to me. But I found the Rev. A model to be slow performing under normal conditions and abysmal during San Diego heat (the laptop throttles back to keep cool when the environment is hot). Additionally, I found the hard drive to be too small and one USB port hugely deficient.

    More problematic: Hard drive failed not once but twice. First failure occurred after two months, a problem my local Apple Store remedied by -- get this, for unbelievable customer service -- swapping out for a new MacBook Air. That was June 2008. My nearly 89 year-old father-in-law now uses the laptop, which hard drive failed about a month ago. I bought a 64GB SSD replacement, which a local Mac dealer installed for me. I reinstalled the software. By the way, performance noticeably improved after going SSD. Based on my number of MacBook Air Rev. A hard drive failures -- that's two for two -- I'd say Apple's decision to go solid state is wise. I also now have some experience with SSD, which greatly improves Rev. A's performance and startup/resume time.

    Apples to Apples

    Yesterday, Instapaper creator and Tumblr developer Marco Arment posted an excellent MacBook Air buying primer, which I recommend to anyone considering buying either model. For sure, the cheaper 11.6-inch Air, at $999, will appeal to many people. Suddenly, a beautiful Mac can be yours for one-thousand bucks -- instead of the white-ass MacBook, which is fat by any comparison. Entry-model Air specs: 1.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3MB L2 cache, 11.6-inch LED display with 1366 by 768 native resolution, 800MHz frontside bus, 2GB DDR3 memory, 64GB flash storage, nVidia GeForce 320M graphics with 256MB shared memory, 2 USB ports, WebCam, WiFi N, Bluetooth 2.1, Mac OS X 10.6 and iLife `11. Dimensions are 0.3-1.7 cm high, 29.95 cm wide, 19.2 cm deep and 1.06 kg (2.3 pounds) weight. There is no optical drive; it's an optional $79 accessory. The $1,199 model bumps the processor to 1.6GHz and flash storage to 128GB. Memory can be doubled on either model for $100 -- something I strongly recommend, since there really isn't a viable upgrade option after purchase. Claimed battery life is 5 hours.

    I wouldn't buy the $999 model because I have an iPad with 64GB storage. The iPad weighs less -- 680 grams (1.5 pounds) -- has a more appealing tablet form factor, touch interface and, until early next year when App Store comes to Mac OS Snow Leopard, more applications to choose from among. Next month, Apple will issue an iOS update adding multitasking, boosting iPad's appeal. From a size and performance perspective, iPad is good enough for me. What about you? Would you buy the 11.6-inch MacBook Air?

    The larger, costlier model starts at $1,299. Specs: 1.6GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB L2 cache, 13.3-inch LED display with 1440 by 900 native resolution, 1,066MHz frontside bus, 2GB DDR3 memory, 128GB flash storage, nVidia GeForce 320M graphics with 256MB shared memory, 2 USB ports, SD card slot, WebCam, WiFi N, Bluetooth 2.1, Mac OS X 10.6 and iLife `11. Dimensions are 0.3-1.7 cm high, 32.5 cm wide, 22.7 cm deep and 1.32 kg (2.9 pounds) weight. There is no optical drive; it's an optional $79 accessory. The $1,599 model bumps the processor to 1.8GHz and flash storage to 256GB. Memory can be doubled on either model for $100, and the are more upgrade options, such as 2.13GHz processor -- $100 on the costliest Air. Claimed battery life is 7 hours.

    The 13.3-inch Air appeals to me because of the higher-resolution display; two USB ports means I can attach an external hard drive for my 80GB music library and to store photos and videos. I find the 1440 x 900 resolution really compelling, but I'm concerned the 13.3-inch model wouldn't deliver enough performance for photo and video editing. That said, I woud consider the $1,599 Air -- with memory and processor upgrades raising price to $1,799 -- but it's out of my budget. Hey, I just freelance here. I'm not an employee. There's no limited-time review unit option, either. If I'm on Microsoft's "frak you" short list, I rank near the the top of Apple's even shorter "frak you and go to hell" list. I won't likely be getting the larger model, either. What about you? Would you buy the 13.3-inch MacBook Air?

    Apples to Oranges

    Buying considerations shouldn't just be comparing Apples to Apples but apples to oranges, too. Sony's $1,299.99 VAIO X comes with 2GHz Intel Atom processor with 512KB L2 cache, 11.1-inch LED display with 1366 x 768 native resolution, 533MHz frontside bus, 2GB DDR2 memory, 64GB SSD, Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 500, 2 USB slots, SD/Memory Stick slot, WebCam, WiFi N, Verizon Wireless mobile broadband, GPS and Windows 7 Home Premium 32-bit. Dimensions: 0.14 cm high, 27.8 cm wide, 18.5 cm deep and 780g (1.6 pounds) weight. Claimed battery life: 3 hours. From a hardware-to-hardware performance comparison, the entry-level MacBook Air looks to be a better bargain for $300 less or even the same price. The $1,499.99 VAIO X doubles storage to 128GB. Specs are otherwise the same as the lower-cost model.

    There are plenty of 13.3-inch Windows laptops to compare with, but not many nearly as thin and light as the MacBook Air. I made weight the more important measure, which brought me back to Sony and its Z series laptops. All the preconfigured models sell for way more than the costliest MacBook Air, but the base configure-to-order VAIO Z is close at $1,799.99: 2.53GHz Intel Core i5 processor, 13.1-inch LED display with 1600 x 900 native resolution, 1,066MHz frontside bus, 4GB DDR3 memory, 128GB SSD and Windows 7 Home Edition 64-bit. Computer comes with optical drive, but wireless is costs more. Sony doesn't explicitly identify graphics for the CTO model, which weighs about 3 pounds. The VAIO Z is in most respects the better performer but at substantially higher cost. The point: Apple has aggressively priced both MacBook Air models compared to some -- and in my quick review, many -- thinner and lighter weight Windows laptops.

    With that, I ask again: Will you buy MacBook Air? Please respond in comments, or email joewilcox at gmail dot com. Please give your reasons why or why not.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/20/App_Store_comes_to_Mac_in_90_days__new_iLife_Suite_and_trimmer_MacBook_Air_available_now'

    App Store comes to Mac in 90 days, new iLife Suite and trimmer MacBook Air available now

    Publié: octobre 20, 2010, 8:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    MacBook Air inardsInside the new MacBook Air

    Today in San Francisco, Apple unveiled a new MacBook Air, updated iLife digital media suite and beta of FaceTime for the Mac. The company also previewed Mac OS X 10.7, aka "Lion," which will bring features found in iOS "Back to the Mac," playing off the title to today's media event. Apple CEO Steve Jobs shared the stage with other executives to demo the new products. Not since October 2008 has Jobs spent so little time on stage during a major Apple event. But in sharing the stage, he strongly delivered the big announcements: 11.6-inch MacBook Air, Lion and a shocker -- Apple will launch an applications store for Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) within 90 days.

    Jobs explained how from Mac OS X Apple created iOS, adding many new features not found in the desktop operating system. Now Apple wants to bring these features "back to the Mac," Jobs said. "Mac OS X meets the iPad," he emphasized. Lion will support multitouch gestures, the iOS App Store, full-screen applications, auto-saving applications and auto-resume, among other features. Applications will be "licensed for use on all your personal Macs."

    The approach is simply brilliant because of integration of the App Store into Mac OS X. As previously explained, I made a similar recommendation to Microsoft more than five years ago, back when working as an analyst. Incorporating an applications store into the operating system offers important strategic benefits to Apple, its developers and customers:

    1. Applications can be made available across multiple-sized devices -- Macs, iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.

    2. Developers can now scale their applications across devices.

    3. Developers can sell apps for which they will be paid; the app store deters piracy.

    4. Rights protection is built in so that customers aren't exposed to onerous piracy-deterring activation mechanisms.

    5. The store makes applications easily available to customers and more easily searched for than scouring the Web.

    Apple will "release Lion summer 2011," Jobs said. But existing customers won't have to wait for the big feature. The App Store's coming to Snow Leopard in 90 days is hugely significant. Apple just raised the bar for all multi-device operating systems.

    In another iOS meets Mac OS X announcement, Apple introduced FaceTime for the Mac, which also supports video calling with iPhone 4s and iPod touches with front-facing cameras. "A beta release will be available today," Jobs said. To date, Apple has sold 19 million FaceTime-capable iOS devices.

    Lighter Than Air

    As widely rumored, Apple updated MacBook Air. There is a new 11.6-inch model, while the 13.3-incher gets hardware upgrades that include 1440 x 900 resolution display. Pricing is aggressive. The 11.6-inch Air starts at $999 with 64GB of flash storage, or $1,199 for 128GB. The 13.3-incher is $1,299 with 128GB flash storage or double that for $1,599. The smaller MacBook Air weighs 2.3 pounds with claimed battery life of 5 hours. The larger model weighs 2.9 pounds with claimed battery life of 7 hours. "Both are available starting today," Jobs said.

    The Mac Octoberfest is now something of an annual event. Two years ago, I watched a fraile-looking Steve Jobs launch the unibody MacBook Pro from the audience of reporters. His health, as much as the new computers, was big topic in news stories and blog posts following the event. A few months later, Jobs took medical leave before undergoing a life-saving liver transplant. Last year's October Mac launch was clearly about beating back Windows 7 competition. I blogged: "Apple declares war on the entire PC industry." Given the Macs surprising sales resilience against Windows 7 PCs -- as measured by consecutive quarters of record shipments -- Apple's guerilla tactics are working.

    iMovie `11iMovie `11

    Timing couldn't be better for today's announcements. Macintosh performed surprisingly well during third calendar quarter. Globally, Apple shipped 3.89 million Macs during the quarter, up 27 percent year over year, according to the company. The real strength was mobile, where Apple portables outsold desktops more than two to one -- 2.64 million units to 1.24 million, respectively. In the United States, Apple's PC market share climbed above 10 percent, according to Gartner and IDC. Globally, Apple's share was 4.5 percent, according to IDC.

    More numbers: The Mac made up about 33 percent of Apple's revenue during fiscal 2010, generating $22 billion, Apple COO Tim Cook said during today's event. He observed that the Mac install base is "50 million users around the world." Apple's gains came against slower-than-forecast growth for the PC sector. During third quarter, IDC put year-over-year global PC shipment growth at about 11 percent, or nearly 3 percent below forecasts. Gartner gave a more tepid growth figure of 7.6 percent, rather than the forecast 12.7 percent. During today's Apple event, Cook said that the Mac outgrew the industry for "18 quarters in the row."

    The numbers are surprising from one perspective, but not from another. The analysts cited slower back-to-school sales in the United States and Apple's iPad sacking netbook sales as factors behind the growth figures. But there is another. Both analyst firms measure shipments going into the channel rather than sales out to businesses or consumers. Calendar second quarter shipments proved to be stronger than anticipated. In that context, inventory management is one factor likely affecting the broader industry, assuming that PC manufacturers shipped more units during Q2 in anticipation of back-to-school sales.

    Steve Jobs introduces iLife `11Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduces iLife `11

    But there's more to the differences. Based on August U.S. retail sales from NPD, "one in five PCs sold in the United States is a Macintosh," Cook said. NPD tracks sales, not shipments. "The momentum on the Macintosh has never been more," Cook emphasized.

    iLife enters the Tween Years

    As widely, and not surprisingly, rumored, Apple announced iLife `11. Among the changes is emphasis on presentation. "You can live in full screen in iPhoto," Jobs asserted. Sharing features are enhanced, such as slideshows, photo book printing and social sharing connections to services like Facebook. A new Info Panel shows the services where photos have been shared and even with whom on Facebook. The new iMovie introduces new audio editing capabilities, an in-video people finder (e.g. face recognition) and the ability to create movie trailers (gasp, there aren't enough home-made ones on YouTube?) New movie sharing options include CNN iReport and Vimeo. I chuckled at the so-called new audio effects feature, which really brings back stuff removed after iMovie 6 (granted, the new stuff looks to be more easily applied). Apple also updated GarageBand. The new digital media suite is available starting today for $49, and will continue to be free on new Macs.

    The new iLife comes at an interesting time, competitively. Earlier this month, Microsoft released Windows Live Essentials 2011, which is the first version of the suite offering credible competition to iLife. More importantly, Microsoft is aggressively marketing the suite -- and compellingly. Over the last several nights I've seen Microsoft commercial "Family Photo -- to the Cloud," which is simply endearing. A mother difficultly tries to take a family portrait. She rushes "to the cloud," using Windows 7 and Windows Live to swap out grumpy faces for happy ones. "Windows gives me the family that nature never could," the mom exclaims. The TV ad recognizes something camera manufacturers have known for more than a century -- that women tend to be the keeper of the family's memories.

    Like recent TV advertisements for Bing, Internet Explorer 8, Windows Phone 7 and Windows 7, "Family Photo" is a charmer. Microsoft is on a marketing roll that Apple executives should envy and should worry about. I've often asserted that in business, marketing and perception are everything. Apple reinvigorated its brand during the early 2000s with compelling, aggressive and often solo TV advertising. For years, only Apple aired MP3 player commercials in the United States; is it any wonder then that iPod sold so well after a long marketing build up that made it appear like the only choice? TV advertising is but an anchor to any marketing campaign, but one Microsoft long overlooked. Apple, you've been warned.

    That said, a little Apple competitive marketing could go far, particularly considering some of the amazing new features demoed today. Jason Dunn aptly tweeted during the event: "The iLife suite really is the secret weapon on the Mac. Windows Live is getting better, but has so far to go -- iLife `11 looks pretty killer." I will save final evaluation until after using the product. But I agree, iLife `11 looks pretty good.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/19/What_is_Steve_Jobs_so_afraid_of_'

    What is Steve Jobs so afraid of?

    Publié: octobre 19, 2010, 9:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's a saying that the more you have, the more you fear losing it.

    Apple's CEO made a surprise appearance during yesterday's fiscal 2010 fourth quarter earnings call. Jobs said he couldn't resist participating, given Apple's record $20.34 billion revenue. But he leveled most of his comments at competitors, and in quite defensive posture. Now why is that? Apple's iPhone blew past Wall Street estimates by as many as 3 million units. The iPad outsold Macs and, according to Gartner and IDC analysts, sucked sales away from Windows netbooks and low-cost notebooks. Apple controls the largest and most successful applications store on the planet. The company sits on a cash horde of more than $51 billion. Then there are the quarterly results, which topped consensus estimates by nearly $2 billion.

    Investors punished Apple for its gangbusters quarter. The stock opened at $303.49 today, after closing at $318 yesterday. I'm not surprised by investors' reactions, which some Wall Street pundits chock up to declining margins. I don't agree; Apple has warned about declining margins many times before. I blame the CEO. Jobs' defensive, competitor-attacking comments were unnerving. I felt uncomfortable listening to him rant in kind of a childish way. His comments felt oh-so out of place -- and out of control -- for a chief executive running a company on a roll. The cheap shots, given from such a position of competitive strength, were unbecoming.

    Something else: Jobs' presence disrupted the earnings call's flow. Financial analysts seemed more unsure what to ask and to whom. Similarly, Apple's chief financial officer and chief operating officer didn't jump in with the kind of aggressive answers that are more typical of Apple earnings calls. If Wall Street has lingering concerns about Apple margins, perhaps it's because analysts couldn't ask the questions or didn't get the answers they needed. Jobs' presence -- and sometimes a bumbling one, at that -- proved to be negative.

    From one perspective, Jobs laid out the competitive market as he sees it. He asserted that with 14.1 million iPhones shipped in fiscal 2010 Q4 that "Apple handily beat RIM's [Research in Motion] 12.1 million BlackBerries sold in their most recent quarter ending in August. We've now passed RIM, and I don't see them catching up with us in the foreseeable future." That may be true, but why does anyone need Jobs proactively asserting this? Surely Wall Street analysts would issue reports with these figures and the news media and Apple fan blogs would report about them. There was a defensiveness to Jobs tone that left me asking: What is he so afraid of when Apple is doing so well?

    Gagging on Google

    Jobs moved on to Google and recent statements by Eric Schmidt, its CEO and former Apple board member, about there being 200,000 Android activations per day and 90,000 apps in the Android Marketplace. "Apple has activated about 275,000 iOS devices per day on average for the past 30 days" with the number topping 300,000 some days, Jobs asserted. It's an apple and oranges comparison. Apple isn't just activating iPhones but iPads and iPod touches, too. Nearly all Androids are phones; for now. It's a me-too claim that demonstrates Jobs' fear Android may do to iPhone what Windows did to the Mac during the 1980s and 1990s.

    Apparently recent analyst reports and forecasts about Android outselling iPhone bug Jobs, whose reaction seemingly is one of simple denial. "Unfortunately there is no solid data on how many Android phones are shipped each quarter," he asserted. "We hope that manufacturers will soon start reporting the number of Android handsets that they ship each quarter. But today that just isn't the case. Gartner reported that around 10 million Android phones were shipped in the June quarter, and we await to see if iPhone or Android was the winner in this most recent quarter."

    To clarify, when Apple asserts X number of items sold, it really means shipped, because there usually is Y number of units in inventory somewhere. Gartner doesn't measure number of handsets shipped but the number sold. This accounting explains why Gartner's numbers for iPhone are usually lower than Apple's. Jobs' statement ignores recent reports from IDC and other analyst firms clearly showing Android matching or exceeding iPhone shipments. That Jobs doesn't like the numbers doesn't mean manufacturers aren't reporting Android shipments or that analysts are miscounting them.

    "Android is very fragmented," Jobs harped. He observed that HTC and Motorola skin Android with proprietary user interfaces "to differentiate themselves from the commodity Android experience. The users are left to figure this all out. Compare this to iPhone, where every handset works the same." He went on to assert that TweetDeck "had to contend with more than a hundred different versions of Android software on 244 different handsets." Jobs asserted that fragmentation and the number of hardware iterations present application developers with a "daunting challenge." Now "compare this to iPhone where there are two versions of the software -- the current and the most recent predecessor."

    The tech news media and bloggers have written widely about Android fragmentation -- and HTC or Motorola skins, which appeal to many mobile customers. Jobs' unnecessary assertion seemingly reflects his frustration and fear Android will win the smartphone wars. He also asserted that Apple's mobile app store has 300,000 applications and 200,000 registered developers, which again raises the question: What is Jobs so afraid of? He's arguing competitors' weaknesses from a superior strategic position. Apple is renown for successfully selling aspiration; Jobs' defensive posture undermines confidence in him and in the company he cofounded.

    Jobs made many good points, about the benefits of integrated over fragmented, not forcing customers to be system integrators and that Android isn't as open as Google asserts. "We are confident that [integrated] will triumph over Google's fragmented approach, no matter how many times Google tries to characterize it as open," Jobs asserted.

    An Allusion worthy of "Saw"

    Keeping up the defensive posture, "I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months." He mused about a "handful of credible entrants" and "almost all of them use 7-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen." He went on to explain why smaller isn't better -- that the 7-inch "size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps, in our opinion." I laughed. By that reasoning, iPhone's 3.5-inch display is too small to create compelling apps, too.

    I laughed again, when Jobs asserted: "While one could increase the resolution of the display to make up for some of the difference, it is meaningless unless your tablet also includes sandpaper so that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size." That allusion conjures up a bloody mess worthy of any "Saw" movie. My question for Steve Jobs: When will you start shipping sandpaper with iPhone and iPod touch?

    Apple is shipping the industry-leading tablet, as measured by nearly 7.5 million units shipped during the first two quarters of availability. In a press release issued four days ago, Gartner classified iPad as a media tablet. The analyst firm projects 19.5 million media tablet sales this year. If iPad simply keeps the same sales pace during fourth quarter, the tablet would account for about 65 percent of that 19.5 million units. So why is Jobs so defensive, when iPad is doing so well? What is he afraid of?

    Jobs droned on more about tablets and during the Q&A section bumbled through several pointed questions from financial analysts. Nearly every Jobs' statement effused defensiveness. I expected more confidence from the legendary Steve Jobs. Judging by today's nip at Apple shares, I'm not the only one.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/19/It_s_a_shame_about_Ray_Ozzie'

    It's a shame about Ray Ozzie

    Publié: octobre 19, 2010, 5:18am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I've never been too good with names
    The cellar door was open, I could never stay away
    I know it's probably not my place
    It's either or, I'm hoping for a simple way to say
    It's a shame about Ray
    In the stone, under the dust
    His name is still engraved
    Some things need to go away
    It's a shame about Ray

    -- From Lemonheads song "It's a Shame About Ray"

    Ray Ozzie is like one of those Japanese executives moved to a back office and left to do nothing more substantial than collect a paycheck. His role at Microsoft is effectively over, really was in 2009. Ozzie's stepping down as Chief Software Architect marks the end of any hope there will be meaningful revolution within Microsoft. The Office and Windows hawks have effectively killed open-thinking doves.

    I'm not shocked by Ozzie's new nothing role, seeing how his role has been much of nothing since a late-2009 reorganization. From the great tech visionary, who might have remade Microsoft into something better, CEO Steve Ballmer and COO Kevin Turner carved out a life-size cardboard cut-out. It bore resemblance to Ozzie, but had no more animation than my vintage 1970s pet rock. What's most surprising from today's announcement: The shunning of Ozzie to some unnamed role in Entertainment and Devices division didn't come sooner. More surprising: He's not going boot out the door right away.

    Not One of Ballmer's Boys

    I've wondered about Ozzie's future at Microsoft since Chairman Bill Gates stepped aside from full-time responsibilities in July 2008. After all, Ozzie was a Gates hire (through acquisition), and the two men seem to have intellectually lots in common. Ozzie wasn't Ballmer's boy, however. Microsoft's CEO is the consummate salesman, who wears his heart on his sleeve. Ozzie is more cerebral and quiet. Watching Ballmer and Ozzie together, on the rare occasions they shared the same venue, their differences glared like cotton candy and pigs on sticks.

    I started hearing rumblings from Microsoft's inner sanctum even before Gates' departure. Ozzie was part of the top executive team, but he was like one of those flowery Hawaiian shirts that suit-and-tie man Ballmer couldn't bring himself to put on. Ozzie really wasn't part of Ballmer's closer inner circle, or so I heard. The reasons aren't rocket science. Ozzie's cloud services platform represented radical change that Microsoft executives addicted to the Office and Windows ATM machines feared and maybe even resented. If Office and Windows minted money so well, why should these execs support something radical that could undo the revenue flow? Particularly after Windows Vista's disastrous release, Microsoft management split among Office and Windows hawks and cloud computing/new thinking doves. Turner belonged to the hawk camp -- or so I repeatedly heard -- while Ballmer waffled between them but with greater allegiance to the hawks.

    In February 2008, I posted for eWEEK "The 25 Most Influential People at Microsoft." I later joked that the "25" turned into a death list -- influentials cast from Microsoft. About half the people on the list, including real visionaries like J Allard, Robbie Bach and Gary Flake, have since left Microsoft -- or were quietly but firmly booted out (as in "take the shares and severance and shut up, kid"). Ozzie ranked No.2 on the list but with a down arrow. The list fairly evenly split among influential Microsoft hawks and doves, and it's this latter category where execs died off one by one. Top-ranked influential Turner really led the hawks, while Ozzie more or less represented the doves.

    Despite the inner Microsoft leadership conflict that occasionally reached my ears, I had lots of hope for Microsoft throughout much of 2007 and 2008:

    • Ozzie pushed Microsoft's cloud strategy, which promised better interoperability for everyone.
    • Microsoft incubations projects -- Flake's Live Labs among them -- acted like internal startups.
    • Many new Microsoft sanctioned and skunkworks projects worked well with competing browsers and other software.

    The "New Normal" is the Old One

    Still I wondered about Microsoft's future direction. Throughout 2008, I continued to hear more about Ozzie being more the odd man out, for lots of reasons. Office 2007 reinvigorated the Business division's influence, while Windows Vista's successor looked more like a winner. Meanwhile, the server group continued gaining customers against Linux and Unix. Perhaps most significantly came the stock market crash of September 2008, which brought the limping U.S. economy to a screaming halt -- or so it felt to many.

    For months after the crash, Ballmer spoke about a fundamental reset to a lower economic level. He aptly expressed his thinking a year later in executive customer memo: "The New Efficiency," which described the "new normal" and how businesses need to cut costs and use technology to increase efficiency. But the "new normal" for Microsoft was resurgence of the old normal. The econolypse forced Microsoft managers to make some hard decisions about future product development. In the 5,800 layoffs that followed, Microsoft execs cut or closed most innovative incubation projects. By early 2009, with the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack sure to revive with new products releasing within 12-15 months, hawks tore into the cloud service doves. Whatever Azure could have been, it would become something else -- an extension to Microsoft's core apps stack.

    Whither Cairo, Azure?

    In my PDC 2009 post mortem, I made a startling observation about Ozzie's role and the cloud strategy:

    During PDC 2008, Microsoft's Web services pitchman, Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, gave a rousing pitch for Azure. He convinced that Azure would be a cloud-based operating system developers would write their applications to. The strategy beamed with innovation. A year later, the pitch came across as something much different. Ozzie still talked about a cloud OS, but the deliverables and new services were about databases. It seemed as if Microsoft had pulled a Windows Longhorn, dumping features and shifting strategies before reaching the destination.

    Then in December 2009 came a shocking reorganization that created the Server & Cloud division and in the process essentially sidelined Ozzie. He was a herder without sheep. The people who once reported to him reported to someone else. I blogged:

    What has me puzzled here is Ozzie's role. Exactly what is it? If there's a cloud in this reorganization it's not in the new division's name but the one in my mind about what's next for Ozzie. Microsoft's chief software architect has been the driving force behind Microsoft's cloud computing strategy. Does he just assume a new role with the official Azure launch coming on January 1? Is Ozzie being pushed aside? Perhaps the reorganization signals his coming exit from Microsoft?

    In June 2010, I ended years of defending Microsoft's CEO with the post: "I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership." Many factors influenced the post, including Ozzie's effectively reduced role and the company's renewed obsession with the Office-Windows-Windows Server app stack. About Ozzie I wrote:

    Microsoft's most ambitious visionary is seemingly silent. Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie once espoused a cloud vision that promised to be open and interoperable. Clearly the Office and Windows hawks have killed the cloud services doves. The Microsoft cloud is now little more than an adjunct to preserving the Office-Windows-Windows Server enterprise applications stack. Gates brought on Ozzie, but left him behind. Now the Office-Windows-Windows Server obsessed Microsoft leadership has cast off Ozzie's vision into the clouds; it floated away.

    Epitaph to the Doves

    It's a shame about Ray and all the Microsoft doves maimed or killed by the hawks. On October 18th, Apple announced record revenue of more than $20 billion for calendar third quarter. The most ambitious Wall Street analyst estimate puts Microsoft at $16.18 billion, with consensus of $15.83 billion. When Microsoft announces earnings next week, Apple will likely be the revenue leader -- a simply remarkable turnabout that follows Apple overtaking Microsoft market capitalization and its shares pushing past $300. Apple's success is a metaphor. Those companies that breakaway from their legacy and even reinvent their businesses for mobility and the cloud will inherit the next computing era. Ozzie represents a group of Microsoft thinkers that saw the future, and it ruined them.

    If I make it through today
    I'll know tomorrow not to put my feelings out on display
    I'll put the cobwebs back in place
    I've never been too good with names, but I remember faces
    It's a shame about Ray
    In the stone, under the dust
    His name is still engraved
    Some things need to go away
    It's a shame about Ray

    Update, October 19th: Today Microsoft announced new cloud service Office 365, which will immediately begin beta testing. The service is yet further confirmation about the hawks killing the doves. Surely it's not coincidence that Microsoft announced Ozzie's demotion/departure a day earlier. The cloud vision and visionary are gone.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/18/Apple_Q4_2010_by_the_numbers__Record_iPhone_sales_and_iPad_push_revenue_to__20.34_billion'

    Apple Q4 2010 by the numbers: Record iPhone sales and iPad push revenue to $20.34 billion

    Publié: octobre 18, 2010, 10:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Editor's Note: This was a live document starting at 4:46 p.m. EDT through the end of Apple's earnings call at 6:46 p.m.]

    Apple didn't disappoint Wall Street analysts obsessed by goings on at One Infinite Loop -- delivering, after the Bell closed today, record fiscal fourth quarter and year 2010 financial results. In the days and hours before earnings disclosure, numerous blogs and news sites (this one included) mused about the role of iPad, which soared above strong Mac sales. In just two quarters, iPad has opened up a new line of business generating nearly $5 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, iPhone shipments ascended past analyst consensus by about 2.5 million units.

    For the quarter, Apple reported $20.34 billion revenue and net profits of $4.31 billion, or $4.64 a share. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $12.21 billion and $2.53 billion net quarterly profit, or $2.77 per share. Revenue rose 67 percent year over year.

    Three months ago, Apple forecasted $18 billion revenue, with earnings per share of $3.44. Analyst average estimates were higher than Apple guidance: $18.65 billion revenue and $4.06 earnings per share.

    Gross margins fell from 41.8 percent in fiscal Q4 2009 to 36.9 percent in the current quarter. Sales in international markets accounted for 57 percent of revenue.

    Looking ahead, Apple forecasts $23 billion in revenue for fiscal 2011 first quarter, with earnings per share of $4.80. Projected gross margins: 36 percent.

    During today's earnings conference, Apple CEO Steve Jobs made a surprise visit. "I couldn't help dropping by for our first $20 billion quarter," he said. "First, let me discuss iPhone. We sold 14.1 million iPhones during the quarter, which represents a 91 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter and was well ahead of IDC's last published estimate of 64 percent growth for the global smartphone market in the September quarter. And it handily beat RIM's [Research in Motion] 12.1 million BlackBerries sold in their most recent quarter ending in August. We've now passed RIM, and I don't see them catching up with us in the foreseeable future."

    iPhone. Apple shipped 14.1 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal fourth quarter. A year earlier, Apple shipped 7.37 million iPhones. Apple nearly doubled unit shipments and revenue. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. Wall Street analyst average estimate was under 11.5 million units; my figure is less accurate than usual because some analysts raise estimates in the days before today's earnings announcement; I didn't have access to some of the revisions.

    Q4 2010 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.7 billion, up 54 percent from $1.09 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $3.2 billion, up 10 percent from $2.89 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.48 billion, down 6 percent from $1.56 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.24 billion, up 22 percent from $1.02 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $8.82 billion, up 92 percent from $4.606 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $2.79 billion; no comparable -- new product.
    • Peripherals: $477 million, up 22 percent from $391 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $646 million, up 2 percent from $649 million a year earlier.

    Average selling price was $610 for iPhone, which was available from 166 carriers in 89 countries. To date, Apple has sold more than 125 million iOS devices, which includes iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Apple claims 200,000 registered developers for the iOS App Store, where there are more than 300,000 applications. During the past 30 days, Apple activated an average 275,000 iOS devices per day.

    iPad. The tablet's impact on Apple simply cannot be understated. The company shipped 4.19 million tablets during the quarter for a total of 7.458 billion in just six months. As aforementioned, iPad generated nearly $5 billion in new revenue during the first six months of availability. Analyst estimates varied widely from about 2.5 million to 6 million units -- coming into today's earnings announcements, with numerous revisions made during just the past 7 days. During the quarter, iPad was available in 26 countries. Average selling price was about $645.

    Q4 2010 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1.24 million units, up 58 percent from 787,000 units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 2.64 million units, up 17 percent from 2.27 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 9.05 million units, down 11 percent from 10.2 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 14.1 million units, up 91 percent from 7.37 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 4.189 million units; no comparable -- new product.

    "We're already shipping more of them than Macs, in just a few quarters." Jobs said about iPad during a conference call with analysts. But not more revenue. Macs generated $4.87 billion in revenue compared to $2.792 billion for iPad.

    Last week I asked "Is Apple No. 1 and not No. 3 in U.S. PC shipments?" following up a similar question from August: "Is Apple the real U.S. PC market share leader -- or soon will be?" In both analyses I looked at the impact on Apple U.S. market share if Gartner or IDC counted iPad as computers. I'm fairly confident that I addressed this topic before my peers. Today, over at Fortune's Apple 2.0 blog, Philip Elmer-DeWitt asks "What if the iPad were a PC?" and cites Deutsche Bank report (issued today) that answers "Yes." Well, and where is the credit to Betanews for brainstorming this topic and crunching some numbers (Deutsche Bank analyst Chris Whitmore crunches even more to come with market share of 24 percent).

    No matter how iPad is classified, the product is a huge success by the broader numbers -- shipments and generated revenue and income. It's a staggering achievement for a product category that in January I asserted the world doesn't need; in June I acknowledged being wrong about iPad. By most analysts' measures, iPad sucked away Windows PC sales -- netbooks and cheap laptops.

    Q4 2010 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $7.19 billion, up 37 percent from $5.24 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $5.49 billion, up 69 percent from $3.24 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $1.4 billion, up 121 percent from $634 million a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $2.73 billion, up 157 percent from $1.06 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $3.57 billion, up 75 percent from $2.04 billion a year earlier.

    Apple's CEO concurred. During today's conference call with analysts, Jobs said that "the iPad is clearly going to affect notebook computers." He emphasized "We've got a tiger by the tail here."

    Computers. The iPhone and iPad may be success stories -- and iPad is one likely every major PC company on the planet hopes to imitate -- but by no means the only wowzers. Mac shipments soared during fourth quarter, buoyed in part by back-to-school shopping that also lifted iPad. Apple sold -- what company executives really mean by shipped -- 3.89 million Macs during the quarter, up from 3.05 million units a year earlier; growth was 27 percent year over year. Wall Street consensus ranged from about 3.7 million to 4.2 million units worldwide, with consensus under 4 million units. Apple shipped twice as many portables as desktops.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary third calendar quarter PC shipment data. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.999 million computers, for 24.1 percent year-over-year growth, according to IDC. However, Gartner put Apple shipments lower, at 1.849 million, with growth a much lower 13.7 percent. IDC ranked Apple No.3 in U.S. market share, while Gartner ranked the Mac maker fourth. U.S. market share was nearly identical from Gartner and IDC, 10.4 percent and 10.6 percent, respectively. Globally, Apple's PC market share was 4.5 percent during third calendar quarter, according to IDC.

    Q4 2010 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.46 million units, up 17 percent from 1.25 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 978,000 units, up 29 percent from 761,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 118,000 units, up 49 percent from 79,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 455,000 units, up 56 percent from 291,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 874,000 units, up 30 percent from 670,000 units a year earlier.

    "iPad has had some negative impact on the mininotebook market," Bob O'Donnell, IDC's vice president for Clients and Displays, said in a statement. Most analysts use the classification mininotebook to describe netbooks. O'Donnell also asserted an iPad "halo effect" that "helped propel Mac sales." The point: Apple's gangbuster Mac shipments wasn't just about back-to-school buyers; iPad is pulling new Mac sales, too.

    iPod. Apple shipped 9.05 million iPods during fiscal third quarter, down from 11.8 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for Q4 was around 9.5 million units. Apple's music player was the only category that didn't meet analyst expectations.

    Retail. Revenue rose 75 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 874,000 Macs, compared to 670,000 a year earlier, up 30 percent. Apple opened 24 new stores in the quarter, 16 outside the United States, for a total of 317 retail outlets worldwide -- 84 outside the United States. There was an average 301 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $11.8 million up from $7.8 million a year earlier. Apple retail stores had 74.5 million visitors during the quarter up 62 percent year over year. Apple plans to open 40-50 new stores during fiscal 2011, with more than half outside the United States.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/14/Is_Apple_No._1_and_not_No._3_in_U.S._PC_shipments_'

    Is Apple No. 1 and not No. 3 in U.S. PC shipments?

    Publié: octobre 14, 2010, 6:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's a follow-up question to another question posed in late August: "Is Apple the real U.S. PC market share leader -- or soon will be?" I ask both questions based on another: Is iPad a personal computer? I assert "Yes" based on function, but neither Gartner nor IDC, which both released preliminary third-quarter PC shipment data late yesterday, classify iPad as a PC. Right now, iPad isn't really counted anywhere, despite generating $2.17 billion in new revenue during the launch quarter. If iPad is counted as a PC, then based on analysts' projected tablet shipments and IDC's Q3 data, Apple could rank as No. 1 in the United States. What is iPad then?

    Even without counting the tablet, Apple had a great quarter. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.999 million (why isn't it rounded up to 2 million) Macs during Q3, according to IDC. U.S. Mac shipments grew 24.1 percent year over year reaching 10.6 percent market share, up from 8.9 percent in Q3 2009. IDC put Apple at No. 3 in the United States, but Gartner asserted No. 4, with 1,831,664 units to Acer's 1,848,511 for a difference of 16,847 units. Gartner had U.S. Mac shipments growing 13.7 percent year over year with third-ranked Acer falling 21 percent. Apple's market share was 10.4 percent, according to Gartner. Either Apple sold a helluva lot of Macs during Q3 or the company stuffed the retail channel with stock; Gartner and IDC only measure shipments into the channel not out of it. Given Apple's usually tight inventory management, I'd wager on sales.

    The numbers are actually more industry-meaningful than they appear on the surface. Both analyst firms acknowledged that PC shipments fell below their forecasts. IDC put year-over-year global PC shipment growth at about 11 percent, or nearly 3 percent below forecasts. Gartner gave a more tepid growth figure of 7.6 percent, rather than the forecast 12.7 percent. Apple more than doubled Toshiba's growth (11.6 percent) in the United States, according to IDC. Gartner put Toshiba's growth slightly ahead of Apple, which still handily outgrew the overall U.S. PC market. Worldwide, Apple's market share was 4.5 percent, according to IDC.

    In the United States, IDC blamed weak back-to-school sales for slower-than-expected market growth -- just 3.8 percent, or off forecast by about 7 percent. But there's the looming question of iPad's role. That's right, for the device not counted in PC shipments.

    "Apple's influence on the PC market continues to grow, particularly in the U.S., as the company's iPad has had some negative impact on the mininotebook market," Bob O'Donnell, IDC's vice president for Clients and Displays, said in a statement. "But, the halo effect of the device also helped propel Mac sales."

    IDC PCs Q3 2010

    Halo Effect? Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst was, more explicit -- in a statement: "Media tablet hype around devices such as the iPad has also affected consumer notebook growth by delaying some PC purchases, especially in the U.S. consumer market. Media tablets don't replace primary PCs, but they affect PC purchases in many ways. At this stage, hype around media tablets has led consumers and the channels to take a 'wait and see' approach to buying a new device."

    Delaying purchases? Or buying something else? Kitagawa acknowledged that "consumer mobile PC demand -- driven by low-priced notebooks, including mini-notebooks -- slowed after very strong growth the past two years." Slowed by what -- students not buying computers for school? Or did they perhaps buy something else? Certainly someone bought more Macs. Back-to-school season was quite good to Apple.

    I queried Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, about U.S. PC retail data. NPD measures actual sales, not shipments. "Our data shows them outgrowing the market in July/August combined as well. September data is not available until Monday." But NPD doesn't count iPad either, or at least not in any category publicly disclosed. Nearly two weeks ago NPD released an iPad owners study showing iPad not cannibalizing Mac sales but sucking some from netbooks. The analysts seem to agree that iPad is sucking away netbook sales. They also agree on not classifying iPad as a PC -- not that it's categorized anywhere else.

    Gartner PCs Q3 2010

    What is a PC? I define PC by function, and with the exception of not having a mouse, iPad can do all that netbooks can -- run applications (many more than netbooks); perform Internet functions like Web browsing and e-mail; play games (many more than netbooks or even PCs); and consume and produce digital content (e.g., photos and videos), among many other tasks. There is Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and GPS (on some models). The criteria hanging up analysts appears to be operating system, or it was in my iPad definition discussion with Baker: Apple's iOS isn't a desktop operating system. Really? And Windows 7 Starter Edition is?

    Classifying iPad as a PC dramatically changes the competitive landscape, and levels it, considering that analysts do classify Windows slates and tablets as PCs. Some Wall Street analysts are now projecting Apple sold 4 million iPads during third quarter. Considering Apple sold more than 3 million a quarter earlier, when supply couldn't meet demand, 4 million isn't the least bullish. I think it's conservative. If analysts are right in their projections and iPad were counted as a PC, Apple would only need to ship 2.592 million tablets in the United States to match top-ranked HP. Dell is reachable by 2.353 million iPads.

    Apple might offer some insight when announcing fiscal fourth quarter earnings on Monday. I say might, because Apple usually doesn't publicly break down single product categories by country or geographic regions. Meanwhile, I end by asking you two questions: What is a PC? What is iPad?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/13/Which_Windows_Phone_7_smartphone_will_you_buy_'

    Which Windows Phone 7 smartphone will you buy?

    Publié: octobre 13, 2010, 6:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Surely that question isn't unexpected. Last week I asked "Will you buy Windows Phone 7?" and the majority of Betanews readers responding by e-mail said they will buy, while some said they will not. You've had two days since Windows Phone 7's official launch to explore the features and learn about the nine handsets that will be available later this month (across Europe) and next month (in the United States). Now it's time for you to share with the world which phone you will buy or would buy if available on your carrier. Please answer in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Fred Schultz was among the Betanews readers who wants to buy a Windows Phone 7 handset but won't because there is no device yet available for Verizon (in the United States, AT&T and T-Mobile initially will carry WP7 smartphones). Last night he e-mailed: "OK, now after seeing it I am obsessed, and a little PO'd that Verizon doesn't have it. I would buy it on day 1!" I asked: "Whoa, are saying you'll switch carriers and buy on November 8th, Fred?" To which he replied: "Too complicated, family plan, 5 cells, Fios TV and Internet at home, but I will threaten."

    I followed up by asking Schultz to ignore carrier considerations and choose the phone if he would buy. "Focus for sure, though I wish it had a keyboard," he responded. The Samsung Focus has 1GHz Qualcomm processor, 4-inch AMOLED display with 480 x 800 resolution, 8GB internal storage, 5MP camera with LED flash, 720p video, GPS, Bluetooth 2.1, WiFi N and 3 hours of talk time, among other features (Note: Microsoft states talk time that is much less than other sources).

    I shouldn't ask you to do something I wouldn't do myself. So I reviewed the available handsets, too, and there are five choices here in the United States. Since I have accounts with AT&T and T-Mobile, I could choose any of them. On AT&T: The aforementioned Focus, LQ Quantum and HTC Surround. On T-Mobile: HTC HD7. The Venue Pro is available from Dell.

    I found choosing a "what if I could buy" phone to be surprisingly difficult. Either that's going to work for or against Microsoft and its partners. For two days I've been reading punditry about how Windows Phone 7 is going to cut down Android, in part because Microsoft set minimum performance standards and features for phones (Examples: GigaOM and Google Watch). I love the minimum standards idea and recommended something like it years ago (circa 2004-05, in my JupiterResearch analyst days). But there's a downside I didn't foresee: OEMs tend to save every penny they can in manufacturing. Minimum is just that, the least they're often willing to do. As such, the nine handsets soon to be available all seem pretty much alike to me.

    That's not a good thing, and it reminds me of the beige box PC era, when all Windows computers looked pretty much alike other than the manufacturer's logo on the outside. Exactly what differentiates one Windows Phone 7 handset from another? From my review of the handsets: Plenty of nuances but not a lot of got-to-have features or capabilities. So one phone has a 4-inch display and another's is 4.3-inches, but screen resolution is the same on both. One device is touchscreen only and another adds a keyboard. OK. that's one more choice than iPhone. Battery life is longer or shorter, which is reasonable consideration for any phone.

    For size and shape and the important basics, the biggest differentiators appear to be the carriers, the pricing they're setting for handsets and the services they tack on, like AT&T and its WP7 smartphones' connections to U-verse (I've had the IPTV service since February 2008 and simply love it). Sameness is where WP7s are too much like Androids. Differences among Android devices often are, if anything, negatives because of the number of even recent handsets released with older versions of the mobile operating system. The positives are something Windows Phone 7 won't offer: Different user interfaces. Some manufacturers differentiate their handsets and the user experience by slapping new UIs on top of Android.

    Criticism aside, I'm encouraged by a few differences among the handsets, such as the HTC Surround's slide-out speakers. Then there is something that matters more in a competitive marketplace: While I don't see WP7 devices differing all that much from one another, Windows Phone 7 OS makes the UI look, feel and operate differently than Androids, BlackBerries, iPhones and Nokias. That's hugely important to Microsoft for generating sales and market share, but not so good for WP7 manufacturers and carriers competing against one another for sales.

    So which phone would I choose?  If I could afford to buy, I'd likely get HTC HD7, because of the dual-LED flash for the camera and T-Mobile availability. I have unlimited data with T-Mobile, while AT&T caps at 2GB per month. What about you? Which WP7 smartphone will you choose, if any? Please answer in comments or e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/12/Would_you_be_Steve_Ballmer_s_Facebook_Friend_'

    Would you be Steve Ballmer's Facebook Friend?

    Publié: octobre 12, 2010, 4:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Steve Ballmer Facebook Page

    That's the question I started asking last night. But there is another. Would Microsoft's CEO accept me as friend? Or you?

    Yesterday, Nick Eaton of Seattle PI's "The Microsoft Blog" pointed to what he believed to be "Steve Ballmer's real Facebook page." Welcome to Facebook, Steve, assuming that's really you. I've been on the service since 2006. Could I offer you some tips?

    The page looks legit enough, but barren. At 3:10 p.m. yesterday, the someone claiming to be Steve Ballmer posted "What a day!" from Windows Phone. That has got to be the understatement of the year, considering Microsoft launched Windows Phone 7 and announced availability of nine supporting handsets (10, if counting another mobile coming next year). I could certainly see Windows Phone as being a means for Ballmer getting on Facebook, or even reason to create an account. The account only has 14 friends, which makes me wonder if it was a dummy account setup for the Windows Phone demonstration -- or if Ballmer has few friends.

    Don't feel bad for Mr. Lonely Guy. If Microsoft's CEO has few Facebook friends, let me offer my congratulations for using Facebook the way I'm convinced it should be: To maintain contact with a smaller number of intimate relationships rather than how most people use it -- to gather hordes of so-called friends they might not know or loose acquaintances they otherwise wouldn't ever interact much with. Perhaps many people think there is safety in numbers. I don't. Friend in name only is worth what?

    There's still the question: Is the account really Steve Ballmer's? I'd ask Microsoft, but it's too early on the West Coast to get an answer, and one might not be given. As TechCrunch's Michael Arrington demonstrated over the weekend, pretty much anyone can be a Facebook identity thief. In October 10th post "Being Eric Schmidt (On Facebook)," Arrington explains how he created a fake account for Google's CEO and started amassing friends:

    I tested this by creating a fake Facebook account for Eric Schmidt based on his real email address. I tried to do this with a few Facebook execs first but it didn't work because the emails I have for them are already associated with their real accounts. The email address I have for Schmidt, however, isn't associated with any Facebook account. It worked.

    Of course I could have created a fake Eric Schmidt account without using his real email. But by using that email address Facebook immediately started suggesting friends to me - presumably people who have uploaded their contacts, including that email address, to Facebook in the past....

    As soon as the account was created I was asked to verify the email address. I ignored that and instead just turned off all email notifications. But I can still use the account to add friends, accept friend requests, like status posts, and send and receive messages. Messages occasionally pop up saying 'Before you can interact with other people on Facebook, you need to confirm your email address.' But most activity isn't restricted at all.

    I'm fairly certain that the account will be disabled shortly. But what if I had faked a less high profile individual, and didn't write on TechCrunch about it?

    Arrington asks a good question, and it's one I may have a partial answer for. In June, I set up a fake Facebook account using one of my legit, but otherwise rarely used, e-mail addresses. Facebook had made privacy changes I wanted to test, by seeing to whom my information was visible. I needed a fresh account with no friends. I fully expected Facebook to disable the account within a couple of days, since I never clicked the acceptance e-mail. But the account remained active, as evidenced by the occasional friend requests I receive. I accidentally confirmed the account on Oct. 10, about four months after creating it. Following Arrington's Schmidt prank, I wanted to see if the account was active but I had forgotten the password. The process of retrieving the password apparently activated the account. Two minutes later I received e-mail "Welcome Back to Facebook." Oh yeah?

    Arrington identifies a tremendous flaw in how Facebook works. A service with legitimate privacy controls would shut down an account unverified from the associated e-mail address within 24 to 48 hours. I surely expected my unverified fake account to disappear after a couple of days. The situation also raises questions about how many of Facebook's over 500 million accounts are active. Someone impersonated my daughter a few months back, using her name and photo yanked from her profile. So I've not just witnessed rogue accounts but identity theft, too.

    The question isn't just "Would you be Steve Ballmer's Facebook Friend?" but "Is that the real Steve Ballmer you are friending?" It's time Facebook did something to better protect its users' identities. One way is to aggressively adopt a "verified" account scheme, something like what Twitter does but on steroids. Muscle up, Mark Zuckerberg.

    As for Microsoft's CEO, I didn't bother sending a friend request. Will you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/12/Really__New_Windows_Phone_7_commercials_rock'

    Really? New Windows Phone 7 commercials rock

    Publié: octobre 12, 2010, 12:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For months I've been saying that marketing, more than technology, would define (or fail to) Windows Phone 7's launch. If Microsoft could only get the messaging right. Earlier today, I posted about how important it is for Microsoft to make phones running its mobile operating system be highly personal. I actually wrote the 1,400-word missive last night, not knowing Microsoft would make personal such a priority; I simply added quotes from today's Windows Phone 7 launch event to make the analysis current. From putting the "P" in personal to smart messaging to simply brilliant advertising, Microsoft has pulled back the curtains on Windows Phone 7 in oh-so right fashion.

    Last month, I explained what Microsoft needed to do today: "There must be aggressive aspirational marketing that is at least as good as recent Bing, Internet Explorer and Windows 7 advertising...Microsoft made the right, positive impressions when rebranding Windows Live Search to Bing -- thanks to supporting marketing. Windows Mobile is dead. Long live Windows Phone. It's a new brand that buyers must rightly meet."

    I'm wholly impressed with "me," "my" messaging coming from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer today and also prepared marketing materials. Ballmer couldn't seem to say "my" often enough in describing the Windows Phone 7 experience. The sales pitch was all about making Windows Phone 7 mine (or is that yours?).

    But what really rings -- for the visceral appeal and because more people will experience it than the launch marketing material -- is the TV advertising. The first commercial embedded above, "Really?", overdramatizes people obsessed with their cell phones, instead of the real world going on around them. Marketing tagline: "It's time for a phone to save us from our phones." Oh yeah?

    Microsoft's marketing isn't just messaging, there's a worldview behind it: Your phone isn't your life. In my post earlier today, I wrote: "Ballmer succinctly stated that Windows Phone 7 is designed so that people can 'get in, out and back to life.' It's savvy marketing, but what if the phone is your life, as it is for many Millennials?" About the people in the commercial I added: "They get in, but they don't get out. It's marketing messaging contradiction." Some Betanews commenters tit-tatted that I misunderstood the commercial's point. I got it. I just didn't agree that the presented worldview will jive with the large number of Millennials who view their cell phones as extensions of their lives. They're not trying to get away from their mobiles at all.

    That said, the commercial resonates with my worldview, which is that more people should get off the phone and get to really living. The second tagline says it all: "Be here now." I assume Microsoft is trying to appeal to potential buyers like me, which is OK; there may be other more Millennial-generation-oriented commercials coming later on. Targeting is core to good advertising.

    The second commercial, "Season of the Witch", isn't as clever and it's more cerebral. For about one-minute, the camera pans down a street where every person is consumed by his or her cell phone. The same "It's time for a phone to save us from our phones" tagline applies. By the way, no one in either commercial is making phone calls. They're all data obsessed. What's up with that?

    I'm a huge fan of Microsoft's marketing campaigns for Bing, Internet Explorer 8 and Windows 7. If the first commercials are any indication, Windows Phone 7 advertising may be even better. Advertise often, Microsoft.

    What's your reaction to Windows Phone 7 marketing messaging and advertising? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to Twitter Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Facebook Add to Technorati Email this Article
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/11/How_should_Microsoft_open_the_curtains_on_Windows_Phone_7_'

    How should Microsoft open the curtains on Windows Phone 7?

    Publié: octobre 11, 2010, 4:05pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    People

    Microsoft's launch of Windows Phone 7 is a turning point for the company. Either Microsoft will turn back to its enterprise applications stack past or turn a page that opens a new chapter for future expansion. Should Microsoft fail to deftly execute, its computing and informational relevance will likely decline, much like IBM in the 1980s and 1990s. Windows Phone 7 is Microsoft's IBM PC moment, but the course doesn't have to be the same as Big Blue three decades ago. Much depends on Microsoft marketing and how much the company embraces the cloud connected mobile device applications stack rather than clings to the Office-Windows-Windows Server app stack.

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer officiated today's Windows Phone 7 launch in New York. The locale was meant to reassure Wall Street that Microsoft has a viable and even winning mobile strategy. Ballmer asserted that Microsoft "built a different kind of phone." He said that Windows Phone 7 isn't so much about what users are going to do with the phone but how they're going to do it. Windows Phone 7 will be available on "nine different phones" when WP7 "ships here in the United States in November." Official device availability is November 8th. Windows Phone 7 handsets will be available from operators in 30 countries, making the phones "wonderfully mine," Ballmer asserted. Microsoft's marketing position: Windows Phone 7 is a "fresh start for the smartphone." But is it a fresh start for Microsoft mobile? Ballmer obviously took the position of yes.

    Pragmatism or Wishful Thinking?

    Ballmer is a little bit wishful thinker and pragmatist. As the wishful thinker, he bucks against analyst projections, which are downright gloomy for Windows Phone. Gartner predicts that Microsoft's global share of mobile operating systems will fall from 8.7 percent last year to 3.9 percent in 2014, or sixth ranked, behind "other." Meanwhile, during the same time period, Android is forecast to grow from 3.9 percent to 29.6 percent market share. From the wishful thinking viewpoint, Microsoft has fallen too far behind to ever recover lost dominance.

    But from the pragmatic perspective, anything can seemingly happen yet in mobile. As recently as 2005, Microsoft and Nokia were mobile OS market share leaders. During 2006-07, Microsoft felt the pinch of Research in Motion, which BlackBerry smartphone had already lapped up many corporate users. Then in June 2007 came iPhone from Apple, which was absolutely inexperienced manufacturing or distributing cell phones. The first Android phone, the G1, debuted on T-Mobile in October 2008. Gartner projects that Android shipments will top 47 million this year, ahead of BlackBerry OS and Apple's iOS. The point: Microsoft's mobile fortunes fell relatively fast in a rapidly and dynamically changing market. They could yet recover with the right execution.

    Which Path Should Microsoft Take?

    Microsoft is caught between two possible paths, and I contend that Windows Phone must go down both rather than one or the other. Down the one path, retrenchment to the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack, is certain doom. Down the other -- expansion to the cloud connected mobile device apps stack -- Microsoft trails far behind upstarts Apple and Google, and that's discounting Nokia and RIM as still strong market share contenders. Microsoft must embrace the new applications stack while leaping from the other, all the while resisting the temptation to fall back and solely rely on its enterprise strengths.

    Microsoft's problem is simple: Computing relevance is shifting to the cloud connected mobile device from the personal computer, much as it did from the mainframe to the PC in 1980s and 1990s. IBM embraced the PC as an adjunct to the mainframe, failing to recognize or respond to the changes in computational and informational relevance. IBM's priority remained the mainframe, for good reason. It was a lucrative business. Microsoft's position is similar with the PC.

    In 1981, when IBM launched its branded personal computer, the company cautiously embraced the new platform. Big Blue generated huge gobs of cash from its enormous mainframe customer base. This success made IBM cautious and slow-moving dealing with the PC platform, in part because executives feared losing customers and massive mainframe revenues. By comparison, young Microsoft, with fewer customers, could take bold risks. Three decades later, Microsoft has built up huge infrastructure and customers around its hugely successful Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack.

    So far in mobile, Microsoft has been adverse to taking the kind of risks necessary to embrace the cloud connected mobile device apps stack, instead clinging to its enterprise strengths. Any Betanews commenter who asserts otherwise needs look no further than Microsoft's failure in mobile, which is indisputable and to date almost entirely is focused on businesses using the company's software. It surprises me that Microsoft hasn't seen the risk of tying its mobile strategy to the past. Microsoft's main business is about reselling to the same customers, much the same as IBM did 30 years ago. The parallels are simply obvious.

    Cell Phones put the "P" in Personal Computing

    Three attributes defined the PC's success against the mainframe:

    • The personal computer extended computational and informational utility to more people.
    • Information could be accessed from many more places than mainframes (such as people's homes).
    • Both of the two aforementioned benefits came at substantially lower cost (thousands instead of tens of thousands or even millions of dollars).

    These same attributes apply to the cell phone in relationship to the PC and in some ways more strongly. The cloud and mobile device lets users access their data anytime and anywhere and extends computational and informational utility to more people and places at lower costs. In an early August US State Department presentation, "Tech@State: Mobile Money and Financial Inclusion," Maria Otero, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, observed that about 5 billion of the planet's 6.6 billion people have cell phones. By comparison, analyst estimates put the entire install base of PCs at about 1 billion units.

    The PC era is waning. Mobile devices, particularly cell phones, are even more personal and increasingly much more powerful and useful than PCs. People carry cell phones most everywhere and use them to maintain personal and professional relationships. The smartphone's smarts only make the device more personal, as people manage e-mail, financial accounts, music, personal communications, photos and videos, among other things. PCs are personal, too, but not nearly as much. How many people are so attached to their PCs they want to be buried with them? But people want to be buried with their cell phones. I wrote about this phenom in March 2006 post "From (Docking) Cradle to the Grave." Last week, Gizmodo reported that actor Tony Curtis was buried with his iPhone.

    How personal Microsoft and its hardware and carrier partners make the Windows Phone 7 experience is hugely important. How well they sell the experience -- through inventive and aggressive advertising and marketing -- is as important. Years ago, Microsoft marketers pushed products Office and Windows, among others, for their converged home and work capabilities. The marketing recognized that people often use the same tech gear for personal and professional purposes. This is more true with mobile devices, such as PDAs and cell phones, than most any other product category. Microsoft's challenge: To make Windows Phone 7 personal for home and work uses.

    The company hinted at some of this marketing positioning during today's launch event Windows Phone 7 demo, which shifted from personal activities like gaming to work tasks like note taking. Ballmer succinctly stated that Windows Phone 7 is designed so that people can "get in, out and back to life." It's savvy marketing, but what if the phone is your life, as it is for many Millennials? The Windows Phone 7 TV commercial embedded above uses the same marketing line while showing people obsessed by their WP7 devices. They get in, but they don't get out. It's marketing messaging contradiction.

    Microsoft Doesn't Have to be IBM

    As previously stated, Microsoft will continue to fail in mobile if retrenching along the enterprise customer base. IBM chose this path in the 1980s. IBM and the mainframe didn't go away, their computational and informational relevance merely diminished before the PC. The PC's computational and information relevance already is rapidly diminishing before the cloud connected mobile device. The huge popularity of mobile applications stores or Apple's selling more than 3 million iPads during the launch quarter are strong signs of shifting relevancy.

    By the way, in a strange and perhaps ironic twist, three days ago IBM released a study claiming "more than half of all IT professionals -- 55 percent -- expect mobile software application development for devices such as iPhone and Android, and even tablet PCs like iPad and PlayBook, will surpass application development on all other traditional computing platforms by 2015." IBM surveyed about 2,000 developers and IT professionals in 87 countries. As app development shifts to the cloud, so will computational relevancy away from heavy PC applications. Light, not bloat, is the future of personal computing. Microsoft will fail by embarking on a strategy that solely tries to pull users back to products like Office. The enterprise is going lighter apps on more portable and personal devices.

    Microsoft and the Windows PC won't go away, and the company will make billions in revenue for years. But Microsoft's platform will diminish, like IBM's did. It's an inevitable path if Microsoft makes Windows Phone 7 mostly or completely about the enterprise, meanwhile failing to aggressively and wholeheartedly embrace the newer platform. Microsoft's enterprise-focused mobile strategy already has failed -- just look at the market share numbers. The future doesn't have to be failure. Are you paying attention, Steve Ballmer?

    Maybe he is paying attention. I was encouraged by Microsoft's marketing messaging and how Ballmer positioned the device during today's launch event. The core message wasn't staid enterprise computing but making the smartphone more personal. Ballmer described Windows Phone 7 as "always delightful and wonderfully mine." He emphasized: "I can represent me in this device," referring to his WP7 smartphone. Ballmer repeatedly used the word "my" to describe the different Windows 7 attributes. My. My. My. My. Mine. The initial messaging is promising.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/08/You_WILL_NOT_buy_Windows_Phone_7'

    You WILL NOT buy Windows Phone 7

    Publié: octobre 8, 2010, 9:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Who will line up to get a new Microsoft-powered handset when Windows Phone 7 officially launches on Monday? Betanews readers answered the who will in my previous post. They responded to an earlier question: "Will you buy Windows Phone 7?" About 70 percent of the e-mail respondents will buy. The naysayers, while fewer in number, give some very good reasons why not Windows Phone 7.

    I expected more of a fifty-fifty split between the respondents, perhaps with even more Betanews readers saying no to Windows Phone 7. Well, hell, what do I know? To be clear, a few hundred readers, whether responding by e-mail or in comments, is no measure of WP7's sales potential. But both groups' reasons for buying or not are meaningful,

    Like the previous post, I here present readers' responding by e-mail, because they are identifiable; many Betanews commenters aren't. I may post again over the weekend from commenters, some of which are sourer on Windows Phone 7 than the e-mailers.

    With that introduction, I present the negative responses to the question "Will you buy Windows Phone 7?":

    John Will won't buy a Windows Phone 7 handset for two reasons. First: "Unproven functionality," meaning "if it's anything like most Microsoft x.0 releases, it'll take a rev or two to sort out some of the basic issues." Second: U.S. carriers carrying WP7 smartphones. "I'll be looking to Verizon and an Android phone for my first venture into data-enabled smartphones." But he qualifies: "In the future for a next phone purchase, that situation may change, but the question is being asked today."

    "I won't be buying Windows Phone 7," says John Obenauer. "Apple and Google have a great rivalry going on in smartphones, and customers of both companies benefit from the competition." He adds:

    Apple has more apps, slicker hardware, and easy-to-use software; Google wins on openness of the platform and app market, support for Flash video websites, tight integration with Google services everyone already uses and a choice of phone hardware and carriers. How would Microsoft compete favorably with them? They can't beat Google on openness of the platform or integration with Google services, and they may even be locked down to an unpopular carrier (AT&T). They can't compete with Apple on ease of use and sexy hardware (they've been inferior to Apple in both ways historically). I just don't see legions of iPhone and Android fans being won over by a Windows phone. Apple and Google really innovate, while Microsoft has been playing the me-too company for years now without any compelling improvements. In case you're wondering about my biases, I own a Droid X, an iPad, and several versions of iPhones and iPod Touches.

    Paul S. won't buy Windows Phone 7 because there is no Mac support, "which is a huge bummer for someone whose phone contract is up in about a month." Paul S. gave his last name to me but asked that it not be published.

    Jack Winters also gave carrier as a major reason for skipping Windows Phone 7: "I'm looking exclusively at Android phones because my carrier is Verizon. I do not and cannot afford to switch back to the inferior network of AT&T." But his reasons go further. While many other e-mail respondents expressed current Microsoft product and platform commitments as reason for choosing WP7, Winters has already moved on:

    I use Google Mail, Google Voice, Google Calendar, Google Maps on a daily basis and want to get better integration than what the MS phones provide. I expect the Windows phones to rely on Internet Explorer and Bing. I want a different browser and Google search. I want to be able to use Google Maps and Navigation in an environment that was built for them. I look at Google News, Google Finance, and Google Fast Flip regularly.

    Daniel Bunyan is among the naysayers: "I owned an HTC phone with Windows Mobile and it simply did not work." He complained of doing "twice as many clicks to open an email" than on BlackBerry," emphasizing "it just felt like they slapped together a weak interface so they could claim to have functionality and a mobile solution."

    Because Bunyan was a Microsoft mobile customer before, I asked in follow-up e-mail: "Microsoft has redesigned the Windows Phone 7 user interface to be more like Zune HD. Would a new UI make a difference, or was your previous disappointing experience too much?" It was "too much hassle last time. Mobile phones are too tightly connected to our daily lives and it is too difficult to move information between devices. So something has to be a game changer to warrant a switch. I am sticking to my BlackBerry; not the sexiest any more but the device simply 'works.'"

    Richard Weerts used automobile analogies to explain why "I will not buy it -- would not even consider it." He calls Microsoft "hopeless when it comes to embedded OS software; they just don't know how to do it." He explains:

    It's very much like GM and Ford trying to make small, tightly engineered cars. The know how is simply not accessible within their culture. They just can't, proven over and over and over again since the Pinto and Vega borne of the 70's oil crises. I have had an HTC Windows Mobile phone. It was just like the Chevy Vega; unreliable and you can't help but feel that that great new-car feeling will be short-lived with this one.

    In a follow-up e-mail, I expressed: "I see your car analogy, but those American automakers made some shrewd investments in foreign car companies. So you think Microsoft simply can't compete in mobile--not in its corporate DNA?" He responded:

    Sure, American cars companies made investments in others. But they never brought the know-how home to make a smart, quality, long-lasting small 'Ford' brand car. At least nothing to begin to rival, say, a Honda Civic. And this analogy does seem quite appropriate. A Honda Civic feels like a quick, fast-GUI smart BlackBerry or iPhone and a PC with Windows more like a large SUV with loose parts bolted inside its cavernous interior in any way convenient for the builder with no thought of how it needs to 'fit together' due to the scale -- conceptually applied to software as well as hardware. And, yes, I think it is not in MS's DNA to do embedded OS well -- that they can try really hard but will likely stumble with it.

    "Probably not" is Jon Moody's answer to the will buy question. "I already own products that do what I need for music, video, phone, apps, navigation etc. Sooo unless Windows Phone 7 brings something new and compelling to the table (which so far I haven't seen any evidence of) then I don't see myself buying one. Those are the positives." He then offers seven "negatives, four of which I excerpt:

    No matter what anyone says, I am not going to be doing office documents on my smartphone. And even if I were going to I already have that capability... and believe me it isn't something that I will ever say I need...As a developer I don't see the money in other words show me how I will make a lot of money and I might embrace it; haven't seen any evidence so far. Also I have attempted to install the SDK a couple of times with no success. For me this does not bode well for the stability of the software...After the Kin disaster why should I believe that Microsoft will not just abandon this platform as well if it doesn't quickly pan out? I realize that isn't Microsoft's normal MO but I have to tell you that disaster really left me with a bad taste in my mouth...I see Apple as the closed proprietary platform that wants to control everything but gives the user a great experience. I see Android as the open platform that can support any hardware (This should be Microsoft's niche at least it was on the PC).

    Gabriel Ruiz won't buy a WP7 handset because he owns an iPhone:

    However, if I had to chose between an Android Phone and a Windows Phone 7, let's say on a network were the iPhone is not available like Verizon, I would go with Windows Phone 7, because the control over the Interface and software that Microsoft has and Android hasn't. The fact that Android could potentially become just simple 'middleware' creates concerns on the stability, upgradability and security of the product. Windows 7 would be almost like the best of both worlds, a curated environment like the iPhone with the choice of multiple hardware models like Android.

    Tom Bridges won't be buying Windows Phone 7, simply because the apps he needs won't immediately be there. He otherwise is a satisfied Microsoft mobile user. Because "I learned that my favorite software would not run on 7 and many of those developers would not be writing totally new programs, I looked elsewhere. I am a Ham Radio operator and a Bible studies author." Apple's iOS and Android "have new programs for these needs with the promise of support and more programs shortly. Thirty-one days ago I picked up my Droid X. Microsoft 7 was too little too late for me even if they had hardware and software by 2011."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/08/You_WILL_buy_Windows_Phone_7'

    You WILL buy Windows Phone 7

    Publié: octobre 8, 2010, 7:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Perhaps Windows Phone 7 won't come dead on arrival after all. Maybe the analysts and naysaying pundits don't give Microsoft the respect it deserves. Maybe there is enormous pent up demand for Windows Phone 7. Maybe the silent majority that loves Microsoft products has waited for this day -- ah Monday, when Windows Phone 7 officially launches.

    Three days ago, I asked: "Will you buy Windows Phone 7?" The response was immediate and overwhelming: More than 150 comments to the post and more than 3 times the usual number of e-mail responses I normally get to buying questions. Among the e-mail respondents, the majority plan to buy a Windows Phone 7 device. Even among those saying nay, many expressed interest if circumstances were different, such as Microsoft getting the product to market faster (they couldn't wait and already got something else) or limited carrier availability (in the United States, no Verizon. Yet.). Most of the e-mail respondents who chose something else bought or will buy an Android handset -- that's a painful dig for Microsoft, because Android more directly competes with potential Windows Phone 7 developers and smartphone buyers than iPhone.

    I am still mulling how best to handle the responses. For today, I will start with those readers sending e-mail, because they are identifiable; many Betanews commenters aren't. I may post again over the weekend from commenters, some of which are sourer on Windows Phone 7 than the e-mailers. I'll start with an apology: There are simply too many of you to include in this post. I am cramming in more respondents than usual, but still leaving many out. Hey, much as I love long-form writing, a post using all the respondents would be in the 5,000-word plus range.

    That said, I have posted a shorter, but still lengthy, followup with e-mail respondents who won't be buying Windows Phone 7. Their reasons are meaningful, too.

    Give It to Me Now

    With that introduction, I present the positive responses to the question "Will you buy Windows Phone 7":

    "I'm buying Windows Phone 7," says Mike Hartman. "I'll be the first to admit the Android and iPhone usability is perfectly acceptable, but I have a platform that I'm already invested in." That platform includes Zune and the Zune Pass subscription service, which Hartman has. Among the respondents, he was among the most pragmatic about his expectations: "I've heard the live tiles on the home screen and the social networking integration is pleasantly surprising. I expect strong Outlook/Exchange integration but I don't suspect that will be that much different than iPhone's Exchange capabilities. Office compatibility is a plus, but I don't know how much actual 'work' I'll be doing on the road."

    Microsoft couldn't pay to get buyers as certain as Seth Russell: "I can honestly say without any hesitation that I will be investing in a Windows Phone 7 smartphone." Many of his reasons mirror Microsoft marketing for WP7: Music and digital media, Office integration, mobile gaming and Xbox integration, among others.

    "I'm gonna buy a Windows Phone 7," says Andy Green. Like many e-mail responders, Green is a "fan of Microsoft platforms for a long time -- 20-plus years. As a developer, their Visual Studio suite is terrific, and the .NET platform itself combined with Silverlight considerably shrinks development time, and that gives a huge advantage over other platforms like the iPhone and Android. We have existing applications out there for the iPhone and iPad, but we're anxious to start writing for WP7 -- we already have some ready to go at rollout." Green is enthusiastic but not obsessed. He owns iPhone 4, which he loves. "It's tough to scoff at the beautiful design, and it does have a boatload of apps. But I have to say that the newer approach that WP7 takes to the 'home screen' idea is fascinating, and I'm anxious to see if using it in real-life lives up to its potential." In follow-up e-mail I asked if Green would purchase a WP7 smartphone right away. "Absolutely."

    Gusts Linkevics gives three clear reasons for choosing Windows Phone 7:

    1. I am .NET developer, so developing for windows phone 7 for me would be easy, and I can make any app I need.

    2. User interface seems very interesting.

    3. Phones' hardware is very good for the moment.

    Garrison Neely is similarly enthusiastic:

    As a C# .NET programmer, my knowledge of Microsoft tools translates directly to the Windows Phone development ecosystem. The user interface stands apart from both Android and iPhone, and, from what I've seen in demos, is quick and responsive. I like that Windows Phone's minimum specs are strong, which will mean the phones will be able to handle pretty much anything thrown at them. Finally, I like that developers who have used XNA to design games for the Xbox 360 will be able to transition their abilities nearly seamlessly -- that's a great sign for gaming on WP7 devices.

    Green adds to the developer perspective: "Writing for the WP7 platform is considerably less tedious than the iPhone or Android."

    Bring on the Enterprise

    Microsoft needs more customers like Tony Clemens. The "North America Regional IT Manager" for an organization with 2,000 users in 24 locations worldwide says Windows Phone 7 is "an extremely hot topic at work." Because Microsoft "screwed up, over the past 10 months we have been migrating some users from T-Mobile (mostly Dashes) to AT&T - iPhones, a few Blackberrys and lately a lot of Androids." Now plans are changing: "We will be migrating everyone to Windows Phone 7." In a follow-up e-mail, I asked Clemens to define everyone. "Everyone will be North America -- as that is the control I have. It cost more and consumes more time supporting multiple platforms."

    Microsoft product managers should count themselves lucky, after really delivering Windows Phone 7 too late for Clemens. He's not abandoning Microsoft mobile, but it was close. "Upper management wanted the latest toy that their teenage kids bragged about (iPhone mainly, showing off all the cool apps). So IT, after fighting for months, gave up," buying some iPhones and then Androids. Most of the BlackBerries were deployed in Europe.

    While standardization is one reason for choosing Windows Phone 7, Clemens gives others: "Seamless Exchange Integration (not requiring a 3rd party email account)" and "fast setup -- hand me the phone and right in the hallway I can setup (not requiring iTunes to be downloaded and configured first)." Clemens emphasized that Androids and iPhone "require more than should be required for a worker," adding that "everyone agrees, if strictly business users working with Exchange, Microsoft is going to nail this."

    Alex Gouty gives four reasons (but he has others) for being "excited about Windows Phone 7." Again Exchange syncing matters:

    1. Quality Exchange / Outlook syncing -- so far no one but Microsoft does this right. All of the other OS packages have problems syncing with Exchange and Outlook, but Microsoft always gets it right. Granted, they should, since it is their product, but it shouldn't be that hard for Blackberry, Android, or iPhone to do this, but they never get it right.

    2. Xbox syncing -- love this idea. Leveraging their gaming platform will be a huge help, as well as expand their market for gaming. The same game that runs on Xbox, PC and Windows Phone? Genius.

    3. Streamlined control and app design -- I honestly think they have finally designed an interface for the OS and apps that will work well and won't need a stylus. I know it is something the others have done, but combined with closer integration with other Microsoft platforms, I am really excited about this.

    4. Better hardware -- I think their decision to have a set of hardware requirements but still let anyone develop the hardware is genius. You'll get a wide spectrum of hardware like Android, and build quality from the minimum specs without being limited to a single model of phone like the iPhone.

    But carrier availability tempers Gouty's enthusiasm becoming a purchase. In a follow-up e-mail I asked if he would buy right away. "I probably won't be buying a Windows 7 phone until it comes out on Verizon or Sprint, as they have the best coverage in my area. I was disappointed to find out that Microsoft was sticking with just GSM coverage, but I will likely buy a Windows 7 phone as soon as they launch CDMA phones next year."

    Fred Schultz also wants to buy sooner, but won't because of Verizon availability. He explains:

    I have been a Windows 6.1 user for the last 4 years, I love it. I also use Windows on my notebook. I have been waiting to upgrade, and have been following the release closely, that is why as a Verizon customer I am upset that I will have to wait until February. I use the Office applications all of the time...I think MS should focus on the business crowd...IT professionals are comfortable with Windows and would push through a lot of devices, and focus on the interoperability of all Windows, then build applications around business professionals.

    In follow-up e-mail I asked: "If Verizon had a Windows Phone 7 device ready at launch, would you buy one right away?" He responded: "On Verizon only."

    Romit Mehta "will be buying Windows Phone 7" for four reasons:

    1. I really like the simplicity and elegance of Metro UI.

    2. Most of my most-frequently-used apps are either announced or rumored to be available soon.

    3. I have restarted using Windows Live services after their integration announcements. I have hooked up Facebook and LinkedIn, and the experience is simply superb on the web and in Windows Live Messenger. Extending that to the phone will only make it more compelling.

    4. Zune Pass. I have an iPod and 2 iPhones but I would love to have a tie in to a subscription music service. Zune Pass, with $15/month and 10 songs to keep is effectively $5/month for unlimited streaming of any song. I was never going to buy a Zune HD, but WP7 is that plus a phone. :-)

    5. Potential of multiple devices to choose from. I am looking forward to seeing some new devices to help me get rid of my iPhone fatigue.

    In follow-up e-mail I asked if he would buy right away. "My only concern is that some devices (like Dell's, for example) may not be unveiled next Monday. Should I wait? Perhaps. But if there is a good device at launch that satisfies me, I will get it."

    Joel Brache's reasons are similar to many other e-mail respondents, but he has a few different ones:

    Wireless Sync. Why in the world should I ever have to plug my phone in to synchronize. This is 2010, not 1990. Let's dump the wires and do everything over the air...Option to choose a hardware vendor If there is something you have to have the one hardware vendor doesn't provide, then go to a different vendor. You can't do that with iPhone, but you can with Android and WP7.

    In follow-up e-mail, I asked Brache when he would buy. "I have been impatiently waiting for six months for the Windows Phone 7 devices to be released. I plan on purchasing a WP7 device on launch day."

    James Chalkley, who gives Windows Phone 7's "sleek, styled" user interface as one reasoning for buying, also won't wait. "I will be buying/getting one on contract on launch day of the OS."

    Maybe Yes, Maybe Not

    Martin Bennett answers "maybe" to the will buy question. "I'm in no rush. I'm going to see how the dust settles and see how the Windows 7 phone works in the real world, read reviews and consider what I'll do." But he absolutely is considering a purchase, with the first reason being a major priority expressed by Clemens: "Seamless integration with Outlook -- period. No one else does it." He's also interest in "seamless integration with Office documents...Droid and iPhone have many combinations of workarounds, but only Windows Mobile offers an app that quickly sees the files, opens them all, allows editing, saving and synchronization as well." But these reasons somewhat cower before another: "Practical, useful Apps. This is where iPhone is light years ahead of the pack, and may be uncatchable."

    Bob Nargang is another maybe: "I won't be running out on the launch date to get one of the first Windows Phone 7's, but I am holding off on getting an iPhone (my wife keeps prodding me) because I'm very curious how the Windows Phone 7 (Microsoft really needs to work on catchy, short names!) will compare. If it sucks, I'm getting an iPhone. However, I'm cautiously optimistic that Microsoft can pull this one off!" The appeal is simple: "I want a phone that integrates well with the Windows environment."

    Peter Austin gives two answers: "No, I do not plan on personally purchasing a Windows Phone 7 device. However, my organization is planning on making the transition from our current fleet of Windows Mobile 6.5 devices to Phone 7 devices. Austin was unique among e-mail respondents for having "had the opportunity to use Windows Phone 7 a fair amount during its development." Excerpts about what he liked:

    SharePoint/Office integration on Phone 7 is very good. I still wouldn't use it to draft entire Word docs or Excel worksheets, but Microsoft's native implementation of these applications makes using Phone 7 for document work the most elegant solution on the market. Zune media integration on Phone 7 is not just excellent, it's the best (mobile phone) media player on the market. The Zune media experience on Phone 7 is almost identical to that of the Zune HD media player...Xbox Live integration on Phone 7 is another differentiating feature. Whether you own an Xbox or not, you have to admit that the Xbox is the #1 gaming console on the market...Bing Maps integration. Mapping on Phone 7 is unlike the mapping experience on any other mobile OS currently available. Microsoft has integrated it's Silverlight-powered version of Bing Maps into Phone 7 which provides a much richer mapping experience than Google Maps...Social media integration on Phone 7 is fantastic, whether it is unified contacts, unified calendaring, or unified picture libraries (Facebook, Picasa, Flickr, etc) the integration of your various social accounts on Phone 7 is, in my opinion, the best of any mobile OS.

    Austin expresses concerns, too, about number of applications -- "Apple simply has the most apps, and arguably the best-quality apps too"; Microsoft mobile mindshare -- "Windows Mobile (6.5) is not just fading from the public consciousness, it actually has a negative association tied to it;" and CDMA carriers -- "Microsoft has said that Phone 7 will be GSM-only at launch."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/05/Will_you_buy_Windows_Phone_7_'

    Will you buy Windows Phone 7?

    Publié: octobre 5, 2010, 7:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's a question I've asked before, but it comes with new urgency. Microsoft will officially launch Windows Phone 7 in six days, on October 11th, with main event in New York City. The analysts give Windows Phone 7 little to no hope of catching rivals. Gartner predicts Microsoft's mobile software will fall below "other" by 2014. But analysts peering into crystal balls, and often seeing fantasy futures, won't be considering a Windows Phone 7 purchase. You will.

    So I simply ask: Will you buy a Windows Phone 7 smartphone? But a yes or no answer isn't good enough. I want reasons. Particularly for potential buyers, what are three reasons (more if you like) why you will buy into the Windows Phone 7 cosmos? For regular Betanews readers who are Microsoft fans, this is a great opportunity to rally for your company. But be smart, by being specific. Share what you hope to gain from a Windows Phone 7 smartphone rather than generally congratulate Microsoft or assert that somehow, someway the WP7 stormtroopers will retake the palace. Please answer in comments -- or, better, by email: joewilcox at gmail dot com. I'll compile the best responses into a separate post.

    That said, the yeahsayers will have to share space with the naysayers. For people not planning to buy a Windows Phone 7 smartphone, I ask for reasons, too. And, please, don't stink up comments or my inbox with horse poop. Provide good reasons why you won't buy into the Windows Phone 7 cosmos. If you want to be taken seriously, don't write "iPhone rocks" or "Micro$oft sucks." Provide thoughtful reasons.

    This isn't rocket science, people. You buy stuff everyday, comparing this to that and compiling reasons (if just in the noggin) for why this over that. I understand that without a complete list of launch devices, prices or carrier calling/texting/data plans, you will be somewhat limited explaining why or why not.

    Yesterday, to Betanews colleague Tim Conneally's post about the October 11th launch, Prospero Uno gave a reason for not buying a Windows Phone 7 smartphone: "I was actually fairly bullish on the Win Phone 7 right up until they announced the AT&T exclusivity. I thought it had great potential, and I still do. It's just that Microsoft has squandered that potential." He doesn't like AT&T, which U.S. exclusivity isn't confirmed, by the way. Lots of people considering iPhone have expressed similar reservations about AT&T. The point: Like many buying decisions, factors unrelated to the product might affect or be your reasons.

    As a little incentive, I've compiled some of my past Windows Phone 7 stories. I'm hoping to incite Microsoft fans to unite against my more negative stories and give those positive reasons why Windows Phone 7. :)

    So, again, please respond in comments, or e-mail joewilcox at gmail.com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/04/Microsoft_brings_back_Windows_7_Family_Pack____that_s_three_Home_Premium_licenses_for__150'

    Microsoft brings back Windows 7 Family Pack -- that's three Home Premium licenses for $150

    Publié: octobre 4, 2010, 5:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As marketing tactics go, Microsoft's Windows 7 Family Pack revival is shrewdly timed. That's right, Family Pack is back -- and for a limited time. According to Microsoft's Windows Blog, "while supplies last," whatever that means. Microsoft is drumming the public relations ahead of October 22nd global availability, when consumers can grab a box with three Windows 7 Home Premium licenses for about 150 bucks. The software deal already is available in the United States direct from Microsoft or from "select" retailers.

    The reasons aren't rocket science for the timing, one of which Microsoft's blog post hints at -- Windows Live Essentials 2011, which officially released late last week. "Upgrading to Windows 7 from Windows XP also lets you take advantage to one of all the benefits of the new Windows Live Essentials 2011," Ashley Brown blogs. "Windows Live Essentials is a free suite of software designed to complete your Windows 7 experience." It's a marketing pitch but also an admission: Windows Live Essentials 2011 requires Windows 7 or Vista. XP users aren't allowed.

    The new Essentials is really about Windows 7, but the majority of PCs run Windows XP, and as Betanews and others in the industry have noted, the XP-to-7 upgrade process can be painful (users must backup XP files, clean install Windows 7 and restore files to the new operating system). If Microsoft wants big numbers of Essentials downloads (for free software), more customers need to be running Windows 7 (or Vista); hence, one reason for the promotion's timing.

    "Windows Live Essentials needs to find some way to connect with consumers as they are revisting their computer presence," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis told me this morning,. I'll add something else: Microsoft needs to extend the Windows 7 experience with add-ons it no longer includes in the box. I'm convinced that if not for Microsoft's antitrust troubles on two continents, the features included in Windows Live Essentials -- and more -- would be included with the operating system.

    I see Windows Phone 7, which is scheduled to launch one week from today, to be another reason for the promotion. Baker disagreed. "I don't think the Windows Phone is at all related." In the larger scheme of sales, he's probably right. But from a marketing perspective I see purpose, particularly now with Windows Phone 7 Microsoft will finally have a complete three-screen strategy. The company has talked three screens -- PCs, TVs and cell phones -- for years, but with one of them sorely missing.

    Early holiday sales is another reason for the promotion's timing. I asked Baker about that. It's "obviously timed for the holidays," he agreed. "They need to keep the momentum on Windows 7 upgrades going." However, Baker questions how many more software upgrades Microsoft can squeeze out of the huge Windows XP install base and smaller Vista one. "It is good but I think I would prefer to see them deliver more focus against Windows 7 PCs. The need is still to upgrade XP machines and that is a hardware play. While I am sure that there are still Vista dominated households out there obviously a lot fewer than there were at launch."

    That said, there's reasonable question to ask: Will Windows 7 Family Pack even be available for the holidays? Microsoft introduced the software for Windows 7's launch, which perhaps not coincidentally was Oct. 22, 2009. So-o-o-o-o, one year later, the Family Pack returns, setting the stage for the same early exit. Microsoft sold out -- I say pulled -- the software at the start of last year's holiday sales season. "I've got a new spelling for 'Scrooge.' M-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t," I blogged on Dec. 5, 2009. The point: Do take that "while supplies last" seriously.

    Countries where the Family Pack will be available, according to Microsoft:

    United States, Canada, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Brazil, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Romania and Ukraine.

    I would be remiss if writing about Microsoft without mentioning Apple; otherwise what would some Betanews commenters have to scold me about? Apple offers many Family Packs -- iLife, iWork and Mac OS X, for example. The Mac OS X 10.6 (aka "Snow Leopard") Family Pack upgrade is a helluva bargain at $49 for five licenses and no product activation required. That makes Snow Leopard Family Pack a much better bargain for Mac owners moving from Leopard (which is comparable to Vista upgraders going to Windows 7). That said, Snow Leopard appears to be more anomaly pricing. There are indications that Apple will raise pricing to pre-Mac OS X 10.6 Family Pack pricing when the next version releases.

    As for Windows 7 Family Pack's revival, limited time is simply too limited for some Microsoft customers. In comments to my late-December 2009 post "Hey, Microsoft, Betanews readers have some 2010 advice for you," Robert Kegel wrote: "MS has to bring back the Windows Family Pack for good. This should be something they shouldn't have gotten rid of in the first place. It doesn't have to be any cheaper than it was, but it should be brought back for good."

    Do you agree? Should Microsoft bring back the Family Pack for good? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Windows 7 - Windows XP - Microsoft - Family Pack - United States
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/02/Movie_Review___The_Social_Network_'

    Movie Review: 'The Social Network'

    Publié: octobre 2, 2010, 2:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Near the end of David Fincher's movie about Facebook, a young attorney tells CEO Mark Zuckerberg: "You're not an asshole, Mark. You're just trying so hard to be one." It's something of an apology for a movie that makes Zuckerberg appear every bit the asshole.

    Early in the movie, Zuckerberg's girlfriend dumps him, saying: "You're going to be successful and rich. But you're going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you're a tech geek. I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that won't be true. It'll be because you're an asshole." Her comment and the one later bookends the movie. But there's something about the early asshole characterization that doesn't fit. The movie opens with Zuckerberg talking to the girlfriend (Erica Albright, played by Rooney Mara), and he comes off every bit the stereotypical over-intellectual, socially inept geek. He speaks his mind, to a fault.

    The couple's conversation, which takes place in Boston late 2003, is one of the best opening sequences I've seen in film for years. The clipped dialogue, how Zuckerberg multitasks between topics, is mesmerizing. Albright is talking topic B, while Zuckerberg is answering topic A. He meanders lots. The scene also sets the tone for actor Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal of Facebook's cofounder. It's a simply, brilliant Academy Award-worthy performance.

    Same can be said for the movie, which absolutely deserves some Oscar consideration. "The Social Network" isn't just a film of the moment -- that is cinema du jour -- but a tight, riveting drama that makes two hours blip by, kind of like the time spent on Facebook. I say that knowing the basic plot beforehand. I'm a long-time technology journalist after all. I'm familiar with the backstory about Facebook's founding, the intellectual property disputes and lawsuit settlements -- and still the movie captured my attention. Director Fincher and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin tell a good story. The dialogue is so exceptional, I now regret having never watched an episode of the TV show "The West Wing," on which Sorkin worked.

    I pined for my college days watching Zuckerberg run across Harvard's campus from the restaurant where Albright dumps him. The lighting (East Coast scenes are all fairly dark) and cinematography are evocative. By the way, the soundtrack sets a surprisingly modern tone. I now regret not grabbing it on Sept. 28, when AmazonMP3 discounted to $2.99.

    Albright's breakup, which I understand is fictionalized, sets forth the entire chain of events leading to Facebook's creation. Distraught, Zuckerberg seethes about Albright in a LiveJournal blog post and the same night creates a coed-comparison Website that crashes Harvard's network. All other events follow because of the breakup. "The Social Network" presents a simple motivation for Facebook's founding: It's all about a girl.

    The other driving force behind Facebook is male, Napster creator Sean Parker who is surprisingly well-portrayed by Justin Timberlake. Parker enthralls Zuckerberg, guiding him to California and infecting him with the idea Facebook can be not a million-dollar company but a billion-dollar one. I can't attest to the accuracy of Timberlake's Parker characterization, but I enjoyed it.

    "The Social Network" is a morality tale about ambiguous morals. Zuckerberg either has none or operates by a different set of morals than his protagonists. Hint to the latter: Something Parker says about the rules being different on the Internet that resonates with Zuckerberg. All the characters gain depth by being shades of gray. No one is purely anything, like real people are supposed to be.

    But Zuckerberg's character is the most perplexing. There's something Shakespearean about Zuckerberg in an Asperger's syndrome kind of way. For someone creating a service for defining and maintaining relationships, Zuckerberg strangely and methodically destroys every possibly meaningful relationship around him.

    I carefully watched the computers and other devices to see if the filmmaker authentically portrayed the era -- granted, even if only six to seven years past. I noticed at least one faux pas: What looked like a modern MacBook Pro used by a DJ in a 2003 party sequence.

    Otherwise, "The Social Network" is riveting and will appeal to anyone using Facebook -- and even those not. I saw an early morning show today, and, to my surprise, most of the audience was over 60 years old. I expect that younger viewers will pack evening shows. Certain movies capture the spirit, the essence of its generation, such as "The Graduate" did for late-1960s Baby Boomers (I compiled but decided not to post a list for other decades). "The Social Network" may be the movie for the Net Generation.

    I give "The Social Network" five stars. Do see it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Facebook - Social Network - Rooney Mara - David Fincher - Jesse Eisenberg
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/10/01/If_iPad_isn_t_cannibalizing_Mac_sales__what_about_Windows_PCs_'

    If iPad isn't cannibalizing Mac sales, what about Windows PCs?

    Publié: octobre 1, 2010, 7:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That was my first question after reading a press release about NPD's new report "iPad Owner Study." This is why analysts aren't reporters: The report title has about as much reader appeal as a cardboard box (Maybe Bing or Google search will scoop it up). But, hey, people paying for the report want the data, not flashy titles. As to my question, Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, succinctly told me: The iPad "is cannibalizing nothing in the PC business."

    Oh yeah, then why does NPD's press release, issued today, state that "13 percent of iPad owners surveyed bought an iPad instead of a PC." Baker had a good answer for that: "13 percent is a bite, not a cannibal, and just because sales are slowing when iPad is showing up doesn't mean the two are related; and just because everyone sees all these people using iPads doesn't mean they didn't buy a PC now. It may mean that in the future but the numbers argue that Windows 7, tough comparables, flat pricing, weak economy are much more to blame."

    Like I've repeatedly asserted, iPad is the cheapest Mac you can buy. That raises the question: Is there really no Mac cannibalization? I ask because of some of the interesting data points NPD revealed today. During iPad's first 60 days, half of purchasers were existing Mac owners; the number later dropped to 45 percent. By comparison, 53 percent were Windows PC owners. Among U.S. households, 11 percent have Macs and 75 percent Windows PCs, according to NPD. Data cited from the NPD study is for the United States

    Mac or Windows PC cannibalization would make a great headline, and it's one way to interpret the data. But there's another way: Early iPad adopters appear to be early tech adopters in general. For example, 38 percent of iPad buyers own an iPhone and 24 percent displaced a planned e-book reader purchase. Baker said that most iPad buyers are making "incremental" -- adding more technology devices -- purchases rather than replacing something they already have or would upgrade (e.g., Mac or PC).

    In a blog post, Baker said that NPD divided iPad buyers into two groups -- early adopters who purchased within the first 60 days and everyone else. He writes:

    Almost 80 percent of early adopters were very satisfied with their iPad versus 65 percent of those who bought it after launch. What makes those numbers so intriguing is that they feed into some very interesting usage numbers. Early adopters are now using their iPads for more than 18 hours/week, and for almost one-third of them that time is increasing.

    Some interesting stats about early adopters compared to everyone else:

    • "38 percent more likely to be reading e-books"
    • "44 percent more likely to watch YouTube videos"
    • "50 percent more likely to watch movies"
    • "60 percent more likely to watch TV shows"

    More generally, "20 percent of users' time with the iPad was spent with it in bed," Baker blogged. "It is obvious that the iPad form factor makes people feel warm and cuddly." That, I will add, is something competitors had better get. People aren't buying iPad for features (its analytical appeal) but high emotional quotient.

    Baker also identified U.S. consumers' favorite features:

    • Portability
    • WiFi easiness
    • e-book reading
    • Applications availability

    Baker expressed something else quite interesting when referring to the aforementioned usage scenarios and also reading in bed: "That type of iPad usage behavior is a dagger at the heart of the usage model for netbooks and secondary notebook computers." Oh, really now? So iPad is cannibalizing or will cannibalize sales of something after all.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - IPad - Windows PC - YouTube
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/29/Microsoft__Windows_Live_Spaces_already_dead__WordPress.com_will_only_get_1%_of_30M_users'

    Microsoft: Windows Live Spaces already dead, WordPress.com will only get 1% of 30M users

    Publié: septembre 29, 2010, 7:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows Live Spaces' shutdown may not be a big win for WordPress.com, after all. According to internal e-mail messages obtained by Betanews, Microsoft expects only about 1 percent of Windows Live Spaces bloggers to move to WordPress.com. If not there then where? In the e-mail exchange, one Microsoft executive asserts about the 30 million active Windows Live Spaces blogs: "Most are dead."

    The e-mail exchange took place on Sept. 28, the day after Automattic and Microsoft revealed that Windows Live Spaces would shut down in about six months and that bloggers could migrate their sites to WordPress.com. The announcement asserts there are 30 million "active" Windows Live Spaces blogs. But the e-mail exchange suggests otherwise.

    First, some context: Betanews has obtained the e-mail messages but has chosen not to identify the participants in the exchange -- at least at this time. While naming the people in the exchange would add authority to this report, we believe that revealing identities would cause unnecessary badwill with Microsoft and hardship for employees exchanging e-mails internally. They have some expectation of privacy. It's not like we've uncovered terrorists or someone leaking nuclear secrets. Additionally, the statement about the number of migrations was delivered in a specific context about hosting platforms, which will be further explained in a few paragraphs.

    30 Million or 300,000?

    It's not unusual for companies like Microsoft to overstate statistics that aren't otherwise easily confirmed. There's often huge PR advantage in larger numbers, and reporters tend to assume the figures are correct, particularly when they can't otherwise easily be confirmed. Often lowly public relations employees make these kinds of decisions. In this case, the number means much to WordPress.com, which could conceivably double in size over six months if just half of Windows Live Spaces bloggers migrated to the Automattic service. As of September, WordPress.com hosted 13.9 million blogs.

    However, according to a senior Microsoft manger e-mailing colleagues: "The net is: 300k sites are expected to migrate of the 30M 'blogs' -- most are dead. Wordpress is adding somewhere in the order of zero servers to handle this capacity. This was a 'who has the best online service for blogging for our customers' and had nothing to do with technology."

    As I explained yesterday, among the different blogging service options, WordPress.com is likely best fit for Windows Live Bloggers. The senior Microsoft manager emphasized customers and not technology for a reason. Earlier in the exchange, Microsoft decision-makers debated about customers moving from Internet Information Server running on Windows Server to ngix running on Linux. "I'm hoping for a second half to this story, where we're hosting these WordPress sites on Azure...moving 20+ million to Linux seems like shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of securing the platform," wrote another Microsoft employee.

    Which Priority: Platform or Customers?

    When I blogged about the migration yesterday, I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that WordPress.com would host the blogs on Azure. In November, Microsoft showcased Automattic as an Azure customer. According to Netcraft, WordPress.com servers run Linux, something another Microsoft employee involved in the e-mail exchange observed and noted about a personal blog moved to WordPress.com from Windows Live Spaces. Several Microsoft employees involved in the exchange expressed concern about moving millions of bloggers from the company's platforms to rivaling Linux.

    The Microsoft e-mailers have a point. Their exchange indicates the negative impact the WordPresss.com migration can have on employee morale. Then there is the sales case. How can Microsoft salespeople effectively sell customers on Azure when Windows Live Spaces is going to a Linux cloud?

    It's in this context that the senior Microsoft manager asserted that only a small number of Windows Live Spaces blogs would migrate to WordPress.com. He tried to calm the troops, so to speak.

    According to sources, Microsoft managers started debating the merits of the platform switch -- Windows to Linux versus best choice for customers -- sometime in mid summer, about the time that Windows Live beta testers received first option to migrate their sites to WordPress.com. Clearly somebody decided to put customers, even those using services for free, before platform decisions. Additionally, just because migrated sites don't run on Azure today doesn't mean they won't in the near-distant future. WordPress.com may yet switch blog-hosting servers to Azure.

    The remaining question: "How many?" Is WordPress.com's Windows Live Spaces payday thousands of pennies instead of thousands of dollars, so to speak? "How many?" and "On what platforms?" are the questions I have officially posed to both Automattic and Microsoft.

    After I posted, Paul Kim, Automattic's vice president of user growth, responded: "We don't have an exact estimate for how many Spaces bloggers will move over to WordPress.com in the next 6 months, but in the first 48 hours we've completed close to 50,000 migrations which is very promising." That number is impressive enough. Real measure will be the next 48 hours or 48 days.

    As for platforms, Kim responded: "WordPress.com, where these migrating Spaces bloggers are moving to, runs on Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP." In a follow-up e-mal, Kim responded: "We don't plan to host any of these blogs on Windows Azure at this time."

    Early this evening I received a startling response (finally) from Microsoft's PR agency. The statement: "There are approximately 30 million users on Windows Live Spaces that includes both authors and their visitors. About 7 million are authors -- this means Spaces users, most of whom have a blog and regularly update their content. We expect a significant customer set will choose the great blogging experience offered by WordPress.com."

    The statement shaves about 23 million "active" bloggers from Windows Live Spaces and makes more sense of the 300,000 figure. As stated earlier in this post, companies tend to overstate numbers, as clearly Microsoft's PR machine did here.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    WordPress.com - Windows Live Space - Microsoft - Automattic - Blog
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/28/Why_are_30_million_Microsoft_refugees_headed_to_WordPress.com_'

    Why are 30 million Microsoft refugees headed to WordPress.com?

    Publié: septembre 28, 2010, 8:31pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft has a long history of rewarding loyal partners.

    "Partners?" you say. Yes, partners. Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, uses Microsoft Azure services. Both companies revealed the partnership during Microsoft's November 2009 developer conference. Now I would never suggest any kind of quid pro quo arrangement, whereby Automattic agreed to use Azure (and take the PDC 2009 stage promoting the relationship), with the promise of getting Windows Live Spaces bloggers when the service later shut done. Others' tongues may wag, but not mine. I see a simple partnership, but a surprising one nevertheless. After all, WordPress' core software is open source.

    But where else would Microsoft send its blogging customers? Blogger is an obvious no-choice because it's run by Google; too bad, because Blogger's scale and reach make it as appealing as WordPress.com. Last week's Six Apart sale ruled out TypePad. Surely Ben and Mena Trott already were looking for a new partner long before the sale. TypePad in transition might be good for new corporate entity Say Media but not so good for homeless Windows Live Spaces bloggers.

    Tumblr would be a good fit, for reasons I'll later explain but how? Tumblr doesn't offer import tools for other blogging services, there is no comment system and it's a closed system for community sharing. I don't see that many of the smaller services, Posterous among them, would have the reach or server infrastructure to absorb tens of millions Windows Live Spaces bloggers.

    Whys and Why Nots of WordPress.com

    Windows Live Spaces has huge international presence, supposedly 30 million active bloggers and for its size and reach need for massive server infrastructure. At the least, Microsoft would want to send its blog customers to a service with similar capabilities. Microsoft provides the server infrastructure today and, well oh well, looks to still be the provider tomorrow. Today Microsoft pays to host those blogs. Now Microsoft will be paid, assuming Automattic uses Azure for at least some of the new subscribers. WordPress.com has international presence, is available in about 130 languages, is free like Windows Live Spaces, is a hugely popular and fast-growing blogging service and supports blog import from multiple services, which now includes Spaces. For lots of very good reasons -- not just partnership with Microsoft -- WordPress.com the is right place to send Windows Live Spaces bloggers.

    That said, there are many reasons why WordPress is a poor fit. Based on my survey of Windows Live Spaces blogs, I'd guess that 50 percent or more are located in international markets where free and other Microsoft services, such as Messenger, are important brand drivers. Also, in surveying Windows Live Spaces, I see that many are nothing more than photo blogs, which is not the predominate number I see at WordPress.com. I observed this pattern 3 years ago, and it's little changed today. In June 2007, I blogged: "A deep peruse of Windows Live Spaces reveals two dominant patterns: Many, perhaps most, blogs are outside the U.S. (in places where there may not be alternatives) or the Spaces contain only photos."

    Based on how I see people blog at both services, there's good but not great community or blogging style synergy between them. Branding will be a problem, since in many international markets Windows Live Spaces rides the coattails of Microsoft's brand(s). From the perspectives of community approach and blogging style, Tumblr would be a better fit. However, during 2010, WordPress.com has added some of the microblogging features that are Tumblr's trademark, so to speak. If WordPress.com isn't the best fit today, it may well be during the six-months Windows Live Spaces bloggers have to switch services.

    For WordPress.com, its Microsoft partnership is going to pay off big in terms of new subscribers. There aren't many services that import posts, photos and comments from Windows Live Services. If bloggers have little else where to take their content, WordPress.com will be top choice.

    According to WordPress.com stats, there are 13.9 million blogs as of this month, 350,000 blog posts a day, 400,000 comments posted each day and 260 million visitors each month. The number of Wordpress.com blogs could swell by as much as 30 million Windows Live Spaces subscribers over the next six months. The growth potential is simply astounding. Disclosure: I haven't blogged at Windows Live Spaces in years. I do use hosted WordPress software but would prefer WordPress.com for its community and other features. However, limitations on customization and other capabilities keep me away.

    Who Gives Up 30 Million Customers?

    Restated: Supposedly there are 30 million active Windows Live Spaces bloggers, which, by the way, is much lower than the 100 million blogs claimed in June 2007. Still, it's an unbelievable number of users that raises question: "Why shut down the service?" By many measures -- 2.2 times larger than WordPress.com being one of them -- Microsoft runs one of the most successful blogging services on the planet.

    There are a number of good reasons why Microsoft would give up Windows Live Spaces, such as how well it fits (or doesn't) with objectives of other Web services, the company's continued closing of consumer services and the infrastructure cost of supporting millions of bloggers for free. But there is another: Microsoft had very good founding concepts for MSN Spaces in 2004 that later overlapped with Facebook.

    At the time I first met with Microsoft managers about its online services strategy, I was an analyst with the now defunct JupiterResearch. Microsoft product managers outlined a clear and compelling strategy about people publishing content for whom they know. The Web is too big, they rightly asserted. What matters is contenting your stuff to people who would be most interested in it, like family, friends and coworkers. I liked what I heard.

    Four years ago, I compared Six Apart's Vox to Windows Live Spaces. In August 2006, I wrote at the now defunct Microsoft Monitor blog: "Features are highly comparable. Both services are free, ad supported and provide mechanisms for blogging, sharing photos, music or videos and connecting to a widening circle of friends and family." Vox is shutting down in two days. Windows Live Spaces will be gone in six months. Is it coincidence that these two services with similar design goals and features are shutting down around the same time? I think not.

    Facebook has fulfilled most of the same philosophical and development goals articulated by Microsoft managers six years ago. In early 2007, Facebook had about 30 million subscribers -- about as many as Windows Live Spaces today. Facebook now claims more than 500 million subscribers, although some people dispute they are all active. Facebook users share photos, status updates and other content with a circle of friends, family and other known or accepted relationships, which is exactly what Microsoft wanted to accomplish with Spaces and connected Live services.

    Microsoft wrongly measured Spaces' early success. I wrote about Windows Live in the aforementioned June 2007 post:

    Microsoft execs wear blinders when evaluating their services, because the company measures Windows Live success by the numbers -- as in how many users there are. It's the wrong measure, particularly for services people don't pay for. Microsoft name + free + global reach - competitors' lack of global reach = big numbers of users. Free + large number of users ≠ user satisfaction; not necessarily, anyway.

    Facebook has the reach and capabilities Microsoft failed to deliver with Windows Live Spaces. The service launched with great vision but not enough execution. Microsoft is right to cut its losses, no matter how many tens of millions of users they may be. Windows Live Spaces clearly hasn't grown its subscriber base. If the 2007 figure -- 100 million blogs -- referred to active subscribers, then Windows Live Spaces has shed more than two-thirds of its users in just three years.

    Yesterday afternoon, I tweeted back and forth with Altimeter Group's Michael Gartenberg about Facebook's negative impact on Windows Live Spaces. He didn't wholly agree but responded: "Spell it fail any way u want. It could have been much more."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Wordpress.com - Windows Live Space - Microsoft - Google - Six Apart
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/27/The_bright_spot_in_Microsoft_s_mobile_OS_disaster_is...'

    The bright spot in Microsoft's mobile OS disaster is...

    Publié: septembre 27, 2010, 8:07pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    ...There's no place to go but up. But up doesn't have to be an arduous climb.

    That's the attitude Microsoft product managers and marketers should adopt when launching Windows Phone 7. Microsoft has been humbled by upstarts Apple and Google; from that admission comes a fresh start. Windows Mobile has already lost the major battles of the mobile phone wars. Windows Phone cannot win if Microsoft plays by the rules set by its adversaries. The company must instead engage guerilla tactics, starting by leveraging off core strengths -- and Xbox gaming and mobile Office simply aren't enough. This kind of thinking might yet pull Microsoft out of the mobile OS gutter.

    Bottom is an ugly place to be, but there's only one direction to go, eh? According to Gartner, Microsoft will sell 12.69 million mobile OS units this year, down 2.34 million units from 2009. By 2014, Gartner predicts only 34.5 million Windows Phone OS sales. By comparison, Android will go from 6.8 million in 2009 to 259 million units in 2014, or 7.5 times more than Microsoft's mobile operating system four years from now. During Q2 2010, like the previous quarter, Microsoft ranked No.5 in smartphone OS market share. However, the Gartner forecasts just stated are for the entire global handset market. The "other" category, which Gartner asserts will fall just below Microsoft this year, will be 2.5 times larger in 2014. But already, by next year, Windows Phone will rank sixth in market share behind "other." How low the mighty has fallen.

    Even the fallen can rise to greatness. Apple was a near-death case in 1996, with many people asking: Should the board of directors pull the life support plug and give the organs to shareholders? Now look at Apple, with market capitalization greater than Microsoft's, which stock closes on a record $300 a share and products are hot, hot, hot. If Apple can achieve such greatness with so much less than what Microsoft can bring to bear, Windows Phone can yet push upwards from the bottom. After all, Microsoft isn't a company teetering on the edge of collapse like Apple was in the mid 1990s. Microsoft generated $18.76 billion in net income off $62.48 billion revenue during fiscal 2010.

    It's Time for "David Thinking"

    December 2009 post "Why Apple succeeds, and always will" used an audacious headline to make a point: The company doesn't play by the rules but sets new ones that favor its strengths. Apple applies what I call "David Thinking." In the Biblical battle between David and Goliath, the giant played by one set of rules. David chose to change the rules, which favored his strengths rather than those of Goliath.

    In PC operating systems and productivity suite applications -- and increasingly server software -- Microsoft is Goliath. But in search and mobile operating systems, the company is David and shouldn't apply Goliath thinking when competing against Google and other companies.

    As I explained in the "why Apple succeeds" post:

    At one time Microsoft changed the rules, too, when David to the IBM Goliath. For example:

    • Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates admonished early developers in 1976 "An Open Letter to Software Hobbyists." The convention had been to share code, which he called stealing.
    • Gates and cofounder Paul Allen licensed what would later be called MS-DOS to IBM in 1981, rather than selling the software. The approach broke the end-to-end hardware/software model and later flourished a robust IBM PC-clone market.
    • Microsoft's approach to partnering, particularly software developers and resellers, put more money in others' pockets. In the IBM model, money flowed up. By contrast, Microsoft shared the wealth.

    There are many other examples how Microsoft defied convention over the years, how the company changed the rules. No longer. Microsoft seeks to preserve the status quo it established through success and becoming Goliath.

    Perhaps "no longer" isn't right. Microsoft's recent product marketing for Bing, Internet Explorer 8 and Windows 7 are examples of exceptionally good advertising that applies David Thinking. For example, Google search is all about keywords. Rather than play the keyword game, Microsoft shows keyword search to be a negative. Bing is the "cure for search overload" and "decision engine" rather than search engine. The connotations are all positive for Bing and negative for keyword search, all without ever using the dreaded "G" word.

    Then there is recent history. Before launching Xbox in late 2001, Microsoft was less-than David in the game console market. But the company applied David Thinking to taking on Nintendo and Sony. Among Microsoft's strengths: Assets. The company chose to lose money on every console to gain market share, a strategy that later pushed Xbox ahead of Nintendo (despite early Wii sales successes) and Sony. From games development, to online gaming and to bundles, among other things, Microsoft changed the rules that Sony Goliath played by. And won.

    Clearly many people inside and outside Microsoft are looking to Xbox as means of driving Windows Phone 7 sales. Xbox thinking is right, but not leveraging Xbox gaming to Windows Phone 7, which clearly is the current strategy. I'm not suggesting that making Xbox gaming available on Windows Phone is a bad idea. The approach has merits. But if that's as far as it goes, Microsoft can't go far enough to take on competitors, particularly Apple, which iOS gaming has huge tactical and market share advantages. Apple is Goliath in mobile gaming. Leveraging Xbox gaming plays by Goliath's rules.

    But Xbox thinking, which is David Thinking, can work. Microsoft's Entertainment and Devices division was built on David Thinking, defying the corporate status quo inside and outside the company. Unfortunately some of the key architects -- the David Thinkers -- have left the company. My concern: Microsoft's attempts to bind Windows Phone 7 to status quo products, like Office and Xbox, will bring the software and its supporting devices to Goliath by his rules. Microsoft cannot win there.

    Change the Rules of the Game

    So how then should Microsoft change the rules? I have a few suggestions but would like to ask Betanews readers to offer more. For starters:

    1. Attitude: Product managers must treat Windows Phone 7's launch as guerilla warfare. Throw out the old rules of engagement. Decision makers must admit defeat and from that humbled position look to different tactical approaches. This suggestion may seem nebulous, but attitude is everything. Without accepting past defeat, key Microsoft decision makers cannot apply David Thinking. They will be burdened by status quo thinking, which for Microsoft means binding everything to Office and Windows.

    2. Mindshare: There must be aggressive aspirational marketing that is at least as good as recent Bing, Internet Explorer and Windows 7 advertising. Microsoft's first objective must be building, or perhaps rebuilding, mindshare around the mobile Windows brand. Advertise, advertise, advertise. If Christmas shoppers don't think that Windows Phone 7 smartphones are simply the coolest devices on the planet, Microsoft has already stumbled at the start. First impressions mean everything. Microsoft made the right, positive impressions when rebranding Windows Live Search to Bing -- thanks to supporting marketing. Windows Mobile is dead. Long live Windows Phone. It's a new brand that buyers must rightly meet.

    3. Change competitive perceptions: Microsoft should aggressively countermarket "myths" about Android. I'm a big fan of recent Microsoft assertions that "Android isn't free." Pundits scoffed at Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign against Linux, but it worked. Microsoft helped change "it's free" attitudes about Linux. Whether or not the open-source software is free doesn't matter as much as the effectiveness of Microsoft's FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) campaign. Microsoft could easily do to Android what it did to Linux -- create doubts about costs, security and reliability. People believe what you tell them. Look at recent political polls as example. According to a recent Pew report, nearly one in five Americans think President Obama is Muslim. The point: well-executed FUD campaigns can be hugely successful and believed.

    4. Give it away: Microsoft should do to Windows Phone 7 what it did with Xbox -- give up short-term profits for long-term gains. Every Windows Phone 7 smartphone sold in the United States this year should come with affordable unlimited calling, texting and data/Web plans, and Microsoft should subsidize the costs wherever necessary. So when AT&T subscribers compare every other smartphone to Windows Phone 7 handsets, they see a huge advantage: Unlimited everything for the same price as capped plans. Microsoft can make "unlimited" a holiday and launch promotion through December 25. Subscribers keep the promotional plan for as long as they don't switch to another one.

    As for the other suggestions, I ask you to make them. How would you advise Microsoft to change the rules in its favor so that Windows Phone 7 can rise from Windows Mobile's market share dearths? Perhaps Microsoft shouldn't even bother with market share but focus on profit-share per phone. Please pipe in with your suggestions. This is your chance to offer Microsoft valuable feedback about Windows Phone 7.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Xbox - Windows Phone 7 - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/23/Bye_Bye_Blockbuster'

    Bye Bye Blockbuster

    Publié: septembre 23, 2010, 11:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Blockbuster closes

    That Blockbuster filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection isn't surprising. Holding out for so long is the real shocker. I expected today's filing at the beginning of 2009. This outcome was inevitable and may yet foreshadow future bankruptcy filings from other dinosaurs of the retail analog age, such as Borders Books.

    But Blockbuster can't just blame digital delivery for its demise. Based on my own experience -- and surely that of others -- the movie rental retailer failed to adapt its business and technology practices to the Internet era. Blockbuster will need to do more than restructure its debt to survive Chapter 11. Executives will have to fundamentally restructure the business and most importantly the customer experience. Other armchair analyses surely will highlight the external problems, such as competition from digital content delivery and high-cost of maintaining retail stores. I'll focus on customer experience and expectations in the instant, connected era.

    I started renting from Blockbuster in the 1980s. Does anyone remember, gasp, VHS tapes? I switched to DVD rentals in 1999. In February, I purchased a refurbished PowerBook from PCConnection. At the time, only Apple shipped DVD players on laptops. The same month, I signed up for Netflix, which started renting DVDs by mail about 10 months earlier. I watched my first DVD, "Armageddon," on that PowerBook (which was my first Mac laptop). I cancelled my Netflix account for a few weeks in early 2000. So the service considers me a member since April 2000, although my rental history shows February 1999.

    Netflix embraced DVDs before Blockbuster, but the newer rental service was hardly the new instant. Blockbuster stores provided quick rentals -- just drive and try -- while early on Netflix rentals could take as much as a week to arrive. But by the mid-Noughties, Netflix had greatly reduced shipping time to a day or so, and its subscription service proved more affordable than Blockbuster's by-the-disc rentals (Netflix started monthly subscriptions in 1999 and did away with per-disc rentals the following year).

    Blockbuster 'Total Access' Isn't

    In summer 2004, Blockbuster started offering a mail-order DVD service ala Netflix. I waited for 18 months to fully try the service, after reading that Netflix was delaying, or "throttling," DVD shipments to high-volume customers. In February 2006, I posted to my personal blog (the post is archived but not currently online -- it's coming back!):

    Blockbuster offers a hybrid alternative -- three DVDs for $18 a month, similar terms as Netflix. But there's an extra: coupons for a weekly free rental from the store. Local sounds like a good idea, right? Blockbuster store is just 2 kilometer. My daughter and I rented this weekend, using our coupon, in what felt like oh-so 1986.

    Uh, Blockbuster's computer system must be circa 1986, too. Setting up an online account took less than five minutes. Pick a user name and password, enter name, address and credit card number and the process is done. The store sign-up took much longer. First, the online and store computer systems aren't linked! My new account -- really my old test one from last year reactivated -- couldn't be accessed from the store. I had to signup for another account. Worse, the clerk handed me a paper form, which meant he would have to manually rekey all the information. Absurd!

    And the information Blockbuster asked: Not just name, address and credit card number but social security number, driver's license number and birthdate. Huh? Social security number and driver's license numbers are necessary items to rent a couple of movies? Oh, come on.

    Ah, yeah. The customer experience was simply horrible. I cancelled the Blockbuster account within a month. I returned a couple times in the years since to see if Blockbuster had improved the experience. Nope. During much of the mid-to-late Noughties, Blockbuster posted quarterly financial losses, as it struggled to compete with Netflix. In second quarter 2010, Blockbuster posted a $69 million net loss.

    Streams of Competition

    Meanwhile, Netflix started streaming some movies and later TV shows. Suddenly there was a new instant, and Netflix wasn't charging extra for it. Most subscription customers qualified for free streaming. More: In January 2008, Apple announced movie rentals from iTunes Store. Apple and Netflix services weren't innovative for their immediacy -- cable companies offered pay-per-view movies for years. But Apple and Netflix services provided access to older catalogs of movies. In March 2008, Hulu opened to the public, offering free TV streaming and some movies. More than two years later, July 2010, Hulu ranked second to Google sites (including YouTube) for minutes-watched per U.S. viewer, according to ComScore.

    Blockbuster hasn't embraced immediate content delivery the way has Netflix, which offers software/service for many mobile devices, including, iPad and iPhone. True, Blockbuster On Demand offers instant access -- well, for Windows users running Internet Explorer or Firefox with IE tab extension. Earlier this month, Apple restructured its movie rentals and started offering TV rentals for 99 cents. Meanwhile the number of streaming/rights-protected download movie rental services -- from Amazon to Walmart -- continues to grow. Blockbuster also suffered from unexpected retail competition -- Redbox and other kiosk vendors peddling cheap, overnight rentals without the infrastructure or real estate overhead born by Blockbuster.

    All that said, while Blockbuster's business sags in the Unites States, there's still strength in many international markets, where brick and mortar operations beat by-mail rentals. But streaming and download rentals can unravel Blockbuster's overseas operations, depending on how quickly some local regulations change or fatter broadband pipes become available. This week, Netflix opened operations in Canada, signaling eventual expansion to more countries.

    Diversity and Consumer Experience Matter

    From a customer experience perspective, many digital streaming/download rental services offer more than movies, and more of these services are moving from the PC to the living room. Their hallmark is something Blockbuster used to be well-known for: Convenience. As a digital consumer, I don't use Blockbuster services because they're not convenient enough -- and, damnit they should be since Blockbuster could leverage its stores and online service, something Netflix can't do but Walmart already is (for example, offering TVs supporting its immediate rental service).

    Oh, do convenience and viewing satisfaction matter. Last night I watched the new "Hawaii Five-O" from CBS' Website. Technically, the HD streaming delivered. But there were too many fraking commercials. I'll not be streaming any programs from CBS anytime soon. I would rather have paid 99 cents to rent from iTunes. Oh, right, CBS doesn't offer rentals at iTunes, nor does NBC Universal, which has taken a bizarre position. This week, NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker said that 99-cent iTunes rentals "devalue our content." Really? Streaming for free doesn't? If it's free now, 99 cents adds value to the content -- or am I living in some alternate universe where they do basic math differently?

    Zucker's statement is strange for another reason: NBC Universal has been at the forefront of offering streaming content, and not just with Hulu. Back in 2004-2005, NBC Universal's Syfy (previously known as SciFi) network broke into limited streaming after observing the strange benefits of pirating. Mindjack's May 2005 story on BitTorrent trading of "Battlestar Galactica" episodes is a harrowing tale of piracy boosting TV viewership. "Battlestar Galactica" aired in the United States before the United Kingdom, making its way to BitTorrent in the between time. Mark Pesce explains the outcome:

    While you might assume the SciFi Channel saw a significant drop-off in viewership as a result of this piracy, it appears to have had the reverse effect: the series is so good that the few tens of thousands of people who watched downloaded versions told their friends to tune in on January 14th, and see for themselves. From its premiere, "Battlestar Galactica" has been the most popular program ever to air on the SciFi Channel, and its audiences have only grown throughout the first series. Piracy made it possible for 'word-of-mouth' to spread about "Battlestar Galactica."

    Somebody saw the benefits of online distribution. In a July 2005 post to my JupiterResearch blog I observed that "SciFi Channel had posted the entire 'Battlestar Galactica' first-season finale on the Web...Not only do I see the full episode stream as good promotion for season two, but maybe good response to file traders that have made many episodes available via BitTorrent." Full-episode TV streaming was pretty novel in early 2005. Heck, YouTube hadn't yet opened to the public (but would later that year).

    BitTorrent "Battlestar Galactica" piracy was also notable for strong social sharing undercurrent that predated Facebook's public availability (granted MySpace and other online hangouts were popular in 2005). That's another area where Blockbuster hasn't kept pace with competitors like Netflix: Social sharing and networking. Referrals matter. User reviews matter. Seeing what movies or TV shows friends are renting matters.

    That's my 1,400-word diatribe on the demise of Blockbuster, which isn't dead yet but badly wounded. What's your take on Blockbuster's customer experience, and what do you want most from movie or TV show rental/purchase services? Please answer in comments.

    [Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Netflix - DVD - Apple - redbox - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/21/Betanews_readers_offer_mixed_reactions_to_IE9'

    Betanews readers offer mixed reactions to IE9

    Publié: septembre 21, 2010, 8:25pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last week I asked: "Can IE9 bring back Microsoft's glory days?" You answered. As I write, there are 65 comments to the post, and I received dozens of e-mail responses about Internet Explorer 9 beta. Also, as expressed in the more than 160 comments to Ed Oswald's post "IE9 will leave a significant portion of Windows users behind," many of you are miffed the browser doesn't support XP.

    In this post, I share your reactions to IE9, the majority from e-mails. This morning, Matt Buono expressed his excitement about the browser, which he described as "fantastic." Dan Locker, an alliance manager with a West Coast Microsoft partner, called IE9 a "huge disappointment." He asked not to be identified because of his work with Microsoft; the name here is pseudonym. Jonah Takalua asserts: "IE9 is quick to start up and runs great so far. I liken it to the browser version of Win 7 with IE8 being Vista."

    Buono shared similar sentiment, asserting that "IE9 is what IE8 should have been." Nicholas Ipsen observed improvements, but with reservations: "IE9 is a very competent browser, and a marked improvement over IE8, but it still suffers from an archaic rendering engine, which has trouble rendering some elements of many of the Websites I visit, as well as lacking built-in support for open formats." Web developer Robert Johnson disagreed: "My sites looks more beautiful in IE9 than any other PC browser." However, even with his gripes, Ispen confesses "Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a great browser."

    Comparisons to Other Browsers

    Many of the IE9 beta testers have used other Web browsers. "It does remind me a lot of Chrome but it has the robustness that, in my opinion, seems lacking with Chrome but it has all the appearances of a quick browser," Buono expressed. "I have tried to move off of IE for my browsing needs but for all the Web portals I use for work, I find Chrome, Mozilla, etc. do not format those pages as well as IE does." "My feeling is this: IE9 is great," David Naylor expressed. "It basically puts IE on par with Firefox and Chrome. It feels fast and sleek, even if I'm sceptical to putting the tabs to the right of the address bar." But Naylor's IE9 enthusiasm won't bring him back to Microsoft's browser: "There is no reason for me as a long time Firefox user to switch to IE. Even if it weren't for the fact that I 'believe' in the openness of Mozilla, I can see no real reason to get out of my way to learn and set up a new browser to my liking."

    Takalua feels differently. In describing his reaction to using IE9 beta, and also the new Hotmail, he delighted: "It is nice that it is able to put a smile on my face again as I learn new things I can do." In a follow-up e-mail I asked him: "Is that smile big enough to move you off Chrome and permanently to IE9, Jonah?" "So far, yes," he responded. I asked Naylor if there is some Microsoft innovation that would make him switch to Internet Explorer 9. "No, I can't think of anything that would actually make me switch. It would have to be something altogether new, that puts IE in a completely different league than Firefox et al. And at the moment, I can't imagine what that would be."

    Ispen expressed a harsher tone, asserting "that's one thing IE9 doesn't do: Innovate. It merely copies all of the features Mozilla and Google have been adding over the past years, and adds nothing substantial of its own to the mix, whereas Mozilla and Google keep implementing new improvements and innovations." Another perspective: "I use Internet Explorer almost exclusively, so switching isn't an issue," explained Miller, who "was not that impressed with IE9." However, in a follow-up e-mail, he conceded that "when they get to the final version I think they will have a winner in combination with windows 7."

    Which Features Impress

    I expected more e-mail respondents to discuss features they liked, particularly the more streamlined look and feel. The majority did not. That said, "the interface is clean and beautiful," Johnson chimed. "It does have Zune UI touches to it." Locker slamed the new UI: "Many features I use many dozens of times a day have vanished, like the browse history dropdowns off the forward/back buttons, all the toolbars, my favorites links on a toolbar, etc." For George Boyce, any new features are wants he can't get at his job in a hospital's IT department. The organization "is only supporting IE6 at this time" because "many of our intranet/Citrix apps will not run under IE7 or better."

    In comments, Betanews readers expressed more about the user interface changes. "As for the overall look, it's quite a change. It will take some getting used to," Justin McGill commented. "It's definitely a leap forward in the look." Luke Mele chimed in comments: "The design intent has succeeeded with IE9 Beta, it's all about the browsing experience and not the cluttered UI like in Chrome and Firefox. IE9 Beta has made a big impression on me to the point it is now my primary browser and Firefox is now seconday on my desktop."

    Johnson praised IE9's "standards support," which is important to his work as a Web developer. Locker won't have it. "Maybe someday I'll care about HTML5, but today I care not one whit, and why would I? No site I use actually uses HTML5. He emphasized that Microsoft's "Beauty of the Web" offers "all kinds of ridiculous eye candy to show off their use of DirectX, with images swooping all around the screen. Gratuitous foolishness...Whoever the IE team thought they were building IE9 for, it clearly wasn't for me, or anyone vaguely like me. I'll be uninstalling IE9 very soon." We exchanged e-mails on September 16, so I assume he already has removed the browser.

    Other under-the-hood features did matter to some IE9 testers. "The best features of IE are not standards conformance or speed but security and accelerators," Larry Scott asserted. "Security should be every person's first concern when surfing the Net...As a company we rapidly updated to IE8 because of it's security features, and will likely do the same with IE9 as it moves the state of the art forward." In a follow-up e-mail, I asked Scott if the move would be done "quickly." "We will rapidly upgrade to IE9 when released," he replied. "IE x64 on Windows 7 x64 is the most secure surfing posture currently available, I can only assume that IE9 will advance the state of the art."

    Some Licks and Nicks

    With regard to installation, Miller's reaction was typical. "The beta installed with absolutely no hiccups," he explained. But other users ran aground. Darrel Ewert shared: "I have Windows 7 home and downloaded and installed IE9 beta. I started it up and it immediately crashed. I can't get it to run. Nice release. I had up to [IE9] Preview 4 running with no problems." In a follow-up e-mail, I asked Ewert if he had removed the preview version (he did) and had scanned the forums for similar experiences. After checking around, I decided to disable my add-ons," he responded. "It seems that IE doesn't like to play well with Flash, Zenga toolbars or Roboform. Java works fine as does any Microsoft add ons. They will need to work on this as most of the games I play are flash based games. Needless to say, I can't play any of them in IE9."

    IE9 testers chimed in about lacking Windows XP compatibility, too. Buono stands by IE9 being available for Windows Vista and 7. "Microsoft's stance on not having it be compatible with XP, it's time to let XP go the way of NT and let it die." In comments, David Ferguson expressed similar sentiments. "XP is done. The PCs that are running XP are dating fast...It would be crazy for MS to develop another browser for such an old OS."

    There remains but the original question. Can IE9 bring back Microsoft's glory days? "IE9 seems to have its work cut out for it," Boyce claimed. "I really do think this browser will bring MS back to popularity in browsers," Johnson countered. Who is right? That's a question not likely answered until after Microsoft releases the final product.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Internet Explorer - Microsoft - Firefox - Google - Google Chrome
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/16/Can_IE9_bring_back_Microsoft_s_glory_days_'

    Can IE9 bring back Microsoft's glory days?

    Publié: septembre 16, 2010, 6:17pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    IE9 launch

    That's a question for you to answer. Not analysts. Not armchair pundits. Not me. But you. Internet Explorer 9 beta is the most significant Microsoft browser release since IE3 launched in August 1996. IE9 is streamlined like no Microsoft browser before it, radically departing from recent versions' more cluttered interfaces. Microsoft also is touting IE9's adherence to Web standards, which is a trend among all major browser developers. Somebody pinch me: Wasn't IE3 the first browser supporting CSS (even if only partially), something Microsoft is big-time promoting for IE9?

    I want to essentially crowdsource my IE9 beta review, putting Betanews readers' reaction in front. If you've downloaded IE9 beta, please share in comments or by e-mail (joewilcox at gmail dot com) your reactions and assessments of the browser. Some readers regularly bitch about my writing style. Fine. Shut up and put up. Your responses will be my IE9 review. If you don't like how I write, then instead of complaining you should tap, tap, tap the keyboard and post your IE9 reaction in comments or by email. I would prefer to identify responders by real name rather than something like fglpss. Please email, even if you comment.

    Some pointers: Explain what you do or don't like about IE9. Compare it to older Microsoft browsers. More importantly, compare IE9 to other Windows browsers you've used. Developers and IT managers, please offer your candid early reaction. Microsoft enthusiasts, well, are you enthused by IE9? These are just starter topic suggestions. Please don't feel bound to them.

    IE9 is a crucially important browser for Microsoft, and hopefully it eventually will represent the future on mobile devices, too. Microsoft needs to be as competitive, if not more, in mobile browsing as PCs. According to the U.S. State Department, 5 billion of the world's 6.6 billion people use cell phones. The total install base of PCs is about 1 billion units. Granted, the percentage of PCs capable of browsing the Web is higher than the percentage of handsets.

    For now, Microsoft must recover lost territory on PCs. According to Net Applications, Internet Explorer usage share was 60.4 percent in August. Before Mozilla released Firefox 1.0 in November 2004, IE commanded more than 90 percent usage share, according to combined analyst reports. As recently as December 2007, IE usage share was 79.16 percent, according to Net Applications. How the mighty has fallen. However, because Net Applications tracks usage share, and not market share, the data doesn't reflect how many people use Internet Explorer and something else. I use several browsers. What about you?

    WSJ on IE9

    Browser development isn't easy for Microsoft, and that's a burden Google may some day bear. Google shipped Chrome 1.0 in December 2008 and already has advanced to version 6. Google's development pace is impressive but also starts from an install base of zero. With each new browser version, Microsoft must consider how changes will impact hundreds of millions of users. In August, Chrome usage share was 7.52 percent, which, by the way, was only .01 percent less than Opera and Safari usage share combined. Firefox usage share was 22.93 percent.

    I remember the excitement of Internet Explorer development during the early browser wars with Netscape. Microsoft released IE3 on Aug. 13, 1996, with a flurry of partners. I signed up for a trial account for Wall Street Journal, one of the IE3 launch partners, and still subscribe online 14 years later (WSJ is back for IE9). Microsoft gave out "I downloaded" IE3 T-Shirts. I got one and coveted it for years (Half a decade ago, my wife turned the then shredding garment into a cleaning rag; damn her!). Last month, in a very smart marketing promotional, Microsoft gave out one of these T-Shirts (Where the hell did they find it?) to a loyal IE user who didn't receive his memorabilia 14 years ago.

    The energy around IE9 development feels to me much like that for IE3 and IE4. Can Microsoft recover its glory days? What do you think of IE9? Again, please answer in comments and/or by e-mail (joewilcox at gmail dot com)

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Internet Explorer - Google - Net Applications - Opera
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/15/Believe_me_when_I_say_that_Consumer_Reports_is_WRONG_about_iPhone_4'

    Believe me when I say that Consumer Reports is WRONG about iPhone 4

    Publié: septembre 15, 2010, 9:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Now that I'm comfortably satisfied with iPhone 4, it's time for a quick review -- and big whack against Consumer Reports, which has once again disavowed a smartphone its editors highly ranked. This morning, Instapaper creator and Tumblr developer Maro Arment tweeted: "Consumer Reports got hooked on inflammatory Apple traffic." I thoroughly agree. The only Death Grip remaining is Consumer Reports clutching to pageviews and trying to save face, which the organization really lost by rating iPhone higher than other smartphones but later giving a no-recommendation.

    Apple's newest handset is the first I enthusiastically recommend -- that after dissing the first-three generation models; I found the number of dropped calls to be unacceptable and, more importantly, battery life to be inadequate to support the functions. In stark contrast, calling experience is superb on iPhone 4, by every measure. No longer am I having calling problems -- dropped or failed connections -- anywhere in the San Diego, Calif. area.

    Battery life is exceptionally satisfying. To use the iPhone 3G and 3GS, I had to plan my day around the next charge. Apple's handsets made me feel something like a drug addict organizing the day for the next fix. When would I have to hook up for the next charge? Even with proper battery conditioning, I could never get through the day on a single charge. In perhaps twisted, Monty Pythonesque-irony, I'm still thinking about iPhone battery life. But instead of "Crap, the battery won't last long enough" it's "When is the battery going down enough for a charge." I now easily get through one day and well into the next -- or even the next -- before recharging. Battery life is exceptional.

    Telephony and battery life were the two reasons I wouldn't recommend older iPhones. They are now reasons to recommend Apple's newest smartphone. But there are many others that make iPhone 4 an exceptionally good choice.

    Because I am a journalist, my criteria for evaluating smartphones may differ from most consumers; digital media features are priorities. Among my priorities:

    • Telephony. Calls must be clear and crisp for both parties. Frequently dropped calls are unacceptable. A phone should be a phone first before anything else.
    • Battery life. The device should easily get through a day's use without need to recharge. Nokia's E7x series is the gold standard. The E71, 72 or 73 can easily be used for three days, or more, between charges.
    • Camera. The phone should easily and speedily take photos or videos of suitable quality for print reproduction. Related: Phone must record audio in stereo quality suitable for broadcast.
    • Data. The phone should consistently connect at broadband speeds -- at least 1.5Mbps, which is minimum bandwidth wired providers still typically offer.
    • Internet. The phone's e-mail client and browser should deliver experience comparable to a PC. Digital content posting/sharing should be easy. Third-party applications are nicety, not necessity.
    • Sync. Content should easily sync with PC or, better, to the cloud. Push sync is must-have for e-mail, calendaring and contacts.
    • Screen. The phone's display should be adequately viewable from most angles and even in bright daylight; text should be clear and colors bright and accurate.

    Death Grip is a Non-Issue

    Apple's newest handset meets or exceeds my expectations for all the criteria. I've already praised telephony and battery life but want to briefly return to calling quality because of Consumer Reports. I must start with an apology to Apple and to Betanews readers for participating in the frenzied reporting about so-called Death Grip. I received my iPhone 4 on June 23, and, as I blogged hours later, immediately noticed the number of signal-strength bars receding when cusping the device in my palm. This phenomenon would come to be widely known as the Death Grip. However, after using the phone for several weeks, I found no practical calling problems related to Death Grip. Additionally, the first iPhone 4 update solved any other calling problems.

    On June 28, I asked Betanews readers to share their Death Grip stories, and 12 people did just that. Based on Betanews reader responses, my own iPhone 4 experience, the experience of other iPhone 4 owners I know and Apple's statement about a glitch affecting the signal-strength indicator, I concluded that there was no practical everyday calling problems caused by Death Grip. As I explained in a post right before Apple announced the free case giveaway:

    I have no problem creating the Death Grip...But I haven't had any more calling problems with iPhone 4 than its predecessors -- and that's living in an area where AT&T reps admit reception is notoriously bad. Elsewhere, I find signal strength improved and that Death Grip is not easily reproduced in areas with strong signals...I believe that Apple's problem is more perception than reality.

    The huge Death Grip media frenzy contributed -- quite likely was responsible for -- negative perceptions about iPhone 4. Proof point: Nearly all the media and other noise disappeared after Apple announced the iPhone 4 free case program. However, Consumer Reports is back following Apple's reassertion that the program ends September 30. The Apple statement begins: "We now know that the iPhone 4 antenna attenuation issue is even smaller than we originally thought." That's exactly my experience, too. Consumer Reports -- in a post I refuse to link to (why feed the pageview beast) -- responds: "We therefore continue not to recommend the iPhone 4, and to call on Apple to provide a permanent fix for the phone's reception issues." I disagree with the assessment.

    iPhone 4 is Gold Standard

    Apple's newest iPhone more than satisfies my other criteria, particularly following last week's iOS 4.1 update. The camera takes surprisingly crisp photos -- even better with the new HDR (high dynamic range) feature that combines several images together. I initially wasn't impressed with the camera, but HDR made the difference. Low-light performance is surprisingly good. My only gripe -- and it is a big one: No dedicated shutter button; the soft, touchscreen button is deficient. Video recording really impresses, particularly audio. As a journalist, iPhone is a sufficient and pleasing portable digital media studio.

    The Internet experience is exceptionally good, I normally get 1.5Mbps-2Mbps downloads and as much as 2Mbps uploads, according to the Speed Test app. However, I typically see 3Mbps or more on my wife's Android 2.2-Nexus One running on T-Mobile's network. Apple Mail is an excellent client and Safari delivers a near-desktop experience. Safari lacks for Flash. However, I find Android 2.x's mail notifications to be a more sensible user-interface motif.

    iPhone 4 sync is excellent, even if antiquated. The push features are reliable and don't suck up battery life. However, iPhone 4 must still be sometimes connected to a computer, such as applying updates. Android's cloud sync and over-the-air-updating is superior. That said, while iPhone 4 sync could be better by comparison, it's more than adequate.

    The screen is simply magical. Nothing compares in the size class. The 960-by-640-pixel resolution, 326 ppi display makes text easily -- as in exceptionally -- readable. During downtime, I've read several ebooks on the 3.5-inch display. Enjoyably. As a consumer, I find three features -- telephony, battery life and screen -- to be dealmakers. If Apple failed to deliver on any one, I would be using an Android phone today.

    Not only do I highly recommend iPhone 4, I must scold Consumer Reports for making Death Grip out to be something more than it really is. The CR team can wag around its antenna tests and cry consumer foul, but it's real-world use that matters. In my own experience and what I've heard from a couple dozen other folks, iPhone 4 delivers. I'm on record as being one of the crankiest complainers about iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS calling problems. If there was a real problem with iPhone 4's antenna, I'd be first in line whacking Apple aside the head with a two-by-four.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Nokia - Microsoft - iPhone 4
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/14/Bing_overtakes_Yahoo__and_that_s_not_a_good_thing'

    Bing overtakes Yahoo, and that's not a good thing

    Publié: septembre 14, 2010, 7:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Short-sighted armchair analysts, pundits and Microsoft managers will rejoice in Bing snatching the No. 2 spot from Yahoo in U.S. search share. Everyone should cool their jets. Yahoo's losses are Microsoft's losses. The only gain that matters: Search share taken from Google, which isn't giving up much of anything to either Microsoft or Yahoo.

    The problem: With Microsoft now serving up Yahoo search, the two are really one from a share perspective. Bing is starting to cannibalize Yahoo search, which simply isn't good for Microsoft.

    According to data that Nielsen released today, Microsoft search share was 13.9 percent in August, slightly ahead of Yahoo's 13.1 percent. Google stoutly remains above 65 percent. Bing search share is up an astounding 30 percent year over year, which I still largely credit to clever branding and marketing. By comparison, Yahoo search is down 18 percent year over year and 8 percent from July.

    "If we combined Bing-powered search in August pro-forma, it would represent a 26 percent share of search," according to the Nielsen Wire blog. In the month before Microsoft and Yahoo announced their search deal, June 2009, combined share was 25.1 percent -- on a strictly added and not pro-forma basis. From that perspective, Microsoft-Yahoo have gained search share as a combined entity. However, a review of Nielsen's month-to-month data reveals little change in combined share throughout most of 2010, with Yahoo consistently losing share to Bing gains throughout the middle part of the year.

    Microsoft started serving up Yahoo search in late August, so the first telling search share numbers will be September's. Trend to date: Since its launch, Bing has taken search share from most every other provider but Google. Granted, Google search share is down from 66.1 percent in June 2009 but from July 2010 up 1 percent year over year and month over month to 65.1 percent. Bing taking share from Yahoo is a more recent trend but consistent over the early spring and summer 2010 months, according to Nielsen data.

    Nielsen August 2010 search share

    Fourteen months ago I blogged that "Microsoft-Yahoo search deal is Google's Christmas-in-July present." I asserted:

    Cannibalization is inevitable, and there is likely to be heaps of it. Matters would have been worse had Microsoft bought Yahoo and consolidated all search under a single brand. My prediction: Combined Microsoft-Yahoo share will be less than 20 percent within 12 months of the deal's closing -- and that's my being somewhat generous so that I don't get totally flamed in comments.

    Microsoft serving up Yahoo search most certainly closes the deal. The clock is ticking. Will Bing take away more share from Yahoo? I'll either be right or wrong in 12 months.

    The larger question: What about everyone else? Microsoft can only take so much share from smaller providers, which is one reason for it now bleeding searches from Yahoo. But it's not that simple. Microsoft is aggressively marketing Bing as a brand, while Yahoo has all but pulled back its search branding push. Why not, with Microsoft running the shop? But there is still share Microsoft can take -- and is taking -- from other search providers. For example, AOL search is down 37 percent year over year. AOL's search share was 2 percent in August, down from 3 percent in June 2009 -- the month before Microsoft and Yahoo reached their search deal. Since Google powers AOL search, it could be reasonably argued that perhaps Microsoft is serpentiously taking share from the search giant.

    Still, Microsoft gets bragging rights for claiming the No. 2 spot, if taking it from a coveted partner is what executives really want to boast about.

    The significance isn't position but gains. Microsoft search share was 8.9 percent in June 2009, the first full month of Bing's operation. Fourteen months later, Bing search has consistently grown, reaching the aforementioned 13.9 percent share. Bing is on an unequivocal roll. It's no longer a question of whether or not Bing will continue to grow share but one of where will future growth come from. Microsoft loses by taking share from Yahoo. The gains that matter must come from Google.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft-Yahoo - Google - Yahoo - Bing - AOL
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/13/Are_IDC_and_Gartner_mobile_OS_forecasts_trustworthy_'

    Are IDC and Gartner mobile OS forecasts trustworthy?

    Publié: septembre 13, 2010, 10:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's funeral for BlackBerry and iPhone is eerily foreshadowing. Apple 2.0 blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt asks "Who Will Bury Whom?" It's the right question, but there's no easy answer. Last week, Gartner and IDC released seemingly non-congruent forecasts about mobile operating systems' futures. Whom should you believe? Gartner, IDC or Microsoft?

    Windows Phone 7's release to manufacturing, which the mock funeral celebrated, is Microsoft's bold assault to recover lost territory. Before Apple released iPhone in June 2007, Windows Mobile's market share trailed only giant Symbian. Fast forward to 2010, and Microsoft's mobile OS is No. 5, whether measured by smartphones or all handsets, according to Gartner. Can Microsoft retake market share territory captured by upstarts Apple and Google?

    I'll affirmatively say "maybe a little," although in a past post I firmly asserted that "Windows Phone 7 is a lost cause." Simply put: "Microsoft's problem is more about timing than strategy -- or technology." I remain unhopeful about Windows Phone 7's future, but also recognize that the mobile phone market is dynamic and rapidly changing. Much will depend on how Microsoft executes, particularly with the marketing. I hold out hope because of how good are Microsoft's Bing, Internet Explorer 8 and Windows 7 marketing campaigns. As such, I look cautiously at the Gartner and IDC forecasts.

    Evaluating Mobile Forecasts by the Numbers

    The Gartner forecast is the more chilling for Microsoft:

    • The analyst firm reports and forecasts actual sales -- not shipments to carriers or dealers -- which offers a more accurate perspective of the real-time mobile market.
    • The forecast, through 2014, covers all mobile operating systems -- not just smartphones.
    • Gartner all but disregards Microsoft's mobile OS, which global market share is forecast to decline to 3.9 percent in four years.

    Gartner claims that Android will be second only to Symbian in mobile OS market share -- based on sales -- this year. By 2014, Symbian and Android will be near even -- with 30.2 percent and 29.6 percent share, respectively. The two so-called "open" mobile operating systems would command about 60 percent market share.

    Gartner Mobile Forecast

    With respect to Symbian's future, Gartner's forecast is the most damning to date. But it's worse for Microsoft's mobile operating system. "The worldwide mobile OS market is dominated by four players: Symbian, Android, Research In Motion and iOS," Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst, asserted in a statement. She predicts that the "OS space will consolidate around a few key OS providers," and she doesn't include Microsoft as one of them. Gartner puts Microsoft's mobile OS No. 6 in 2014, behind -- gasp -- Meego, which has negligible market share today. Intel and Nokia are codeveloping Meego.

    Market share is but one measure. Unit shipments is another. Gartner sees Windows Phone OS shipments little more than doubling in the forecast period (2009-2014) -- from 15 million to 34.5 million units. By comparison, Android shipments will rise to 259 million from 6.8 million units.

    IDC's forecast, also through 2014, is for smartphones, and it holds slim glimmers of hope for Microsoft:

    • The analyst firm asserts the smartphone market can "comfortably support up to five OS players," which would include Microsoft.
    • On smartphones, Microsoft's mobile OS will grow 43.3 percent through 2014, with share rising to nearly 10 percent.
    • Apple's iOS share will fall to within 1.1 percent of Microsoft's mobile OS in 2014.

    Neither of these forecasts is particularly hopeful for Windows Phone 7, which circles back to the "Who will bury whom?" question. One answer: Analysts are burying Windows Phone 7. But are the epitaphs premature?

    IDC ssmartphones 2010-2014

    What analyst in 2006 predicted that Apple would release an innovation-leading smartphone in 2007 or successful mobile applications store in 2008? Who in 2007 predicted that two years after the autumn 2008 launch of Google G1 that Android would be the world's second-most popular mobile operating system -- measured by market share? No credible analyst I know of. The point: In such a rapidly evolving market can analyst forecasts truly be trusted? I'm skeptical.

    Some Factors That Could Affect Handset Sales

    There are several mitigating factors that almost certainly will affect who wins, if anyone, the handset OS wars. Among them:

    1. Microsoft traditionally does its best work when pushed into a corner. If CEO Steve Ballmer is willing to really invest in Windows Phone 7 marketing, there's still a chance. Verizon's $100 million campaign supporting the Droid launch did magic for Android -- that and the later 2-for-1 sales special. Say, Microsoft, how about a special Xbox Kinect bundle with free Windows Phone 7 for Christmas shoppers? Limited Edition to show off Xbox gaming on both devices.

    2. Apple has yet to fully tap its most potentially lucrative market -- the United States. Single-carrier distribution hampers growth, particularly when Android or BlackBerry OS are available on handsets from all major carriers. The end of exclusivity here and in some other countries will unlock pent-up demand for iPhone.

    3. Nokia is getting a new CEO, Stephen Elop, on September 21; the announcement came after Gartner and IDC finished their forecasts. Nokia will undergo a dramatic transition during a crucial time period, when more manufacturers will be adopting Android. Change in leadership at the executive level could go either way -- slow down Nokia at the wrong time or lead to competitive-changing new innovations and strategies within 12 to 18 months.

    4. Emerging markets' increasing consumption of connected handsets is difficult to accurately predict. In huge growth markets like India, the first 3G networks are just now starting to reach the masses. Nokia is strategically better positioned than most competitors. Symbian could still reverse course. In these markets, dumb phones dominate sales, and Nokia has done well bringing smartphone features to them. That said, manufacturers are adopting Android for dumb phones, giving Nokia hefty competitions in markets it has long dominated.

    5. The killer application for mobile will be mobile banking/money, or so I predict. The feature lets cell phone owners store/send/receive money in accounts associated with their mobiles, providing banking and payment features to people who otherwise wouldn't use commercial banks, particularly in emerging markets. In an early August US State Department presentation, "Tech@State: Mobile Money and Financial Inclusion," Maria Otero, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs, observed that about 5 billion of the planet's 6.6 billion people have cell phones. However, 1.7 billion cell phone users with low incomes do not have bank accounts. Mobile money could change all that.

    Mobile banking/money is a truly empowering application, but it's one with great limitations. For now. Mobile banking/money services are fragmented, mainly for reasons related to availability, competition, infrastructure and local financial regulations. Additionally, no major mobile OS developer has incorporated banking/money services into its platform. Apple and Google have payment infrastructure in place -- iTunes and Checkout, respectively -- and Nokia has announced a mobile money service. Platform integration would be a game changer for somebody, depending which vendor gets there first and how much capability is made available to third-party applications. The Who, What, Where and When of mobile banking/money could hugely affect future handset sales -- and which will be the leading operating system(s).

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Nokia - iPhone - Gartner - Apple
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/10/Microsoft_s_Stephen_Elop_moves_to_Nokia____what_a_waste'

    Microsoft's Stephen Elop moves to Nokia -- what a waste

    Publié: septembre 10, 2010, 6:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If Stephen Elop's only qualification to run Nokia is that he isn't American, the Finnish phone giant is in big trouble. Elop is Canadian. That's right, Microsoft's Business division president is stepping down and moving up. That leaves two divisions for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to run -- he already is overseeing Entertainment & Devices. Elop assumes his new role as Nokia CEO starting September 21. That's not exactly two weeks notice, is it? Or the customary several months that executives of Elop's caliber usually give.

    No disrespect intended, but Elop wouldn't be my first choice to run Nokia, nor would he make my list of top-100 candidates. If someone handed me a list of people not to choose, Elop would be among the top five. I love Nokia. I lauded its handsets for years. But this great company has pissed away market share and bungled the most basic innovations since Apple launched iPhone in June 2007. Elop may be the greatest mistake of all and sure sign Nokia won't effectively execute against Google's rising Android Army or Apple's iOS cultists.

    Elop Leads Business Division Nowhere

    Elop's Microsoft record is reason enough to wonder why Nokia wants him as chief executive. Microsoft revealed Elop's hiring in January 2008, concurrent with the announcement Jeff Raikes would step down as Business division president. Raikes gave Microsoft 9 months for transition, with Elop officially assuming his responsibilities in September 2008. He has only been in the role of Business division president for about two years -- hardly time to make any positive impact. But Elop will leave behind helluva negative effects. There is no transition period, no handing off responsibility to a successor or giving that person mentored training. Elop might as well have kicked Ballmer in the balls before punching him in the face.

    Business division is no better off today than when Elop officially assumed his responsibilities two years ago. There are reasons to argue that Microsoft Business Division declined during Elop's short presidential tenure. In a statement acknowledging Elop's departure, Ballmer asserted: "The MBD business continues to grow and thrive, with 15 percent growth in the last quarter." Oh? That growth came in a quarter when Microsoft launched new products, including flagship Office 2010. During the previous quarter, revenue and income both fell 6 percent year over year -- granted, slowing sales ahead of a new product launch accounted for some of the decline. Revenue and income declined or was flat during previous quarters, too.

    More broadly, according to Microsoft fiscal 2010 annual 10-K filing, MBD revenue fell 1 percent compared to FY 2009 and was flat with fiscal 2008. Income gained 1 percent against 2009 but declined 2 percent against 2008. That's hardly a growth business. Granted, Microsoft deferred more than $250 million for Office 2010 upgrades from v2007. By comparison, in FY 2008, business division revenue grew 15 percent against fiscal 2007 and 2006 -- for income, 13 percent each. Raikes was still MBD president.

    Raikes grew the division from $14.465 billion revenue in FY 2006 to $18.932 billion in fiscal 2008. Operating income increased from $9.534 billion to $12.358 billion. The division is now less profitable than it was two years ago. For fiscal 2010, revenue was $18.642 billion (a decrease of $290 million from FY 2008) and income was $11.776 billion (down $582 million). Even when adding in the deferral, MBD is less profitable two years after Elop assumed leadership than when Raikes ran the division. Exactly how distinguished a record is that?

    Ballmer was too kind in his statement about Elop's departure: "I appreciate the way that Stephen has been a good steward of the brand and business in his time here, and look forward to continuing to work with him in his new role at Nokia." Oh, my. "Steward" is the right description for a leader who did little more than keep the business running in place.

    If Elop is so qualified to run Nokia, why didn't Ballmer charge him with turning around Microsoft's mobile division? Hell, why didn't Ballmer hire Elop for the responsibility two years ago? Microsoft's mobile strategy clearly had already run aground when Elop came on two years ago. There is little about Elop's Microsoft tenure or his previous jobs that makes him obviously the leader to turn around Nokia -- or to fit in with a company with huge global presence.

    Nokia Needs a Miracle Worker

    Perhaps Microsoft was good training for Nokia -- at least corporate culturally. Outsiders often don't excel at Microsoft. The former Juniper Networks COO can apply any lessons learned fitting in -- or not -- at the new company. Elop will be even more the outsider at Nokia, which is renown for its stiffly European, if not quirkly Finnish, ways. But that's OK. That corporate culture helped Nokia repeatedly reinvent itself. Beginnings going back to 1865, "Nokia started by making paper -- the original communications technology," according to the company's historical primer. Modern Nokia came to be in 1967 when jointly-owned Nokia Ab, Finnish Cable Works and Finnish Rubber Works merged. Nokia's reinvention as a mobile phone company came later -- starting in the 1980s.

    Gartner Mobile Forecast

    The challenge for Elop, logistically and corporate culturally, will be Nokia's next reinvention. Elop assumes his responsibilities after Nokia World, which convenes September 14. "Nokia World" is apt description. Nokia is global like few other companies. The handset manufacturers' huge market share success is more than just about technology. Nokia has craftily built up strong partner and carrier relationships in most countries and rightly localized products and their marketing.

    However, Nokia has stumbled in three major markets -- Japan, South Korea and the United States -- in part because of how carriers operate there and how ineffectively Nokia works with them. That said, in markets like India, Nokia market share is as much as 70 percent -- or more -- depending on the analyst firm doing the numbers. In second quarter, Nokia had 34 percent market share of the global handset market, according to Gartner, which measures actual sales to end users not shipments to carriers and dealers.

    However, in data released today, Gartner made a startling forecast about mobile operating systems: Android OS sales would all but catch Nokia's Symbian OS by 2014. The forecast is shocking because of its scope. Other forecasts focused on smartphone operating systems. Gartner is looking at the larger handset OS market. The research firm predicts that Symbian OS will decline from 46.9 percent share in 2010 to 30.2 percent in 2014. Meanwhile, Android will rise from 3.9 percent to 29.6 percent.

    Nokia doesn't just need a turnaround artist, but a miracle worker. I don't see any miracles in Stephen Elop's future. But I do see his hiring as foreshadowing the kind of future that today Gartner predicted for Nokia.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Stephen Elop - Apple - Nokia World - Microsoft Business Division
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/07/IDC__Apple_iOS_market_share_will_decline_26_percent_through_2014'

    IDC: Apple iOS market share will decline 26 percent through 2014

    Publié: septembre 7, 2010, 6:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, IDC raised its forecast for 2010 global smartphone shipments. Is it any wonder? "Hot" defines an exciting summer of new models, including iPhone 4 and scads of big-screen Android smartphones. Meanwhile, Nokia is ready to pop the N8 (It's almost Nokia World, folks!), and Microsoft has already started marketing Windows Phone 7 even before the first devices release.

    The analyst firm published a forecast through 2014 that shows Apple's iOS losing market share and Microsoft's mobile OS gaining but not rising from fifth place. Android -- what in a statement Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, called a "wild card" -- is forecast to make the greatest gains.

    For 2010, IDC now predicts year-over-year smartphone shipments will grow 55.4 percent, or 10 percent higher than the previous forecast. For first half of 2010, manufacturers shipped 119.4 million smartphones, or 76.8 million more units -- a 55.5 percent increase -- than 2009. Looking ahead at the full year, IDC forecasts 269.6 million smartphone shipments, which compares to 173.5 million during 2009. For 2011, IDC predicts that shipments will grow 24.5 percent year over year.

    "The smartphone is the catalyst behind the rebound in the worldwide mobile phone market this year," Kevin Restivo, IDC senior research analyst, said in a statement. "Additional product introductions and an expected flurry of smartphone buying activity in the second half of the year will push the market well above previous expectations."

    Smartphones are selling so well that IDC predicts overall handset shipments will grow 14.1 percent -- a 1.5 percent increase from the previous forecast -- year over year. That's not bad for a market annually shipping more than 1 billion units, which is greater than the entire PC install base.

    Still, the numbers may be conservative. The smartphone market is suddenly and rapidly changing. During second quarter, Gartner placed Android No. 1 in the United States and third-ranked worldwide based on actual sales (IDC measures shipments). Android market share was 17.2 percent, but Gartner previously forecast the smartophone operating system would achieve 18 percent in fourth quarter 2012 -- a feat likely to come more than a year early. Analysts can really miss when a market is dynamically changing so fast.

    IDC ssmartphones 2010-2014

    IDC's forecast butts against popular blog and press punditry favoring consolidation around Android and iOS. "IDC believes the market will comfortably support up to five OS players over the next five years," Restivo asserted in the statement. "Shorter replacement cycles and an ample feature phone to smartphone upgrade opportunity means the smartphone OS market will remain fragmented but healthy for the foreseeable future."

    The assertion has huge implications for mobile applications development, if true. Henceforth, development has consolidated around a smaller number of platforms, with the personal computer being prominent example. So it's not unreasonable to presume there would be consolidation around two or three mobile operating systems. However, IDC analysts see greater possible fragmentation.

    Several possible unfolding scenarios:

    1. IDC's forecast is wrong. Applications development will compel rapid consolidation around one major mobile OS and as many as two others.

    2. The mobile platform is fundamentally different from PCs, and developers will gladly support four or five different operating systems.

    3. The future of the mobile Web is still uncertain -- whether it will center around applications or the browser. The latter would more easily support a larger number of smartphone operating systems.

    IDC is ambitious forecasting such a dynamically changing market as smartphones. The market was relatively small before Apple launched iPhone in June 2007. Then Google followed with Android, when a single handset -- T-Mobile's G1 -- shipped in autumn 2008. Now Android ranks No. 1 in US smartphone OS market share. Meanwhile, Nokia fights to hold market share, while Microsoft prepares a Windows Phone 7 marketing blitz in an attempt to regain share.

    If IDC's long-term forecast is even remotely accurate, Apple's star will fade, with iOS market share declining nearly 26 percent between 2010 and 2014. Meanwhile, Microsoft's mobile OS share would increase by 43.3 percent, but not enough to break 10 percent global share or to pull out of fifth place. However, Microsoft would trail Apple by just 1.1 percent market share.

    More immediately, there are two simple questions: Which smartphone OS do you prefer? What new smartphone did you recently buy or plan to purchase? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - iPhone - Google - Apple - Nokia
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/02/Why_can_t_Apple_s_Ping_sing_'

    Why can't Apple's Ping sing?

    Publié: septembre 2, 2010, 7:08pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Is Apple going to compel me to write another "I was wrong post?" Yesterday I extolled Ping -- Apple's new social music discovery tool -- based on features and product strategy. Finally, late last night, Apple widely distributed iTunes 10, giving me the chance to finally use Ping. The results aren't good. The discovery tool is simply useless, because Ping doesn't reflect my current music listening habits.

    One of Ping's most important personal features is "What I Like." It can automatically display 10 popular songs, allowing friends to see what the Ping user (hereafter referred to as Pinger) listens to (there is a manual option, too). "What I Like" is crucial to music discovery friend-to-friend, and it broadcasts the Pinger's music tastes to the world. How embarrassing for the teen chugging Ke$ha, B.o.B., and Katy Perry, only to find Ping plunking Perry Como into "What I Like."

    My list of 10 preselected songs is totally surprising. I haven't listened to one of these tunes in months. Some are MP3 files purchased from Amazon and others are AAC tracks bought from iTunes. I've looked through the songs and so far can see only one commonality: I don't listen to them much. Ah, isn't that the opposite of what Ping is supposed to do? Sure, there are many more songs that I listen to less, but many others I do more. Ping rightly reflects past listening habits as current. How dumb is that?

    Among the songs, Ping asserts that I like:

    • "Your Love is a Drug" by Ke$ha
    • "The Beauty in Ugly" by Jason Mraz
    • "This River is Wild" by The Killers
    • "Warning" by Green Day
    • "Shadow of the Day" by Linkin Park

    These are all bands I do listen to. I don't recall ever listening to the Jason Mraz song. Last.fm or Zune.net would let people know what I listen to most and most recently. There's simply nothing current about Ping. Here's my confessed musical reality:

    1. Last five played songs:

    • "Banquet" by Bloc Party
    • "The Ghost Inside" by Broken Bells
    • "Too Dramatic" by Ra Ra Riot
    • "Bourgeois Shangri-La" by Miss Li
    • "Hate to Say I Told You So" by The Hives

    2. Most played songs:

    • "Shattered (Turn the Car Around)" by O.A.R.
    • "Hey, Soul Sister" by Train
    • "You Won't Know" by Brand New
    • "Narcotic" by No Second Troy
    • "Fortress" by Pinback

    3. My current fav albums:

    • "The Orchard" by Ra Ra Riot
    • "Beneath It All" by Hey Monday
    • "The Script" by The Script
    • "The Devil and God Are Raging Inside Me" by Brand New
    • "Silent Alarm" by Bloc Party

    Does Ping represent you, because it sure doesn't reflect me. This morning I tweeted: "Does Ping accurately represent what you like? Tweet back w/answer. I'm writing a story about Ping's music choices." Paul Sorensen responded: "It represents what I listen to, which is perhaps different than what I would like to think of myself as liking."

    Ping

    Adam Hall quipped: "I ticked Alternative and Rock options, and it recommended Lady Gaga and Katy Perry. that's a #fail to me!" But follow-up tweets revealed Ping's musical recommendations to Hall, not what he supposedly listens to.

    Another problem: I went to bed with a Facebook Connect option, but it was gone this morning. Over at All Things Digital, Peter Kafka tries to answer: "What Happened to Apple's Ping/Facebook Connection?" Regardless, Ping is off to a somewhat rockier start than I would have guessed from yesterday's demo.

    If Ping can't accurately display "What I Like" the service is useless to me. How about you? Have you used Ping? Are you satisfied? I ask Last.fm or Zune.net users to pipe in about these services compared to Ping. Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - ITunes - Jason Mraz - Shadow of the Day - Steve Jobs
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/09/01/Steve_Jobs___Ping_is_for_social_music_discovery_'

    Steve Jobs: 'Ping is for social music discovery'

    Publié: septembre 1, 2010, 11:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Coldplay lead singer

    Apple's September 1 music event ended on a sour note. Coldplay's Chris Martin gave a tepid and pitchy performance that would have sent him packing from an American Idol audition. Michael Stanclift aptly tweeted: "This guy could have practiced before this gig." Martin, whose daughter is named Apple, seemed like the right performer for what was otherwise an outstanding event. While Martin muffed, Apple -- the company, not his child -- hit every key. Not since the first iPod nano launched five years ago has Apple delivered such spectacular new music products.

    For the past week, pundits and rumormongers spewed forth the most ridiculous and seemingly sensible conjecture about what Apple would announce today. Nearly every rumor was wrong. There was a new Apple TV, but with no storage, no apps and no gaming capabilities. It's a Roku with a nicer design and streaming support for Apple services and devices, Netflix and YouTube. Yes, there are 99-cent TV rentals as rumored, but only from ABC and Fox -- and they're all HD. Otherwise, the rumors missed all the significant stuff, even the most important details about the new multitouch iPod nano. Who guess right about iTunes 10? There was no iLife `11 as rumored, among the other bits of mistaken reporting (and blogging).

    By far, Ping is the biggest single announcement. "Ping is for social music discovery," Jobs said during today's Apple event. People can "sign up for Ping immediately." That "immediately" depends on when you can get iTunes 10, into which Ping is built. As I write, Apple has placed notice "iTunes 10. Coming Soon." on the download page. Based on Twitter chatter, some people have the software. But not me. So my first-take Ping analysis is based on the strategy and not actual usage.

    Apple is a surprising latecomer to the social sharing/networking circus. Ping is but the first of the day's two entrants. The other is the new FaceTime-supporting iPod touch, which I predict will be a big seller this holiday. I tweeted during the event: "OK teens, will your new 'face' be FaceTime instead of Facebook?" I'll circle back to the "Why?" in a few paragraphs.

    In watching Jobs' announce Ping, I suddenly time traveled, first to January 2001 and then to October of the same year. In January, Apple announced iTunes 1.0. In October, the first iPod shipped. Both product launches marked Apple's late entry into music products and services. The media software wasn't just about managing music but being able to rip from CDs and later sync to iPod. I time traveled because of what made the iTunes/iPod combo eventually successful: People already owned content. There was no need to buy more to fill iPod. Users could just rip from CDs they already owned.

    iPods sold

    PIng is somewhat similar. People already have the content around which they will interact with others. Similarly, Ping users (hereafter referred to as Pingers) can discover new music through social interaction with people who own music of potential interest. "Facebook and Twitter meet iTunes," Jobs said of Ping. That's an apt description.

    Ping really is two services with intertwined objectives. The first is social interaction around artists, whose activities Pingers can follow. Artists post updates, photos, videos, playlists and concert information to their fan subscribers. I'm somewhat surprised that Fox is one of Apple's TV-rental partners, because Ping is quite likely a MySpace Music killer. Ping offers many of the same benefits, and music buying is just a click or two from discovery. If Apple and the artists are really smart, they'll use "Facebook and Twitter meet iTunes" feeds for making exclusive offers.

    The second objective is around non-artists -- as in friends. Around them are three main points of discovery: following, and seeing what they're listening to; seeing what friends of friends are listening to; and who is attending local concerts. Additionally, the discovery feature produces music charts for people Pingers follow.

    iTunes 10 intro

    I see lots of potential in Ping, which integration into iTunes for Macs/Windows PCs, iPhone and iPod touch, make it a better fit than Microsoft's socially-oriented Zune. I'm a big fan of Zune, but too much of the experience is on the Web -- outside the core device/software/service. Apple has done what Microsoft should have: Created a more enclosed and sticky service. Pingers won't easily switch to something else, because of the iTunes enclosure.

    Forrester Research analyst Mark Mulligan isn't as enamored with Ping as I am. He blogs:

    This social functionality (which looks like the best of MySpace, Last.FM, Twitter and Facebook) will be a valuable way of driving music discovery. But it needs more. My guess is that within 12 months we'll see this upgraded with the resultant social data combined with Genius data to create a robust crowd sourced discovery tool.

    Maybe, but there is something even more potentially powerful here: iOS devices and FaceTime. Artists can upload photos and videos to their Ping pages. Can regular Pingers do likewise? Since I still can't download iTunes 10, I don't have an answer. But what if they could use iPhone or iPod touch to shoot concert photos or video clips (short enough to avoid copyright problems) and post to their Ping feed? The tools are there. Only the connections are necessary.

    FaceTime is potentially huge, separately and as part of the social iTunes interaction someone is sure to call Pinging. FaceTime and Ping are both social services, even if Apple fails to initially treat the video chat service that way. There's a synergy FaceTime and Ping share that Apple should exploit, and it's something competitors should copy -- even if badly.

    iTunes Facts

    Given just how much social sharing takes place around music and music events or those where music is a part (think any party), Apple could and should assemble together the hardware, services and software pieces placed before existing and new customers today. It's 2001 again and Apple is moving into territory occupied by others with something game changing. Apple came late to CD-burning, music software and MP3 players in 2001, just like it's following behind Facebook, Last.FM, MySpace Music, Twitter and many other social-oriented services today.

    There was an earthquake in San Francisco today. The shockwaves will reverberate from iTunes 10, Ping, iPod touch and iOS 4.1. Apple is finally getting into social media. Perhaps it's fitting then that Chris Martin fumbled as a solo act. His strength comes from the group.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Steve Jobs - Facebook - iPhone - Microsoft
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/27/Where_have_all_the_PC_sales_gone_'

    Where have all the PC sales gone?

    Publié: août 27, 2010, 9:17pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the question to ask now that Intel has issued a third-quarter profit warning. Right, this is the same company that reported its "best quarter ever" just last month. Strong PC sales mean more chip sales for Intel, and second quarter was scrumptious-delicious. PC shipments rose 21 percent year over year, according to Gartner, beating estimates. Apple and Microsoft had record quarters, too. Everybody swayed in the mosh pit of love, singing praises to a PC market recovered from recession.

    Today, Intel sang a different tune, cutting its revenue estimate to $11 billion from a previously forecast range of $11.2 billion to 12 billion. "Revenue is being affected by weaker than expected demand for consumer PCs in mature markets," according to the press release. Yeah, Happy Friday to you, too, Bud.

    As if there isn't already enough bad economic news. The last week has been full of it. This morning, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis revealed that second-quarter GDP was a tepid 1.6 percent rather than the previous 2.4 percent estimate. Days ago, two different housing reports -- from National Association of Realtors and US Commerce Dept. -- revealed record housing sales declines. NAR put housing sales down more than 25 percent in July year over year. Commerce Dept. reported new home sales declined more than 32 percent in the same time period.

    All signs point to double-dip recession in the making and slowing consumer spending, which drives between 60 percent and 70 percent of the US economy. These sully indicators have sent stock markets swinging high and low, like the amusement park ride from Hell. It's puke or pee time, baby.

    Still, grim news doesn't mean the grim reaper is coming. Yet. Intel's profit warning doesn't have to mean doom for Apple, Dell, HP, Microsoft or many other companies adjoined to PCs. Much depends on the reasons for Intel's problems. Second quarter tends to be slowest for PC sales, which makes Intel's record results somewhat surprising. By comparison, Q3 is one of the two best quarters for PCs sales because of back-to-school buying. These PC sales are more typically consumer driven, although there still is much institutional buying, too.

    I have to ask: What? Are Freshman going to college without new laptops this year? Are the European and US economies really so bad that moms and pops can't pony up for a shiny, new back-to-school PC? If that hard-to-believe scenario is true, it can't be good for Microsoft attaching Office to new computer sales.

    So, why then is Intel reporting slowing sales during a quarter that should otherwise be strong? It's easy to blame the economy, eroding consumer sentiment and spending, high unemployment  and shrinking school budgets (Hey, tax base is lower because of unemployment and other economic maladies). But there are other factors that shouldn't be ignored (but probably will be in many simplified analyses). Three factors stand out, and two derive from economic conditions:

    1. Rising PC inventories. There is a revealing "tell" in Intel's press release: "Inventories across the supply chain appear to be in-line with the company's revised expectations." The key word is "revised." Gartner, like rival IDC, measures PC shipments going into the channel, not sales out to customers. Strong Q2 shipments would be good for Intel chip sales but are no guarantee they would continue to be strong. If retailers and dealers don't sell enough PCs in stock, OEMs like Dell and HP won't ship as many more, meaning they also won't place as many chip and other component orders from Intel.

    Should rising PC inventories be a factor, it foreshadows trouble for other component manufacturers and software developers that ship software on new PCs. For example, Microsoft could see a slowdown in Windows 7 OEM license sales and for Office 2010, which consumer sales already were slower than anticipated.

    2. iPad sales. Every tablet that Apple ships is a computer without an Intel microprocessor. It's Apple A4, baby. Apple shipped more than 3.2 million iPads during Q2. I've seen Wall Street analyst estimates ranging from about 4 million to 6 million units for third quarter. Apple's tablet is the cheapest Mac anyone can buy and it's familiar to the iPod touch generation of incoming college Freshman or 11th and 12th grade high schoolers. Then there are the people who choose iPad as an adjunct to an aging PC, rather than buying a new computer.

    By the gross numbers, iPad shipments pale before PCs. Globally, vendors shipped 82.7 million PCs during Q2, according to Gartner. However it's not how many but to whom that matters. Right now, Apple is selling iPad mostly in mature markets, which Intel explicitly identified as being slower for PCs than anticipated. Could it be that iPad is cannibalizing PC sales? There has been much debate about iPad impact on computer sales, with some Wall Street analysts indicating such a scenario is unfolding. In that circumstance, Intel is more casualty than, say, Dell or HP. Because every iPad sale is a computing device without an Intel processor -- and coming from Apple, which otherwise buys Intel chips for Macs.

    3. Smartphone sales. I'm surprised no one is really asking whether or not smartphones are cannibalizing PC sales. For smartphones, Gartner does measure sales to end users rather than shipments into the channel. During Q2, smartphones accounted for 19 percent of worldwide handset sales, rising 50.5 percent year over year to 61.6 million units. Consumers have many more smartphones to choose from in 2010, and prices are declining, particularly as more Android models come to market.

    How many Millennials do you know that eat, drink and sleep with their cell phones? Surely a smartphone wouldn't replace a PC, but a new model costing less than a laptop could be the choice in an either-or purchase decision; the student makes do with an older computer or shares with a roomie. Meanwhile, adult consumers looking for a connected computing device could easily put off new PC purchases for a smartphone as companion to the aging computing clunker. The scenario would more likely hurt Intel than PC manufacturers, since most smartphones ship with chips from competitors and some OEMs now sell handsets.

    Bottom line: Intel's profit warning is disturbing and foreshadowing but not necessarily disastrous for the entire PC sector -- nor the larger US economy. That said, no one should dismiss as frivolous Intel warning just as schools resume across the country. Will the PC sector get a failing grade for the quarter? I sure hope not.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Intel - Dell - Microsoft - Intel Corporation
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/24/Remembering_Windows_95_s_launch_15_years_later'

    Remembering Windows 95's launch 15 years later

    Publié: août 24, 2010, 7:58pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Some moments are culturally defining. They pave the way for a generation of consumers. People of my parents generation still remember the Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. I recall long lines to see the movie "Jaws," which gave A-movie status to scary B-movies. Many young adults of this generation will recall iPhone's June 2007 launch. Some moments define us. So it was this day 15 years ago. Windows 95 launched to long lines at midnight on Aug. 24, 1995.

    Do you remember? Please share your Windows 95 story/memories in comments. Or send e-mail to joewilcox at gmail dot com. If I get enough good stories, I'll compile them into a separate post.

    Microsoft had the right product at the right time. The planets aligned just so. Windows 95 was by no means the best PC operating system of its day. But it was good enough, usable enough, cheap enough and marketed well enough -- and the personal computer was mature enough for the mass market.

    Windows 95 made geeks cool, too. Suddenly the seemingly unhippest of all people, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, was a rock star and business genius. Microsoft left IBM at the OS/2 altar -- abandoning the 32-bit operating system the companies codeveloped -- and shacked up with pseudo-32-bit Windows 95. A decade-and-a-half later, OS/2 is all but forgotten, while Windows defines the very essence of personal computing.

    Other product and marketing decisions would prove crucial:

    • Pricing: Windows 95 sold for under 100 bucks as an upgrade to anyone with a powerful enough PC running DOS/3.11.
    • Compatibility: Microsoft ensured that Windows 95 would be largely backward compatible with customers' existing DOS software and PC hardware. PC owners could get a new computer, so to speak, for the price of a new operating system.
    • Marketing: The fast-flashing television commercials suited the MTV-video generation of the day, and they were aspirational. Your life would be better for buying Windows 95. Then there was the Rolling Stones' "Start Me Up" theme song.
    • Networking: Windows 95 fully supported TCP/IP out of the box -- no expensive third-party add-ons required. Businesses could easily network PCs and consumers could get online.
    • Multimedia: Windows 95 users could listen to music or watch videos on their PCs.

    To showcase Windows 95's multimedia capabilities, Microsoft included two music videos--Weezer's "Buddy Holly" and Eddie Brickell's "Good Times"--on the operating system disc. Little touches like these show how well Microsoft synced Windows 95 product development and marketing. The music videos catered to a younger audience and they demonstrated the multimedia features' benefits. Yes, people could watch videos on Windows 3.1, but the experience was better on its successor.

    Windows 95 made Microsoft a household name; it did for household awareness what DOS' and Windows 3.1's success did for businesses. Microsoft smartly simultaneously released Office 95 with the new Windows. Businesses bought the software duo by the millions of copies. From Windows 95's release, Microsoft's 15 year-old applications business really started flying.

    Innocence Lost

    I often wonder how close Windows 95 came to being a train wreck. In October 1994 -- the month OS/2 Warp launched -- I flew to Seattle; I was there to write a profile about a company using Lotus Notes. My local, Maryland Egghead Software store prominently displayed OS/2 -- right as customers walked through the door. The Seattle Egghead had similarly large display for Microsoft Bob, the-too-cute-to-sell graphical user interface for Windows 3.11. Bob turned out to be a magnanimous marketing and product disaster for Microsoft. Yet less than a year later, the company managed to get most things right with Windows 95.

    I say "most things," because Gates was too obsessed with chasing AOL and CompuServe when the burgeoning World Wide Web mattered much more. I beta tested Windows 95 and MSN. I used OS/2 before running the first Windows 95 beta. I first surfed the Web using the Mosaic browser IBM shipped with OS/2. While Windows 95 shipped with Internet Explorer 1.0, Microsoft's main focus was MSN, which debuted with the operating system. MSN was an online client built into Windows 95. There was no Web browser access like there is today.

    If I fault Microsoft for anything with MSN 1.0 it would be trying to do too much. The original MSN was a heavy client that labored under the slow dial-up connections of the day. It was simply too slow to offer a really good user experience, disappointing many launch partners. 

    Windows 95 launched a short-lived time of innocent success, when good marketing and right timing turned a mere operating system upgrade into a phenomenon. During late-Windows 95 beta testing, Gates penned the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo; suddenly, he got the Web. Within a year, Microsoft aggressively pushed down an obsessive and dangerous path: Attempting to snuff out Netscape's browser for the perceived threat posed to Windows. The European and US antitrust cases that followed chaffed away the business decision-making, product innovation and marketing knack that helped make Windows 95's launch a defining cultural moment for PCs and computing operating systems.

    Fifteen years later, Microsoft has got its Windows mojo back. There weren't massive lines around the block for Windows 7's launch, but that doesn't make the product any less culturally defining. Windows 7 is a spirited and reliable operating system that Microsoft brought to market with clever advertising. There is a massive Windows XP install base -- on order of 80 percent of all Windows users -- ready to go 7. In the strange way of Microsoft counting 95 comes before 7.

    Happy Birthday Windows 95!

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Windows XP - Microsoft - Windows 95 - Windows 7 - Windows 3.1
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/20/Is_Apple_the_real_U.S._PC_market_share_leader____or_soon_will_be_'

    Is Apple the real U.S. PC market share leader -- or soon will be?

    Publié: août 20, 2010, 10:34pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The answer to the question depends on how iPad is classified and how the shipments add up combined with Macs. Is iPad a PC, like Windows tablets or low-powered netbooks? The definition is sure to generate controversy because of what's at stake -- which manufacturer is market share leader in the United States.

    Late yesterday, I contacted Gartner and IDC, which both measure global PC shipments. But only Gartner responded to my question about how iPad is classified. It is clear from preliminary second quarter PC shipment data that neither analyst firm calculated iPad with PC shipments (Gartner explicitly explained so in its press release: "Gartner's PC group does not track media tablet sales in this PC shipment data, so iPad sales are not included in these results.") A Gartner spokesperson responded to my question about classification: "We don't have data for this category yet. We hope to have some stats for this category at some time shortly."

    But what category is that? Media tablets? Windows tablets have been shipping for years, then there are slate netbooks. Don't these devices count as PCs? If so, then why not iPad? Apple's tablet has a microprocessor, graphics processor and storage disk, runs an operating system and third-party applications and connects to the Internet. That sure sounds like a personal computer to me. There's a touch keypad, or the user can attach a physical keyboard by Bluetooth. If PC classification requires a mouse, well, iPad doesn't have one of those. But should no mouse make iPad no PC?

    So I'll ask you, before showing why the classification is so important: What is a PC? Please answer in comments.

    In mid July, Gartner and IDC released preliminary worldwide PC shipments. Final numbers should be soon coming, now that Dell and HP announced quarterly results (yesterday). Both analyst firms placed HP No. 1 during second quarter for global PC shipments. HP and Dell ranked first and second, respectively, in the United States. Their rankings were based on estimated shipments. The analyst firms should have had final data from most other PC manufacturers before making the preliminary announcement.

    Global Top 5, Gartner

    1. HP, 14.455 million
    2. Acer, 10.796 million
    3. Dell, 10.283 million
    4. Lenovo, 8.31 million
    5. ASUS, 4.318 million

    US Top 5, Gartner

    1. HP, 4.608 million
    2. Dell, 4.236 million
    3. Acer, 2.028 million
    4. Apple, 1.749 million
    5. Toshiba, 1.565 million

    According to Apple's fiscal third calendar-quarter earnings announcement, 3.472 million Macs shipped during calendar Q2. Apple also shipped 3.27 million iPads. If iPad counts as a PC and the numbers are combined, then Apple shipped 6.742 million personal computers during second quarter. That's high enough to raise Apple to No. 5 in global PC shipments.

    Figuring US placement is dicier, because publicly-available information is incomplete. Apple announced 2 million iPads sold on May 31, which effectively means through the 30th -- or two days after international sales started. During the last month of the quarter, iPad was available in 10 countries. Apple hasn't released a geographic breakdown of sales and probably won't. The first million units came before Apple opened international sales, which is more than enough to push Apple ahead of Acer and snatch away third place.

    But how much of that remaining 2.27 million units went to the United States? If 1.487 million (plus the 1 million for certain), then Apple would match Dell. If 1.859 million (plus the 1 million for certain), then Apple would match HP -- based on Gartner's preliminary data. To match Dell, international sales would be only 783,000 and 411,000 to match HP. However, IDC puts Apple unit shipments lower (1.618 million) and HP and Dell higher (4.721 million and 4.408 million, respectively). Based on those figures, it's unrealistic that Apple would rank any higher than third place. Again, the numbers are not exact. Gartner and IDC released preliminary shipments, and Apple's data stops two days before the quarter ended.

    But what about third quarter? Could Apple top Dell or HP? The answer would depend on how iPad is classified. Is it a PC? If, yes, then based on analysts projections for PCs, Macs and iPads, Apple almost certainly could sell more units than HP or Dell in the United States. I've seen Wall Street analysts' iPad shipment estimates range from about 4 million to over 5 million units. Macs: Hovering above 3 million units. Assuming even half the combined Macs and iPads were sold here, Apple would be in striking distance of topping either HP or Dell.

    In several previous blogs, I've asserted that iPad is the cheapest Mac that anyone can buy. But should iPad be counted as a PC? Netbooks are PCs, and ASUS recently reduced netbook shipments because of iPad competition. Apple's tablet certainly competes with PCs. Should it be counted as one? You tell me. In comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - United States - Gartner - IPad - Dell
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/19/Is_Facebook_stifling_innovation_'

    Is Facebook stifling innovation?

    Publié: août 19, 2010, 7:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The answer could prevent startups like foursquare from ever coming to be.

    I predict that social geotagging service "Places" will be Facebook's TCP/IP moment. During the 1990s, Microsoft started to aggressively integrate previously standalone features into Windows, with TCP/IP and disk compression being notable. The features' integration made products from smaller companies -- many of them startups -- redundant. Microsoft didn't necessarily offer something better, but something free and easily accessible as part of Windows.

    Particularly during the late 1990s, it seemed like anyone developing anything would ask whether or not Microsoft would move into their market. The day's hot startup could be tomorrow's roadkill if Microsoft chose to suck some new capability into Windows. Critics, and later the US government, charged Microsoft with stifling innovation, particularly as Windows' popularity increased. Facebook is starting to look eerily similar.

    The companies aren't just similar, so are their platforms, which is reason enough to ask the "stifling innovation" question. As I explained in September 2007 post "Microsoft's Facebook in the Mirror," the social networking service shares surprising similarities with Windows:

    Like Windows, Facebook is an enclosed platform, and one where people can install applications, post and share digital content and communicate with friends, families or others in ways they might do with Windows on PCs.

    Facebook is also a lot more like Microsoft than it resembles Google, because it's so-called openness is more of a one-way street. Information goes in, but it doesn't easily come out. Developers write applications for the one platform, which is different from, say, tapping into Google APIs (application programming interfaces) for use elsewhere. Facebook and Google both take platform approaches, but Facebook's way is more like Windows than Web 2.0.

    I've repeatedly called Facebook "Windows in the cloud." The platforms simply reside in different places: The cloud data center rather than the local PC. Microsoft's integration approach arguably stifled software competition on the PC. Facebook can do something similar for social services served up from the cloud to mobile devices. Microsoft's integration approach also put it in direct competition with its Windows development partners. Facebook's position is similar.

    Facebook announced Places at 8 pm ET yesterday, much to the chagrin of East Coast journalists (I read complaints on Twitter). Facebook put on a good face, seemingly making the Places launch a happy place. Major competitors like foursquare and Gowalla joined Facebook for the announcement. It was all huggy and kissy, but really the kiss of death. Standalone social geotagging services, where people checkin to let friends know their location, are endangered species.

    Facebook Places"Oh, yeah?" you ask. I can recall countess events where Microsoft competitors put on the happy face during similar past announcements. They received the kiss of death and died. That's how business is done. What other choice do foursquare and Gowalla have? They run little shops, and Walmart just opened a Super Center down the block. Competition is brutal, baby. Take a look at Facebook's Places logo. Is that a 4 in a square? Get it?

    That said, the competing business models are different. Microsoft vanquished products that consumers or businesses paid for. Facebook is potentially killing competitors even before they have clear revenue streams in place. The competitive chilling effects could be much more severe. Many startups are nearly or wholly reliant on venture capital funding. When their founders are asked about future Facebook competition, how can they answer -- particularly if the social media service will be given away for free at first and monetized later? Investors may be harder to come by, fearing they could lose their wad before the startup ever has a chance to succeed. Someone's good idea today becomes their death by Facebook integration tomorrow.

    I'll close by asking a question for which I encourage readers to answer in comments: Could Twitter have been funded in 2006 if Facebook was as big then as it is today? You can guess my answer, particularly considering how many times the question is asked today about Twitter's future.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Facebook - Microsoft - Google - Gowalla - Twitter
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/17/iPad_likely_cannibalizes_Mac_sales__but_that_s_OK'

    iPad likely cannibalizes Mac sales, but that's OK

    Publié: août 17, 2010, 10:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Analysts and pundits have fiercely debated whether or not iPad would cannibalize Mac sales. Or netbooks, or Windows PCs or iPods. Or nothing at all. Cannibalization will happen now, if at all, which is what I predicted in April. Based on NPD July US retail sales data, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty asserted in a report yesterday: "iPad momentum is likely contributing to the moderation of both broader PC and Mac unit growth."

    Oh yeah? I'm skeptical about iPad sapping PC growth, except for perhaps netbooks, but Macs make sense. It's about time a Wall Street analyst finally acknowledged the inevitable. In April I asked "Will iPad cannibalize Mac sales?" and answered: "The question isn't if iPad will cannibalize Mac sales but when. If the cannibals are coming, they'll first strike during back-to-school buying season."

    Well, bust my butt. We're in the thick of back-to-school buying season. Surely any cannibalization is going on now. For example, back-to-school buying season would be right time for mom and dad to choose a lower-cost iPad rather than MacBook for their middle or high schoolers. It's easy arithmetic: $499 vs $999. For the teen set -- iPad is an iPod touch plus. All the music and video benefits are there, and it's more respectable to carry around school. What teacher is going to tell a student to put away an iPad, who might otherwise scoff at iPod touch?

    Not that cannibalization is so bad a circumstance. Apple is no longer a Mac company, and executives have the right attitude about cannibalization. Attitude first: During last month's earnings conference call, Apple COO Tim Cook surprised analysts by saying, "Everybody views cannibalization as a negative, but at Apple we focus on synergy between devices." The statement is so sensible, I nearly fell off my chair. It also resonates with what I blogged in January:

    From a marketing perspective -- looking at Apple computing products as a range of features and prices -- iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the aforementioned $399 and $999. Suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac portable is $499, or half what it was on Monday. Consumers who wanted a Mac but couldn't afford one can get one for under 500 bucks...

    Apple now offers portable computers -- and that's how I classify iPhone, iPod touch and iPad along with Macs -- ranging from $99 to $2,499. From a pricing strategy perspective, iPad is a brilliant product, because it fills the gap between iPhone/iPod touch and Macbook without price cuts or risk to the Mac's premium brand status.

    Cook's July comments fit with this perspective. Apple doesn't see so much cannibalization as halo effect, where buyers of the company's other products add an iPad rather than skip buying something else. That's sensible marketing strategy. But what about profit and revenues? Macs generate lots more revenue than do iPads. Or do they?

    During second calendar quarter, which would be Apple's fiscal third, iOS products accounted for at least 50 percent of Apple revenue -- that's an estimate, because the company didn't release exact iPod touch shipment data. For certain, iPad and iPhone accounted for 48 percent of revenue. By comparison, the Mac accounted for a mere 28 percent of revenue during calendar Q2. Apple's stake in iOS is much bigger than Mac OS X products -- the computers.

    More numbers: iPad generated $2.17 billion revenue during its launch quarter or about half of what Macintosh generated but much more than desktops ($1.3 billion). Average selling price of iPad is about $600, according to Apple. Based on various iPad device breakdowns, gross profit is $400 or more per tablet. I don't have data on Macs other than ASP of about $1,200, but presumably profits -- and therefore margins -- are substantially higher than iPad. Where iPad cannibalizes iPod touch, Apple gets an overall margin boost, since iPad generates more revenue and margins. Where iPad cannibalizes Mac sales, Apple margins go down. But that's OK from Cook's "synergy" perspective.

    Based on the imbalance of PCs and Macs, iPad is more likely to cannibalize Windows PCs than Macs. "If it turns out that the iPad cannibalizes PCs, then I think it is fantastic for us because there are a lot of PCs to cannibalize," Cook said last month. He is so right.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Mac - IPad - Mac OS X
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/13/Apple_can_still_win_the_mobile_platform_wars__but_it_won_t_be_easy'

    Apple can still win the mobile platform wars, but it won't be easy

    Publié: août 13, 2010, 9:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The InterWeb is buzzing about Android's sudden second quarter smartphone OS market share surge against Apple's iOS and Research in Motion's BlackBerry OS. Windows Mobile was a goner last quarter. But behind the numbers is a bigger question: Which mobile platform will be more successful? Smartphones are but one small measure of success.

    Android's smartphone surge -- to No. 3 worldwide and No. 1 in the United States during second quarter, according to Gartner -- doesn't surprise me. I laid out the scenario in October 2009 post "Apple cannot win the smartphone wars" and again in May with "Like I said, Apple cannot win the smartphone wars."

    As I explained in the first post, "Another 'everyone else against Apple battle' is coming, with Android looking to be the better OS around which an ecosystem grows and thrives." The key word is ecosystem. "In the 2000s, like the 1980s, Apple successfully launched industry-changing platforms -- iPhone and Macintosh, respectively. Like Macintosh, iPhone's end-to-end licensing model is poised to limit the supporting ecosystem's growth," I wrote. "Meanwhile, Google, Microsoft and Nokia license their mobile operating systems to third parties. Among the three, Google's Android is the one to most closely watch."

    Android's smartphone OS market share gains are simply stunning -- 10.606 million units during second quarter, up from 755,900 a year earlier. To be clear, Gartner measures actual sales to end users, not shipments to carriers or dealers. Its market share data is more meaningful measure of device or operating system sales success.

    Android pushed iOS to fourth place in worldwide smartphone OS market share during Q2. "A non-exclusive strategy that produces products selling across many communication service providers (CSPs), and the backing of so many device manufacturers, which are bringing more attractive devices to market at several different price points, were among the factors that yielded its growth this quarter," Carolina Milanesi, Gartner research vice president, said in a statement.

    handset sales q2 2010

    By the way, Android's smartphone OS market share gains already are sure to exceed Gartner predictions, as iOS already has done. Last year, Gartner's Ken Dulaney predicted that Android's market share would be 18 percent in fourth quarter 2012 -- 13.6 percent for iOS. Apple's smartphone OS already exceeds the number, while Android is just shy of it.

    Apple's Future is Bound to iOS

    Pundits already are predicting iPhone's death brattle before the great Android god. I wouldn't write off Apple just yet. The mobile wars are bigger than smartphones, as Apple already has shown. Also, market share is but one measure of success. Money is more important, and Apple rakes in nearly $600 for every iPhone. 

    That said, Apple can't afford to lose the mobile platform wars. During second calendar, iOS products accounted for at least 50 percent of Apple revenue -- that's an estimate, without exact iPod touch shipment data. For certain, iPad and iPhone accounted for 48 percent of revenue. The point: Win, lose or draw, iOS is now the future of Apple's success. The Mac accounted for a mere 28 percent of revenue during calendar Q2 (which was Apple's fiscal third quarter). Apple's stake in iOS is much bigger than smartphones and the operating system is hugely important to future revenue.

    In the wake of iPad's sudden, surging success -- 3.2 million shipments during the launch quarter -- Apple mobile competitors are seemingly appearing on every corner. Rumors or official announcements have tablets running HP, Microsoft, Nokia and RIM mobile operating systems soon coming to market. Analysts' tablet predictions vary for 2010 -- 6.9 million, according to Consumer Electronics Association;  7 million, according to IDC; and 11 million, according to ABI Research. Apple is expected to take the majority of sales.

    Competition may be just what Apple needs to stay the course and navigate past pirates looking to snatch its mobile platform booty. From a purely platform perspective, iOS is the most appealing choice. Developers get a single ecommerce-capable platform for their applications, and consumers (or businesses) get mobile products developed end-to-end from one company. Applications can run across iPad, iPhone and iPod touch, too -- another compelling benefit. However, Google is building the stronger, sustainable ecosystem around a mobile operating system. Google's only big problem is fragmentation, which is unavoidable as long as cellular carriers or hardware manufacturers control update distribution. Then there are the skins device makers like HTC and Sony Ericsson place on top of Android. Skinning fragments the user experience, even while creating better differentiation among Android-based devices.

    handset sales q2 2010

    Meanwhile, Microsoft, Nokia and RIM are all struggling to reposition their mobile OSes. Their increased competition will cause fragmentation of the broader mobile device market -- at least as viewed by developers and, more importantly, consumer or business buyers. In the smartphone market, Nokia will soon launch the N8, and Microsoft will unleash Windows Phone 7 before the holidays. During second quarter, Nokia lost mobile market share -- again -- to 34.2 percent from 36.8 percent a year earlier. However, Nokia's smartphone OS share plummeted by nearly 10 percent. Microsoft's smartphone OS fall from grace is to fifth place, during first quarter. Then there is RIM, which is debuting a new BlackBerry OS version. These three companies have much to lose or to regain in the coming months. The point: Smartphone competition will be fierce during fourth quarter.

    Mobile Device Competition Benefits Apple

    My prediction: Increased smartphone competition is more likely to hurt Android than iOS. Then there are other mobile devices to consider, like tablets and portable media players -- or even set-top boxes and TVs. In an "everyone else against Apple battle," iOS loses if there is a single competing platform around which third-parties rally (Like DOS/Windows on PCs during the 1980s and `90s). But in a war of many, iOS is more likely a winner. Apple's end-to-end mobile products, backed by the hugely successful App Store, will stand out against the many other choices similar to one another.

    However, much depends on how fast and far Android can extend to other mobile products. It's only a matter of time before the number and quality of mobile applications in the Android Marketplace rivals Apple's App Store. Applications are great, but the ecosystem is everything. Android can't become the Windows of the mobile era without both.

    Even if Android does beat down rivals like BlackBerry OS, Meego, Symbian, WebOS or Windows Mobile, there is another measure of success working to Apple's long-term advantage: The business models are different. Apple derives direct revenue from iOS, by sales of hardware, software and services. Google gives away Android, indirectly deriving revenue from applications and cloud services attached to smartphones and other devices.

    Apple's profit motives are much stronger than are Google's (or many of its Android licensing partners), and Apple already takes a larger chunk of mobile revenues than any competitor other than RIM. According to various analyst estimates, iPhone accounts for more than 30 percent of global handset profits, off a mere 2.7 percent market share (the latter number from Gartner's Q2 handset sales data). But, again, iOS isn't just a smartphone story. Apple sells portable media players and tablets, which combined with iPhone amount to more than 100 million iOS units sold.

    I don't believe that Apple can win the smartphone wars, but there's still a chance to win the broader mobile platform device wars. It won't be easy. Much will depend on whether or when Android can beat other operating systems across all major mobile device categories. That said, if Apple's profits are scads larger than rivals', losing the market share war can still be called victory.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Nokia - iPhone - Microsoft - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/12/Confessions_of_a_Windows_7_to_Ubuntu_switcher'

    Confessions of a Windows 7 to Ubuntu switcher

    Publié: août 12, 2010, 7:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The other night, I got quite the shock. A good friend, who is a Windows enthusiast and IT administrator/consultant, informed me that he had dumped Windows 7 for Ubuntu. I didn't see that coming. For one, he's a Windows fan. For another, I would rate Windows 7 as nearly Microsoft's best operating system ever (sorry, even with the driver problems, Windows NT 4 still ranks as my fav; for its time -- 1996ish). My buddy contacted me by Skype, and I kept the transcript which I offer here with his permission.

    Many of my questions were deliberately pointed, for three reasons. 1) As with all interviews, I strive for impartiality. 2) This friend, whom I'll call IT Guy for this post, is a good buddy. I know his personality enough to press hard about certain things. 3) I don't want to give some of Betanews' more rabid commenters cause to accuse of bias against Microsoft or Windows (I have none, but they accuse anyway). Hey, I'm just as surprised as you about my buddy's Ubuntu conversion. He had tried Linux years ago and didn't really like the experience, particularly because of driver problems and deficient or missing applications.

    I don't see that IT Guy gave very good technical reasons for abandoning Windows 7. He mostly states what I consider to be perception problems -- that there are daily updates (which isn't the case), that there are massive security problems (because of the number of patches) and that Microsoft's anti-piracy mechanisms are harassing. These are actually emotional reasons, which is why I am posting the conversation. Even for experienced users, a purchase decision is still an emotional one. My friend didn't feel good about Windows 7. Microsoft doesn't want long-time loyal users like IT Guy going rogue and switching to Linux or Mac OS X.

    With that introduction, I present the conversation, which has been edited in four places for flow (We asked and answered some questions out of sequence). The opening question reflects IT Guy contacting me by Skype, where my username isn't my real name. So he wasn't initially sure he was skyping me.

    IT Guy: That you, Mr. Joe?
    Joe Wilcox: Hey, bud. What's shakin?
    IT Guy: Same ole same ole! And you?
    Joe Wilcox: Working. Caught me at bad time.
    IT Guy: I've tossed Windows7 Ultimate!
    IT Guy: Ahhhh. sorry....
    Joe Wilcox: Oh?
    Joe Wilcox: Wait.
    Joe Wilcox: Do tell.
    Joe Wilcox: Tossed for what?
    IT Guy: Yeah, moved back to Linux. Using Ubuntu.
    Joe Wilcox: Because?
    IT Guy: Very satisfied, very impressed!
    IT Guy: Couldn't keep Win running with any speed.
    Joe Wilcox: What about drivers? Software?
    IT Guy: That's with 8 GB of RAM.
    Joe Wilcox: Really. What's the system config again?
    IT Guy: Everything including video if you want to vid chat.
    Joe Wilcox: I can't vid chat now. Later perhaps.
    IT Guy: It is a truly amazing system. Especially with the spec's I'm running.
    Joe Wilcox: But give me some more details. Start with complete system specs.
    IT Guy: Intel quad i7 proc.
    IT Guy: 8 GB Ram
    Joe Wilcox: Laptop?
    IT Guy: Yes
    Joe Wilcox: Just spell out specs in one sentence.
    IT Guy: 500 GB HD
    IT Guy: sorry
    Joe Wilcox: Model and manufacturer too.
    IT Guy: HP Pavilion DV6T. 1 GB dedicated vid ram, and the rest listed above. Came with win7 home, upgraded to Ultimate. Wireless internal of course.
    Joe Wilcox: You ran Ultimate for how long?
    IT Guy: Now running Ubuntu Desktop 10.04 Lucid Lynx. I ran Ultimate for about 3 mos.
    Joe Wilcox: Why so little time?
    IT Guy: Just got tired of fighting with it all the time with rights issues and such. A patch an hour somedays? Come on...
    Joe Wilcox: What kinds of rights issues?
    IT Guy: I've got some stuff I never want to lose, and with Windows I wasn't feeling warm and fuzzy anymore.
    Joe Wilcox: Because?
    IT Guy: Anytime installing anything from software to copying doc's localy folder to folder...
    IT Guy: I understand some of that but come on. I upgraded to Ultimate to get access to some of my old db files created on XP.
    Joe Wilcox: You couldn't access them?
    IT Guy: No. Windows 7 Ultimate is the only version that will.
    Joe Wilcox: Did you try and identify why? Use Microsoft Knowledgebase or forums?
    IT Guy: They are up front about that though.
    IT Guy: The KB for sure. Most didn't have the time of day.
    Joe Wilcox: What about performance? Powerful system, should be plenty of oomph for Windows 7 Ultimate.
    IT Guy: Yes it was at first. I could never keep it that way short of doing a sys restore.
    Joe Wilcox: So what about performance?
    IT Guy: Oddly enough, I came here from the Ubuntu forums
    Joe Wilcox: Came here, meaning where?
    IT Guy: A refreshing change from MS. Not only is the OS free, if you're kind in your approach on the forums, it's almost like free tech support as well!
    IT Guy: I highly recommend Ubuntu.
    IT Guy: In case you couldn't tell.
    IT Guy: Been using it about a month.
    Joe Wilcox: You still haven't answered question about Windows 7 Ultimate performance.
    IT Guy: With NO problems!
    IT Guy: The performance degraded as time went by.
    Joe Wilcox: How so?
    IT Guy:: I have no explanation why. That was the most frustrating part of the whole thing.
    Joe Wilcox: What makes you sure Ubuntu won't degrade in another two months?
    IT Guy: I consider myself, if not a 'computer guru', then pretty darn close.
    IT Guy: With Linux today you can monitor and control everything the system is doing.
    Joe Wilcox: So let's discuss that. You have how much IT experience?
    Joe Wilcox: You've managed systems?
    Joe Wilcox: Meaning, as I recall, your experience is broader than just an end user.
    IT Guy: Started my first programming classes in 1983. Been working in the industry in one way or another ever since. You know that.
    IT Guy: Went to Devry or however they spell it.
    IT Guy: Ended up as a full time employee for my COBOL professor.
    Joe Wilcox: OK. How about you give me three things you liked and also disliked about Windows 7 Ultimate?
    IT Guy: It was pretty.
    IT Guy: It was shallow!
    IT Guy: Reminded me too much of a cheap woman! hehe
    Joe Wilcox: Are you describing Windows or your first date?
    IT Guy: Liked the new Aurora interface and how fast my games played.
    Joe Wilcox: Cheap woman as in easy to get or hard to please?
    IT Guy: I disliked that it has so many security flaws. There were literally patches per hour some day!
    Joe Wilcox: Microsoft releases patches on second Tuesday of the month. There couldn't have been that many.
    IT Guy: No stable OS should have to be updated continuously in order for the end user to have some sense of security.
    Joe Wilcox: Apple regularly updates Mac OS X.
    IT Guy: True enough.
    Joe Wilcox: What about Ubuntu?
    IT Guy: If I want the update yes.
    Joe Wilcox: How often? More often in one month than Windows?
    IT Guy: My kernel is protected and I only update it in the event of hardware change.
    IT Guy: I've updated the kernel once since install.
    Joe Wilcox: The Windows 64-bit kernel is pretty hardened. Did you run 64-bit Ultimate?
    IT Guy: Yes I did.
    Joe Wilcox: Could it be Microsoft is just more proactive about security?
    Joe Wilcox: Crime goes up after cities put more cops on the street. It's a well-documented occurance. More cops means more crime recorded not an increase in actual crimes.
    IT Guy: That is a possibility. I was thinking about it more from the disgusted end user perspective of 'what is so wrong that I have to have all these updates' feeling.
    Joe Wilcox: So the updates generated fear -- that Windows isn't safe enough?
    IT Guy: I just figured that as loaded up hardware wise as this laptop is, that I shouldn't have noticed any slowdown, or at the most it should have been imperceptible.
    IT Guy: It wasn't so much a fear factor thing though it did weigh on me at times.
    Joe Wilcox: Got it. OK, now to those three things you didn't like most about Windows 7 Ultimate.
    IT Guy: The slow down, the security, and having it act like I was a new user every time I tried to do something at the sys level.
    Joe Wilcox: OK. So what about Ubuntu? What three things do you like most or dislike most?
    IT Guy: I like most the fact that when I turn on the laptop, I'm able to be editing my website live, in about a minute flat!
    Joe Wilcox: How do the bootup times compare?
    IT Guy: Three weeks later I like that it still is booting just as fast.
    IT Guy: Ubuntu=1 minute up and able to start an app.
    IT Guy: Windows 7 Ultimate=At the end about 4 and a half minutes before you could try to start an app..
    Joe Wilcox: That's from bootup? What about sleep? I find Windows 7 Ulitmate to resume quickly on a much less powerful system than yours.
    IT Guy: Ahhh, never used sleep.
    Joe Wilcox: Really? I assume most everyone uses sleep.
    IT Guy: I can't give you a good answer there because I just never used it.
    IT Guy: I now do! Took Ubuntu for me to 'discover' the value of sleep mode.
    Joe Wilcox: My experience is about 10-15 seconds from sleep.
    IT Guy: With Win7?
    Joe Wilcox: Yes.
    IT Guy: Wow.
    Joe Wilcox: That's hardcase scenario -- using Outlook. Outlook was super slow on Vista.
    Joe Wilcox: From sleep.
    IT Guy: Now I'm going to have to reinstall and look at it again. I used it hard as well. Outlook, Word, Access and typically a media player app of some kind running.
    Joe Wilcox: What else do you like about Ubuntu? How is the UI and drivers?
    IT Guy: The UI for Ubuntu is on a level with OS X.
    Joe Wilcox: That's good?
    IT Guy: As far as I'm concerned, it's the best, most intuitive UI I've ever had. The drivers are superlative and run everything very well.
    IT Guy: I'm using Gnome, by the way.
    IT Guy: KDE was just to much like windows for me. Seemed like there were two ways to do everything.
    Joe Wilcox: OK. Driver installation compares how with Windows 7 Ultimate?
    IT Guy: Ahhhh.
    IT Guy: Are you talking initial install? Of Linux?
    Joe Wilcox: Both for drivers.
    Joe Wilcox: What if a device doesn't work? How easily can you get a new driver?
    IT Guy: At present, I've not come across anything hardware wise that hasn't worked. I have intentionally reinstalled the nVidia drivers with no problems or issues.
    Joe Wilcox: What about applications?
    Joe Wilcox: Can you watch DVD movies? Make home movies, etc.?
    Joe Wilcox: Microsoft has Windows Live Essentials, and there are plenty of good third-party apps. Apple has iLife and its pro products.
    IT Guy: All my writing is done with OpenOffice, I watch movies with VLC, I've been happily burning my DVD's with Brassero, and so on and on...
    IT Guy: All of the apps I use are free. Part of the OpenSource community.
    Joe Wilcox: You do some photography. Have you got anything comparable to Adobe Lightroom?
    IT Guy: I am using Gimp for all my photo needs.
    Joe Wilcox: That's enough? Really?
    IT Guy: Matter of fact the photo used on my twitter account was imported and edited with Gimp today.
    IT Guy: It's a really awesome graphics program actually.
    IT Guy: So far, I've found there is nothing I can't do with this OS that I was doing with Mac or Windows.
    Joe Wilcox: And it handles your Nikon RAW files?
    IT Guy: Very well.
    IT Guy: Actually found a nikon driver for the camera that imports them directly to Gimp and then wants to know if I want to convert them to a different format.
    Joe Wilcox: Would you recommend Windows 7 Ultimate to friends? Would you recommend Ubuntu to friends?
    IT Guy: hmmm.
    IT Guy: Yes to Ubuntu.
    Joe Wilcox: And WIndows 7 Ultimate?
    IT Guy: I don't think right now I'd recommend Windows. I mean Ubuntu is free, and you can do everything with it that you can do with Windows, so do the math!
    IT Guy: Also, Linux tends to keep your skills honed. Windows seems to not want the end user to have any smarts!
    Joe Wilcox: Skills honed how?
    IT Guy: You can do a lot from the terminal. Learn basic commands to run in the terminal to maintain the overall health of the computer...
    IT Guy: Stuff that harkens back to the Unix console days.
    Joe Wilcox: Windows has a sophisticated command line feature.
    IT Guy: It definitely does.
    Joe Wilcox: But you prefer the Unix/Linux terminal?
    IT Guy: Unless you know more or can do more than the basic old dos commands it is really limited compared to the console in Linux.
    IT Guy: Especially compared to Unix...
    IT Guy: So yes I prefer the Unix/Linux command line over Windows.
    Joe Wilcox: And how many years have you used Windows?
    IT Guy: Holy *^#*. since ver 1.0.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Windows 7 - Linux - Operating system - Joe Wilcox - Microsoft Windows
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/11/The_Google_Verizon_proposal_is_worse_than_evil'

    The Google-Verizon proposal is worse than evil

    Publié: août 11, 2010, 9:36pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    They say that the devil is in the details. But some things are so evil, the horned harbinger of deceit and doom is an obvious and menacing presence. The Google-Verizon proposal for an "open Internet" is the worst kind of evil, because Google so ardently asserts that "you can make money without doing evil" and the companies convincingly con with a deceitful sleight of hand. Their proposal for an open Internet is nothing of the kind. Google and Verizon offer to grant something people already have (unfettered, wired broadband) while exempting something Internet users want more of (unfettered, mobile wireless).

    But the proposal's deceit goes further. Google and Verizon have put before the US government a huge carrot, while hiding behind their backs an even bigger stick. The two companies want the US Congress to pass their proposal into law, thus empowering the Federal Communications Commission to exert more control over the wired Internet. There are plenty of folks on Capitol Hill who want more Net control, and Google and Verizon have wrapped it up with ribbon and bow. The government's authority would be under the guise of keeping the Internet free and open for everyone -- ensuring Net neutrality. For lawmakers, the proposal is a seeming goldmine of goodwill during a tough election year.

    Too bad. Should Google and Verizon get what they ask for, the proposal would stop short of giving the FCC real authority beyond established wired broadband, and even there loopholes undermine real regulatory reach. For example, the proposal's "Network Management" section asserts that "Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider's network, or the Internet"...etc. That's a big loophole that would allow bandwidth-capping lover Verizon to put limits on subscribers or even services. There's nothing "open" about Internet access where somebody's access is limited.

    I'll skip the other loopholes and get to the grift, where the proposal would essentially exempt wireless broadband from the same Net neutrality rules applying to wired broadband. From the proposal:

    Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. The U.S. Government Accountability Office would report to Congress annually on the continued development and robustness of wireless broadband Internet access services.

    WTH? What a scam. You offer me a beer in the kitchen so you can frak my sister in the living room. We both get screwed.

    Putting Limits on the Mobile Internet

    There are many ways I would describe the Google-Verizon proposal: deceitful, lying, evil, conning, grifting, self-serving and mis-directing. The last descriptor expresses why the proposal is so evil. Google and Verizon make a somewhat reasonable pitch for "open" wired broadband Internet access as a means of obscuring the broader goal of seeking unequal -- non-Net neutral -- wireless access. It's an alarming deceit that seeks to undermine the most important evolution of the Internet: Anytime, anywhere access on anything.

    I started writing about anytime, anywhere, on-anything access about six years ago. It's the magic behind Web 2.0, Web 3.0, cloud computing or whatever else you want to call it. As people use more mobile devices to connect to the Web, anytime, anywhere, on-anything access grows in importance. In the United States, the number of smartphone users is increasing at an alarming rate. There were 49.1 million smartphone owners in May, according to ComScore, up 8.1 percent in three months. Among Americans 13 or older, 234 million used a mobile phone in May.

    Demand for bandwidth-sucking mobile content increases with the number of smartphone users. American cell phone data usage for October 2009 compared to May 2010:

    • Web browsing: 26.8 percent; 31.9 percent
    • Downloading apps: 18.3 percent; 30 percent
    • Accessing social networks/blogs: 13.8 percent; 20.8 percent

    Verizon doesn't want the kind of data congestion problems affecting AT&T. The proposal would ensure Verizon could cap subscribers, limit bandwidth-hogging services or prioritize others. Google wants to ensure people have access to its services, which are increasingly tightly tied to Android. With more than 160,000 activations a day, Android is quickly becoming what I predicted it would be in October 2009 post "iPhone cannot win the smartphone wars." Android is to mobile phones what DOS/Windows was to PCs.

    But both companies clearly recognize that anytime, anywhere, on-anything access is the future of the Internet, and they want regulators busying themselves regulating something else. I've written plenty about the mobile Web's future. More recently:

    Google's Self-Serving Greater Good

    I'm not surprised about Google taking this approach, despite earlier long-winded prognostications for Net neutrality. In early 2007, Google argued for Net neutrality rules applying to a then upcoming wireless spectrum auction. In October 2005, at the now defunct Microsoft Monitor blog, I wrote:

    Search is the most obvious way for Google to monetize informational access. But I believe the company's ambitions are bigger. Google, like Microsoft and Yahoo, knows that the big ad dollars are spent offline, with TV being a huge bucket of spending. Google wants to pull those ad dollars online. One approach is to make online more appealing, to increase the attractiveness of information, services and communications, so that more people spend more time online. Another approach is opening the floodgates of access -- anytime, anywhere, any device...

    I believe that Google wants to provide the means of getting to the information and create its own kind of lock-in over time, just as IBM and Microsoft did in their day. Right now, Google's hold is tenuous. There is little 'sticky' about search. Customers can change search engines by typing in a new Web address. But as Google releases more technologies for creating, storing and accessing information, the company's products and services grow stickier. How sticky they will eventually become will depend on a number of factors, including Google's execution and the response of companies like Microsoft.

    Google's stickiest technology is Android tied to a plethora of informational and search services. Some of those services -- YouTube being obvious example -- are bandwidth hogs. The Google-Verizon proposal would ensure these services could get unfettered mobile Internet access and even preferential treatment. There is nothing Net neutral about that. It's cold, calculated business, with Google putting its own interests first, while blabbering on about the good of all humankind.

    Verizon has until this proposal been fairly transparent about its Net-limiting goals. The company has never really professed to be or even pretended to be a do-gooder. Unlike "do no evil" Google.

    In February, I warned that "Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was" and asked "Why is Google suddenly so evil?"

    The answer isn't rocket science. Public companies have a different moral objective than human beings. Google's moral agenda is determined by shareholders, which expect the informational giant to earn them money. In business, the moral high ground is quagmire. Public companies eventually sink down to the one moral objective: Their return-on-investment obligation to shareholders.

    What's different now: How brazenly and deviously Google, in collusion with Verizon, proposes something so seemingly good to obscure broader self-serving objectives. All this talk about the greater good -- the "open Internet" -- is illusion. It's the magician's trick. Google can justify the proposal as not being evil, if the standard of "making money without doing evil" is returning back gobs of cash to shareholders. But by the measure of many human beings' moral compass, Google has committed a great evil.

    I've had enough. Today, I will start a personal Google boycott. I'm going to wean myself off all Google services. I will switch off Gmail, use Bing search and eventually migrate my wife and daughter off Android smartphones. Because I use so many Google services, the transition will take several weeks, at least. My new motto: Google be gone.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Google - Google-Verizon - United States - Verizon - Network neutrality
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/09/10_Things_Microsoft_did_wrong_in_fiscal_2010'

    10 Things Microsoft did wrong in fiscal 2010

    Publié: août 9, 2010, 7:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Late last week, I posted a top-10 list of things Microsoft did right during fiscal year 2010, which ended on June 30. With every right there must come a wrong. What will surprise some readers is how some actions fit into both categories. A number of "wrongs" on this list also appear on my "did right" list but put into different context. With that introduction, during fiscal 2010, Microsoft wrongly:

    1. Revamped its cloud computing strategy. Azure debuted a month late and a whole vision short. In 2008, Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie laid out a startling and potentially revolutionary cloud computing vision. Developers would write to the datacenter much as they did to the desktop operating system. I likened the approach to an operating system in the sky -- to a truly cloud OS.

    But Azure turns out to be something much different, and not because Microsoft mismanaged the project like Windows Vista. Clearly something else changed. The Office and Windows hawks beat out the cloud OS doves. Azure is now more like a cross between Amazon cloud services and hosted Microsoft everything else, as the company seeks to extend its Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack to the datacenter. Microsoft had a chance to do something quite revolutionary with Azure. The revolution is now nothing more than a resolution to protect the status quo.

    No. 1 is the "wrong" of No. 1 ("launched Azure") and No. 2 ("revamped its cloud computing strategy") from the "did right" list.

    2. Backed away from interoperability as an enterprise priority. Haven't you noticed that Microsoft beat the interoperability drum much less loudly -- often not at all -- during second half fiscal 2010? In No. 3 of the "did right" list, I called the interoperability rollback "a smart approach." It's also a mistake. Most enterprises won't soon abandon non-Windows software. Interoperability will matter to them, but it's no longer as important to Microsoft.

    The revamped cloud computing strategy connects to a bigger push to establish a tighter integrated applications stack, of which there are five pillars: Azure, Internet Explorer 9, Office 2010, SharePoint 2010, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. The stack is more modular in that an enterprise might choose to build the stack from the cloud data center rather than Windows Server. I presume Microsoft executives are betting the integrated cloud stack will pull some enterprises away from Linux. Integration will define fiscal 2011, as it already started to during FY2010.

    3. Killed KIN. There are no words to appropriately describe the KIN debacle. Less than two months after Verizon started selling KIN, Microsoft officially killed the smartphone. The move was wrong for so many reasons: Public relations, carrier relations, customer relations, developer relations, manufacturer relations (Sharp made the smartphone), branding, marketing (Microsoft ran a TV ad campaign when killing KIN), employee morale and financial and resources investment. The move also unravels confidence that Microsoft can deliver in Windows Phone 7 a game-changing platform and supporting strategy.

    4. (Unofficially) fired J Allard and Robbie Bach. This one is No. 4 on the "did right" list, too. Entertainment and Devices division has demonstrated vision when other Microsoft groups clung to Office, Windows and Windows Server. E&D broke the chains that demanded new products be tied to twin monopolies Office and Windows. The Allard and Bach departures signal that the Office and Windows hawks killed yet more breakaway doves (not just the cloud dreamers). Timing is terrible as Microsoft seeks to recover massive lost momentum in the mobile market, where upstarts Apple and Google are screeching butt kickers.

    Allard and Bach are visionaries lost, and their departures signal that a renewed Office and Windows tunnel vision has returned (See #1 and #2). For other closeted Microsoft visionaries, the departures can only be morale sapping. Who now will dare come out of the closet and admit their true developer lifestyle orientation isn't Office or Windows?

    5. Announced volume licensing changes. For years, Microsoft has used extras to justify raising annuity licensing fees during the early Naughties. Now the great software giant is preparing to take away one of the most obviously tantalizing benefits -- discounted to free software for employees. The actual change is months away, but the announcement came during fiscal 2010.

    To be clear, Microsoft is ending the Employee Purchase Program but not the Home Usage Program for Office. Microsoft claims much less interest in EPP, which is reason enough to keep the program. If demand has lessened, Microsoft loses little by keeping something rather than taking it away. It's better customer relations to give, or at least keep, something rather than take it away.

    6. Launched Office 2010 without adequate marketing support. Microsoft put some real advertising muscle behind Bing, Windows 7 and more recently Internet Explorer 8. The adoption rates tell a story of successful marketing. But behind Office 2010, Microsoft has taken its more typical subdued approach. Yes, there are Web ads (yawn) but what major magazine, newspaper or TV marketing is there? Early US retail Office 2010 sales are "disappointing," according to NPD. Office 2010 isn't that apparently different from version 2007. How will potential customers know the differences, and more importantly the benefits, if Microsoft doesn't sell them? Advertising sells. Non-marketing smells.

    7. Withheld financial guidance. Starting in January 2009, Microsoft stopped giving financial guidance to Wall Street. It was simply a disastrous decision that established an even worse precedent. Sure, the guidance couldn't be good (given sagging sales) and risked further run on the stock, as if the last quarter of 2008 wasn't bad enough for Microsoft and nearly every other public company. But bad guidance would have been better than none. Successful public companies don't just manage finances, they manage perceptions about their performance.

    Microsoft had a chance to resume guidance with start of fiscal 2010, in July 2009, but failed to. By withholding guidance, Microsoft let uncertainty and gossip determine perceptions about its sales and earnings performance. By comparison, Apple continued to release guidance and, combined with marketing and product launches and leaks, generates positive perceptions. These perceptions helped to lift Apple's share price to new heights during Microsoft's FY2010. Meanwhile, Microsoft shares remain in the doldrums, even while quarterly results set new records. Given fiscal fourth quarter's smashing results, there is simply no reason for Microsoft not to offer Wall Street guidance during fiscal 2011.

    8. Failed to buy Palm. In December 2009, I gave 10 good reasons why Microsoft should buy Palm. Microsoft's failure to seize the opportunity led to a bidding war (which included Apple) that ended with HP buying Palm. HP was Microsoft's principle Windows tablet partner and a major Windows mobile licensee . Suddenly HP is a mobile competitor. A Microsoft Palm acquisition would have instantly given Microsoft's renewed mobile strategy a jumpstart. Now Microsoft struggles on two mobile fronts -- smartphones and tablets.

    In a startling trend, four of the top 10 smartphone vendors in second quarter predominately shipped Android handsets, according to IDC. These vendors had 100 percent year-over-year growth rates. As for tablets, Apple shipped 3.2 million units in the launch quarter, encroaching on a category Microsoft had been trying to build up for nearly a decade. The point: Mobile competition is stiffer than ever, and Microsoft needed something in fiscal 2010; Palm could have been it.

    9. Cut search deal with Yahoo. Last year, I called the agreement "Google's Christmas-in-July present." As recent ComScore numbers show, Microsoft doesn't need Yahoo all that much. Microsoft argues that combined scale will help improve Bing search and gain share against Google. But Bing advertising already has significantly improved Microsoft search share, which rose from 8.4 percent in June 2009 -- the first full month Bing TV spots aired -- to 12.7 percent in June 2010. Combined Microsoft-Yahoo search share would be more than 31 percent, or about half of Google. While the numbers are seemingly good, the Yahoo deal:

    • Initially costs Microsoft more than it financially gains
    • Imposes logistically difficult integration hampering search platform advancement and acquiring new ad customers
    • Distracts the company from the more important priority of expanding its mobile advertising platform efforts

    10. Let Don Dodge and Chris Liddell get away. Liddell proved to be an exceptionally adept Microsoft CFO. He managed Microsoft finances in better times and bad, doing a resoundingly good job overseeing difficult cost cutting as global economic crisis sapped software sales. Liddell has an excellent relationship with Wall Street analysts. There is simply no excuse for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and his board of directors letting Liddell leave for General Motors. No incentive should have been enough to keep him, although given Liddell's tight-fisted financial operations during the econolypse, as CFO he might not have allowed it. How ironic is that?

    Dodge, Microsoft's ambassador to Silicon Valley, was the most surprising of the company's fiscal 2010 layoffs. Microsoft lost three things with Dodge:

    • Vital experience sussing out good startups
    • Someone well respected in Silicon Valley
    • An ally, who became a competitive enemy

    In mid November 2009, less than two weeks after being laid off by Microsoft, Dodge took a job with Google. How the frak did Microsoft executives not see that one coming?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Windows Vista - Apple - Windows 7 - Windows Phone 7
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/05/10_Things_Microsoft_did_right_during_fiscal_2010'

    10 Things Microsoft did right during fiscal 2010

    Publié: août 5, 2010, 11:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A month following the end of Microsoft's fiscal year and two weeks after announcement of record earnings, it's time to take a long look back at the company's FY2010 accomplishments. Some of these items will partially repeat from my calendar year 2009 list and early calendar 2010 list. Numbers 1 thru 6 are new; the others derive from the previous two lists. With that introduction, during fiscal 2010, Microsoft rightly:

    1. Launched Azure. Microsoft's cloud platform debuted a month late but still early enough in FY2010 to be meaningful. Timing is right, particularly given the economy. Many businesses are struggling to budget for technology upgrades, to manage IT resources and to provide employees with anytime, anywhere, on-anything informational access.

    Microsoft's cloud can solve these problems for enterprises and another for the company: Customer retention. Enterprises that might not otherwise upgrade to Microsoft's newest software have incentive to do so and more by buying into Microsoft's cloud. Watch for a major shift in customer buying priorities during fiscal 2011 (See #2).

    2. Revamped its cloud computing strategy. Some announcements that seem small at the time turn out to be much bigger later on. In a December reorganization, Microsoft created the Server & Cloud Division. The move marked a fundamental directional shift in Microsoft's cloud computing strategy, which CTO Kevin Turner articulated two weeks ago. No longer is Azure really an operating system in the cloud that developers write to. Microsoft seeks to extend its Office-Windows-Windows Server enterprise applications stack to the cloud.

    3. Backed away from interoperability as an enterprise priority. Haven't you noticed that Microsoft beat the interoperability drum much less loudly -- often not at all -- during second half FY2010? The revamped cloud computing strategy connects to a bigger push to establish a tighter integrated applications stack; Microsoft stepped back from an earlier integration push following the 2004 adverse antitrust ruling in Europe.

    There are five pillars to the new stack: Azure, Internet Explorer 9, Office 2010, SharePoint 2010, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. The stack is more modular in that an enterprise might choose to build from the cloud data center rather than Windows Server. Integration will define fiscal 2011, as it already started to during FY2010. It's a smart approach. Microsoft shouldn't be afraid to offer customers the benefits of integration -- trustbusters and pundits be damned!

    4. (Unofficially) fired J Allard and Robbie Bach. Somebody had to be held accountable for the mobile muck up and loss of HP as a major mobile customer. In May, I described the Entertainment and Devices division shakeup as "doomed." That said, somebody had to be held accountable for the mistakes, and it had to be these two leaders. I won't argue nuances about whether or not they left voluntarily; Allard and Bach were going to leave one way or another.

    By way of the reorganization, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer sent a clear message to all employees: If E&D's so-called visionary leaders can go, so can you. That's a message senior veep Andrew Lees had best heed. He has a bigger mobile responsibility now, and there's reason enough to presume the accountability axe missed his neck by mere millimeters.

    5. Launched Internet Explorer 8 advertising campaign. The TV commercials are remarkably clever. They have a reality TV quality that is shocking and memorable. In them, Microsoft sets up a fake bank to show how easily people will give away their most confidential information and then connects that to everyday activity on the Web and how Internet Explorer 8 protects users. The personal information swiping techniques mimic the kinds of scams encountered online.

    6. Debuted the "Windows 7 was my idea" marketing campaign. The approach is simply brilliant and it is timely with social networking trends. Microsoft positions Windows 7 as your operating system, which you can fix any way want. The TV commercials assert that Windows 7 was crowdsourced, with people asking for what they wanted and getting it. Catch phrase: "I'm a PC, and Windows 7 was my idea."

    More importantly, Microsoft is keeping the marketing volume loud. The company all but gave up the Vista marketing campaign within about four months. Nearly 10 months after Windows 7's launch, the commercials continue to frequently air during primetime network and cable TV.

    7. Opened retail stores. Microsoft opened four retail stores during fiscal 2010 -- two in California and one each in Arizona and Colorado. Two weeks ago, the company confirmed new shops opening in Illinois, Minnesota and Washington State. Retail stores are vital to Microsoft selling a lifestyle around its products and for building brand equity. Apple and Sony have both proved the brand and lifestyle value of company-run stores. However, Microsoft's retail strategy will require even more commitment, which should include running stores at losses for their greater marketing benefit.

    8. Promoted Steven Sinofsky. The man who methodically led the team that turned around Microsoft's flagship operating system now leads the Windows & Windows Live division. Sinfosky hugely deserved the promotion to president of the division (see #9).

    9. Flawlessly launched Windows 7. It's clear that Microsoft re-engineered the engineering process for Windows. The mistakes that led to overlong development of Windows Vista, the dumping of well-publicized features and late delivery (How could Microsoft miss Holiday 2006?) didn't reappear. Microsoft successfully executed a taunt development schedule, improved performance in the right places (like startup and wakeup), made better the user interface and insured that most drivers would be available for popular devices.

    Microsoft's success was as much about managing perceptions as developing and delivering a good product. The company clearly worked the blogs that Microsoft influencers, IT managers and some consumers read, as well as social networks and forums they might participate in. Early positive reviews and some kick-ass "Windows 7 was my idea" marketing helped the operating system to pull free from the negative reaction gravity well that kept Windows Vista from achieving escape velocity.

    Now, Microsoft is sitting on a growing mountain of Windows revenue: The majority of enterprises run Windows XP, and they're ready and willing to upgrade. With over 175 million licenses already sold, Windows 7 looks to be everything Vista wasn't -- a resounding success.

    10. Released Office 2010. The timing nicely fits with the first big wave of enterprise Windows 7 deployments. Historically, larger businesses deploy new versions of Office and Windows at the same time whenever possible. By offsetting Office 2010 and Windows 7 business launches by about 8 months, Microsoft gave enterprises time enough to test and qualify Windows 7. Meanwhile, a very public preview made Office 2010 available for testing, too. Many more businesses now have the more logistically viable option of deploying both products simultaneously or around the same time.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/08/01/Lesson_for_Microsoft__Advertising_works'

    Lesson for Microsoft: Advertising works

    Publié: août 1, 2010, 7:51pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, the Windows Blog has a post about Internet Explorer gaining a seemingly minuscule amount of usage share in July. Ryan Gavin cites Net Applications data showing IE gains for the second month in a row against Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox declines. Month-over-month, IE usage share rose to 60.74 percent from 60.34 percent; Chrome declined to 7.16 percent from 7.24 percent; Firefox declined to 22.91 percent from 23.81 percent. Apple's Safari gained share -- 4.85 percent to 5.09 percent. The share changes are statistically meaningful because of the large number of global users.

    From a different perspective, however, the numbers aren't as competitively good as they seem, since in aggregate over many months they more significantly show Internet Explorer 8 taking share from IE 6 and IE 7. That said, two months of overall gains represent a significant turnabout for Microsoft's browser, which usage share had declined, in aggregate, since early 2005. The two-month gains closely align with Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 advertising campaign, which starting airing the first week of June.

    The TV commercials are simply brilliant. In them, Microsoft sets up a fake bank to show how easily people will give away their most confidential information and then connects that to everyday activity on the Web and how Internet Explorer 8 protects users.

    Marketing works -- and TV advertising still has the most reach, as other recent advertising campaigns demonstrate. Bing search share gains correspond to Microsoft's marketing push. Quickly stated: Microsoft's search share rose from 8.4 percent in June 2009 -- the first full month Bing TV spots aired -- to 12.7 percent in June 2010, according to ComScore.

    The "Windows 7 was my idea" commercials are creative and aspirational. The simple message: Microsoft listens to you, and because of you Windows 7 is much better than its predecessors.

    As Microsoft prepares to launch Windows Phone 7 and Xbox Kinect, marketing should be top priority. The company should learn from its recent advertising successes and as creatively pitch the newer products as it does Bing, Internet Explorer and Windows 7.

    Microsoft should also learn from its marketing failures, where the absence of advertising hurt products. Starting in 2003, I publicly marveled about how much iPod's early -- and later -- success had to do with marketing. For years, only Apple consistently aired TV ads for music players. Is it any wonder that the product succeeded and for many buyers came to be viewed as they only choice? Apple's music player was the only one they saw advertised. By comparison there was a vacuum of advertising for Windows Media MP3 players.

    IE's usage share gains aren't about Microsoft making a better browser, but selling a browser better. Good marketing works, and Microsoft has followed the advertising successes of Bing and Windows 7 with another.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Mozilla Firefox - Internet Explorer - Google Chrome
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/29/Microsoft_wants_to_park_a_cloud_container_in_your_driveway'

    Microsoft wants to park a cloud container in your driveway

    Publié: juillet 29, 2010, 8:21pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Cloud computing dominated the morning's Microsoft Financial Analyst Meeting 2010 presentations. COO Kevin Turner and Chief Research Strategy Officer Craig Mundie spent more time talking cloud computing than any other topic. For Mundie, it was a bold departure from previous years, where he spoke broadly and almost exclusively about forthcoming technologies -- typically years from release, if ever. Last year, he asserted that the successor to the PC would be "a room."

    Some reasons for Microsoft's cloud focus should be obvious:

    1. Azure is available, as of six months ago.

    2. Cloud computing is all the rage right now.

    3. Microsoft recently released new hosted applications.

    4. Competitors are rallying behind the cloud to runaround the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack.

    5. Hosted apps let businesses offer employees anytime, anywhere, on-anything data access, while better protecting corporate information.

    But there is another reason that might be less obvious: New sales. For core products Office and Windows, and increasingly SharePoint and Windows Server, Microsoft is reselling to the same customers. With these established products, the company doesn't have anything really new to offer. C`mon what's all that different between Office 2007 and 2010? Windows 7 is an easier upgrade because most businesses run 9-year-old Windows XP. But Microsoft is still selling to the same customers.

    Azure and hosted Microsoft applications are new, fresh products with that familiar look and feel of the old stuff. Microsoft also can solve real-world problems: Helping businesses to meet mobile demands with lower privacy and security risks. It only takes one stolen or lost laptop containing millions of customer records to spoil a corporation's year. Cloud computing provides a means of giving employees greater mobility while holding data behind the firewall.

    Mundei FAM 2010 slide

    Mundie used "data authority" to describe Microsoft's approach. "The other thing that we look to the cloud for increasingly is to be the data authority," he told financial analysts. "And I think that will be true whether as a person or an institution you want to have one place where you believe you can put an authoritative copy of information or have it propagate around to all the appropriate applications or devices in your life or work environment."

    From the "something new to sell" perspective, Mundie and Turner did more than tell financial analysts about emerging opportunities around the cloud. The executives made sales pitches to potential customers. After all, many of the financial companies represented in the FAM audience should be looking at adopting the kind of cloud services Microsoft offers -- sooner, rather than later. Surely Microsoft would also benefit from financial analysts satisfied with its cloud services. Wall Street's elite make more than recommendations about stock investments. They are IT influencers, even subtly. Satisfied customers are good evangelists.

    Mundie FAM 2010 slide

    Successful marketing is also about controlling the vernacular, something Microsoft attempted to do with "software plus services." Today Mundie put firmer spin on "client plus cloud as a computing platform"; the term "client plus cloud" isn't new for Microsoft, but both executives gave it a firm kick. Mundie explained:

    Let me talk about role we think the cloud plays. Many people talked about it runs your applications or it's a piece of your infrastructure. But we think of it more broadly...The cloud is a place where we get to do the orchestration across all these myriad devices in your life, across a whole array of applications. The world that many of us have grown...as the mobile environment or personal computing or laptop computing environment were emerging were that each of them was a bit too much of an island. It was a very manual process to maintain the relationship and data and communication that you would ideally want among these devices. And as the number and type of devices grows essentially without bound, it would be a nightmare if this was left as an exercise to the user. So the cloud becomes a place where we can orchestrate the operation of these collection of devices and that will be a very, very important part of what makes this useful and interesting.

    But "client plus cloud" isn't descriptive enough. Unless I misunderstood the executives, Microsoft is going into the big-iron hardware business. So "client plus cloud" has broader meaning. Mundie told FAM attendees they can explore a "prototype of a container" with 600 servers "sitting in the parking lot right outside." He explained what such a porta-server farm could do for them: "It's completely self-contained. You don't need chilled water. In fact, you just hook it up to your garden hose. You put in electricity and your fiber optic connection and you can be online...You'll be able to buy these things and just have them delivered in your parking lot and put it anywhere you want. This is the ability to combine the super scale capabilities that [Turner] alluded to and the knowledge and understanding that comes from that with the ability to do creative engineering."

    Now that's a sales pitch.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Business - Cloud computing - Windows XP - Microsoft SharePoint
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/29/70%_of_Microsoft_cloud__wins__are_new_customers'

    70% of Microsoft cloud 'wins' are new customers

    Publié: juillet 29, 2010, 6:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft COO Kevin Turner made the bold statement this morning during the company's annual FInancial Analyst Meeting. "One of the most exciting things about our cloud strategy is that 70 percent of the wins in the cloud that we had in Q4, ladies and gentlemen, were new Microsoft customers," Tuner told financial analysts. "Yeah, new Microsoft customers. They were IBM Lotus Notes customers, Novell e-mail customers. They were all this other stuff, in addition to the Microsoft customers, that we're actually able to grow our portion of the pie this next year in a very dramatic way, because we can explode worker productivity."

    "New" and "customers" are two words not often conjoined at Microsoft. The company's enterprise products are so well established, new sales are usually to existing customers. That Microsoft is adding any new customers from its cloud services is significant. The number Turner stated is staggering, assuming his definition of "new" means a customer who isn't using Microsoft products somewhere else, which is a tough claim for this reporter to believe.

    Turner identified cloud computing as one of several "big focus" areas for enterprises. "The first one is around rebooting, retransitioning, replatforming ourselves, if you will, around leading with a cloud with our customers," he said. If you want to go to the cloud, we'll help you do that. We've changed that. I don't believe that was a good move strategically, and it's one I'm personally course correcting on as a direction."

    The statement is surprising. In January, I raised concerns that Microsoft's Azure cloud strategy had changed shape -- that the deliverable looks more like a cross between Amazon cloud services and hosted Microsoft applications than the operating system in the sky vision previously outlined by Ray Ozzie, chief software architect. That Turner, who represents the Office and Windows hawks, is presenting the cloud strategy is troubling. What about Ozzie? The cloud had been his baby and the way for Microsoft's reinvention.

    Turner FAM 2010 slide

    Still there's some sense to Microsoft's approach. Turner used "Access Anywhere" to describe what I've long called "anytime, anywhere, on-anything" computing. Turner's term is more concise but similar concept. Businesses can take control of their information by providing access through hosted services. Employees can benefit from mobile computing without taking precious data outside the firewall on laptops, smartphones and other mobile devices.

    "We now have over 10,000 paying customers on our cloud infrastructure platform and that number is continuing to grow every day," Turner said. (By the way, I could not get Microsoft's video plug-in to work in any non-Internet Explorer 8 browser; I've pulled the quotes from the live transcript, which uses a Java plug-in.)

    Turner FAM 2010 slide

    "Our second big focus for businesses clearly is around the Windows 7 and Office 2010 refresh," Turner told FAM attendees. Microsoft sells nearly 8 copies of Windows 7 a second. "For the first time in a long time, we grew share versus Apple in the United States in laptops per IVC this past year. Thanks to Windows 7. In fact, we were up 2.7 points against Apple in the United States in laptops." That Turner must even mention Apple says something about how he views the Mac maker competitively. Apple's market capitalization exceeds Microsoft and only a few hundred million in revenue separated the companies during second calendar quarter.

    Turner identified several competitors that Microsoft is targeting: Google, IBM, Oracle and VMware. He ended his presentation by returning to the cloud. "Our client software that connects to the cloud and the better our cloud software is the more value that will drive to our on premises client software, and we're going to continue to push on that in a very profound way," he said.

    Turner FAM 2010 slide

    What that really means: For enterprises, Microsoft is attempting to extend its Office, Windows, Windows Server application stack to cloud services. If businesses buy into Microsoft's cloud, they get the integrated benefits. It's not an open stack.

    Turner talked about the future, which is exactly the right approach. As I asserted yesterday, today is about tomorrow -- Microsoft conveying what it will accomplish in the near future rather than what financially happened in the past.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Google - Windows 7 - Cloud computing
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/28/Steve_Ballmer_has_one_more_chance_to_save_his_job'

    Steve Ballmer has one more chance to save his job

    Publié: juillet 28, 2010, 9:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    July 29, 2010 may be remembered as the most important day in Steve Ballmer's career at Microsoft. Tomorrow, the company hosts its annual Financial Analyst Meeting, or FAM. How much Ballmer and his core leadership team spend concretely talking about the future, rather than the past, will foreshadow how long the chief executive can remain the big boss. Nearly as important: Which executives will make presentations.

    Microsoft closed fiscal 2010 on June 30 and last week announced record fourth quarter and yearly results. (I skipped covering Microsoft earnings for the first time in nearly a decade, to attend San Diego Comic-Con. I will likely post a belated "by the numbers" analysis after FAM.) Microsoft uses the event to offer financial analysts a long look back at the old fiscal year and to give a sneak peak at the FY ahead.

    Much is different this FAM. There has been increasing public outcry for Microsoft to replace Ballmer. In June, I sadly wrote "I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership," about six months after asserting "Microsoft don't give up on Steve Ballmer just yet." More than any other FAM, Ballmer must convey confidence -- that he can steer the good ship Microsoft through the stormy seas ahead.

    The CEO must command the FAM stage like never before. He must present tangible, practical vision about what Microsoft will accomplish in three months, six months and by June 30, 2011. The task is so mountainous that reaching the summit would be reason enough to give Ballmer another 12 months as CEO. But the climb will be arduous because of obstacles corporate cultural and logistical.

    Historically Microsoft takes the long view to product development -- often planning five years out. This long view worldview is a core strength and one of the fundamental reasons for Microsoft's business success. But with the computing winds shifting in favor of cloud-connected mobile platforms, Microsoft's long view has become near-sightedness. Related: Microsoft's corporate structure, size and money-minting monopolies result in slow-moving directional changes. Ballmer won't easily present achievable short-term goals to financial analysts.

    Still, Ballmer has some short-term deliverables to present, such as Windows Live Wave 4, Windows Phone, Xbox Kinect and Yahoo search. To reiterate: FAM attendees need to hear concretely about what Microsoft will deliver within three months and by end of calendar 2010. Everyone knows that Office, Windows and Windows Server are doing well as the economy makes modest recovery, particularly in many strategic international markets. It's what financial analysts don't know -- or only can surmise -- about the future that is the more important information.

    Signs of Microsoft Weakness Going into FAM

    1. Apple and Google are wooing customers and developers to their mobile platforms. The wait list for new iPhone 4s is two to four weeks, and more than 160,000 Android phones are activated every day.

    2. Windows Mobile has fallen to fifth place in smartphone OS market share, according to Gartner.

    3. Windows Phone 7 is still months from shipping and its future remains hugely uncertain given its oh-so 2007 feature set and late-to-market release.

    4. While improved, valuable volume-licensing renewals aren't reaching pre-recession levels, mainly because of smaller corporate customer workforces.

    5. Early Office 2010 retail sales are disappointing, according to NPD, which foreshadows slower consumer demand. Among consumers, the productivity suite category has peaked in appeal.

    6. For full fiscal 2010, Microsoft Business Division revenue fell by 1 percent, while income increased by 1 percent -- against favorable year-over-year comparisons. "Operating income increased due mainly to decreased operating expenses, offset in part by decreased revenue," according to Microsoft.

    7. Microsoft's Online Services Division continues to lose money, with Yahoo reimbursement offsetting fiscal fourth quarter's 19-percent year-over-year advertising sales gains.

    8. Apple sold 3.2 million iPads during the launch quarter, succeeding in a category Microsoft promised to jumpstart a decade ago.

    9. HP, Microsoft's most important Windows tablet partner, abandoned ship by buying Palm and announcing products running WebOS.

    10. Since the September 2009 financial collapse, Microsoft has refused to give Wall Street forward guidance. The tactic conveys weakness -- that Microsoft is so uncertain of sales it dares not estimate revenue or earnings per share for coming quarters.

    Potential Microsoft Strengths for Fiscal 2011

    1. Windows 7 is a huge success -- however, Microsoft benefits from strong PC sales. For fiscal fourth quarter, Windows & Windows Live revenue rose by 44 percent and income increased by 59 percent year over year. Microsoft has sold 175 million Windows 7 licenses.

    2. SharePoint is the new Office. The product continues to make sales gains even as Office 2010 sells modestly well.

    3. Businesses are buying technology again, and version 7 upgrades are a given, since so much of the Windows install base runs XP.

    4. International markets, particularly many emerging ones, are recovering faster. These are the markets with greatest growth potential for Microsoft. Related: Economic recovery means more businesses are likely to buy than pirate.

    5. Microsoft marketing campaigns for Bing, Internet Explorer 8 and Windows 7 are winners. Microsoft has rediscovered the value of good marketing and is building and rebuilding brands, particularly by aggressive television advertising.

    6. Windows Phone 7 will release during first half of fiscal 2011, finally giving Microsoft something to sell against Apple, BlackBerry and Google smartphone operating systems.

    7. Bing continues to gain search share (unfortunately more from partner Yahoo than competitor Google). Branding and marketing are as much reasons for gains as technology. Cobranding with "American Idol" host Ryan Seacrest tips off where Bing marketing can yet go.

    8. Microsoft has started delivering search results for Yahoo, which also means that the worst of the distracting integration is over. Now Microsoft can present something better to advertisers and partners.

    9. The long-awaited, but pricey, Xbox Kinect will release for the holidays. Microsoft may have found a way to reinvigorate Xbox sales without releasing a new console.

    10. Microsoft is in process of launching Windows Live Wave 4, and some of the integration with Windows and across social networks looks promising. The latest Windows Live Essentials is the best version yet, nearly closing the gap on Apple's iLife suite.

    What Ballmer Must Convey During FAM 2010

    Microsoft's CEO has much to lose, starting with his job, should he and his core leadership team fail to deliver a clear and immediate vision of Microsoft's near future. The two lists of 10 things above offer a framework for what and what not to emphasize. If Ballmer apologizes for mobile mistakes and makes promises about next-version done right, Microsoft's board of directors should fire him on the spot. There's no time for apologies or far-off promises. Microsoft's future is now. Because Wall Street analysts and Microsoft watchers see that:

    • Google has led in search since early 2003, despite Microsoft's best efforts to catch up
    • Microsoft has fallen behind in mobile, after being a leader in smartphone operating systems
    • Apple snatched away the tablet category that Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates trumpeted for years
    • Microsoft's cloud strategy has drifted from the original vision; its future direction or success is cloudy
    • Apple's brand towers over Microsoft among consumers, particularly the next-generation of buyers -- the Millennials

    Ballmer must show that he is in charge and has a vision for Microsoft in 6 months and 6 years. The story he tells will mean everything. Ballmer must convince financial analysts that he and only he can forge from Microsoft's past successes a bold future.

    I'm most bothered by tomorrow's speakers' lineup, which is tough to read for its meaning. Typically, Microsoft's divisional presidents make presentations during FAM. But, as of this afternoon, none are on the agenda. Only core leaders are scheduled to present, including Ballmer, COO Kevin Turner, Chief Research Strategy Officer Craig Mundie, CFO Peter Klein and Bill Koefoed, general manager of investor relations. Mundie is a perennial presenter and the man who usually talks about far-future products. Visibly missing: Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, which is commentary enough on the real state of Microsoft's cloud computing strategy.

    If the FAM lineup reflects a focus on financials past, Ballmer has already failed. However, if Ballmer seeks to put himself forth as the hands-on visionary leader in charge, accompanied by his core financial and tactical leadership team, hope remains. Tomorrow's FAM will tell the story.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Steve Ballmer - Apple - Google - Bing
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/26/5_things_I_learned_during_San_Diego_Comic_Con'

    5 things I learned during San Diego Comic-Con

    Publié: juillet 26, 2010, 11:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Supergirl

    I spent Thursday through Sunday (July 22-25) covering one of the best geek events anywhere -- best because the appeal is so broad. At Comic-Con, everyone is a geek, or someone else if they cosplay (costume play). The event has changed as big Hollywood media exercises greater influence. Comic-Con is no longer just about comics, anime or manga. Last year, for example, director James Cameron debuted a long segment from the then upcoming movie "Avatar."

    Like previous years, I focused my reporting not on the star-studded panels but the attendees and exhibitors. From my viewpoint, the real stars aren't the Hollywood actors, directors or producers but the artists and attendees, many of whom dress up as someone else. For one day, or as many as four, they assume other personas or revel in the roles their favorite heroes play.

    The on-the-ground perspective is startlingly different from some of what people see on television. On Saturday night, while editing photos, I put on G4 TV's Comic-Con coverage. I was aghast trying to figure out what convention G4 attended, because the coverage was so far removed from the event I experienced. G4 spent too much time on Hollywood and other well-known personalities.

    Unlike previous years, I spent more time documenting the convention with photos than video. The pics here are from my San Diego Comic-Con 2010 Flickr set. I mostly used the Leica X1, but captured some closeups with iPhone 4. The X1 is my main digicam, offering dSLR-size sensor in a compact body with excellent lens. Low-light performance is so good that I didn't need a flash. The combination of sensor, prime lens and low-light performance -- in a light camera body -- made for some great photo-ops. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 gave the pics that extra punch, particularly the remarkably good noise-reduction feature. The X1 shoots in Adobe's DNG format, which surely is a benefit. For editing, I much prefer LR3 to Apple Aperture 3, although A3 has superior workflow features.

    Rock Band 3Comic-Con attendees take the Rock Band 3 stage

    With that long introduction, I present five things I learned from San Diego Comic-Con 2010, in no order of importance:

    1. iPad will be a dominant publishing platform. Apple's tablet was seemingly everywhere at Comic-Con. Many publishers used iPad to show off their comics and graphic novels, and many of them are either now available for iPad or soon will be."Kill Shakespeare" artist Andy Belanger told me that comics look better on iPad than in print. I must agree.

    Many comics publishers favor iPad App Store over iBookstore. For example, IDW, which publishes "Kill Shakespeare," has a separate application that acts like a store within a store. IDW controls the purchasing experience through its application rather than solely relying on the broader App Store.

    If publishers believe in a format/platform and commit to it, fans will follow. That said, publisher commitment is no assurance a format/platform will succeed (look what happened to Hollywood studios supporting HD-DVD). But no format/platform can succeed without content. Based on my conversations with publishers, I expect iPad to have huge presence during Comic-Con 2011.

    Cosplayer

    2. Apple's iOS and Google's Android are the future of mobile. Comic-Con can be divided into the first three days -- the geek and media event -- and Day 4, when families fill the San Diego Convention Center. During the first three days I saw a surprising number of Androids and iPhone 4s. Most Android phones were HTC-made -- and there were many models -- although I saw more Verizon phones than any other but not in overwhelming numbers.

    I expected to see lots of iPhones -- and their numbers were greater than observed Droids -- but I was surprised by how many people had iPhone 4s. Apple can't ship enough iPhone 4s to meet demand, so I expected to see fewer of them. Perhaps the Apple handset sightings reflect something about the Comic-Con attendee and exhibitor demographic, which I believe foreshadows future mass-market adoption trends.

    Commerce is nearly always a good indicator about a newer platform's future success. I observed Nemu-Nemu and Rising Sun Creations using iPhone 4s to process credit-card transactions. Nemu-Nemu relied on a card reader attached to the smartphone's headphone jack to process credit-card purchases. Rising Sun Creations, a San Diego-based anime-manga shop, manually entered credit-card information onto the touchscreen.

    iPad ComicsMany comics or graphic novels are coming to iPad

    By the way, Comic-Con has an iPhone app.

    As for Day 4, family day, I observed more varieties of smartphones. However, I saw seemingly endless numbers of BlackBerries, mostly among teens.

    3. Storytelling still matters. While Hollywood, and its seeming obsession with CGI and 3D, has slowly taken over Comic-Con, it's not what the people attending and participating in the event mainly want. The stories and characters -- the personas -- matter more. Even among the star-studded panels, the stories and their characters dominated the on-stage discussions or audience questions. Many how-to sessions focused on techniques for telling better stories.

    Comic book, graphic novel and game publishers clearly understand the importance of good storytelling -- that's a major reason why Comic-Con is still their show. I'll ask a question: Does 3D make the story better? I'd answer "No." What about you?

    Actor Garrett WangGarrett Wang, who played Harry Kim on "Star Trek: Voyager"

    4. The Canon-Nikon dSLR wars are over. Canon wins, if Comic-Con 2010 is any indication. I observed significantly more  attendees, exhibitors and journalists using Canon dSLRs than Nikons. Significantly means 20 or 30 to 1. I pay close attention to tech gear during tradeshows, and without preconception. Granted, my observation is no scientific study, but the number of Canon dSLRs was simply stunning. Among compact and semi-compact cameras, there was more diversity among manufacturers, with Canon, Nikon and Olympus standing out.

    5. Microsoft needs to Kinect more with gamers. In four days of walking the Comic-Con exhibit hall, I struggled to find the Xbox booth. Yes, Microsoft had a booth and employees were present at some panels, but there wasn't lots of buzz at the show about Kinect -- and there should have been. Granted, Comic-Con isn't E3, but the San Diego convention will be one of the biggest North American entertainment tradeshows before Kinect launches for the holidays.

    Nintendo Game Play Comic-Con 2010Gameplay at the Nintendo booth. Where's Xbox?

    I expected much more from Microsoft given the venue and timing. Sure, the company announced a new Halo Xbox bundle but c`mon, it's Kinect that's going to connect with gamers. Microsoft should take every opportunity, regardless of expense, to put its new game controller in front of consumers. Word of mouth is priceless marketing, especially during these social media crazed days.

    [All photos by Joe Wilcox]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    San Diego Comic-Con International - Google - App Store - San Diego - San Diego Comic-Con
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/21/A_frank_conversation_about_the_futures_of_Apple_and_Microsoft'

    A frank conversation about the futures of Apple and Microsoft

    Publié: juillet 21, 2010, 10:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The day following blow-out Apple earnings, my attention turns to Microsoft, which announces fiscal 2010 fourth quarter and year results tomorrow. I'm not the only person thinking about Apple, Microsoft, other tech companies and the future direction of computing.

    Overnight, I got an email from Mark Reschke, who clearly is a Mac fan. Reschke is excited about Apple's fiscal 2010 third quarter results, where iPad and iPhone combined accounted for nearly half of revenues. In this post I share Reschke's e-mail and my e-mail response to him.

    Often, my Betanews analyses don't reflect my own opinions about the topics, or only some of my real feelings. In my writing, I like to provocatively circle topics from different viewpoints, in hopes of generating discussion and even rethinking established perspectives. My e-mail to Reschke is measured in juxtaposition to his enthusiasm, which Apple has earned. The response also more closely reflects how I see Microsoft.

    As a reporter, I've covered Microsoft for more than 14 years. It's simply shocking to see the dramatic change in fortunes. When I started reporting about Microsoft, Apple was nearly bankrupt. In the Noughties, Apple reinvented itself by opening new -- and successful -- lines of business, like iPod, iPhone and iTunes. Microsoft chose to extend Office and Windows, while successfully launching but one truly new line of business -- Xbox.

    Macintosh no longer defines Apple, but Office and Windows define -- rather, confine -- Microsoft. Through retail stores and other marketing efforts, Apple built up huge brand equity, even while Microsoft's diminished. I'm saddened to see such a great company stumble; Microsoft executives wander about like teenagers lost in the woods. "We should go this way!" "No, we should go that way!" Each change of direction leads nowhere but the same place: Dependence on Office and Windows -- teenagers trapped in the woods with plenty of food and water but no way out.

    With that introduction, I present Reschke's e-mail and my response.

    Reschke:

    Hello, Joe,

    I recall this article you wrote in May: http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/The-Windows-era-is-over/127489929. I think it's dead on. After seeing Apple blow away any idea that there is some worldwide recession going on (never mind that there is, it's just when people are buying on tech, they are gathering their pop cans, checking under the seat cushions and pulling together cash to buy into Apple's OS X and iOS ecosystem). In a nutshell, it's amazing -- and people seem very satisfied with the experience.

    Apple's 33 percent Mac sales year-over-year growth is almost crazy, and growing like a weed in Asia and various parts of Europe no less. Spain up 59 percent?!

    But outside of the Mac continuing to take little nibbles of the PC/Windows world, the iPad is on course to go for 6 million plus per quarter once Apple can fully ramp to meet demand. This is taking away netbook, perhaps even some PC laptop sales, while it does not appear to be denting Mac sales. If Mac sales are a small nibble, iPads may be a bigger bite yet.

    Again, it's making Apple brass look pretty stinking smart (if planned!). I think we may need to start looking at iOS products, not as a cannibalization mechanism of Apple's OS X products, but another group of halo effect products only further catapulting Apple way beyond it's competition. It's the way [Apple COO] Tim Cook said they look at it, and judging by the numbers I can't argue with that viewpoint.

    Is there an office pool on how much time Ballmer has left? There should be.

    Regards,

    Mark

    Wilcox:

    Hi, Mark,

    There may not be time for that office pool should Microsoft revenue fall short of Apple tomorrow. Apple can't compete on profits, because Microsoft software is pure margin.

    Apple's guidance is $18 billion revenue for third calendar quarter, which is about $2.3 billion above analyst consensus for Microsoft. But no one should forget that some of that boost comes from accounting changes that lets Apple realize subscription revenue rather than deferring it. Microsoft collects subscription revenue, too, that would boost overall revenues if recognized rather than be deferred. Fiscal 2011 first quarter would be reasonable time for Microsoft to change accounting.

    How many years did it take for SharePoint to become a billion-dollar business? iPad is $2 billion in its launch quarter.

    I got hugely criticized in comments for that "The WIndows era is over" post, with accusers calling it flamebait. But it was a sincere analysis, like the one months earlier about Microsoft Office. Perhaps it's the Microsoft era that is over, eh?

    The early Windows Phone 7 reviews are promising, which in a way isn't good. The team appears to have taken a radically different approach -- strayed away from the Microsoft mainstream. That's quite good; it's hugely commendable. But Windows Phone 7 is two years too late. When the product fails to deliver fast enough, the Office and Windows hawks will swoop in and kill it--like they did with KIN.

    The most striking comments from yesterday's Apple conference came from Tim Cook about cannibalization, which he says company execs view as good. The outside-the-company perspective: Cannibalization is bad. But Apple's perspective makes sense and shows how Apple thinks differently than many other tech companies. Cannibalization is more likely to be among existing customers. Should Apple want them to buy another iPod touch or spend more on iPad and in doing so experience something new, exciting and endearing?

    International sales are simply shocking, and that's where Apple will simply kill Microsoft. International sales now account for more than half of Apple sales -- and yesterday's country-specific numbers were shocking. Microsoft's biggest competitor is piracy in all markets, but particularly many international ones. Apple sells physical products and doesn't have this piracy problem.

    Microsoft is by no means down and out. The Office and Windows monopolies mint money. But without dramatic realignment, Microsoft's future is legacy, like IBM before it. IBM lost its way during the mainframe-to-PC transition, even while the monopoly continued to generate mountains of cash. Microsoft's position is so eerily similar, as the PC era gives way to the cloud-connected mobile device. IBM had to bring in outsider Lou Gerstner as chief executive to aright the listing company. Microsoft may have to do something similar -- bring in an outsider with radically fresh perspective.

    Best,

    Joe

    In closing, I ask Betanews readers to suggest three-to-five things they'd like to see from Microsoft during fiscal 2011, which started July 1st. Please respond in comments or send e-mail to joewilcox at gmail dot com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft Office - Apple - iPhone - Tim Cook - Apple COO
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/20/Apple_Q3_2010_by_the_numbers__Record_quarterly_revenue_tops__15.7_billion'

    Apple Q3 2010 by the numbers: Record quarterly revenue tops $15.7 billion

    Publié: juillet 20, 2010, 10:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Apple set the stage for a historical competitive upset: Exceeding Microsoft revenue during the same quarter. Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple's quarterly earnings again blew past Wall Street consensus, which already were $1.55 billion to $1.75 billion higher than company guidance. Apple also exceed quarterly revenue consensus estimates for Microsoft, which announces fiscal 2010 results on Thursday. I first posted about Apple revenue exceeding Microsoft revenue in April and again in June, not once but twice.

    After the bell, Apple reported $15.7 billion revenue and net profits of $3.25 billion, or $3.51 a share. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $9.73 billion and $1.83 billion net quarterly profit, or $2.01 per share. Revenue rose 61 percent year over year and earnings by 78 percent. Fiscal 2010 third quarter ended June 26, 2010. By the way, analyst revenue consensus for Microsoft is $15.27 billion.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $13 billion and $13.4 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $2.28 and $2.39. Analyst average estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $14.75 billion revenue and $3.11 earnings per share. Apple blew past the Street. Again.

    Apple exceeding Microsoft, should it happen this quarter, would be more symbolic victory -- representing the shift from the PC era to the cloud-connected mobile device era. The reasons why are more substantive: iPad and iPhone. During fiscal third quarter, Apple opened up a completely new line of business that generated $2.17 billion in new revenue. Additionally, despite all the fuss over so-called "Death Grip," Apple sold 3 million iPhone 4s during the quarter. Combined, iPad and iPhone accounted for nearly 48 percent of fiscal third quarter revenue.

    For fiscal 2010 forth quarter, Apple forecasts $18 billion in revenue and $3.44 earnings per share. Apple's guidance beats current analyst consensus for Microsoft revenue by more than $2 billion during the same quarter, which would be Microsoft's fiscal 2011 first. Apple plans to defer about $175 million during the current quarter until fiscal 2011 Q1-- related to free cases the company will offer to iPhone 4 owners.

    In a statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said: "It was a phenomenal quarter that exceeded our expectations all around, including the most successful product launch in Apple's history with iPhone 4. iPad is off to a terrific start, more people are buying Macs than ever before, and we have amazing new products still to come this year."

    Q3 2010 Revenue by Product

    • Desktops: $1.3 billion, up 15 percent from $1.13 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $3.1 billion, up 40 percent from $2.2 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.55 billion, up 4 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.2 billion, up 27 percent from $958 million a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $5.33 billion, up 74 percent from $3.06 billion a year earlier.
    • iPad: $2.17 billion; no comparable -- new product.
    • Peripherals: $396 million, up 16 percent from $340 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $646 million, up 22 percent from $530 million a year earlier.

    Apple's gross margin was 39.5 percent, with the margin decline significantly less than guidance given 3 months ago. Apple ended the quarter with $45.8 billion in cash, up from $41.7 billion a quarter earlier.

    Apple ended fiscal Q3 with normal inventory levels for Macs and iPod. However, iPad and iPhone supplies are seriously constrained, with Apple ending the quarter with a big backlog. "In the scheme of things, it's a good problem to have," Apple COO Tim Cook said during a conference call with financial analysts late this afternoon. "We're selling everything we can make currently," he later emphasized. "My phone is ringing off the hook for people that want more supply."

    iPhone. Apple shipped -- what company executives really mean by sold -- 8.4 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal third quarter. If not for inventory adjustments between new iPhone models, shipments would have been about 225,000 higher. That number does not include lost sales to the backlog.

    A year earlier, Apple shipped 5.21 million iPhones. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. However, the backlog means that shipments more closely equal sales. During the quarter, iPhone was available from 154 carriers in 88 countries. The average selling price for iPhone was about $595.

    Wall Street analyst average estimate was 8.5 million units, with some analysts lowering estimates following Apple's July 16 announcement of 3 million iPhone 4s sold. The smartphone is backordered between two to four weeks. Revenue rose 74 percent year over year, giving the biggest boost to Apple's quarter. The smartphone and supporting services accounted for about 33 percent of total Apple revenue, down from 41 percent the previous quarter.

    Q3 2010 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktops: 1 million units, up 18 percent from 849,000 units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 2.5 million units, up 41 percent from 1.75 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 9.4 million units, down 8 percent from 10.2 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 8.4 million units, up 61 percent from 5.21 million units a year earlier.
    • iPad: 3.27 million units; no comparable -- new product.

    Computers. Apple shipped 3.47 million Macs during the quarter, up from 2.6 million units a year earlier. Wall Street consensus ranged from about 2.7 million to 3.5 million units worldwide, with consensus around 3.2 million.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary second calendar quarter PC shipment data. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.75 million computers, for 24.7 percent year-over-year growth, according to Gartner. However, IDC put Apple shipments lower, at 1.62 million, with growth a much lower 15.4 percent.

    Q3 2010 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $6.3 billion, up 39 percent from $4.47 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $4.16 billion, up 66 percent from $2.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $910 million, up 63 percent from $560 million a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $1.83 billion, up 160 percent from $703 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $2.6 billion, up 73 percent from $1.5 billion a year earlier.

    Apple ranked fourth in the United States, moving back up one place, with 9.8 percent market share, up from 9.1 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner. But IDC put Apple's market share lower -- 8.8 percent, up from 8.6 percent year over year. Just two years ago, Apple had risen to third place in US PC shipments. Gartner and IDC won't tabulate Apple's worldwide ranking until the final figures are released, and generally the information is not publicly available.

    iPod. Apple shipped 9.4 million iPods during fiscal third quarter, down from 10.2 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for Q3 was around 9.4 million units. While units declined, revenue rose 4 percent from a year earlier.  ASPs declined about $7, in part because of a back-to-school promotion giving away iPod touch with new Macs.

    Q3 2010 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.36 million units, up 18 percent from 1.15 million units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 914,000 units, up 46 percent from 626,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 129,000 units, up 19 percent from 108,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 394,000 units, up 71 percent from 230,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 677,000 units, up 38 percent from 492,000 units a year earlier.

    iPad. Apple shipped about 3.27 million iPads during the launch quarter. Analyst consensus was about 3 million units. The tablet was available in 10 countries, and the ASP was $640. About half of Fortune 100 companies are testing or deploying iPad, the company revealed during today's conference call. The product added $2.17 billion new revenue.

    Retail. Revenue rose 73 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 677,000 units, compared to 492,000 a year earlier. Apple opened seven new stores in the quarter, for a total of 293 retail outlets worldwide. There was an average 288 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $9 million. Apple retail stores had 60.5 million visitors during the quarter up 27 percent year over year. Apple plans to open 24 new stores during fiscal Q4.

    [Editor's Note: This was a live document posted at 4:45 p.m. EDT and completed at 6:15 p.m. -- following Apple's quarterly earnings call.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - IPhone - Steve Jobs - Wall Street - Microsoft
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/16/Steve_Jobs_shows_little_remorse_about_iPhone_4_Death_Grip____should_he_'

    Steve Jobs shows little remorse about iPhone 4 Death Grip -- should he?

    Publié: juillet 16, 2010, 9:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I recommended five things Apple should do during today's press conference about iPhone 4. Within hours of the post, Apple already had done two -- release a software update and informally deny that there would be an iPhone 4 recall.

    During today's media event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs fully did two others: Offer free iPhone 4 cases and reveal number of iPhone 4 returns. For the other -- bringing out engineers -- Jobs instead personally discussed the engineering problems and showed that other phones display similar behavior, where human contact with certain areas of the phone can cause the signal bars to decline.

    As I explained yesterday, today's media event wasn't about preserving iPhone 4 sales but managing perceptions, particularly for investors and the news media. The latter group now has substantive Apple response rather than speculation to write about. This will dramatically change the tone of Death Grip stories through the weekend, which is exactly what Apple needs to cool things down ahead of its fiscal third quarter earnings announcement on July 20.

    Jobs didn't give his best performance today. He was harried and hurried and didn't play the "We're sorry" role very well. There was no real apology, but plenty of justification. "We're not perfect," Jobs said. "Phones aren't perfect." He then went on to assert that the BlackBerry Bold 9700 and Droid Eris demonstrate similar behavior to iPhone 4 when held in the Death Grip. Such comparisons are unusual for Apple, which strives for excellence not excuses for why its products are the same as competitors. I found Jobs' excuse for why people are seeing Death Grip the lamest of all -- the relatively small number of cases available at launch. The reasoning: If there had been more cases, fewer people would be holding the phone directly.

    I suspect that when reviewing the video, assuming Apple posts one, many people will see what I saw watching him speak on CNBC's feed: How little Jobs wanted to give away free cases. His mouth said Apple wanted to do the right thing for customers. His facial expression and mannerisms suggested something different.

    Watching Jobs, I thought about lessons Fox TV show "Lie to Me" teaches about lying -- how a person's expression can reveal what he or she really means. The TV show's main character, Cal Lightman, is loosely based on Paul Ekman, who is a pioneer reading human facial expressions. Ekman's work is quite remarkable. In the 1970s, the University California professor identified six basic emotions -- anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness and surprise -- that the face can reveal. There's a universality about the emotions and their facial manifestations that transcends environmental influences. The expressions are human, regardless of country or culture.

    Jobs' expression told me that he didn't want to give away free iPhone 4 cases. But perhaps a question during the Q&A reveals why. In response to renown Machead John Gruber, Jobs said that he doesn't use a case -- that he holds the phone in the Death Grip but doesn't see any problems. Lucky, Jobs. He must live in a good AT&T reception area.

    Apples Five Responses

    I want to put Apple's responses in context of the 5 things I said the company should do to kill Death Grip. I could easily have scripted Apple's media playbook, Jobs' five responses so mirrored my recommendations. They are:

    1. Software update

    I recommended that Apple release iOS 4.1 or whatever update is necessary to properly align the signal indicator and quash and other radio-related bugs (Bluetooth would be good starter). If Apple is smart, the update with pack goodies, like FaceTime over 3G capabilities, that will excite the masses and shift focus away from Death Grip.

    Apple released iOS 4.01 within hours of that recommendation. During today's media event, Jobs said that another update, fixing problems with the proximity sensor, is coming. However, during the event Q&A, Scott Forstall called a New York Times report about an antenna software problem as being "false."

    2. Engineering problem

    I recommended that Apple bring out certified antenna engineers -- one to three of them -- to discuss how the iPhone 4 radios work and to do comparisons with other smartphones. Apple should assert that iPhone 4's weak signal performance isn't unique but that because of the phone's popularity, bloggers, Consumer Reports and journalists have amplified a small and common problem with antenna placement and reception. The engineers should also show how the antenna design boosts telephony performance more often than hinders it.

    Steve Jobs directly addressed the engineering issues, making Death Grip comparisons to other smartphones, discussing signal strength and comparing iPhone 4 performance to the older 3GS (he admitted there are slightly more dropped calls on the new model).

    3. Free cases

    I recommended that Apple offer iPhone 4 owners freebees, Bumpers, $30 credit for case (or other accessories) or some other incentive, like free MobileMe for one year. Apple should not give away cases, because of the potential negative effects on iPhone partners. The freebees would be simply goodwill, available to those customers requesting them, with Apple admitting no fault.

    Apple will offer free cases for phones sold through September 30th. Apple will replace Bumpers with cases. The end date strongly suggests Apple will have a final resolution in place by the end of September.

    4. Number of returns

    I recommended that Apple reveal the number of iPhone 4 returns. Apple could assert that even with all the bad Death Grip publicity people love their iPhone 4s.

    Jobs not only revealed the number of returns, but he put them in context. He also revealed the number of complaints. AT&T return rates for iPhone 4 are one-third of the 3GS. Early return rate for iPhone 3GS was 6 percent compared to 1.7 percent for iPhone 4. Additionally 0.55 percent of iPhone 4 owners have contacted AppleCare about reception problems.

    5. No recall

    I recommended that Apple emphatically state that there will be no iPhone 4 recall. As long as Apple lets the topic be, someone will write about the possibility of a recall. Apple should squash all speculation on the subject. The announcement would be right time to reveal availability of white iPhone 4s, increases in production capacity and availability in more countries. Rather than recall, Apple is expanding sales.

    Yesterday someone leaked there would be no recall, which the company all but affirmed today. Jobs also announced that Apple had sold 3 million iPhone 4s, that the white model would be available by the end of the month and that the smartphone would be available in 17 more countries, starting July 30th.

    In closing, one more thing: In the headline, referring to Jobs showing no real remorse, I asked: "Should he?" That's the question I pose for you to answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Steve Jobs - Apple - iPhone 4 - BlackBerry Bold
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/15/5_things_Apple_should_do_to_kill_iPhone_4_Death_Grip'

    5 things Apple should do to kill iPhone 4 Death Grip

    Publié: juillet 15, 2010, 7:43pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On July 16, Apple is holding an unspecified media event about iPhone. The presumption is that the company will finally address the so-called Death Grip, where bodily contact with the lower left-hand side of iPhone 4 causes the signal indicator to decline. I'm assuming that's the purpose of the event and here offer up five things Apple should do there to handle the public relations problem.

    First, I'll offer some brief analysis. Apple should never have let Death Grip get so out of hand. Apple marketing is as good as -- often better than -- its products. The company masterfully generates good perceptions. But Death Grip seems to have squeezed the life out of Apple's PR and marketing staff and CEO Steve Jobs. Apple's lack of assertive action shows that there is some validation to blogger, Consumer Reports, customer and journalist reactions to reported antenna problems. Something is wrong. But is it really all that bad?

    I have no problem creating the Death Grip, by simply holding iPhone 4 in my left hand with palm pressed against the lower left-hand side of the device. But I haven't had any more calling problems with iPhone 4 than its predecessors -- and that's living in an area where AT&T reps admit reception is notoriously bad. Elsewhere, I find signal strength improved and that Death Grip is not easily reproduced in areas with strong signals.

    Based on my own experience, which includes using smartphones for more than five years, and reading reports from or talking to other iPhone 4 owners, I believe that Apple's problem is more perception than reality. Yes, signal drops when iPhone is held in the Death Grip where carrier signal is weak but overall performance is on par with or better than other smartphones.

    Apple's choice of a Friday media event is unusual and probably quite deliberate. Fridays are typically slow news days, which means Apple's iPhone 4 response will lead the news pretty much everywhere tomorrow and throughout the weekend. If the response is good enough, the buzz should help Apple reset perceptions about iPhone 4 -- or at least change the tone of blog posts or news articles. That Apple still can't meet iPhone 4 demand is evidence enough that lots of people still want the handset, regardless of the negative reports about antenna performance.

    Apple's objective isn't protecting sales but resetting perceptions, by:

    • Assuring shareholders that iPhone 4 is not a fundamentally, flawed device, and that it will continue to sell well -- better than its predecessors.
    • Taking the edge off the negative news reports, which can't be much positive without a more official response from Apple.

    With that introduction, here's what I would do tomorrow if working for Apple. In order of importance:

    1. Release iOS 4.1, or whatever update is necessary to properly align the signal indicator and quash any other radio-related bugs (Bluetooth would be a good start). If Apple is smart, the update will pack goodies, like FaceTime over 3G capabilities, that will excite the masses and shift focus away from Death Grip.

    2. Bring out certified antenna engineers -- one to three of them -- to discuss how the iPhone 4 radios work and to do comparisons with other smartphones. Apple should assert that iPhone 4's weak signal performance isn't unique but that because of the phone's popularity, bloggers, Consumer Reports and journalists have amplified a small and common problem with antenna placement and reception. The engineers should also show how the antenna design boosts telephony performance more often than hinders it.

    3. Offer iPhone 4 owners freebees -- Bumpers, $30 credit for case (or other accessories) or some other incentive, like free MobileMe for one year. Apple should not give away cases, because of the potential negative effects on iPhone partners. The freebees would be simply goodwill, available to those customers requesting them, with Apple admitting no fault.

    4. Reveal the number of iPhone 4 returns. I haven't seen long return lines at my two local Apple Stores or heard about many iPhone 4 owners -- even those complaining about Death Grip -- seeking refunds. Apple can say that in unprecedented disclosure, the kind no public company would risk doing, here are the number of iPhone 4 returns. If the number is small, as I expect, Apple could assert that even with all the bad Death Grip publicity people love their iPhone 4s.

    5. Emphatically state that there will be no iPhone 4 recall. As long as Apple lets the topic be, someone will write about the possibility of a recall. Apple should squash all speculation on the subject. The announcement would be the right time to reveal availability of white iPhone 4s, increases in production capacity and smartphone availability in more countries. Rather than recall, Apple is expanding sales -- sure sign of its confidence in iPhone 4.

    Related Posts:

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
    Presented By: PuSH It Real Good: Deliver Content in Real-Time
      As we discussed in an earlier post, everything is instantaneous these days. That’s why we’re excited to announce that dlvr.it is now fully PuSH (pubsubhubbub) enabled. You publish and we deliver…now!
    If your feed is PuSH enabled, dlvr.it will…
    dlvr.it >> Read more

    Ads by Pheedo

    IPhone - Apple - Steve Jobs - iPhone 4 - Consumer Reports
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/14/Office_2010_belly_flops_in_early_retail_sales_dive'

    Office 2010 belly flops in early retail sales dive

    Publié: juillet 14, 2010, 10:07pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    US consumers and small businesses aren't rushing out to buy Office 2010, which doesn't surprise me. "Units and dollars are down from Office 2007's initial two weeks of sales but are in line, and in fact slightly ahead of, sales trends of Office 2007 so far this year," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, blogged yesterday. "Even so, sales of Office 2010 in general have to be characterized as a bit disappointing during the first two weeks."

    The sales sentiment contrasts starkly with the Office 2007 retail launch, when during the first week "sales jumped 108.6 percent in terms of units and 106.3 percent measured in revenue compared to Office 2003." NPD data reflects US online and brick-and-mortar retail sales.

    The difference between launches is chilling and reveals trends Microsoft shouldn't ignore. Baker has one view of the "Why," and I have another. Together they provide a fairly clear picture of what Microsoft can expect from retail Office 2010 sales. Briefly stated: Office 2010 isn't wooing US consumers to upgrade and many consumers simply don't need a productivity suite.

    Saturation and Sales Tell a Sobering Story

    "Lifetime sales for Office 2007 at retail exceeded $1.5 billion for the 3.5 years it was on the shelf," Baker informs. "A sales level that equated to approximately 10 million new copies of Office into the market in addition to the sales of PCs with Office pre-installed and the existing versions."

    By my interpretation, those numbers simply aren't good. They work out to about $150 per retail unit, which, not coincidentally, is the price of consumer edition Office Home and Student. As I previously reported, Home and Student, like predecessor Student and Teacher Edition, accounts for about 85 percent of US Office retail sales. For that 150 bucks, consumers get three licenses, not the one that comes with more expensive Office business editions. So what then is the value of Office to most consumers or small businesses -- as much as $50 per copy.

    Baker rightly identifies a problem Microsoft won't easily escape:

    With the release of 2010 Microsoft has to confront the success of its retail strategy head-on. Selling such a heavily used product into a base that has already been upgrading at a very high rate is an enormous challenge. While Office 2010 has many compelling new features, it is always an uphill battle to sell a high installed base product based on new features alone.

    I agree, and I warned about this problem in January 2008 blog post "Office 2007: One Hit Wonder?" I acknowledged that Office 2007 was unquestionably a sales hit, but warned:

    With software, like movies or music, a big hit can be really tough to follow. Office 2007 raises the bar high indeed for Microsoft's productivity suite. There is a long history of technology products reaching sales growth plateaus...Office 2007's new user interface pushes past the good enough barrier, in part because of the new user interface. Office 2007 looks different from its predecessors, and -- in my testing, anyway -- there are some real productivity usage gains over Office 2003 or XP. But I really wonder: Is Office 2007 so good that good enough may be too good? Yes, would be my answer.

    That's partly the scenario playing out now, as Baker astutely identifies.

    Many Consumers Don't Need a Productivity Suite

    However, there are other good reasons for why consumers aren't rushing out to buy Office 2010. In January, I posted the controversial "Microsoft Office is obsolete, or soon will be." The analysis mostly focused on retail sales to consumer and small businesses, for which -- six months later -- slow retail Office 2010 sales are a proof point. I identified several trends indicating that Office was losing its appeal to consumers and small businesses. Among them:

    • Commoditization of productivity suite features among other commonly used applications or services.
    • Sales saturation, where Microsoft increasingly faced the tough prospect of competing with its own products.
    • Microsoft has carefully and methodically lowered the cost to buy Office, either actually or by adding more licenses inside the box.

    Baker already explained sales saturation. I'll first tackle commoditization, starting with word processing, which reached commodity status years ago, as most commonly used applications or services incorporated the basic formatting features most people use more than 90 percent of the time. No external wordprocessing program is required to blog, e-mail, instant message, tweet or post to social networks like Facebook. Related: consumers increasingly have less or little need to use a productivity suite for the kinds of content they more commonly create, like the aforementioned status messages, tweets or Wall posts and photos or videos. For many consumers, the days of documents are largely over.

    "Office Home and Student is indicative of a longstanding downward pricing trend," I wrote in January. Microsoft extended discounts to other versions, as I explained:

    Under the new pricing scheme, PC buyers will have the option of purchasing a license key for the pre-installed Office trial version. Office Home and Student 2010 will cost $119, instead of the $149 box retail price. Office Home and Business: $199, instead of $279. Office Professional: $349, instead of $499. PC buyers electronically purchase Office, which is unlocked using a code key. Significant pricing change: Retail copies of Office 2010 Home and Business, Professional and Professional Academic will now come with two licenses, which is a huge discount over the current one-license approach. However, digital activations for pre-installed Office will come with one license. Either way, whether digital or retail pricing, Microsoft is considerably discounting Office.

    From that perspective, Microsoft artificially -- and obviously quite successfully -- boosted lagging consumer sales by the then new and different Office 2007 user interface. But Office 2010 doesn't look that much different from its predecessor. As suggested a few paragraphs back, the one-hit wonder is good enough, or perceived to be good enough, for many retail buyers. Microsoft is trying to compensate by lowering costs to buyers.

    Office Trial Conversions are Explanation, Too

    All this said, there is a corroborating influence for which I don't have data and Baker doesn't address in his blog post: Office 2010 also brings to market better digital purchasing options -- from preinstalled copies of the productivity suite and downloadable trials. That could impact early retail sales in three meaningful ways:

    • Consumers downloading the Office 2010 Trial version and directly digitally purchasing a license
    • Consumers buying new PCs with the trial version installed and directly digitally purchasing a license
    • In both cases, people running Office 2010 Trial and not yet making a purchase because the trial period hasn't expired

    The latter scenario could convert to retail sales after the 60-day trial period ends. Something else: The majority of Office Trial users would have been within the 60 days during NPD's measurement of early sales. So there wouldn't yet be pressure to make a decision to buy or not.

    I fully expect this early retail sales trend to persist until Microsoft and its partners offer back-to-school discounts for Office 2010 Home and Student -- and then drop back down and stay in the sales doldrums without any additional discounts. US consumers won't rush out to buy Office 2010 without discounts, I predict. They either don't need the productivity suite, think they don't need it, are satisfied with the Office version they already own or will choose to digitally purchase Office 2010 rather than go to stores.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft Office - Office 2007 - Office 2010 - Microsoft - Office 2003
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/13/Apple_should_NOT_recall_iPhone_4'

    Apple should NOT recall iPhone 4

    Publié: juillet 13, 2010, 9:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's Business Insider headline "Suddenly, Everyone Is Talking About An iPhone 4 Recall!" is tabloid journalism gone too far. Dan Frommer aggregates quotes from blogs or news sites demanding an iPhone 4 recall. There's no counterpoint. I'll give one: I'm not asking for a recall, so it certainly isn't everyone. What about you? Do you demand an iPhone 4 recall? (Uh-oh, my colleague Ed Oswald posted about a recall being inevitable, too. For shame!)

    In late June, I posted: "12 people share their iPhone 4 Death Grip stories." These dozen iPhone 4 owners told antenna/reception stories ranging from serious problems to none. As I expressed then: "The reception problems aren't as widespread as blogs and news stories suggest" and "Most people reporting 'Death Grip' are only seeing problems in weak signal areas." The point: Not everyone is dissatisfied with iPhone 4.

    I'm not bothered by the so-called "Death Grip," and I live in a lousy AT&T reception area. In my first 10 days using iPhone 4, I had all kinds of calling problems, which I later determined were caused by some strange incompatibility between iPhone 4 and my Nokia BH-804 Bluetooth earpiece. Switching to the Jawbone Icon fixed consistent problems of garbled calls. But Death Grip isn't much affecting my calling. Sure, the number of bars reduce when holding the phone flush to my left palm, but nothing more. Instead, I generally find the signal stronger and more available in more places than with iPhone 3G or 3GS.

    I'm so satisfied that I'll be recommending iPhone 4 in my upcoming review. This is the first time I've ever endorsed iPhone. I panned iPhone 3G twice -- in September and December 2008 reviews. I didn't bother writing a formal review of iPhone 3GS, which I tried three different times; in my most recent test (April-May 2010), I chose the Google Nexus One over the iPhone 3GS.

    Unquestionably, Apple has bungled the PR messaging. The company's July 2nd statement isn't really believable:

    We have discovered the cause of this dramatic drop in bars, and it is both simple and surprising. Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more bars than it should for a given signal strength.

    Then there are reports that Apple is allegedly killing forum posts linking to blog post "Why Consumer Reports can't recommend the iPhone 4." Apple is taking the ostrich-with-its-head-in-the-sand approach to Death Grip: Denial. "There is no problem." Well, hello, earth to Apple: There most certainly is a PR problem, and it's getting worse by the hour. Apple's shares range from $261.21 yesterday to $246.89 earlier today. It's a helluva up-and-down chart, with declines following Consumer Reports' blog post, which seemingly contradicts the broader Consumer Reports review that puts iPhone 4 ahead of other smartphones.

    Apple Shares

    Perhaps Dan Frommer felt something about his earlier post, because about 45 minutes later he blogged another: "Sorry, But This Whole iPhone 4 Antenna Thing Is A Non-Issue And Will Blow Over." I totally agree. Frommer writes:

    The bigger and more successful Apple gets, the easier it becomes to poke holes in the company. And the more fun people have beating up on Apple, and the more notoriety they get, etc. Seriously, when's the last time you thought of Consumer Reports before this week? But like every other tech PR calamity -- Facebook redesigns, Google privacy, etc. -- this will be news for a few more days and then life will go on.

    To answer his question: Almost never. Consumer what? Frommer emphasizes: "There's no reason for a huge recall. This isn't a faulty car that might kill you. It's a phone, and it's a phone that works."

    He is exactly right. Calls for an iPhone 4 recall are simply ridiculous. Apple has created an exceptionally good smartphone. Death Grip won't kill you. But the negative hype might kill Apple's share price for a few days -- at least until the fiscal Q3 earnings announcement on July 20.

    [Update:: As several commenters have pointed out, people can return phones within 30 days. Apple might consider extending the return period to 45 days, in sign of goodwill.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - IPhone - Consumer Reports - Betanews - Smartphone
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/12/New_Apple_FaceTime_TV_ads_give_me_the_creeps'

    New Apple FaceTime TV ads give me the creeps

    Publié: juillet 12, 2010, 11:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Seriously, all four new FaceTime ads creep me out. I know they're meant to be sentimental, but they're simply too real. I feel like a voyeur eavesdropping on very personal interactions. It's a place I don't belong. It's not my moment to share. Apple posted the commercials to YouTube on July 9th. I only discovered them today.

    There's a veiled, backhanded compliment to my creepy feelings. As an exercise in creating intimacy between two people and showing the endearing qualities a video call has over voice, the TV commercials are enormously effective. But to my watching, there's realism, and there's realism.

    So I want to congratulate Apple's ad agency for a job too well done. A woman telling her spouse (or partner) she's pregnant is an intimate moment that only they should share (There's admission to the moment's privacy when the wife asks: "Are you alone?"). I would say the same about a sheepish daughter showing braces to her father for the first time; or a grandfather seeing his first grandchild. "How does it feel being a grandfather?" asks the son. "How does it feel being a father?" asks the dad.

    Yes, there is power in the marketing message and foreshadowing of a future foretold in 60-to-70 year-old scifi dramas: Video calling. Do the commercials also foreshadow a time when the most intimate interactions take place by FaceTime rather than face to face? Like social media, which promises more personal interaction but delivers it in the most impersonal ways? What? You think Facebook Wall postings, comments or private messages are personal?

    I wonder how will video calling change our mores and attitudes about privacy. It's not like the intimate moments portrayed in the Apple commercials take place in public places. Perhaps I would feel less the voyeur if the scene settings weren't so artificially private and the tone of callers' voices so hesitant and emotional. But in the real world, how many people would video call where others could closely listen to and watch family matters? Perhaps I'm naive; look at about how some family members roughly treat one another in public places like fast-food restaurants or shopping malls. They act like there is no one else around them.

    Video should be the future of phone calling, and Apple has magnificently -- and in some ways frighteningly -- portrayed the potential. The commercials are so real, they make me feel guilty to watch them. How do you feel about them?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    YouTube - Television - Betanews - Web Design and Development - Hosting
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/08/Did_Microsoft_hand_you_a_pink_slip_this_week_'

    Did Microsoft hand you a pink slip this week?

    Publié: juillet 8, 2010, 6:09pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If the answer is "Yes," you were laid off, I'd like to tell your story. Please e-mail joewilcox at gmail dot com. I must confirm your identity, but your story will be anonymous to protect your severance package. I must reemphasize: All current or former employees' identities will be kept anonymous. Journalists protect their sources; I am especially protective of mine. You can speak freely, as did the former employees who shared their stories for my February five-part series.

    I'm also looking for contractors who Microsoft recently sent packing. I've been hearing some strange things about Microsoft's use of contractors, such as the surprising number, the even more surprising number recently let go and that numerous employees sacked during the last round of layoffs returned as contractors in similar roles. I'd like to tell your story, too.

    Since I'm asking for stories, I'll make a tougher request: Insiders with guts enough to share their stories about KIN's killing. If you worked on the project or have an opinion about it, I'd like to tell your story, too. Once again, anonymity is assured; I will protect your job.

    I'm troubled by the layoffs' timing -- days after Microsoft closed fiscal 2010. If Microsoft is bloodletting to soothe shareholders, why not purge during the previous fiscal year and carry the costs there? Many other reports suggest that the layoffs are normal, in that their timing is consistent with end-of-year evaluations. I don't believe that, given how the layoffs are coming well after the typical evaluation period and carrying into fiscal 2011.

    To reiterate: Please e-mail your story to joewilcox at gmail dot com. In most instances, I will follow-up with additional questions. I will not accept comments to this post as stories. You must e-mail me for your story to be told. I have no intention of letting anonymous commenters who might not work for Microsoft vent against the company. The stories will publish over the next couple days into next week, depending on how many are received.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Betanews - Layoff - Fiscal year - Monopolies and Oligopolies
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/07/The_Mobile_Web_is_NOW__tough_luck_PCs_'

    The Mobile Web is NOW (tough luck PCs)

    Publié: juillet 7, 2010, 10:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The mobile Web isn't a future event. It's here today, at least in the United States, according to a 25-page report PEW Internet released this week. The study's findings are hugely significant to companies like Microsoft, which is largely invested in the PC, and Apple or Google, which embrace mobile devices and cloud services.

    "Fifty-nine percent of American adults now go online wirelessly using either a laptop or cell phone, an increase over the 51 percent of Americans who did so at a similar point in 2009," according to the key findings. Some of the numbers will seem low, such as 38 percent accessing the Internet from their cell phones. Just the opposite: PEW looked more broadly at cell phones -- not just smartphones, which in other studies ranked higher for Internet and applications use. PEW captures demographic data that is startlingly revealing, though unsurprising. For example, 65 percent of 18-29 year olds access the Internet from their cell phones.

    Mobile Youth Lead the Way

    Young adults clearly are leading the way to the mobile Web, and they're a group no company offering mobile hardware, software or services should ignore. Twenty-nine year olds are at the cusp of where Generation X meets Gen Y (also called Echo Boomers or Millennials), which population is a little larger than Baby Boomers. The trailing end Gen Y's would be about 9 years old. PEW's study doesn't include teens, which connected, mobile habits are likely more pronounced than their older Millennials peers.

    "Nine in ten 18-29 year olds own a cell phone, and these young cell owners are significantly more likely than those in other age groups to engage in all of the mobile data applications we asked about in our survey," according to the PEW report. "Other age groups" refers to older Americans, not teenagers or younger.

    Some provocative usage highlights among 18-29 year olds:

    • 93 percent take photos on their phones
    • 81 percent transmit photos or videos from their phones
    • 60 percent play games or record videos on their phones
    • 52 percent use their phones to read or send e-mail
    • 48 percent access social networking services on their phones
    • 40 percent watch videos on their phones
    • 20 percent make purchases using their phones
    • 17 percent make charitable donations by text messages

    Mobiles

    In context of this data, Microsoft's killing off KIN is all the more tragic. Microsoft had the right concepts down for KIN, which features hugely resonate what Gen Ys do with their mobiles.

    According to PEW: "19 percent of 18-29 year olds are cell-only wireless users, compared with 13 percent of 30-49 year olds, 9 percent of 50-64 year olds and 5 percent of those ages 65 and older." That means nearly one in five young American adults accesses the Internet only through cell phone -- not personal computer, too.

    Young adults

    No wonder AT&T capped data usage, while T-Mobile switched, in October, to unlimited data plans. T-Mobile's plan change make loads of sense in context of this data point and another: "17 percent of those earning less than $30,000 per year are cell-only wireless users." Based on T-Mobile public information and other analyst data, the carrier hugely appeals to younger and lower-income Americans. In that context, the unlimited data plans cater to the right customers.

    They Find Time to Go Online

    Overall, Americans are surprisingly likely to go online from their cell phones. Among those going online, more than 50 percent do so at least once a day. Some of the demographic breakdowns, according to PEW:

    Among those who go online using a handheld device 55 percent of English-speaking Hispanics, 52 percernt of college graduates and 56 percent of those with a household income of $75,000 or more per year use their cell phone to go online several times a day. Young adults are also intense mobile internet users -- 52 percent of those ages 18-29 who go online using a cell phone do so several times a day, and an additional 17 percent do so about once a day -- although 43 percent of mobile web users ages 30-49 go online multiple times a day.

    Mobile access

    Another finding differentiates the US's two main minority groups in terms of their wireless Internet usage:

    Nearly two-thirds of African-Americans (64 percent) and Latinos (63 percent) are wireless internet users, and minority Americans are significantly more likely to own a cell phone than their white counterparts (87 percent of blacks and Hispanics own a cell phone, compared with 80 percent of whites). Additionally, black and Latino cell phone owners take advantage of a much wider array of their phones' data functions compared to white cell phone owners.

    It's not a white world of connected, mobile users. Mobile hardware, software and services providers should closely look at these demographic differences, particularly as they seek to broaden the appeal of smartphones and mobile applications and services.

    Minorities

    The report is more broad than this quick synopsis. It's a great read and excellent companion to February PEW report "Millennials: A Portrait of Generation Next." More significantly, the report is further conformation that mobile devices, particularly cell phones, are rapidly replacing PCs as primary connected, computing devices. "The Windows era is Over."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - United States - Mobile phone - Text messaging - African American
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/06/AT_T_isn_t_capping_3G_data_uploads_in_my_neighborhood'

    AT&T isn't capping 3G data uploads in my neighborhood

    Publié: juillet 6, 2010, 9:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    AT&T Speed Test

    There was a whole lot of buzz over the last couple days about AT&T capping uploads over its 3G network. I decided not to post on the topic, because I had a pretty good idea why AT&T subscribers were seeing slower data uploads: The Fourth of July.

    Let's use Occam's Razor for just a moment here. Is it more likely that data slowed down because of some grand AT&T conspiracy or that a larger number of people accessed the network over a long holiday weekend? Network congestion is more likely reason than evil, bastard AT&T executives conspiring to throttle down everyone's upload speeds. C`mon get a life, and a little common sense.

    The screenshot above speaks for itself. I downloaded the SpeedTest app to iPhone 4 and ran it -- about 30 minutes ago Pacific Time (Story timestamp is Eastern Time). I live in a neighborhood where AT&T admits service sucks. Calls drop all the fraking time, and only one room brings up any bars and the 3G icon. Still, with crappy service, I can push up data at 1.1mbits. That's a consistent rate seen in subsequent tests, and nothing like the 100kbps caps widely reported over the holiday weekend.

    MacRumors has a story about the reported upload slowdown, as it should. One of its forums hummed with posts about reported 100kbps upload limits over the weekend.

    I'll say it again, short of an official AT&T response: Occam's Razor, baby. Use Occam's Razor to cut through the rumor and conspiracy suppositions.

    [Update: For fun and comparison, I ran the SpeedTest app on Nexus One running Android 2.2 over T-Mobile's network. Download: 3219kbps. Upload: 1094kbps.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    AT&T - IPhone - MacRumor - 3G - Joe Wilcox
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/06/Sorry__Steve_Jobs__search_is_happening_on_smartphones'

    Sorry, Steve Jobs, search is happening on smartphones

    Publié: juillet 6, 2010, 8:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Compete put to shame Apple CEO Steve Jobs's ridiculous April assertion that "search is not happening on phones." According to the analyst firm, search is indeed happening on mobile phones, and, as I'll explain, it's one major reason why Android has a strategic competitive advantage over iPhone.

    Compete announced release of its "Smartphone Intelligence" report, which I have requested copy (After I posted, a Compete spokesperson e-mailed that "we cannot send you the report." But Compete provided additional data that I later incorporated below). Compete asserts that during first quarter, Android and iPhone users discovered two or more new local businesses via search. The keyword is local.

    "With the increasing popularity of local search, retailers should ensure their sites are optimized for mobile browsers," Danielle Nohe, Compete's director of technology and entertainment, said in a statement. "Making it easy for consumers to discover businesses via their devices opens local companies up to a whole new customer demographic, and savvy businesses should make sure they're maximizing this opportunity."

    It's marketing gobbledygook -- the kind of canned comment I shirk from -- but it makes the point about local search's importance on mobile devices, and search in general. Since I don't have the report, I looked elsewhere for data. According to ComScore, in the United States, 10.3 million mobile phone users searched from their devices in April -- that's a 90 percent year-over-year increase. ComScore's data includes teenagers; anyone 13 years or older.

    After I posted, Compete provided some more data insight: 55 percent of smartphone owners have searched locally from their handsets; on average, 15 percent locally search at least once a week. Top local searches:

    • Find local addresses (44 percent)
    • Find local phone numbers (35 percent)
    • Get information on local businesses (30 percent)

    The news that search is happening on phones is good for Google, which has continually updated mobile search features, particularly in 2010, with Android getting a little extra juice over iOS (at least with what rolls out to which mobile operating system first). Then there is all the "stuff" Google wraps around mobile search, particularly the local variety, such as keyword advertising. "Near me now" is a brilliant feature for improving local search. The Google search function uses GPS to offer up things close to you, such as the nearest Starbucks.

    Awareness swings to Google, which is no surprise. According to Compete, Smartphone awareness is highest for Google Mobile (66 percent), then Citysearch (30 percent), Mobile Yellow Pages (29 percent), and Yelp (17 percent). There's no Apple search, so there's no Apple search awareness.

    iOS Apps and Games Du Jour

    But that's not to say there aren't other trends favoring iPhone. Fifty-one percent of iPhone owners have five or more games running on their devices, according to compete. By comparison, 46 percent of BlackBerry owners have no games at all (should anyone be surprised about that?). Nohe's advice to developers: "It's evident that iPhone owners have embraced mobile gaming. Developers should turn their attention to targeting other smartphone users in an effort to even out the discrepancies in mobile gaming adoption."

    Mobile AppsSay, what? No. No. Developers should target a few platforms from which they can make the most money. Perhaps Nohe's advice would be good if it were a "write once, run everywhere" world. For application development, the US government sets a good example for commercial developers to follow. Among its 18 apps, two platforms are primary: Mobile Web (about a dozen apps) and iPhone (little more than a half-dozen apps). Two of the apps will run on Android and another BlackBerry but not exclusively to either. There are apps exclusive to iPhone or the Mobile Web but not to either Android or BlackBerry.

    More regarding applications: Compete found that 27 percent of all smartphone owners had downloaded no apps. By comparison, 97 percent of iPhone owners have downloaded applications. ComScore found applications -- where by the numbers Apple leads -- are hot on mobile phones. In April, about 70 million US mobile phone users accessed at least one application on their device. Eighty percent of smartphone owners accessed mobile applications. However, more people accessed a browser than used applications. As I explained in April, Apple and Google are taking largely opposing approaches to the mobile Web -- applications vs the browser, and the latter favors Google.

    Smartphone Social

    Compete and ComScore identified the same largest trend on mobile phones, and it's an area where neither Apple nor Google has significant presence: Social networking. Compete claims that an equal number -- 33 percent -- of smartphone owners prefer to send or read tweets on their devices. Trends for smartphone owners accessing Facebook:

    • 66 percent read news feeds
    • 60 percent post status updates
    • 59 percent read or reply to private messages
    • 44 percent post photos

    Nohe expressed, in a statement:

    Given the increasing popularity of Facebook, Twitter and other social sites, it follows that users are eager to access these outlets on their phones. Based on our findings, I recommend marketers start thinking about new ways to maximize consumers' use of smartphones on social sites, as mobile adoption will likely only increase with time.

    Mobile social networking grew by 90 percent year over year to 30 million phone users, according to ComScore. "Social networking is by far the fastest-growing mobile activity right now," said Mark Donovan, ComScore's senior vice president of mobile, in a statement. "With 20 percent of mobile users now accessing social networking sites via their phone, we expect to see both application and browser usage continuing to drive future consumption of social media."

    What social networking service does Apple or Google offer? Think about it. Think longer. Well, Google has (choke, choke, gasp, gasp) Buzz. And Apple?

    I can't wait to read some future Steve Jobs statement about how social networking is not happening on phones.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - BlackBerry - Steve Jobs - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/05/5_things_Microsoft_should_do_to_save_Windows_Phone'

    5 things Microsoft should do to save Windows Phone

    Publié: juillet 5, 2010, 10:11pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Friday's apocalyptic post "Windows Phone 7 is doomed" generated among comments assertions that I'm an idiot and demands that I be fired (Sorry, I'm a lowly freelancer). Nevertheless, I do read comments and seriously regard the ones written to extend the discussion (rather than just belittle the author or other commenters). Commenter rwalrond asked: "How about you write an article about how Microsoft can leverage its existing platforms to make WM7 a contender." Actually, Microsoft's trying to leverage its enterprise apps is part of the problem -- the Office and Windows hawks driving off the consumer and cloud service doves. But the spirit of rwalrond's comment is offering solutions, and that I will do here in response.

    I don't want to open up a religious debate here, but the Biblical accounts of Nineveh and Sodom and Gomorrah are good metaphors for my "doom" proclamation and Microsoft's mobile future. In that context, I'll call my "Windows Phone 7 is doomed" assertion a prophecy. If Microsoft repents of its wicked ways, the company could end up like the Biblical account of Nineveh, which was spared destruction even after its doom was prophesied. The citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah didn't repent and, according to the Biblical account, they were burned with fire and brimstone. To reiterate: I don't want to open up a debate about God, the authenticity of the Bible or people's lifestyles (why these cities were targeted for destruction). I'm trying to say that Windows Phone 7 doesn't have to be doomed, if Microsoft is willing to radically change its behavior. I don't see much hope in that, particularly given how fast the mobile market is changing and how quickly upstarts Apple and Google are gaining market share and consumer and developer mindshare. So I'm sticking with "doomed," but hoping to be proved wrong.

    With that introduction, there are several ways -- and I'll give five of them -- that Microsoft should apply some outside-the-Office-and-Windows-box thinking concurrent with the launch of Windows Phone 7 devices. But these things require dramatically different thinking -- well, dramatic for today's Microsoft but not as much for the scrappy dog that conquered the PC market in the 1980s and 1990s. None of these things has anything to do with phone features or developer tools. It's too late for them to matter enough, given the tilted competitive landscape.

    So, here are five things Microsoft should do to save its mobile strategy, presented in order of importance:

    1. Immediately launch a global mobile money/payment system. Money/payments will be the killer application for mobile devices, and that's something already being seen in emerging markets. According to analyst data and that from World Bank, about three-quarters of the planet's 4.6 billion mobile subscribers live in developing countries. Mobile money/payments is one of the hottest and most life-impacting trends underway in many emerging markets. Citing World Bank, Economist reported in September 2009: "An extra ten phones per 100 people in a typical developing country boosts GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points."

    However, the greatest impact comes when people can make purchases using cell phones and even more when they can receive money on them. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development's "Information Economy Report 2009" highlights just one of the regional trends:

    African countries are pioneering mobile banking and electronic transaction services. In Kenya, Safari- com's M-Pesa service allows previously 'unbanked' microenterprises to transfer money (and make pay- ments) via SMS through their mobile phones. As of May 2009, M-Pesa had 6.5 million subscribers and handled around $10 million in daily transactions.

    According to the same Economist article: "The incomes of Kenyan households using M-PESA have increased by 5-30 percent since they started mobile banking, according to a recent study."

    Microsoft already has some of the infrastructure necessary for mobile money/payments around Windows Live IDs. Global handset leader Nokia already is there, and Apple and Google are just steps behind with iTunes and Checkout, respectively.

    I combine mobile money and mobile payments, although they are more typically separated by banking institutions, government agencies and NGOs (non-government agencies). Mobile money typically refers to banking, such as the cell phone acting as a personal ATM. Mobile payments are more transactional -- buying stuff. But other than local regulations, there is no reason why the two must be separate. What's so different about an iTunes or Xbox Live account with a gift certificate credit balance from future versions where money is deposited? The same account should logistically be capable of receiving money and making payments.

    Microsoft's money/payment system should be widely available for any handsets but offer specific advantages for Windows Phone users, such as integration with hosted Office applications or access to additional services offered by local Microsoft partners in each of the countries. Microsoft would make a long-term, strategic commitment to mobile money/payments but one that looks beyond mobile applications, where Apple's lead is simply enormous. Rather than win by playing by rules established by others, Microsoft should reinvent the game to its strengths. One strength: Existing emerging market programs. Another is Orlando Ayala, chairman of Microsoft Emerging Markets and one of the company's most successful, tactical executives.

    2. Subsidize the cost of the first 5 million Windows Phone 7 handsets. Microsoft needs to build momentum -- and that means sales and mindshare -- as quickly as possible. As such, the company should make regaining market share the priority over profits. Microsoft can start by paying the subsidies on the first x million handsets-- I arbitrarily chose five. The approach gives manufacturers more reason to commit to Windows Phone 7, because they'll be paid by Microsoft whether or not carriers sell the devices. Microsoft should then use larger subsidies to reduce some handset's prices, even to zero dollars. The Microsoft subsidies could be branded as a launch promotion, with understanding that carriers would resume paying subsidies to manufacturers after receiving their first Windows Phone 7 handset shipments. The subsidies would also encourage more manufacturers and carriers to have Windows Phone 7 handsets for launch day.

    Granted, Microsoft will take some snipes from bloggers, journalists and pundits about having to pay people for Windows Phone 7. Big fraking deal. Yesterday's news is easily forgotten. Windows Phone 7 buyers are committed for years, and the sales can drive up market share and mindshare -- and Microsoft desperately needs both.

    3. Release a branded Microsoft Windows Phone 7 handset. Google had the right idea with Nexus One. Six months ago, it galled me to read all the wrong punditry about Google adopting a new way to sell cell phones -- direct, going around carriers. Nokia has done this for years, by offering its handsets direct and unlocked; Google wasn't reinventing anything. As I explained in January: "By selling a handset direct, Google takes control of Android updates for a flagship phone that also acts like a baseline design model for handset manufacturers licensing the mobile operating system." The HTC-created Nexus One is Google's reference design. Microsoft needs one too.

    From that perspective, Nexus One is a huge marketing success. Critics harp on low sales numbers, failing to recognize it's not how many sold but who is buying (or getting N1 for free). The Google-branded smartphone:

    • Successfully established a reference design that Android manufacturers either tried to meet or exceed; handsets that came after Nexus One (and admittedly Droid) are much improved.
    • Helped Google reduce Android fragmentation by establishing one device with the newest OS version. Now more than half Android handsets run v2.1 or v2.2.
    • Became the reference design handset that Google freely gave to developers. They had the platform in hand around which to build their mobile applications.
    • Wooed mobile enthusiasts, who not coincidentally hugely influence other potential buyers. Many enthusiasts choose Nexus One because it's updated fastest.

    Microsoft should learn from Google's success and imitate it. There is precedent. In November, Microsoft gave thousands of free Acer laptops to developers; the 11-inch portable is a reference design for developing Windows 7 applications. Microsoft should do something similar with Windows Phone 7, even selling the branded device direct.

    4. Subsidize the data costs for the first million Windows Phone 7 subscribers. If you're going to give away something for free, make it meaningful. Smartphones are about data, but for many people the cost is prohibitive or the plans too limited. Microsoft should work with carriers to offer a promotional, unlimited data plan either for x number of days or handsets. In the United States, AT&T recently capped data plans. How much more appealing would a Windows Phone 7 handset be, compared to Android smartphone, BlackBerry or iPhone, with unlimited data for the same price -- or less -- than the 2GB plan?

    5. Rebrand consumer Microsoft phones. Microsoft spent millions launching KIN, much of that in marketing. Last week's KIN killing shouldn't mean the end of the brand. If anything, given the amount written about KIN during the last few days, Microsoft should strongly consider reviving the brand. Normally, I would recommend against rebranding, particularly with Windows Phone 7 launching within months and the astoundingly stupid way Microsoft bungled the KIN killing announcement. But, given that Microsoft needs to take desperate measures, I must recommend keeping KIN as the brand for Windows Phone 7 consumer handsets. Microsoft should relaunch the brand now. Begin the marketing as soon as humanly possible. Build buzz and counter iPhone 4 marketing by advertising something else -- even if it's not yet ready. As a brand, KIN works. The marketing concepts are sensible, so don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, as the over-used saying expresses.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Windows Phone 7 - Apple - Windows Phone - Nokia
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/02/Windows_Phone_7_is_doomed'

    Windows Phone 7 is doomed

    Publié: juillet 2, 2010, 8:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In February, I asserted that Windows Phone 7 "is a lost cause." Matters are worse following this week's KIN killing and late May's Entertainment and Devices division reorganization. Microsoft mobile development has run aground, and at the wrong time. The company is poised to miss two crucial platform transitions that will doom its mobile strategy and assure that the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack will join the mainframe in gradual obsolescence.

    There's irony here: Microsoft succeeded during the 1990s by driving platform changes that doomed competitors. Companies like Lotus and WordPerfect had market-leading products that fell away after they missed operating system changes that Microsoft lept on (and through its market dominating position helped push forward). Now it is Microsoft that will miss crucial platform changes: Smartphones replacing dumb phones and the mobile Web (including services and resident applications) diminishing the PC's computing and informational relevance.

    Microsoft's problem is time. Short of bribing developers and customers to use Windows Phone 7, Microsoft cannot correct its mobile platform mistakes fast enough. Apple and Google will lock in customers the way Microsoft and its partners did with DOS/Windows PCs during the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s.

    The Ghost of Windows Vista

    All signs point to fundamental leadership problems within Microsoft, which culture seems incapable of separating from legacy platforms Office and Windows. Late on June 30, one of my journalist buddies IMed and asked: "Joe, what the heck is MSFT thinking? With this KIN thing?" I responded: "The enterprise hawks have killed the consumer and cloud service doves. It's all about keeping Office and Windows revenue streams and extending them. These guys -- and the analysts consulting them -- are lost."

    Yesterday morning, I read a previous-day post at Engadget that confirmed my suspicions. In post "What killed the Kin?" Joshua Topolsky writes:

    According to our source, the birth of these devices began with a decision at Microsoft to create a platform agnostic, cloud-centric featurephone. A featurephone that could be had at a relatively low cost, and sold to a burgeoning market of teens and young adults who had little need for a BlackBerry-level device (or pricing)...It seems that after doing some initial work on these phones based around Danger's proprietary Sidekick OS, Andy Lees -- the SVP of Microsoft's mobile division -- instructed everyone to go back to the drawing board and rebuild the OS based on Windows CE. It appears the company didn't want a project that wasn't directly connected to its Windows kernel. This move allegedly set the release of the devices back 18 months, during which time Redmond's carrier partner became increasingly frustrated with the delays.

    The scenario is eerily similar to Windows Vista's first reboot, in early 2004, about six months after Microsoft touted glorious new features for the operating system then codename Windows Longhorn. Microsoft later dumped most of Longhorn's best and most highly touted features, as product managers struggled to aright badly listing software development. Other reboots followed, leading up to Microsoft's horrific Spring 2006 announcement: The operating system would not be ready to ship on holiday PCs. How the hell do you miss Christmas!

    The events leading up to KIN's killing are like those plaguing Windows Vista's development, and they raise serious -- I do mean serious -- concerns that Microsoft has produced in Windows Phone 7 another lame-duck operating system. Shall we call it Windows Vista 2? I'm not too enthralled by what little chatter I've heard from developers about Windows Phone 7, and it feels like Vista talk. By measures of mismanagement -- Windows Mobile falling from a leading smartphone OS position five years ago to No. 5 in Q1 2010, according to Gartner -- Windows Phone 7 is Vista redux.

    Microsoft can't move Fast Enough

    What Microsoft doesn't have is time to fix the problems. Under Windows & Windows Live president Steven Sinfosky's direct and Ballmer's indirect leadership, Microsoft turned around flailing Windows development. Windows 7 is everything Vista should have been and wasn't. But Microsoft could take three years because of monopoly. The company had locked in customers, the majority of them businesses, years ago. They would go nowhere (which the majority did) before moving to something else (incurring hefty switching costs along the way). There is no Microsoft monopoly in mobile. Microsoft doesn't have three years to realign management, refocus software development and produce the necessary single OS for all devices -- PCs, PDAs, smartphones and tablets.

    CEO Steve Ballmer should have taken my advice and bought Palm. Instead, in another indication Microsoft bungled mobile, HP acquired Palm; now a major OS partner is a competitor in mobile. Microsoft could have sold Palm devices while getting its Windows Phone together or simply gone WebOS (a tough sell, I know, given the corporate culture).

    DaveN wrote in comments to last night's post "What does it mean that KIN, Sidekick and Symbian-Guru went R.I.P. within about 24 hours?":

    One thing about the phone market is that because people replace phones so often, it's always possible for a new player to enter the market, or an existing but poorly performing one to come back to life. No matter how far a company like Microsoft or Nokia gets beaten into the earth, if their next product is great, it will succeed.

    I responded:

    Once people invest in accessories or buy lots of mobile apps, switching will be more difficult, like during the early DOS/Windows PC and Macintosh wars. People may switch handsets often but the time is coming when they won't so easily swap mobile operating systems. Microsoft will miss the crucial lock-in period for smartphones, as they rapidly replace so-called dumb phones.

    In a follow-up comment, DaveN agreed. Once people lock into a platform, they don't easily switch. The greater their financial commitment, the less likely they are to switch. Windows is classic example. Even for products where something as good or better comes along, switching is slow. Internet Explorer is good example. Even after losing about one-third of it usage share since 2005, IE still is the market leader by huge margins.

    Smartphone adoption is accelerating, and the leaders are pulling fast ahead of Microsoft. Earlier this week, Apple announced that it had sold 1.7 million iPhone 4s during the launch weekend. In May, Google revealed 100,000 Android activations a day. This week, the company upped the number to 160,000. Activations equate to actual sales, not the unit shipments Apple calls sales. That puts Android sales at 4.8 million units a month, or 14.4 million a quarter, up from a 9-million sales rate based on the earlier activations figure. Android sales rate per quarter is just a few hundred thousand units less than Windows Mobile license shipments for all 2009; Android would be greater per quarter against Windows Mobile's year when measuring sales against sales.

    Mobile Applications are Enough

    Microsoft's big problem is what Apple and Google have got plenty of: Mobile applications. Apple's application store exceeds 225,000, and the company has paid developers more than $1 billion. The Android Marketplace is now adding an average 10,000 new applications a month (Caveat: Google recently purged presumed malicious apps, which reduced the total from more than 50,000 applications).

    Last week Altimeter partner Michael Gartenberg posted "App Stores are not enough." He writes:

    There's a battle going on for mobile platform supremacy, and right now there are simply too many platforms to succeed long term. And the old rules simply don't apply any more, as the criteria for mobile platform success in mobile reaches beyond simply having a well-stocked app store. It will take much more than an app store to drive success -- the key factor between success and irrelevance will increasingly be the cohesive application story each platform provider can tell. Look for the platforms with the out of-the-box and core experiences that also allow developers to best leverage and monetize their apps to make the cut long term. The wise vendors will figure this out sooner, while the others will begin a long slide into irrelevance

    I disagree with his first assertions about there being "too many platforms to succeed long term." It's absolutely clear from the last 12 months of handset sales that the mobile market is consolidating around three mobile platforms: Android, BlackBerry OS and iOS. Nokia may be the global handset leader, but it's poised to get caught in the same smartphone transition that will pummel Windows Phone 7. Nokia's smartphones aren't good enough, and future models will move from Symbian to Meego. Timing is terrible.

    The math for mobile platform success isn't that much different than PCs:

    • The products must deliver satisfying consumer (or business) user experiences
    • There must be plenty of applications for consumers (or businesses) to choose
    • Developers of these applications and other partners must make lots of money

    There are a few fundamental differences that matter:

    • Connected consumer electronics will drive the next wave of computing
    • Smartphones and fuller-featured dumb phones are more personal than PCs
    • Buyers care more about benefits than any platform provider's "cohesive application story"

    Applications hugely matter for smartphones -- much, much more than PCs -- because the devices are so much more personal and socially used (after all, phones are about communications). It's clear that Apple and Google are rapidly approaching the tipping point where buyers will make handset buying decisions based on the applications as much as hardware features or design, just like the PC era.

    That's the transition Microsoft will miss, again, short of paying customers or developers to adopt Windows Phone. Once customers lock into two or possibly three dominant mobile platforms, Microsoft will be locked out. Then the good old boys of Redmond can sit back in the porch swing, sip their wine coolers and dream of the days when Office and Windows ruled the world.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Google - Windows Phone 7 - Nokia - Steve Ballmer
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/02/What_does_it_mean_that_KIN__Sidekick_and_Symbian_Guru_went_R.I.P._within_about_24_hours_'

    What does it mean that KIN, Sidekick and Symbian-Guru went R.I.P. within about 24 hours?

    Publié: juillet 2, 2010, 5:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The last 24 hours has brought remarkable upset to the mobile marketplace, just one week after Apple and its partners started selling iPhone 4. Will this tsunami never end?

    Late yesterday, the blogosphere, twittersphere and news media cosmos burst with reports that Microsoft had killed KIN just six weeks after the consumer smartphone went on sale. Today, T-Mobile revealed that Sidekick sales stop tomorrow, which isn't exactly shocking considering KIN's demise. In early 2008, Microsoft bought Danger, which makes the software used by Sidekick.

    Something else happened today, and it's much more foreshadowing than the other two events. Ricky Cadden posted: "Symbian-Guru.com is Over." One of Nokia's most vocal enthusiasts is switching to Android. He expects to receive a Nexus One tomorrow. Companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Nokia live and die by their enthusiasts, who are the best evangelists. Enthusiast blogs can do even more, and nobody -- absolutely nobody shuts down a successful blog with audience and advertising.

    Cadden's decision is simply stunning, which can be said of his timing. Nokia will soon launch its hottest flagship smartphone to date -- the N8. But previous bad experiences give Cadden reason not to wait. He writes:

    If you recall, when the Nokia N97 was announced, we all drooled over it endlessly. We marveled at its features, its monstrous internal storage, sliding hinge assembly, 1500mAh battery, and more. We waited a disturbing 6 months for it to actually be available -- only to actually get it. The launch firmware on the Nokia N97 was so bad, I sincerely hope that whoever gave it the A-OK to be released has been fired from Nokia. It took them another 6 months just to release a firmware that wasn't rubbish, and now, the 'flagship' languishes behind other devices, frustrating owners like myself more and more each day...After this experience with the Nokia N97, there's simply no way I trust them to not screw up with the N8 -- not enough for me to fork over $500 of my own money, at least. Sure, the N8 looks good on paper and in the first reviews -- but then again, so did the N97, as I recall.

    I feel his pain. I looked eagerly for the Nokia N97, too, and bought one in summer 2009. The camera took great photos, and the N97 delivered some other stellar digital media experiences, but the UI lumbered along, hampered in part by the resistive touchscreen. I sold mine within months.

    An Enthusiast No More

    Cadden launched Symbian Guru in 2006, and he has used Nokia handsets for more than a decade. No more. "I can't continue to support a manufacturer who puts out such craptastic 'flagships' as the N97, and who expects me to use services that even most of Nokia's own employees don't use," he writes.

    Like Cadden, I have long been a Nokia fan, too. But I also recently gave up on the manufacturer's phones. The future is either Android or iOS devices -- or both. I have an iPhone 4 and Nexus One. I'll choose one of the two as my everyday smartphone sometime during the next couple weeks. I'm leaning strongly towards the iPhone 4 because it offers what so long appealed to me about Nokia handsets: Photo and video capabilities. Apple offers just about the right combination I need as a journalist.

    Cadden also strongly criticizes Symbian -- a scary prospect given the blog's name. "Developers of popular online services are completely ignoring Symbian, putting it further and further behind the other platforms," he writes. "To date, there is still not an official client for Dropbox, Pandora, Last.FM (don't get me wrong, Mobbler is one of the reasons I've stuck with Symbian, but it's still not official), Foursquare, Twitter, and a host of others." I relate. I gave up the Nokia N900 because of missing apps. No Shazam, No N900. He continues:

    To be truthful, I'm also exhausted with trying to be a Nokia/Symbian fan in the U.S. There is absolutely zero marketing effort from either company in this market, and it's not for lack of opportunities...While European carriers stumble over themselves to carry the latest Nokia devices, American carriers tend to pick up the lame-duck and low-end versions of Nokia's phones...Most of my friends and family now carry Android-powered devices. My dad traded in his Nokia 6126 for a Motorola Backflip, and my mom, who previously used my N95-3 and 5800 XpressMusic, did as well. My little brother just picked up an HTC Hero, and my wife, who has carried the N81 8GB, N96, and E71, is now eyeing the HTC EVO 4G.

    So Cadden really is the last holdout, or nearly so, of a family wooed away to Android. But he is not alone. Dotsisx is going with him. I've been reading her mobile reviews for years. Dotsisx (Rita El Khoury) has been quite the Nokia/Symbian enthusiast. She writes:

    I have been a fan and a power user from the moment I bought my Nokia 3250 XpressMusic 4 years ago. Since then, I've owned and trialed more Symbian/Nokia devices than I care to remember, but for posterity's sake here's the list: C5, E52, E55, E61i, E66, E71, E72, E75, E90, N81 8GB, N82, N85, N86 8MP, N93i, N95, N95 8GB, N96, N97, N97 Mini, X6, 5530 XM, 5730 XM, 5800 XM, 6210 Navigator, 6700 Slide, 6710 Navigator, 6720 Classic, and Sony Ericsson Satio. Woosh!

    I've evangelized Symbian and smartphones when people didn't know what those weird words meant, I've shown friends around me how to use every single feature in their phone and I've convinced many colleagues in the Pharmacy and Medical field that they don't need a PDA or a Windows Mobile to access relevant medical information, they can do it right from their Nokia with several applications especially MobiReader and its collection of medical eBooks.

    Dotsisx recalls "when the iPhone and Android were first launched, I remember how they were a joke for many Symbian users. But look at them now!" She adds: "I'll always be passionate about mobile and tech. It's not as much as I'm quitting Symbian, it's more like I'm quitting being a Symbian advocate, and exclusively a Symbian fan."

    Nokia claims that 1 billion people use its handsets. But for how long when enthusiast evangelists abandon its phones? It's not coincidental that KIN, Sidekick and Symbian-Guru all did the big R.I.P. within about 24 hours and a week after iPhone 4 launched or within days of Google revealing daily Android activations of 160,000. I didn't even consider keepers of the old vanguard -- BlackBerry, Nokia N Series or Windows Mobile -- for my next smartphone. What about you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Nokia N97 - Apple - iPhone - Google - Symbian-Guru
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/07/01/Somebody_notify_the_next_of_kin__Microsoft_KIN_is_dead'

    Somebody notify the next of kin, Microsoft KIN is dead

    Publié: juillet 1, 2010, 1:00am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Perhaps those rumors about iPhone going to Verizon are true. Microsoft is killing off KIN, just six weeks after putting the smartphone on sale. Microsoft launched the KIN -- its youth-oriented, consumer social networking smartphone -- in early April. Today, the company answered the question I asked on May 5: "Is Microsoft KIN stud or dud?" Somebody up the corporate decision tree decided the latter -- or perhaps that KIN isn't stud enough to share Verizon with iPhone. Concurrent with KIN's sudden death -- oh, baby, we hardly knew you -- Microsoft is shifting resources and personnel to Windows Phone 7.

    Earlier today I asserted that iPhone 4's "Death Grip" launch "may rank among the top marketing fiascos of the 2010s." Microsoft already has one-upped Apple. KIN is a disaster of magnanimous proportions.  In February 2008, Microsoft announced acquisition of Danger, which technology and resources were dedicated in part to KIN. Thereafter, Microsoft spent millions of dollars developing KIN, in two models, and bringing it to market. As recently as the weekend, I saw KIN commercials during prime-time programming; Microsoft invested in a massive marketing campaign, too.

    Companies simply don't pull major new products so suddenly after launching them. The situation is giving me the Windows Vista willies. It's Déjà vu time, feeling like early 2006 when Microsoft announced that Windows Vista wouldn't ship for the holidays. The executive team mismanaged the operating system's development, and it would take until Windows 7's autumn 2009 launch for Microsoft to fix the problems. KIN's death comes amidst other Microsoft mismanagement. In late May, a Microsoft Entertainment & Devices division reorganization sent president Robbie Bach and wonderboy J Allard packing, in a clear vote of no-confidence. That day, I described the reorg as "doomed."

    Microsoft's mobile problems go back years. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer should have dealt with them sooner than May 2010. In October 2008 I declared: "Windows Mobile is an also-ran." KIN's launch changed nothing, and, sadly, other than wounded Microsoft egos and shivering shareholders, the smartphone's demise changes even less. KIN will come to symbolize Microsoft's mobile mismanagement  the way Windows Vista personified poor operating system leadership. If I were Microsoft PR, I'd milk the bad news as way of shifting negative attention away from Windows Phone 7. Put all the garbage in one bucket and let it stink so much that people don't notice the other festering waste.

    The important question: Did someone make a remarkably good management decision by chopping off a gangrenous limb? Or is the KIN whacking more mismanagement? Sadly, I see both good and bad decision-making -- more the worse. Microsoft never gave KIN a chance to succeed, or even fail. On May 29, I asserted that "Steve Ballmer IS the right man to turn around Microsoft mobile." Two weeks after Ballmer admitted Microsoft's mobile failures, I was the one admitting being wrong -- about the chief executive being the best choice to lead the mobile efforts or even Microsoft. KIN's killing makes me even less confident about his leadership leading to a rapid turnaround. Again, this all stinks of 2006 and Windows Vista's disastrous release. I don't hold out much hope for Windows Phone 7.

    That's troubling, because Microsoft doesn't have the time necessary to fix the problem. Windows is a monopoly Microsoft controls. Mobile is not. Microsoft could take three years to put together a reasonably good Windows release. If Windows Phone 7 isn't it -- meaning the product is more like Vista -- there won't be time to get version 8 to market. Smartphones will have stormed the handset market, with Apple and Google leading the charge as Nokia and Research in Motion struggle to keep up or stay ahead.

    In June 2008, I first asserted that Microsoft should launch a "mobile Manhattan Project" to turn around things. Apple had yet to release the second iPhone, the 3G, and the first Android smartphone was months from its debut on T-Mobile. Microsoft still had plenty of room for maneuvering past upstarts. Instead, Microsoft responded to the iPhone 3G launch by touting the number of Windows Mobile licenses that would ship in 2008 and number of phones running the software. The memo was credited to Andy Lees, the same Microsoft executive who is leading Windows Phone 7's way and inheriting personnel from the KIN killing. There is no mobile Manhattan Project, but leadership living in denial about the future and the kind of resources necessary just to stay in the game. Winning is no longer an option -- not at the current level of commitment.

    KIN is a symbol of everything wrong with Microsoft's mobile leadership. What I won't yet answer: Is KIN a symbol of past or current mismanagement? I refrain, holding out for the slimmest chance that somebody might have been smart enough to cut off an infected limb to save the body. The other choice is simply unthinkable: Cutting off a healthy limb.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Microsoft - iPhone - Google - Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/30/5_ways_to_solve_your_iPhone_4_reception_problems'

    5 ways to solve your iPhone 4 reception problems

    Publié: juin 30, 2010, 7:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Are you among the seemingly bazillions of new iPhone 4 owners who sound like a Verizon commercial: "Can you hear me now?" Ah, no, they can't hear you, buddy, and that's the problem. Apple's so-called iPhone 4 "Death Grip" -- where holding the phone in the left hand dampens the cellular signal -- may rank among the top marketing fiascos of the 2010s. This is not how Apple wanted to launch its fourth iPhone.

    Strangely, and certainly not how Apple marketing executives planned, iPhone 4 is living up to marketing tagline: "This changes everything. Again." The original iPhone took away capabilities, like sending MMS messages, and held back others -- 2G data and calling when other handsets, and AT&T's network, supported 3G. The iPhone 4 takes back something more fundamental: The capability to make clear phone calls (OK not for all users in all circumstances but plenty enough to make Death Grip one of the hottest topics on the InterWebs this week).

    Frustrated iPhone 4 owners should know that they have options. They don't need to wait around for Apple to loosen the iPhone 4 Death Grip. They can solve the calling problems. I've got five guaranteed solutions, but you probably won't like them. In order of effectiveness:

    1. Return the phone and get one from a different manufacturer. In most US states, purchasers can return phones and cancel new cellular contracts within 14 days -- 30 days in states like California. It's the "buyer's remorse" period, and for some people who can't make clear calls there surely is some kind of remorse. Apple's newest handset may be the most hyped phone on the planet, but it is by no means the only choice. Yes, you can use another smartphone and find happiness. If your primary use of a phone is the, well, telephony capability, this option may best be for you.

    By the way, Nokia deserves counter-marketing kudos for yesterday's post: "How do you hold your Nokia?" Simply stated: "The key function on any Nokia device is its ability to make phone calls." There it is.

    2. Stop making phone calls. OK, so this might seem like an extreme option, but, hey, aren't all those phone calls annoying? This is the solution I'm adopting. I've dramatically reduced the number of phone calls and must say it's quite liberating to be free of them. You text, tweet and Facebook anyway. Why not make these your primary iPhone communications functions, if they aren't already? The old marketing line for Ma Bell phone books (the "Yellow Pages") applies here: "Let your fingers do the walking." The iPhone has a touchscreen for a reason. Use it.

    But, please, don't text and drive.

    3. Move to a location with strong carrier signal. Based on reports attributed to antenna experts and to Betanews readers, Death Grip only really is a problem in areas where there is a weak carrier signal. I've seen this behavior, too. AT&T reception is notoriously bad in my neighborhood. But when I take iPhone 4 to places with good reception and hold it in the Death Grip, calling is good. There's no perceptible signal degradation.

    If you must make phone calls, change your location. The US housing market is in the doldrums. If your real estate isn't under water -- meaning worth less than the mortgage you owe -- this would be a good time to buy a new house, townhouse or condominium. There are so many foreclosures and short sales to choose from, it's a buyer's market. Make iPhone 4 the priority for that move. Repeatedly test for the Death Grip, but don't let the sellers know the real reason for moving. Surely they'll think that anyone willing to wait all night in a line to buy a cell phone is a sucker. Don't let your iPhone 4 enthusiasm drive up the seller's counter offer.

    4. Sell your iPhone 4 on eBay. Hey, why should Apple be the only profiter of your calling misery? The iPhone 4 eBay auctions are insane. I took a peak early this afternoon and my eyes buggered. There are "buy it now" prices of $1,000 and auctions with bids starting above $800. While writing this post, I watched one auction count down 7 minutes to zero, where in the final seconds the winning bid was $1,300 for the 32GB black model, unopened. This option ranks lower in effectiveness because of the baggage left behind, such as carrier contractual commitments. It is perhaps best choice for people already locked into a carrier contract, say, because of a family plan.

    5. Live in denial. It's surprising how effectively some people can just ignore problems like they don't exist. For years I have observed this behavior in overzealous product or brand fans. No matter what the situation, they ignore it. "Hey, Johnny, don't you know Toyota recalled a bazillion cars for accelerator pedal defects?" You know his answer: "Toyota is the best company on the planet. There is no problem with my car."

    I've seen this kind of denial behavior among some Mac enthusiasts, too. About Death Grip, Apple CEO Steve Jobs is on record asserting: "Just avoid holding it in that way." Apple's more official response is more like: "you're holding the phone the wrong way" (that's a gratuitous paraphrase). Apple claims the problem really isn't iPhone 4 but you. Hey, if you believe that or take all Jobsian speak as holy writ, you can live in denial; hold the phone differently and blame garbled and dropped calls on the other person's handset and carrier. Denial will fix your problem, because you'll never admit to having one.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Steve Jobs - Nokia - iPhone 4
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/29/12_people_share_their_iPhone_4_Death_Grip_stories'

    12 people share their iPhone 4 Death Grip stories

    Publié: juin 29, 2010, 2:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Betanews readers have responded to my earlier-in-the day question -- "Are you caught in the iPhone 4 Death Grip?" -- with surprising answers. Some of you are having reception problems, and many others are not. Granted this is an unscientific survey, but several trends are still clear:

    1. The reception problems aren't as widespread as blogs and news stories suggest.

    2. Most people reporting "death grip" are only seeing problems in weak signal areas.

    3. AT&T is not to blame. Subscribers on other cellular networks report problems.

    4. Apple has promised to replace some buyers' iPhone 4s; some people already have new handsets.

    5. Some people with replacement phones are still afflicted by Death Grip.

    6. Most afflicted users are upset about paying $29 for Apple "Bumper" guards to fix reception problems.

    I would like to thank everyone who responded, and I got the best responses by e-mail. They will be the ones used in this post; I culled none from direct comments to the Death Grip question story.  Unfortunately, I got so many responses not all can be used. However, I used all but one of the "no problem here" responses.

    Petio Mihaylov: "No such problems on my end. In fact, I've never had 5 bars on any of my cell phones in San Francisco. I can hold the iPhone 4 any which way, with both hands clasping it, holding it, the service remains." Mihaylov has the 32GB iPhone 4.

    Rafael Pineda:

    I noticed this problem immediately after I activated my phone; it could not hold the signal in my house where usually I get decent AT&T coverage. However, I know that this issue only occurs where there is not excellent coverage. At work, I receive great coverage and I cannot replicate the problem; the phone doesn't lose the signal even if I cover it with my two hands. At the local Apple store, we get great AT&T coverage as well and the issue cannot be replicated on my iPhone or any of the display iPhones at the store. At home, I get decent coverage, yet it's not the best, so the iPhone lose the signal whenever I touch the seam on the lower left side of the phone. During the weekend, I had the chance to test the phone in different parts of the city, I live in Cincinnati, we have very good AT&T coverage, but the antenna issue on the iPhone does not occur everywhere, only where the signal is weaker.

    Juan Cascardo: "I had the phone four day[s] -- no problems at all. Battery life [is] much better." Cascardo, who lives in New Jersey near New York City, has the 32GB iPhone 4.

    Adam Cable:

    I have experienced total signal loss on my phone and poor reception. I can easily replicate the problem shown on YouTube and it does not have to be in some kind of cat's cradle holding position. Simply holding the phone in landscape or holding it on both sides during texting can result in text messages not being sent having picked up the phone with what looks like full reception (all bars). I am awaiting this new software fix before I start to go nuts but I have filled in a petition for free Bumpers. [petitionspot.com] and I would urge others to do the same or fill in some other petition.

    Cable, who has a 32GB iPhone 4, lives in Oxford, England. That's one confirmation the connectivity problems aren't specific to AT&T's network.

    Justin Kydd: "So far I've had very few problems, I've been able to replicate the death grip some places and not others. At home works fine, at work signal drops but call and media are unaffected. Overall I don't seem to have the DG issue. As I type [and] send this I'm on my IP4 holding it in my left hand in the Death Grip and no issues." Kydd lives about 20 miles south of Stockton, Calif.; he has the 16GB iPhone 4.

    Chris Case:

    I was one of the lucky ones to have pre-ordered online prior to the crash. I actually received it Wednesday [June 23], a day early as well. While playing around with it I kept dropping signal. Mind you I was holding it while surfing and testing various apps. This is when I first noticed that I was constantly dropping off. I thought it was just a defective phone and had no idea the extent of the problem until the next day -- and it was all over the media.

    I called support, to no avail. I was directed to Apple Store and there was told to hold it differently or invest $29 in a bumper. Let me just say that it is ridiculous to tell someone to hold their phone differently to get it to function as a phone. Or that you have to invest even further in your newly acquired phone to actually get [it] to 'work as a phone'. They're not giving the bumpers away??!?!?

    I love my iPhone and have had them since original launch. However, I will be returning this as are my friends. Our aim is to send a message that this is unacceptable. Especially being told it is our fault for holding our phones incorrectly.

    Case closed his e-mail with "Ex iPhone user," so I asked to what smartphone he might switch. He replied: "I've owned every iPhone model -- last used was 3Gs. I will most [likely] go with HTC Aria model. I do not like Verizon. I have called Apple since my Genius Bar visit and made my intentions known: Simply fix the problem or replace the phone within the next 10 days or I am returning it."

    Ben Herrera: "I have had zero problems with the reception on my new phone. I do have a frogz case on it. In fact I got horrible reception in my home with the original I phone but now I get full strength."

    Bill Young:

    The first [problem] is a continual 'no SIM installed' message, which requires me to turn Airplane Mode on, then off or worse to reboot the phone to get service back. Basically every time I put the phone down and come back to it, the screen says 'no SIM installed'. I have taken the phone to AT&T and had a new SIM installed. Still happened. I worked with Apple support and restored and reloaded the iOS 4 software to fix the issue, but shortly thereafter started again; returned phone to Apple today, and they gave me a new phone no questions asked, which tells me they are aware of some manufacturing defect with either the phone, the SIM tray or the SIMs themselves...

    As for the Death Grip, it only seems to happen to me when I am in less than optimal signal areas -- frustrating for me as I am left-handed and hold the phone to my left ear...I find the comment that customers should just buy a $30 bumper to fix the issue the height of arrogance, not even considering $30 for a cover that is essentially only covering about 10 percent of the device. Toyotas had a accelerator design flaw, they didn't charge customers 10 percent of the MSRP to fix the issue; they recalled the cars and fixed them. Apple should step up and do the right thing and include the bumpers, give an iTunes gift card to those that already purchased them or do something to make people whole. I was considering switching from PC to Mac but have definitely put that off given my most recent experiences with the phone in particular and Apple in general.

    April Tucker:

    I've found the Death Grip corresponds to the 'searching' icon -- the spinning icon that appears next to '3G' when it's looking for reception. As long as that is spinning, no data seems to come in or out. If I'm trying to make a call, it fails. If I'm on a call, it drops. If I'm trying to open a Website, it can't access the internet. Even if I just grip momentarily, it can take 30 seconds to a minute before functionality returns. During this time, reception will generally still show bars (but nothing will work). I've tried turning off 3G and wireless, and the problem persists, which shows that problem is definitely antenna-related...FYI, I'm located in Los Angeles.

    Lee Bussy:

    I have the issue, it is most noticeable when on 3G data connections when latency goes up and throughput goes way down. Holding the phone drops enough bars that I called Apple an hour after I got the phone (a day early on Wed) and they are supposed to be sending a replacement. If I think back to the old dial-up days when modems would sometimes 'step down' into a death-spiral, I can see where a software fix might do it. We'll see I guess.

    Andy Watson:

    I'm in the UK on the O2 network, I queued up from 5.30 a.m. launch day and being tenth in line got the wonderful iPhone 4. I don't have the reported yellow screen, and I have no issues with the proximity sensor as reported by some. I do however have the signal issue! Just putting a finger tip over the black bar bottom left side will reduce me from full 5 bar 3G signal to a 1 bar Edge one!! When on a call I hold phone in a good way so I'm ok there, out and about though and using Facebook or Twitter, emailing and browsing I'd hold in the left and type with the right, and, hey, look, a very low signal!!...

    I'm actually considering ditching iPhone altogether; I have about another week to decide, or just request a new phone and hope I get a good one?? I probably will buy a Bumper, just hate the fact that to make it work anyway I hold it I have to buy a Bumper!!...Really don't want to give up the iPhone, will hold out for replacement unit, or if I'm really not happy then I don't know, Samsung Galaxy S?? Thing is like a lot of iPhoners upgrading I have accessories and apps; they represent a financial investment I'll be loathed to give up!!

    Abigail Johnson: "All of a sudden, our Bluetooth devices don't pair at all or well with our iPhone 3Gs' which have been upgraded to iPhone 4 software." Interesting, since I've been having Bluetooth problems on iPhone 4. If Johnson sees problems on last-gen model with iOS 4, perhaps Apple can fix by tweaking software.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - YouTube - San Francisco - IPhone OS
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/28/Are_you_caught_in_the_iPhone_4_Death_Grip_'

    Are you caught in the iPhone 4 Death Grip?

    Publié: juin 28, 2010, 7:13pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I am. But are you? I'd like to hear from iPhone 4 users about their calling experiences with the so-called "death grip." Please share your experiences in comments or by e-mail (joewilcox at gmail dot com). I'll collect reactions into a separate post. Do yourself a favor and respond. The more feedback Apple and AT&T receive, the better chances death grip can be resolved -- and there are problems. I only personally know about a half-dozen iPhone 4 owners, and all complain of some reception problem or another.

    On June 23, I asked: "What's wrong with iPhone 4's antenna?" Only hours after receiving iPhone 4, I observed that the number of bars receded to zero over about 20-30 seconds when holding the device in my left hand. I wrote: "By appearances, the act of holding the phone impares signal strength. I'm not so bothered because I typically use a Bluetooth headset rather than hold a phone. Flat or holstered in a case are the handset's typical positions when used." Whoops, I'm having Bluetooth reception problems, too.

    Death grip seemingly is a problem of human contact with the metal band surrounding iPhone 4. But I'm seeing much more. Unless my iPhone is holstered in the case with the bottom left side exposed, people complain they can't hear me. The conversation is garbled. Strangely, I can hear them. Additionally, whether the phone is holstered or laying flat on a surface, Bluetooth reception is impeded. There are two irregular patterns. The first: The call starts out fine, but degrades within 30 seconds to about 2 minutes. The caller complains that the audio breaks up. He or she can't hear me. The second: I move more than a couple feet from the phone, and the audio breaks up. With iPhone 3GS or Google Nexus One, I can easily move 15 feet or so from the phone before there is noticeable signal degradation. The point: I'm experiencing Bluetooth reception problems, too, using a Nokia BH-804 earpiece.

    A friend of mine back in Washington, D.C., waited from 4:45 a.m. on June 24 to about 10 a.m. to get iPhone 4. He experienced reception problems from the first call and since has contacted Apple support. He's convinced the phone is defective and that a replacement will solve the reception problems. We called each other three times on June 24 -- iPhone 4 to iPhone 4 -- and had to disconnect each time because of badly grabbled reception. Interestingly, calling wasn't as bad on June 25 or 26, which raises some questions about AT&T's network being overburdened by new iPhone 4 users.

    It's like Apple and AT&T traded one problem for another. In the five days since getting iPhone 4, I've had no dropped calls. Nada. But I've had to disconnect 7 out of 10 calls because of reception problems. I told my friend yesterday: "I never thought I would long for dropped calls. I'd rather have a clear call that drops than one I have to disconnect because you can't hear me."

    I'm most interested in your calling experiences, particularly for people who don't live in the United States. Like the dropped calls problem, for death grip there is same question: Is it the device, the network or both? If people in other countries aren't having the same problems, then it would unscientifically suggest something related to the device and AT&T's network (remember 3G frequencies in other launch countries are different than United States). If the problem is everywhere, then it would unscientifically suggest a problem with the device -- perhaps hardware, or software.

    Apple has a huge problem with the 1.7 million iPhone sold over the launch weekend if there is a major antenna flaw. Software glitch would be a considerably easier fix. Today, Justin Horn asks: "How can a software update fix the iPhone antenna problem?" His answer may come as early as today based on rumors.

    Apple's "you're holding the phone the wrong way" response is rather laughable. Cameron Kenley Hunt's Tumblr blog "Just avoid holding it that way" is a hilarious and apt response.

    Last week, I asserted that the reception "problem also raises questions about a known design flaw. I ask because of Apple's iPhone 'Bumper' guards...what if using the Bumpers separate the metal band from the hand enough to remove any signal interference?" Because Apple secretly tests new devices, such a problem might have come up late in the design cycle. Remember that the lost iPhone obtained by Gizmodo had been disguised with a 3GS-like case. I'm not suggesting wrongdoing on Apple's part, but accurate stories about real users' iPhone 4 experiences could remove any doubt.

    I want to wrap up by clearly stating that I like iPhone 4. It's the first Apple smartphone I would use every day. I'll explain why that is in a future post but will hint now: Battery life is now acceptable. This post isn't about generating iPhone 4 negativity, as I expect some commenter(s) will assert. This post is meant to collect stories about calling or reception problems -- or not. If you're not having reception problems, please share that story, too. As aforementioned, I'm particularly interested to see if there is a difference between AT&T and other network subscribers. More significantly, satisfied AT&T subscribers might help identify whether or not there is a bad lot of devices. The phones all have serial numbers, remember.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    IPhone - Apple - United States - Nokia - Smartphone
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/25/Apple_and_Microsoft_stores_are_the_future_of_technology_retailing'

    Apple and Microsoft stores are the future of technology retailing

    Publié: juin 25, 2010, 6:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft Store Opening San DiegoPeople wait for the opening of the fourth Microsoft Store in San Diego

    Move over Best Buy and Fry's. Smaller, specialized, tech company shops are the future -- not that this is news to retail experts. It "always has been," said Stephen Baker, "once consumers started driving technology and not enterprise." NPD's vice president of industry analysis should know; he sat in the front-row watching Gateway shutter stores about the time Apple opened them (2001) through the demise of Circuit City and CompUSA and broadening of Internet retail sales.

    Microsoft opened its fourth retail store, in San Diego, on June 24, about two weeks after another opened in Colorado. Microsoft Store is the third corporate branded store in the same mall, Fashion Valley; Apple and Sony are there, too. The location of three company stores got me to thinking about the future of technology retailing, which is why I reached out to Baker (today) and put the question to Mika Krammer (yesterday).

    "I'm hoping that this changes the face of retail -- this Microsoft store," she answered. Krammer is general manager of merchandising and marketing for Microsoft Store. "We're making this about connecting to our customers. We're making it about the service that we provide to our customers."

    Apple operates about 222 stores in the United States, Sony about 40. Besides company stores, Apple and Sony also sell their products through other retailers, as does Microsoft. But it's the qualitative difference in consumer buying experience that differentiates the company stores from larger retailers.

    "The big guys are becoming more transaction oriented," Baker said. He described smaller company stores as more "organized" and "ecosystem focused, not transaction focused." He emphasized: "I think as content -- and services -- become more important to technology...it is less about pure transacational hardware sales and more about usability and connectedness."

    iPhone 4 line San DiegoThe iPhone 4 launch drew thousands of people to Apple Store Fashion Valley

    The three company stores share similarities relevant to providing products, services and customer service:

    • Apple and Microsoft offer in-store training for using hardware, software and services.
    • All three provide in-store tech support: Apple Genius Bar, Microsoft Answers and Sony Backstage.
    • Apple and Sony sell mostly end-to-end solutions (Sony offers some third-party software -- e.g., Windows on VAIO PCs).
    • Product categories are similar: Computing, gaming, home entertainment, mobility, photography and videography, among others.

    Krammer described the breadth or simplicity of consumer computer knowledge at Microsoft Store: "If you want to talk speeds and feeds, you want to talk and debate dual core versus i7 [processors] you can do that. If you just want to say, 'Hey, I wanna surf the Internet and I wanna buy a PC for my kid and you know my son,' you can do that, too." Executives for Apple or SonyStyle stores could make similar assertions.

    While larger stores like Best Buy, Fry's or Walmart offer sales, service and customer support, the experience isn't as specialized (they sell lots of other stuff) and the incentives aren't there. "The question is how far you can go to be services, ecosystem focused and content focused in a big store and be successful (profitable)?" Baker asked. Microsoft Windows or Sony Bravia don't define Best Buy's brand. But these products do define the manufacturers' brands and how people use them.

    From that perspective, the company stores are as much about brand marketing as they are places to sell stuff. Apple, Microsoft and Sony all clearly are focused on building brand -- through in-store marketing initiatives -- and making sure customers feel good about the companies, their products and sub-brands. Hence, while profitability is important, the customer relationship takes precedence over the transaction.

    For example, Krammer explained that Microsoft Store specialists will help customers set up new PCs before they leave the shop. The process extends to customized skins and other extras, for as long as it takes. Well, she said even an "hour," which is forever in consumer retail sales. Would a Best Buy specialist spend so long when he or she has so much other, non-related stuff to sell?

    San Diego's Fashion Valley Mall will be an interesting petri dish for assessing the future of technology retailing, with Apple, Microsoft and Sony stores so close in proximity. Which shopping experience works best for you? Company stores, larger non-generalized stores, e-commerce shops, or something else? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    San Diego - Microsoft - Microsoft Store - United States - Microsoft Windows
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/25/Which_drew_the_bigger_crowd_in_San_Diego__Microsoft_Store_opening_or_Apple_iPhone_4_launch_'

    Which drew the bigger crowd in San Diego? Microsoft Store opening or Apple iPhone 4 launch?

    Publié: juin 25, 2010, 1:14am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple Store San Diego line for iPhone 4Thousands of people swarm San Diego's Fashion Valley Mall Apple Store for iPhone 4

    Apple and Microsoft faced off in the same San Diego mall today. Microsoft opened its fourth retail store. Apple launched iPhone 4. Both events drew long lines of fans. But the Apple line was ginormous by comparison, and the two groups were demographically quite different. To my bitter disappointment, Fashion Valley Mall management kept the Apple and Microsoft store lines far apart. I secretly hoped for a mixing of the two groups. Fanboy conflict would have made good news, and the combustion might have set off a mushroom cloud marking where San Diego once was.

    I estimate the size of the iPhone 4 crowd to be about five times larger than the one for the iPhone 3GS just a year ago. The group was surprisingly sedate considering those in the back must have suspected the store might not have enough iPhones to go around. By comparison, roaring cheers could be heard outside the Microsoft Store. Employees juiced the crowd to dance and yell, while offering luscious freebees, which included Sony laptops. I joked with one employee that should he hear yelling from the Apple group: "Run! It means Apple Store is out of iPhones. There's a riot!"

    The two groups of customers juxtaposed one another in the strangest ways. I had expected the Microsoft Store line to be chock full of computer nerds. Instead, it was teeny boppers -- mostly tween and teen girls hoping to get tickets to the Demi Lovato concert Microsoft will hold on Saturday in one of the mall parking lots. Others, which included teen boys, had camped out to be among the few hundred getting skateboards.

    Microsoft Store Opening LineThe line waiting for the Microsoft Store grand opening was much smaller, but still sizable

    Free defined the Microsoft Store opening. Free T-Shirts. Free skateboards. Free concert. Free celebrity meetups. Free money, as in donations to San Diego charities and the Girl Scouts. Several of the teen girls I spoke to admitted they came just for the freebees. But they also boasted about using Windows, and most of them Windows 7 at that.

    By comparison, Apple Store drew a very different kind of crowd: People anxious to give up money. They were desperate to hand Apple $200-$300 (before tax) to get an iPhone 4. One group got paid in freebees for showing up. The other group lined up -- with the promise of hours waiting -- for the privilege of giving up money. In response to my earlier tweet on the topic, Altimeter analyst Michael Gartenberg rightly asked: "Which is the better business model?" Oh that's one for the comments. You tell me and everyone else, please.

    Microsoft Store San DiegoTeens not geeks lined up outside Microsoft Store, for concert tix and other goodies

    Only four shops and sideways entrance separate the Apple and Microsoft stores. I expect to see fierce competition, particularly as back-to-school buying season heats up. I'll be monitoring the stores and plan to occasionally blog about the sales techniques. Microsoft is off to a good gaming start. The San Diego store is the first place where the general public can play with the Kinect game controller releasing later this year.

    Soon after the Microsoft Store officially opened, I saw three company executives standing together, so I walked over and introduced myself. Damn, they made me feel really short. Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's Chief Software Architect, spoke about the stores in context of reducing technology complexity, of making it all more approachable. He used example of an elderly person coming to the store once and then again, and on the return visit feeling more sure about using a computer. Ozzie spoke proudly; it wasn't just marketing spiel.

    iPhone 4 shoppersApple shoppers came to spend money on iPhone 4, not get freebees.

    As Ozzie spoke I had an ah-ha moment. I had assumed that his role at Microsoft had diminished because of how Azure twisted away from the vision he earlier espoused. But in seeing him at the store launch, along with Microsoft COO Kevin Turner, and recalling his sharing the D8 Conference stage with CEO Steve Ballmer, I saw things differently. Ozzie is being groomed. Maybe he stepped back to step forward. Could he be the man that someday succeeds Ballmer? That's another question for comments.

    [For more photos see Joe Wilcox's "Apple-Microsoft Stores Face off" Flickr gallery.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    San Diego - Microsoft Store - Microsoft - IPhone - Apple
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/24/What_s_wrong_with_iPhone_4_s_antenna_'

    What's wrong with iPhone 4's antenna?

    Publié: juin 24, 2010, 2:06am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPhone 4

    The rumors are true: iPhone 4 signal strength wavers when the device is held in the hand. Isn't that like the typical position for holding a cell phone? I can confirm the behavior with the unit FedEx delivered about 3 hours ago. When the phone is flat down, I see four to five bars. When I hold the device in my left hand, the bars slowly go down until either there is one bar or "searching" appears on the screen.

    I want to thank Justin Horn for bringing the problem to my attention. I had complained about "searching" behavior on Twitter. He posted: "Is the new iPhone 4 antenna design causing signal issues?" Gizmodo has crowdsourced the story, getting readers to confirm the declining bars scenario; good for Giz practicing some fine "process journalism."

    By appearances, the act of holding the phone impares signal strength. I'm not so bothered because I typically use a Bluetooth headset rather than hold a phone. Flat or holstered in a case are the handset's typical positions when used. But many other people do palm their iPhones when making calls. More significantly, the problem raises possibilities of a flaw in the newly redesigned antenna array. In my brief testing on one phone call, the recipient reported degradation in calling quality -- "crackling" -- after the bars receded to none.

    A cell phone should be a phone first and everything else second. It's unclear yet how serious the problem really is and how much it could affect calling quality on AT&T's "seemingly always dropping calls" network. The problem also raises questions about a known design flaw. I ask because of Apple's iPhone "Bumper" guards, which from their announcement seemed strange starter accessories to me. But what if using the Bumpers separate the metal band from the hand enough to remove any signal interference? I don't have the Bumper accessory, so I can't say. Anyone with iPhone 4 and Bumper want to chime in with an answer -- in comments?

    [Update: If I hold the phone out from my palm, but sill firmly gripped, the number of bars diminishes only slightly. The signal strength decline is most bothersome when left thumb covers the volume keys and silent button and remaining side of the phone presses against the palm.]

    Otherwise, my initial reaction to iPhone 4 is favorable. The design and "Retina Display" are hugely appealing. The phone feels surprisingly solid in the hand, and it is responsive, as in fast.

    FedEx delivered iPhone 4 in the early afternoon Pacific Time. The deliveryman said he had about 40 phones on the truck when he started the daily run. I was near the last of his iPhone 4 deliveries.

    Phones are looking to be in short supply for tomorrow's official launch. A friend went into a regular Apple Store -- in an East Coast mall -- to make sure there was a handset reserved from him. He got a "Yes" and a warning: Only 1,000 phones in stock, and they'll be available on a first-come basis. An Apple Store employee suggested lining up outside the store before 5 a.m. for the 7 a.m. opening.

    Regarding iPhone availability, I've got to wonder about the white iPhone 4 delay. How much did white models factor into Apple's logistical planning and when in the manufacturing process did problems occur? The answers might explain why there are already supply shortages, beyond demand, if Apple planned on white but pulled the models late in manufacturing and distribution process.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    IPhone - Apple - Twitter - AT&T - FedEx
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/23/Apple_revenue_will_likely_top_Microsoft_during_Q2'

    Apple revenue will likely top Microsoft during Q2

    Publié: juin 23, 2010, 6:39pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Second quarter is just days from finishing. In the home stretch, could Apple generate enough revenue to top Microsoft? Strong iPhone and, particularly, iPad sales should make the difference. Apple's ascension and Microsoft's descension would mark a turning point in computing eras. Microsoft represents the past -- PCs tied to the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. Apple represents the future: mobile devices and applications connected to the cloud.

    I have raised the Apple-overtaking-Microsoft-revenue topic before -- 10 days ago when Apple announced 2 million iPad shipments and on April 23, after both companies announced first-quarter earnings. Yesterday, Apple announced that it had sold -- parlance for shipped -- 3 million units, or another 1 million units in the previous 9 nine days. At that rate, Apple could conceivably add another 500,000 units before quarter's end. I'd say 1 million, but tomorrow's iPhone 4 launch almost certainly will be friction against iPad, if no other reason than how busy Apple retail stores will be.

    Wall Street revenue consensus for both companies is close enough to assert Apple could -- I believe will -- top Microsoft during second quarter. Following the companies' Q1 earnings announcements, on April 23, Wall Street analyst consensus for Microsoft revenue was $15.24 billion, with an estimate range between $14.59 billion and $15.91 billion. Apple was $13.7 billion with a much broader range of $11.6 billion to $15.08 billion. Today, the average analyst consensus for Apple is $14.37 billion, with a range of $13.32 billion to $15.08 billion. For Microsoft: $15.22 billion, with range of $14.80 billion to $15.72 billion. Over the last couple quarters, Apple revenue came in well above consensus -- nearly $1.5 billion in first quarter.

    Apple estimates changed little from April 23 or my last post about this topic on June 3. I'm convinced that Wall Street isn't strongly enough factoring iPad into their revenue estimates. Assuming just $500 revenue per device, Apple opened a new product line worth $1.5 billion. My estimate is conservative. I expect that late availability of 3G-capable iPads fueled the previous nine days sales surge. Their starting prices are higher: $629 versus $499 for WiFi-only models. I would expect a more realistic conservative average selling price of $600, adding a new line of revenue worth at least $1.8 billion during Q2.

    Then there is iPhone. Last week, Wall Street analysts rushed to up their iPhone shipment forecasts, after Apple announced 600,000 preorders in just one day. Right now, the only barrier to strong end-of-quarter iPhone sales is Apple's ability to ship them.

    Yesterday, Andy Zaky (aka Bullish Cross) offered his estimates for Apple during second quarter, which is the company's third fiscal quarter. Zaky has consistently been on target in his Apple estimates, much better than many Wall Street analysts. He forecasts $15.371 billion revenue, which is higher than the Street's consensus for Microsoft. My gut reaction to the numbers: Even Zaky is estimating too low.

    Looking at the quarter, Microsoft rather than Apple is more likely the wild card. I expect Apple revenue to come in on the high end of consensus and more likely above. The question: Could Microsoft blow past Street consensus? Definitely, yes. PC sales are way up, and Microsoft launched Office 2010 during the quarter. Meanwhile, second quarter is typically Microsoft's biggest for annuity licensing contract renewals from larger businesses. If Apple doesn't top Microsoft, it will be because Microsoft far exceeded estimates. Apple will top analyst consensus, I predict.

    A New Computing Era Dawns

    Should Apple revenue top Microsoft, it would mark the real changing of computing eras. In a public presentation I made for Jupitermedia in November 2003, I identified three past and one future computing era: Mainframe (1960-1981); Productivity PC (1982-1996); Internet PC (1997-2002); Mobility and Entertainment (2003+). That future era is now.

    Earlier this week, Microsoft asserted that 1 billion people use Office. The PC install base is only about 1 billion, and surely not every one of them has Office. I suppose Microsoft could jack up the numbers by counting all the people in a household using a PC with Office installed on it. While the number sounds large, the mobile phone market is larger and growing. Analysts put the number of worldwide mobile subscribers at 4.6 billion or more than four times the size of the PC install base. Yearly phone sales exceed the entire PC install base.

    Some Betanews readers balk at the idea mobiles will replace PCs as primary computing devices. Yesterday in comments, rrode74 asked:

    So I am going to trade in my dual monitors at home and work to do what I do on a mobile device? Is that mobile device going to hold my photos, and videos, all 400gigs of them, and growing? Will I be able to do what I do in Final Cut express or Vegas Movie Studio with my video work? Is my data center going to be filled with racks of mobile devices powering my email system that has over a terabyte of email?

    Commenter moucon2 gave an excellent response:

    Why would you need your phone to hold 400GB of data when it can connect to the cloud continuously? Time to re-think that. We content creators with our Final Cut Pros and dual monitors are a tiny fraction of the market -- most people consume professional content and create clips and blips for their own enjoyment The ave Joe can easily edit enough video or tweet enough tweets on his/her iPhone to upload it to the social media du jour. The iPad is plenty good enough to create your typical 'article' or even a household budget/spreadsheet. Desktop and laptop computers are buggy whips for those folks.

    PCs won't go away, but their relevance will diminish. Whether Apple revenue tops Microsoft in second quarter or another, change is coming and it's inevitable. Each computing era is a progression of the past one, and they all share something in common: Widening the availability of information to more people at greater ease and lower cost. This is true of the mainframe compared to paper, the PC to the mainframe, the Internet-connected PC to the non-connected computer and the mobile device to the PC. Apple's revenue ascension over Microsoft is merely a symbol of the dramatic changes now underway.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Microsoft - IPad - Wall Street
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/22/Five_reasons_why_Microsoft_can_t_compete__and_Steve_Ballmer_isn_t_one_of_them_'

    Five reasons why Microsoft can't compete (and Steve Ballmer isn't one of them)

    Publié: juin 22, 2010, 10:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Well, hell, it must be "five reasons" day here at Betanews, and I certainly didn't plan it that way. Earlier I posted "Five reasons why Apple will deliver iPhone 4 preorders early." Now it's Microsoft's "five reasons." I had planned to post this one yesterday but held back because of Apple's iOS 4 release, which gravity well pulled away tech readers' attention (surely the many blog posts or news stories made the update hard to ignore).

    I completed the main contents of this post yesterday morning (Hey, I don't have an iPhone on which to test iOS 4) as a follow-up to Friday's "I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership." I see that some pundits are taking swings at Microsoft. Yesterday, Henry Blodget asked: "Can Microsoft collapse?" My response: Why ask? This is a $60-billion revenue a year company. RealNetwork's founder Rob Glaser answers thequestion: "Why has Microsoft seemingly stopped innovating?" Considering Real's lack of innovation for most of the Noughties, Glaser is perhaps a good person to answer that question.

    Microsoft's problems are strategic and structural. The company is by no means near collapse. It's master of two very profitable monopolies. The doomsayers should take their end-of-the-world rhetoric elsewhere.

    My goal here is to identify problems so that maybe, just maybe, they can be solved. You can't solve a problem you haven't identified as being one. With that introduction, here are the five reasons why Microsoft struggles to compete outside its established businesses, offered in no order of importance:

    1. U.S. and European antitrust cases put lawyers and non-technologists in charge of important final product decisions. I've heard Microsoft employees complain that the ratio of lawyers to regular staff is one-to-one. Of course, they exaggerate -- or I sure hope so -- but their frustrations make a point: Government oversight has changed how Microsoft competes. The company isn't as lithe or aggressive, particularly following the November 2002 judicial decision that made the U.S.-Microsoft settlement agreement the antitrust remedy.

    That's not to say Microsoft acquiesced easily. The company long resisted releasing pertinent interoperability information in the United States. On the European Continent, this resistance led to huge fines. Meanwhile, Microsoft steered away from exclusive contracts and from pushing into adjacent markets. Both tactics could have helped Microsoft open up the mobile market, for example.

    Additionally, Microsoft curtailed development of the so-called middleware at the core of the U.S. case: E-mail, instant messaging, media playback and Web browsing:

    • Outlook Express stagnated after Windows XP's release, although Microsoft pushed ahead with development of Outlook, which wasn't part of the case. Microsoft eventually removed e-mail from Windows, making the application separately available.
    • Instant messaging development continued but the real advancements came after Microsoft removed the feature from Windows.
    • Windows Media Player 12 isn't much different from the version shipping with Windows XP in 2001. Meanwhile, Apple came to dominate media playback through iPod and iTunes.
    • All major browser development stopped with Internet Explorer 6. Only after Firefox's late-2004 release did Microsoft resume IE development. Meanwhile paid search gave competitors reasons to invest in Web browsers. IE usage share dropped from about 95 percent in 2004 to, according to Net Applications, around 63 percent in May.

    There arguably is plenty of competition today in the so-called middleware categories targeted by U.S. trustbusters. Would it have been otherwise, particularly without the European compelling Microsoft to remove the media player from Windows or to offer a browser ballot screen? Unlikely.

    2. Microsoft lost control of file formats. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates learned several important lessons from IBM. Among them: The value of controlling key technology endpoints. For IBM, it was control interfaces. For Microsoft: Computing standards and file formats. Microsoft worked with clone makers and developers to establish Windows as the de facto standard for IBM-compatible PCs. Meanwhile, Charles Simonyi, the father of Microsoft, and his team achieved two important goals by the mid 1990s:

    • Established format standards that resolved problems sharing documents created by disparate products.
    • Ensured that Microsoft file formats would become the adopted desktop productivity standards.

    Format lock-in helped drive Office sales throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s -- and Windows along with it. However, the Web emerged as a potent threat, which Gates warned about in his May 1995 "Internet Tidal Wave" memo. Gates specifically identified HTML, HTTP and TCP/IP as formats outside Microsoft's control. "Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats," Gates wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format "after 10 hours of browsing," but plenty of Apple QuickTime videos and Adobe PDF documents. He warned that "the Internet is the most important single development to come along since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. It is even more important than the arrival of the graphical user interface (GUI)."

    In the memo, Gates clearly outlined a strategy for fighting back the Internet. But the company charted a different course. In the early 2000s, Microsoft made interoperability a bigger priority. While there are several reasons for the change in emphasis, three stand out:

    • Antitrust enforcers demanded that Microsoft disclose more protocol information, in 2001 (as part of the US settlement) and in 2004 (as required by European regulators).
    • More governments demanded that suppliers provide open or interoperable software. Microsoft sought to keep existing government customers and to build better relationships with those who could support anti-piracy initiatives.
    • Customers demanded that Microsoft make its software more interoperable with their legacy systems.

    By the mid 2000s, Microsoft couldn't say enough about its interoperability efforts, which loosened standards and file formats from its tight control.

    3. Microsoft's senior leadership is middle-aging. Older folks with families and kids don't have the same priorities as younger employees -- and they're not as hungry workaholics. Not that there is any feast to dine on, given Microsoft's decade of stagnate share prices. Current employees have little work-hard incentive for stock-based compensation.

    The average Microsoft employee is 38 years old, according to the company's self-published corporate data. Only 15.9 percent of employees are under 30. By comparison, Google employees' average age is somewhere under 30. The company doesn't publicly release average age, presumably because of an age-discrimination lawsuit. According to the last publicly available data, less than 2 percent of Googlers were over 40. For Microsoft: 40.7 percent.

    Google resembles Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s:

    • Google is a growth company that is still adding new customers.
    • Most employees are young, fresh from college and have fewer family obligations and other distractions from work.
    • The corporate culture encourages employees to work long hours and provides services that support the work ethic.
    • Googlers can quickly advance up the management chain, and they can look forward to healthy compensation-for-results rewards.
    • The most innovative thinkers are at the top of the decision-making tree rather than being at the bottom (under much older managers).

    Now compare to Microsoft employees, which being older have more outside-company commitments. Most of Microsoft's senior management team is 40 or much older. The average age of the eight most-senior executives, including CEO, COO, Chief Software Architect and five divisional presidents, is around 48 years; that's younger than I expected. There is age in wisdom, surely. But the wise are sometimes too cautious (see #5).

    4. Microsoft's middle-management structure is too large. Microsoft employs a little more than 88,000 people, down from 92,736 on June 30, 2009. Microsoft employed 31,575 people on June 30, 1999. The large increase in employees also added many layers of middle management. According to various former, and even some current, Microsoft employees, their number of "reports" -- meaning people they report to -- increased by five to seven managers above them during the last decade.

    Such lofty management structure stifles innovation, because:

    • There are too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak. Former and existing Microsoft employees report spending hours in needless meetings; there is too much design by committee.
    • Good ideas don't flow easily up the decision tree. They get bogged down in the layers for many reasons, which can be motivational -- such as managers seeking to protect their hierarchies or jobs.
    • Employees aren't rewarded enough for their hard work or for good ideas. Either the management structure holds them back, or they can't advance fast enough to new positions of responsibility.

    CEO Steve Ballmer's September 2005 Microsoft reorganization added to the stiff management structure by creating new layers -- at first three and later five divisional presidents. For three divisions, the changes worked out reasonably well from broader profit-and-loss and sales perspectives, but innovation stagnated.

    5. Microsoft's corporate culture is risk adverse. The company that once took daring risks is too cautious. It's a mental illness seen before among innovators that grew rapidly to dominate a market only to later stall as they struggled to maintain existing revenue streams. Risk aversion is typically greatest when a disruptive technology threatens a mature base of customers and healthy revenue streams. IBM's risk aversion increased during the 1980s and 1990s as the PC disrupted its mainframe business. Microsoft's problems started with the World Wide Web and continue with mobile devices connected to cloud services.

    Microsoft was nimbler during the transition from mainframe to PC dominance. IBM had built up massive corporate infrastructure, large customer base and revenue streams attached to both. With few customers, Microsoft had little to lose but much to gain; the upstart took risks IBM wouldn't for fear of losing customers or jeopardizing existing revenue streams. Microsoft's role is similar today. Two product lines, Office and Windows, account for the majority of Microsoft products, and the majority of sales are to enterprises -- the same kind of customers IBM had during the mainframe era.

    Nimbler upstarts, Google among them, are competing to get the customers Microsoft has already got. Rather than take innovative risks, Microsoft has chosen to protect its existing customer base and revenue streams. As such, Microsoft's attention is hugely focused on preserving its enterprise Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. Meanwhile, innovators push compelling disruptive mobile-to-cloud service technologies where Microsoft either doesn't compete or has failed to successfully. Microsoft's risk aversion will be its undoing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - iPhone - IBM - Windows XP
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/22/Five_reasons_why_Apple_will_deliver_iPhone_4_preorders_early'

    Five reasons why Apple will deliver iPhone 4 preorders early

    Publié: juin 22, 2010, 5:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The notices went out last night: iPhone 4 will arrive a day early for some people -- perhaps even all who successfully preordered on June 15 for a June 24 delivery date. Now why is that? I've got five reasons, but first the obligatory background information.

    I placed my order around 7:40 p.m. PT on June 15. Hours earlier, many Apple enthusiast and tech blogs reported that iPhone 4 preorders had sold out and the new arrival date was July 2. I credit these, ah, mistaken reports for the sudden responsiveness of Apple's online iPhone 4 ordering system late on June 15. I finally got through the process with ease, after about a dozen failed attempts throughout the day.

    I plan to test the smartphone over the 30 days after activation, and I won't make a final decision on keeping or returning it until Day 28 of the "buyer's remorse" period. I want to assess the phone's new features, AT&T call quality, iPhone 4 battery life and whether the $25/month 2GB data-capped plan will be enough for typical usage.

    Like many other iPhone 4 preorderers, I received a shipment notice on June 20 stating "delivers by Jun 23, 2010." Apple isn't set to launch the phone until June 24, and that's the arrival date attached to the order online. Late yesterday, I got two additional e-mails, one from AT&T and the other from Apple. AT&T sent a new service welcome letter. Apple sent this:

    Dear Apple Store Customer,

    You recently received a Shipment Notification email from Apple advising you that your iPhone has shipped.

    This email is to confirm that your delivery will occur on June 23rd. Although Apple and FedEx tracking information may currently indicate a later date, you can check the FedEx website the morning of the June 23rd to track your package to your doorstep.

    In the event that you will not be available to accept delivery on June 23rd, it may be more convenient to use our pre-sign delivery option by visiting our Order Status website at http://www.apple.com/orderstatus.

    Sincerely,

    The Apple Store Team

    It's highly unusual for Apple to deliver a hot, new product early -- not that there have been that many preorder situations by which to judge. But June 23 makes a helluva lot of sense to me, and it's what I would do if logistically planning for as smooth a launch day as possible. The five reasons:

    1. Apple and AT&T can lighten the load of launch-day activations -- that's assuming people getting phones on June 23 won't have to wait until the 24th to use them. Based on the three previous iPhone launches and the preordering breakdown that occurred on June 15, there are good reasons to expect activation problems on Thursday. Apple can reduce the activation bottleneck by letting some customers complete the process earlier.

    2. Apple can reduce problems with supporting services, mainly MobileMe. Many iPhone buyers will do more than activate; they'll set up MobileMe, too. That means an extra heavy load on the online service, which could be ginormous should Apple soon make MobileMe free as has long been rumored.

    3. It's good customer service, and keeps with Apple's longstanding practice of promising one thing but delivering more. Apple also can ease any bad feelings some people may have about problems making the preorders. Some of my earlier preorder attempts got to the last stage before failing. Most anyone excited about getting the phone early will forget any hardships placing the order.

    4. The delivery change is good buzz marketing -- but it isn't cheaply gotten. From the day Gizmodo posted stories, pics and videos of the stolen iPhone 4 prototype, Apple's launch plans were in jeopardy. The company has surprisingly and quite effectively used the June 7 announcement and key processes afterwards -- preorder day, apology about preorder problems and shipping -- to feed iPhone 4 buzz. Typically, this kind of buzz would be considered free marketing. Not here. Apple must be spending mucho dollars to move 600,000 or more handsets from China to the launch countries in just a few days. My phone shipped from China on June 20 and is in Anchorage, Alaska today.

    5. The buzz is good for Apple's share price, which is nearing escape velocity. There's not a lot to add about this one beyond yesterday's post: "iPhone 4 isn't one launch but a series of smaller announcements timed to drive up Apple's stock price." Simply stated: The buzz has many Apple investors and Wall Street analysts feeling light-headed as shares reach the thin air before outer space.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    IPhone - FedEx - Apple - Apple Store Customer - Apple Store Team
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/21/iPhone_4_isn_t_one_launch_but_a_series_of_smaller_announcements_timed_to_drive_up_Apple_s_stock_price'

    iPhone 4 isn't one launch but a series of smaller announcements timed to drive up Apple's stock price

    Publié: juin 21, 2010, 6:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple is carefully manipulating its share price by the timing of certain product announcements; iPhone 4 is the clearest, recent example. Not that the manipulation is new. In December I asked: "Are Apple stock price gains the reason for recent tablet rumors?" The answer was an unequivocal "Yes!" based on share price gains aligned with rumors -- and Apple announcements that followed.

    To be clear: In asserting manipulation, I don't mean to suggest someone is breaking the law or acting unethically. I liken it to a puppeteer masterfully and artistically moving marionettes across a stage. With respect to its share price, Apple is carefully timing certain announcements for maximum share price benefits, with an artist's -- or, perhaps better stated, a master marketer's -- skill.

    If I'm wrong, and Apple isn't showing such manipulation skills, CEO Steve Jobs and his leadership team are just about the luckiest executives on the planet. Their coincidental timing is impeccably beneficial.

    I'll start with the future and work backwards. Apple has chosen an unusual day to launch iPhone 4 -- Thursday June 24. The previous launches: original iPhone -- June 29, 2007 (Friday); iPhone 3G -- July 11, 2008 (Friday); iPhone 3GS -- June 19, 2009 (Friday). The other launch dates were all Fridays, but iPhone 4 is Thursday. Now why is that?

    From marketing and share price perspectives, the reasons for a Thursday launch are intertwined. I see the previous Friday launches as being logistical and for creating the most marketing noise. Apple got big news bang on Friday, a day many companies typically consider to be a slow news day, and again on Monday -- after announcing the first weekend's sales. There's a kind of box office approach to the timing. The new Apple smartphone is like a blockbuster movie opening, with record sales announced after the first three days. A Thursday launch gives Apple a longer opening weekend and chance to get some share price lift on Friday rather than Monday. After all, everyone expects record sales, and any rush on the stores will feed the news stories and any investor frenzy.

    Apple Shares

    But why should Apple wait until Thursday to get that share price lift or to mitigate potentially negative news stories? Today is iOS 4 release day, and already there is plenty of buzz and there will continue to be through launch day. Over the weekend, people who preordered iPhone 4 started getting shipment notices with timing: "Delivers by Jun 23, 2010." I received one of these e-mails yesterday. So what? People preordering will receiver their phones early? In the past, Apple has chastised package carriers for delivering products before launch date. I'm moving into pure speculation zone here on the date by assuming June 23 is accurate. Some reasons why Apple would want to deliver iPhone 4 early:

    • It's typical Apple: Promise one thing, but deliver more. Customers who preordered will be thrilled.
    • With iOS 4 releasing today, June 23 (or even sooner) iPhone 4 deliveries wouldn't disclose much that wouldn't already have been revealed about the new operating system.
    • Early delivery of preorders will generate blog and news site buzz and get glee-filled customers yammering about their new iPhones.
    • Assuming customers are allowed to activate their phones before June 24, Apple and AT&T can spread out the activations rather than packing them into one day. That would help to reduce launch-day activation problems and any negative news about them.
    • All combined, the buzz, the execution and timing are good for generating positive Apple perceptions, thus pushing up the share price.

    Apple didn't have to actually launch iPhone to reap the share price rewards. The company started taking iPhone preorders on June 15, and they didn't go well. Apple and AT&T servers simply couldn't meet demand. Let me offer my thanks to the many Apple and gadget blogs that, late-day June 15, wrongly reported iPhone 4 had sold out when it hadn't. After trying unsuccessfully to preorder a phone throughout the day, I gave up. But after reading the reports, I went to Apple Store online and saw the delivers by June 24 date remained. I easily breezed through the ordering process about three hours after nearly every major Apple or tech blog reported the sell-out and availability pushed back to July 2.  I assume the reports slowed down preorders and lightened the server load, allowing me to to easily lock in an order.

    Apple Shares

    But I digress. On June 16, Apple issued a woo-is-us statement: "Yesterday Apple and its carrier partners took pre-orders for more than 600,000 of Apple's new iPhone 4. It was the largest number of pre-orders Apple has ever taken in a single day and was far higher than we anticipated, resulting in many order and approval system malfunctions." It's the 600,000 -- and ordering glitches -- that got investors going crazy.

    Today, Apple shares peaked yet again, reaching $279.01 off a $277.75 open and $274.04 Friday close. Chock the stock's performance to news iPhone 4 preorders shipped with "Delivers by Jun 23, 2010" and, more immediately, release of iOS 4; the release is another carefully timed, progressive announcement aimed at lifting the stock price. Shares moved from $254.28 on June 14 to 267.28 on June 16, with preorders feeding stock price increases. Recent share price rises follow stock declines in the days after Jobs introduced iPhone 4. Perhaps investors wanted more than they got. After all, Gizmodo's stolen iPhone 4 prototype reports ruined much of the surprise. Please review the three charts for more immediate and long-term perspective on Apple's share price performance.

    Apple Shares

    I could keep going backwards -- all the way to my aforementioned December post -- and show how deliberate Apple execution benefitted the share price. Again, I suggest nothing being done wrong -- just the opposite. Other companies should learn from how effectively Apple manages the message, and that's not just for customers but investors, too. The execution is deliberate and well thought-out.

    However, challenges are coming. Investors may punish Apple if demand for iPhone 4 far exceeds supply. The company will need to use even more marketing and PR skills to keep the buzz and excitement high enough that investors drink enough "Reality Distortion Field" Kool-Aid to get past any early distribution problems.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - Apple Store - Smartphone - Steve Jobs
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/18/I_have_lost_confidence_in_Steve_Ballmer_s_leadership'

    I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership

    Publié: juin 18, 2010, 9:18pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This just isn't my week for being right. On Tuesday there was confession: "I was wrong about Apple iPad." Today, I make another: I was wrong about Microsoft's CEO. Yesterday's Windows Embedded Handheld announcement shattered my remaining confidence in Steve Ballmer. About three weeks ago, I asserted: "Steve Ballmer is the right man to turn around Microsoft mobile." If yesterday's announcement is indicative of Microsoft's mobile strategy, then I was wrong. He isn't the right man, and I must now question if he should even continue leading Microsoft.

    Since January, when I posted "Microsoft, don't give up on Steve Ballmer just yet," people have asked by way of Betanews comments, e-mail or Twitter how I can stand by the man, and I have been sharply criticized for the stance. Perhaps I like Ballmer's character too much. He is a rarity among corporate CEOs. Ballmer wears his heart on his sleeve. The man struggles to contain his excitement or to resist speaking his mind, despite years of media coaching. Ballmer is a "tell it like it is" kind of man, and I find the quality appealing.

    Ballmer also focuses on customers, which is another commendable trait. Under his leadership, Microsoft changed employee evaluation and compensation metrics; they're tied to customer satisfaction. But perhaps Ballmer is too customer focused; he caters too much to core enterprise customers, such that he can't lead Microsoft into new markets.

    Ballmer Should Fire Himself from Mobile

    Yesterday's Windows Embedded Handheld is good example of too much enterprise focus -- to a fault. It's a terrible move for Ballmer, who only recently took over responsibility for Microsoft's mobile strategy. At a time when competitors are consolidating or have consolidated their mobile operating system versions or brands, Microsoft is fragmenting them. The company will have in market Windows Mobile Classic, Windows Embedded Handheld (which for now really is Windows Mobile 6.5), Windows Phone 7 and whatever the hell KIN or Zune run. That's four or five different mobile operating system brands, depending on how Zune is counted. Ballmer does talk about future mobile operating system consolidation, but 2011 or beyond is too late. There simply are too many brands, regardless of the underlying platforms, and competitors are gobbling up market share too fast.

    By comparison, upstarts Apple and Google are doing much better. Apple now has some fragmentation based on hardware features but still a fairly stable platform around iOS, and there is a single operating system brand. Developers benefit from single iOS versions made available to all customers about the same time. However, disparate form factors -- iPhones with different hardware capabilities and differences from iPod touch and iPad -- present some challenges to developers. Google let Android fragment, but that is rapidly reducing as v2.1 becomes more widely available. Android also is a single brand.

    Windows Embedded Handheld is a fool's game. Microsoft might hold on to some enterprise embedded device customers, but it's a losing strategy. Apple and Google will offer better alternatives -- of course by different strategies. Apple will leverage the tablet and synchronicity with iPhone for many handheld device uses. Google will license Android for other handheld devices.

    Apple and Google major advantages over Microsoft:

    • Single operating systems that run on multiple mobile device categories
    • Applications stores providing off-the-digital-shelf functionality; buy the app, connect the service
    • For Apple, tightly integrated hardware, software and services stack that is easily administered and deployed
    • For Google, free, open-source software that can be easily customized to support specific or general business needs

    Platforms live and die in part because of applications. Apple and Google have plenty. Microsoft's major applications are increasingly its own. As I've so often written, computing and informational relevance is changing from the Office-Windows-Windows apps stack (which is nearly all enterprise based) to mobile devices connected to the cloud (often through apps). Long term, Microsoft's enterprise-focused apps stack can only make the company into something like IBM in the 1990s. The old apps stack will remain profitable but steadily decline in computing and informational relevance.

    Ballmer disappointed the hell out of me yesterday. Rather than the vision I hoped for, he stayed the river's course. Microsoft will challenge the rapids. Did Ballmer not read the warnings about the waterfall! I've got some unsolicited advice for Ballmer:

    • Fire yourself from mobile
    • Hire a visionary to fix the problems you have got
    • Create an internal mobile startup group separate from Office and Windows to create something that works

    I stood by my man, but he failed me.

    Charting Crisis' Course

    Many Ballmer critics look to his early 2000 ascension to the chief executive's chair as the beginning of Microsoft's demise, which is overstated. The company is a money machine. Microsoft decline is strategic, not economic (at least not yet). Additionally during the May 2008 D6 Conference, Chairman Bill Gates admitted that for years he and Ballmer really were co-leaders. Gates couldn't let go. Microsoft made many mistakes during the early and mid noughties, but Ballmer doesn't deserve blame for all of them (Gates has his share), and the chief executive did right by emphasizing customer service and making annuity licensing a priority. From a business perspective, the licensing changes were brilliant. Customers lock into two- or three-year "Software Assurance" contracts, which is like money in the bank. Software Assurance smoothed out Microsoft's revenue stream and insulated the company from economic downturns.

    Ballmer's big problems really started in September 2005, when he reorganized the company under three divisions run by several presidents (there would later be five divisions). The reorganization also accelerated Microsoft's already increasing layers of middle management. I can understand Ballmer's reasoning. People want to advance in their jobs. The reorg created structural nooks for growth and advancement all the way up to, eventually, five president positions.

    Microsoft's course since September 2005 is troubled. What is now the Online Services Businesses moved from the black to red, and has continuously lost money since. The Windows Live rebranding was catalyst. Microsoft held to a tightly-focused mobile enterprise strategy that relied too much on Office and Windows dependencies and focused too much on chasing Research in Motion. Once a mobile OS leader, Windows Mobile now ranks No. 5 in smartphone market share. The Windows Vista fiasco happend on Ballmer's watch, even though he inherited the leadership responsible.

    The Business and Server and Tools divisions have done reasonably well since the reorg and the Windows group has regained some of its mojo. But the successes and victories share something in common: Microsoft executives looking in the wrong direction. Ballmer is seemingly obsessed with competitors like Google or extending Microsoft's enterprise reach -- to a fault.

    Ballmer's problems accelerated in 2008:

    • He attempted a forced, $44 billion takeover of Yahoo (and failed)
    • Gates stepped down from day-to-day operations
    • The stock market crashed in September

    These three events led Ballmer and his leaders to tactically push Microsoft to further entrench in the enterprise, which granted generates nearly all the company's profits. In December, I asserted: "Microsoft isn't losing its consumer edge, it was game over long ago." I wrote: "Microsoft has been retreating from the consumer market for some time, following a deliberate strategy that is creating a circa-1980s IBM...Microsoft is using its strengths to preserve the status quo, isolating the company to the enterprise."

    Some people will look to Xbox and Zune and argue that Microsoft does indeed care about consumers. Oh, yeah? I personally like Zune hardware and software, but they're market failures. If Microsoft was truly committed to Xbox, the company would do more than change the box design or release (in about five month) a new game controller (Kinect). The base hardware-software platform is five years old; it's not advancing. I see lots of iteration around services, but nowhere as much hardware innovation.

    Something else: Microsoft's most ambitious visionary is seemingly silent. Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie once espoused a cloud vision that promised to be open and interoperable. Clearly the Office and Windows hawks have killed the cloud services doves. The Microsoft cloud is now little more than an adjunct to preserving the Office-Windows-Windows Server enterprise applications stack. Gates brought on Ozzie, but left him behind. Now the Office-Windows-Windows Server obsessed Microsoft leadership has cast of Ozzie's vision into the clouds; it floated away.

    Summing up, Microsoft is more enterprise-focused now than ever, with Ballmer's leadership team missing something hugely important: Consumers matter more than business or technology decision makers, because they're greater influencers. Every computing wave since the dawn of the personal computing era came to business through consumers. Employees brought the first PCs, cell phones, digital cameras PDAs, wireless routers, laptops or smartphones into their offices. IT organizations only adopted them later. Apple has demonstrated the power of the consumer to drive radically new products into businesses; iPhone is there, and iPad will follow. Microsoft executives are looking the wrong way, so they don't see the waterfall beyond the rapids.

    If I look back at the totality of my Microsoft reporting and commentary since September 2005, the Ballmer leadership problems are clear. I just didn't want to see them. I like him too much. Mobile is the future of computing and information, but Microsoft's mobile strategy is fumbling along to ruin. It hurts me to say that I have lost confidence in Steve Ballmer's leadership.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Google - Steve Ballmer - Apple - Windows Embedded Handheld
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/15/I_was_wrong_about_Apple_iPad'

    I was wrong about Apple iPad

    Publié: juin 15, 2010, 6:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The world does need an Apple tablet -- and perhaps others -- contrary to what I asserted in late January. Gloaters will circle my admission like vultures pecking a carcass, but that's the penalty for being wrong. Yes, I was wrong. I admit it. Flail me in Betanews comments or other blogs. Surely Macheads will peck away even my bones. Go ahead. I won't often give you such opportunity.

    There's strange and unexpected timing to my admission, which since the weekend I planned to write today. Last night, I saw that my former boss and colleague Michael Gartenberg scathingly slammed Wired for iPad in an Engadget post. He's wrong, too. Wired was to be my main example for what iPad publishing should be -- at least from an immersive content perspective. Now I need to also rebut Gartenberg's pithy but misguided commentary.

    Some quick background: I bought an iPad on April 17th; earlier, I gave 12 reasons why I wouldn't. One reason for buying outweighed the 12 for not: The need to test the tablet so I could write more authoritatively about it. Apple most assuredly wouldn't send me a review unit; I don't pucker up and kiss PR butt with loving soliloquies about how great are Apple products -- although this post is about as close as there may be for a long time. On May 24th, I sold the 64GB iPad to a friend for a little less than what I paid for it. He since bought two more iPads (one 3G). But I missed the iPad and couldn't quite say why at first. I didn't need the device. Functionally, iPad overlapped with smartphone and laptop.

    I was wrong. On further reflection, I realized that iPad offers fresh functionality: Immersion. I find there are fewer reading distractions, and content is better presented than on a laptop and browser. I'm more focused and retain more of what I read. For reasons not easily explained, I find myself more thoroughly reading iBooks than defaulting to the skimming I sometimes do with physical books. Part of this immersive experience is the technology, but also how iPad is used. Apple's tablet is a sit down and focus device, as much because of size and shape as screen and user interface. The totality -- physical design and software benefits -- is immersion.

    On June 10, I bought another 64GB iPad.

    An Immersion Experience

    I'm reading Nicholas Carr's The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains, on iPad. (By the way, I purchased The Shallows e-book from the Amazon Kindle Store because the title wasn't available from Apple's iBookstore. Some advice to Amazon: Loosen up the kerning and line spacing; create more white space. Apple's e-books are much easier reads than are yours.)

    Carr writes about how using the Internet changes us -- not just our behavior but neural wetware. All those hyperlinks and other visual elements, the pecking of tweets, RSS alerts, IMs and e-mail and the bouncy, bouncy skimming the survive of information via search engines fundamentally changes how we consume media and information. My experience is similar to Carr's, what I call "Internet Deficit Attention Disorder": Diminished concentration and attention span but better ability to process and coordinate smaller chunks of information. Has your concentration changed as your Internet usage increased? Carr backs up his claims with research, but personal experience is good enough for me. The Internet is immersive, too, but in a more fleeting and distracted way than, say, reading a book or magazine.

    Wired for iPad page

    The iPad is a remedy for distraction while letting users reap the Internet's benefits. Apple marketing material makes audacious claims: "iPad is the best way to experience the Web" and "the Safari Web browser on iPad puts the Internet in your hands -- literally." Most any smartphone manufacturer, including Apple, could make similar claims. Surely, most anyone using a personal computer has experienced the Web. I initially dismissed these claims as marketing fluff, but on reconsideration actually see meaning to them. There is something immersive about consuming content on iPad that does change the Web experience -- and that of other media.

    As I asserted earlier, the iPad's immersive qualities are part shape and design (how people hold the device) and user interface (software and services). Newspapers and magazines are immersive, mostly distraction-free reading, too. Look at how people read newspapers -- perhaps lounging over breakfast or during a subway commute. The newspaper's shape, which opens wide when held up with two hands, creates a barrier to the world while putting the content in the reader's face.

    Wired for iPad is No CD-ROM

    Immersion -- and this is something every media publisher wants of its consumers -- extends well beyond iPad's Web browser, which doesn't deliver the device's best immersive content experiences. Games and publishing apps are more immersive. Among the latter category, Wired stands out. The Wired magazine app shows what the future of electronic media can be: There is a clear delineation between Wired ads and content. The horizontal moving through the magazine but vertical scrolling of stories is inspired. I find myself more likely to read an entire iPad Wired story than one from Economist or Rolling Stone print (I subscribe to both).

    From an editorial perspective, the reader is better able to immerse in the stories, while easily skimming among them. For advertisers, marketing material has more punch. It stands out better from editorial content. All this is lost on Gartenberg, who, granted, is not a media analyst. Neither am I, but I'm a journalist and I have worked as an editor overseeing freelancers, designers and pagination staff. Gartenberg likens Wired for iPad to CD-ROM publications of the 1990s. He writes:

    CD-ROM versions of the publications hardly replaced their print counterparts. Content has since moved from optical disk to the Web, and now the allure of tablet devices has created a market for specific newspaper and magazine apps -- the number one paid app for iPad is a digital version of Wired, which sold about 1,000 copies an hour the first day it was launched. While it's a much better effort than some of the other efforts, more than anything Wired for iPad shows the weaknesses of media apps and demonstrates how the tablet remains a still-imperfect medium to deliver this type of content.

    Wired for iPad is nothing like CD-ROM magazines, which failed for many reasons -- usability among the most important. CD-ROM magazines were slow, and they were cumbersome to use, because of extra steps, like inserting the disc, navigating the menus and waiting for response. They offered few benefits over physical publications, which could be picked up and opened in a single motion of the hand and arm and read anytime and anywhere. By comparison, electronic Wired is fast, responsive and can be read anywhere the iPad goes, and the device isn't bound to a location the way PCs were in the 1990s. But there remains the question of benefits. Gartenberg sees deficiencies:

    Even though the content is digital, the reader loses most of digital content's benefits. I can go to the Wired Website, link to articles there on my blog, share them via e-mail or Twitter and use the power of the web to share and opine. The iPad edition offers none of that flexibility -- and it doesn't offer any of the flexibility of paper either. I can annotate my paper version of Wired, clip out articles, or even pass the entire magazine on to you and you can in turn pass it on to others. I can't do any of those things with the iPad edition.

    Are these deficiencies or distractions? Media creators want consumers to immerse in their content. So, what? Gartenberg would change how theaters show movies? Rather than a single, uninterrupted showing of Avatar, there should be sharing options? "Text '5555' to share a video clip of this scene with Facebook friends."  Website sharing options are in many ways artificial constructs -- put there to feed the Google economy. If publishers didn't need traffic and pageviews to satisfy advertisers, most Websites wouldn't so prominently place so many distracting sharing options.

    Media companies want to build audience, and I now see iPad's potential for doing just that. Immersion is a powerful intoxicant. As for Wired, Gartenberg and I agree on something: Price. Wired asks too much by charging 5 bucks for each digital issue. That's something easily changed by offering a reasonable, digital subscription price.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - IPad - IBooks - IBookstore - Amazon Kindle
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/14/Will_FTC_s_Apple_investigation_lead_to_fairer_competition_or_give_Google_a_free_pass_'

    Will FTC's Apple investigation lead to fairer competition or give Google a free pass?

    Publié: juin 14, 2010, 9:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple apologists need to get a grip regarding a reported US Federal Trade Commission investigation. It's not the least surprising, and Apple has a discernable monopoly around which business practices the FTC -- or even the US Justice Department -- would want to monitor.

    The apologist line is this: Apple doesn't have a monopoly for cell phones and has the right to decide what developers can do or which ones have access to the iOS platform. In my May primer, "10 things you should know about Apple and antitrust," I explain how the company has two monopolies, and one of them is large enough to trigger an investigation (and there is official complaint from Adobe). If you haven't read that post, stop reading this one and go to that one. Then come back here, of course.

    Apple's monopolies are digital music players and mobile applications, and the two share something in common: iTunes, which is the distribution, payment and synchronization hub for both. Apple's App Store is unquestionably the largest of its kind anywhere in the world: More than 225,000 applications and more than 5 billion downloads. The App Store supports three Apple devices: iPad, iPhone and iPod touch -- and the company has sold close to 100 million of these devices.

    Absolutely, Apple has a monopoly, ah, plural. Apple is doing much the same with its platform as Microsoft did in the 1990s and 2000s: Build a largely integrated product stack, only Apple's is tighter. Microsoft integrated software and services. Apple integrates hardware, software and services. Similarly, both platforms cater to developers but not necessarily evenly. If Apple has a monopoly position affecting software developers, as Microsoft did with Windows, somebody will look at the competitive practices.

    One issue: What US lawyers referred to as the "applications barrier to entry" during Microsoft's trial. The concept is simple: The monopoly prevents other applications entering a market, causing consumer harm. Something else: There is another way that Apple and Microsoft are similar. Microsoft's integrated technologies either favor Windows or are exclusive to it. Apple's position is similar and arguably more so, since it's a tight integration of hardware, software and services. The stack's integration and Apple's control over it can shut out competitors -- the aforementioned applications barrier to entry. Whether or not the FTC finds Apple engaged in anticompetitive behavior is another matter. It's too soon to definitively say.

    Some readers will ask: "Well, why shouldn't Apple have say over its platform technologies?" I asked the same question about Microsoft during its US antitrust case, as did the company's lawyers and other supporters. I'll use what some people will call a terrible analogy. The family. In a family, parents' expectations about children's behavior change as they mature, particularly when there are other kids. Parents expect older children to share some responsibility over their siblings or, at least, not to take advantage of physical size and maturity. Similarly, US antitrust law applies stricter rules to larger companies than to smaller sizes. There is greater expectation of fair play and even patronage -- that larger companies take leadership roles fostering competition. It's a lovely concept, but there's nothing fair about business, which is more survival of the fittest. They compete or die.

    Apple's argument for how it runs App Store reminds of Microsoft's defenses during its antitrust trial. Number one: The customer. Microsoft lawyers and executives asserted that the company acted to serve customers not thwart competitors -- although it is easily argued that much of the behavior served dual purposes. Apple's position is similar. It shuts out platform competitors like Adobe in part because they use private APIs. During last week's Worldwide Developer Conference, CEO Steve Jobs said that private third-party APIs present problems when Apple updates iOS. "If they change the app will break." He emphasized: "We'll have unhappy customers. If they upgrade their OS and half the apps break, they're not going to be happy campers."

    From Apple's perspective, that's a reasonable argument -- as was Microsoft's stance about the customer when defending tight control over the Windows home screen and desktop and approach to disclosing information about APIs. Apple should want to preserve the customer experience, particularly as competition heats up. One day before iPhone 4 preorders start, AT&T launched a new Android handset. Even on iPhone's home US network, Google's mobile OS competes against iPhone and now more formidably. Unlike AT&T's other Android handset, the Motorola Backflip, the HTC Aria runs Android 2.1.

    Apple's problem is this: Adobe is welcome on Android, something Google can't seem to promote enough. Adobe Air and Flash are prohibited from iOS. Apple's private API defense is weaker if Google and other mobile OS developers embrace Adobe. App Store is considerably larger than Android Marketplace, which has more than 50,000 applications. These are all reasons for FTC to take actions opening up iOS.

    However, there's another perspective. The Android Marketplace grew from about 10,000 apps six months ago to the more than 50,000 today. Google says it is activating 100,000 Android phones per day. Android is coming to TVs later this year and to tablets. Google's OS is growing up fast. The question the FTC should ask: Would forcing Apple to let in private API developers like Adobe level the competing playing field or give Google a free pass? I ask you to answer the question in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - iPhone - App Store - Apple - Steve Jobs
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/11/Most_Betanews_readers_won_t_buy_iPhone_4'

    Most Betanews readers won't buy iPhone 4

    Publié: juin 11, 2010, 6:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On June 9, I asked: "Will you buy an Apple iPhone 4?" The answers are in via e-mail and comments. They are surprising, because they're so polarized. There aren't so many "maybes" among you as I expected. The majority of commenters are saying "No" to iPhone 4. The split is more two-thirds "Yes" among the people who sent e-mail.

    I want to point out two differences from this post and others like it. Firstly, the comments are longer; I did less editing for space. Secondly, I only used comments or e-mail responses from people whose full names are clearly identified. However, the comments are still representative of them all.

    Something else: There is no balance here. The majority of respondents say they won't buy an iPhone. Balancing out to get an equal number buying and not purchasing would be unfair to the respondents and would mischaracterize their responses. Perhaps a different group of readers, such as one of the Mac blogs, would be more enthusiastic about iPhone. Among Betanews readers choosing to answer the question, the majority aren't planning on buying iPhone 4.

    Three trends emerge from this arguably unscientific survey of Betanews readers:

    1. AT&T's network will keep away potential iPhone buyers or upgraders.

    2. A surprising number of existing iPhone owners won't upgrade. That says something about current satisfaction with currently-owned iPhones and the limited appeal of the new model's features. Apple may already have saturated the market for existing customers, which is a typical phenomenon. It's never a question of if this happens but when.

    3. Smartphone buyers have more choices during this iPhone release cycle than any other, and they are making them. Many respondents have recently purchased or soon plan to buy another smartphone.

    Now for the responses:

    Jerry Morton: "Nope, have an iPhone 3G that won't work at my desk, drops calls all the time. Can't see throwing away $300 for a new battery and new screen."

    Justin Morrison:

    Yes, and here are my reasons. First, I get a 21% discount at AT&T through my employer and in Birmingham, AL, all of the usual problems with AT&T are nonexistent, signal and speed are always good. Second, my contract is up and my jailbroken [iPhone] 3G will sell for around $300 on eBay so it will pay for iPhone 4. I want a Nexus One because I like Android and customization ( and Google products in general) but I can't get one for less than 529 dollars with AT&T. I'm desperate to upgrade from my old 3G so I might as well take this opportunity.

    Robert Ballantyne: "No, not the iPhone 4, but when the cameras show up on the iPad, that may be enough for me to want one of those. Such an iPad, with a Skype landline-calling account and a bluetooth headset, would be all I'd need to travel. Some time ago I decided not to use a laptop when I travel, and now take only flash sticks."

    Greg Figotin:

    I would definitely buy IPhone 4 by many reasons. First, I'm iPhone user since 2007 and I do have all generations of this remarkable device. Second, it does have many features other phones [are] missing including its design as well -- 2 cameras, flash, etc.. Of course, AT&T is not ready to support all features of such a device, but, c'mon what provider is [that] perfect?!!! Verizon? Sprint? None of them!!! They are all greedy bustards ! At least AT&T supports besides phones IPads and has more towers than any other providers. And the last reason, if IPhone is not that remarkable device worth to buy, why you, Joe, and many other authors wrote numerous articles about it ?!!!!

    Andy Gowen:

    How to describe the iPhone 4? It is like having Pininfarina quality style added to totalitarian state control. The choice is 'You will buy one and you will enjoy it how we tell you' or not to get one at all. I can't fault people who say 'yes' as they will have the pleasure of owning that design. I just can't get over the idea of my phone owning me and for that reason if nothing else, I can't buy-in to the Apple state. Freedom may not be as pretty but at least it belongs to me.

    Shannon Coolican:

    I will be buying an iPhone 4 when it comes out in July up here in Canada. I currently have an iPhone 3G that I have been very happy with. I was blown away by the recent Keynote and all the awesome features this phone will have. It really is a no brainer for me. BTW, I also have an HTC MyTouch running Android 1.5. When it comes down to it, I really am an 'app' fiend. My current iPhone 3G is jailbroken and I have much more than than allotted 11 pages of apps. The new folders feature in iOS 4 will be a real blessing for me. It goes without saying that I will be buying the 32GB version. I really wish there was a 64GB version as I would have ponied up for that in an instant.

    Robert Johnson:

    I want a device that will let me create and edit office documents. Store those docs in the cloud. Wirelessly syncs with my PC. Talks to my XBOX by letting me play some of those games on my phone. That's why I will not be purchasing an iPhone. I will continue to use my Moto Droid (which I got for $20 w/new contract) until Windows Phone 7 comes out. I don't care about 200,000 apps or even 50,000 apps. I want a device that will not only be beautiful to use, but will allow me to stay productive and connected. On another note, I sense the same desire to not be left out. But I suppose there is a stronger part of me that enjoys being different and not 'looking like everyone else'.

    Don Gray:

    I am tempted by the new features present in Apple's latest and greatest toy, specifically the higher resolution screen and the front facing camera. Also like you [Joe Wilcox] my primary deterrent is AT&T's terrible voice network... Presently I live in Rochester, NY and am employed as a Research Analyst & IT Manager for an educational consulting firm...I've owned an iPhone 3GS for about the 18 months. The device has been great for staying connected to my work email and documents while I'm out of the office. It's also just plain fun to use. The downside, however, is the dropped calls. For the past 18 months I've suffered through several dropped calls a week; sometimes a day. This is in the area around my home where I have 4 bars of coverage. Two weeks ago I was finally fed up and went to Verizon and ordered an HTC Incredible; hopefully next week it will arrive.

    Even though the new features to iOS4 and the iPhone 4 are tempting, I don't have confidence in AT&T's network or Apple's ability to design a high quality phone (strictly speaking to voice calls here). Verizon has the stronger network and as I don't have a home phone (who needs one these days) I want to know that I have reliable voice service. So in summary there will be no new iPhone in the Gray household this summer.

    Tobias Lind:

    I might actually buy one! I have never owned an Apple device ever, and I'm currently using (and in love with) Android. But the new iPhone's screen seems fantastic, and I'm actually quite fed up with lousy cameras as well. It was 5 years ago I had a decent camera in my mobile phone (Sony Ericsson) -- all my newer phones have had really crappy cameras. I'd also love to see the UI flow smoothly like butter without any hiccups ever (Android is getting better and better, but it's really not there yet).

    And I'm quite disappointed in the low quality apps on Android Market. Ninety-nine percent of them are sooo ugly and crappy! And what finally made me even consider an iPhone now is multitasking. A smartphone without multitasking is a joke, so with iPhone 4, Apple is back in the game. And I don't live in the US, so I don't have to worry about AT&T. :)

    Nicholas Gerstenberger: "Nope, won't buy it, won't switch to AT&T. I wouldn't even buy it if Verizon ever gets it (unless you paid me a big chunk of money, then I'll just cancel, or buy a newer Android phone, sell the iPhone and then pay off my credit cards). ;)"

    Stephen Schwartz:

    Yes, definitely, 100%. I love my 3GS, I loved my 3G, and I can hardly wait until June 15th to order my 4. I know people are not happy with the data plan from AT&T, I'm fine. I'm grandfathered. And concerns about the screen shattering, Otterbox will be releasing their case for the iPhone 4, so I'm not worried about that. As I said, I can hardly wait. I love the addition of folders, multi-tasking, dual-cameras, HD video. Also the increase in speed, the new A4 processor (I played with the iPad and the response and speed are great), and the extended battery life. It's a choice. Upgrade, buy new, or don't get it at all. It's up to you. Apple doesn't care, but they are wetting your appetites and hope you do buy new or upgrade. Good luck on your decision.

    John Crane:

    I'm not buying an iPhone 4, but I must admit that the iPhone is getting more tempting with each new model. I like the camera in the iPhone 4, but I don't really need another camera. I've got two digital cameras already and one of these also takes videos. I will probably buy a smartphone sometime this year, but I am waiting to see more of what the competition has to offer on AT&T. I like the Zune HD and would like to see a good phone running Windows Phone 7.0. I personally have never had problems with the AT&T network, except when calling from the road in Western Wyoming, but in the cities where I travel, there is no problem. I live in Texas.

    Kevin Baron:

    One hundred percent yes. I get to keep my unlimited data plan, not like I use it. But if I should use data alot more the plan is there should I need it. I have a iPhone now and just love the darn thing. I was never much into mobile gaming until the iPhone came along. I've been a iPhone owner for 2 years and could not be happier. I live in a area with very good AT&T service, which helps. iOS or whatever you call it just has always felt more friendly to me then other phone OS's. I've used Android, and while it is nice, it's not iOS...No one phone can make everyone happy. But for me the only phone that does it for me is the iPhone.

    Keith Watt:

    I won't be paying my annual dues this year to remain in the Apple Fan Club. I bought the 1st Gen iPod Touch back when it was released in late 2007. Now, not even 3 years later, Apple has left it for dead. To be sure, it's a great little device. I rely on it to get through my 3-4 hour a day commute. It's actually perfect, not a single complaint about it, thus I've no desire to get rid of it and go spend another $200. Yet, if you're not buying a new device every year, you're essentially out of the Apple Fan Club and can forget about being able to play new games, or use new software features. Thanks Apple.

    Ron Miller:

    Absolutely!!! I'm a gadget lover, but have never owned a smartphone. The reason is that I work from home and use so few minutes per month. I paid $100 for a pre-paid T-Mobile plan 3 years ago, and the past two years I paid $10 (for the whole year!) to keep my minutes alive. However, I can't hold out any more and the AT&T cheaper data plans have won me over. I don't care about streaming video, so 200MB per month is more than enough for me. I actually applaud AT&T for the limited plans -- bandwidth is a valuable and finite resource, people should pay for what they use.

    The Android phones look great, and there are definitely some apps for Android that I would love to see on the iPhone (maps with turn by turn directions and Google Voice to mention a couple). However, I really like Apple products (I have a Mac Pro, iPad 3G, iPod touch, many other iPods), and I like the Apple polish and the amazing apps in the app store. Killer features for me on the new iPhone include video conferencing, HD video recording, improved motion sensors, new screen, thinness, battery life, processor speed.

    Chris Schuchmann:

    I have AT&T and I want nothing to do with the iPhone. I love my Nexus One and I love AT&T for the most part. I wish the iPhone owners could switch to other networks, and bring their network congestion problems with them.

    What new does the iPhone 4 have to offer? Nothing -- there is not a single new feature on the iPhone 4 that hasn't been done by someone before (mainly Nokia). The only thing Apple has done is convince AT&T to carry the additional features like video calling. I might add Europe has had this for years and in fact Nokia implemented video calling before the first iPhone was even released. Of course while enabling these new features, AT&T has now also enabled this new feature called capped data -- thank you very much Apple.

    Instead of capping data AT&T should charge per the minute for video calling. I say this because video calling is a feature that adds no real value and is sure to be abused by teenagers. And I say abused because it...directly affects everyone else who pays for the service. I don't want to be unable to send an important email or text message because little 14yo Sarah is talking to 15yo Julie down the street on video phone, especially when they could just walk and see eachother. What other awesome completely useless data hungry feature will Apple implement next on the iPhone, BitTorrent? I can picture it now kids downloading the latest episode of Lost and So you think you can dance.

    Marcos Tos: "No, I'm not. I own an iPhone, and even some things are cool, it's always the same, and I'm tired of the limits of Apple. I will change for an Android or [BlackBerry]."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - IPhone - Google - Android - Skype
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/10/Apple_and_Microsoft_will_face_off_for_June_24_retail_showdown'

    Apple and Microsoft will face off for June 24 retail showdown

    Publié: juin 10, 2010, 11:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft Store Opening Sign

    Guess what's coming to San Diego in two weeks? If you answered iPhone 4, congratulations for being right but not giving the right answer. Microsoft plans to open a new retail store on the same day (its second in California). The duo launches could be speculator competition and ground zero for fandom, should the "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" crowds choose to rally for their camps. If the measure is the longest line on launch day, who will win?

    In a rare lunchtime outing, today I hustled over to Fashion Valley Mall, where I was stunned to see the sign above. By the way, I snapped the photo using the Google Nexus One. What a lousy camera! Is the camera white balance-challenged or what? Nexus One muted the bright green, which I only partially revived through editing. Geez. Back on topic, yes, I was stunned -- by the date and by something else. The Microsoft Store is four shops down from the Apple Store. That's right four stores -- and a walkway between the middle two.

    I can't imagine a stranger location because of the adjoining companion shops -- Juicy Couture and Louis Vuitton. Well, there goes the neighborhood, as they say. If I owned either store, I'd cringe about a bunch of geeks dressed in original Star Trek color-like T-Shirts moving in next door. (Why are there red shirts in the Microsoft Store universe? Red shirts were the most likely killed in the original Trek. Bad omen? Over confidence? Neither?) Seriously, Fashion Valley has been undergoing an upscale makeover, and I struggle to see how the Microsoft Store fits in with fashionista central.

    Uh-oh, there is a SonyStyle store on the upper level. Nothing quite grates the ears like the sweet gnashing of a Microsoft partner's teeth -- when the company chooses to compete. Microsoft won't just be competing with Apple but loyal Sony (OK, so the company is selling Android phones and, soon, a Google TV-powered big screen).

    Fashion Valley MapApproximate locations -- Apple Store in "E" and Microsoft Store in "D"

    Back to the Apple Store, the excitement will come June 24. Is it coincidence -- timing of the Microsoft Store San Diego's grand opening and iPhone 4's launch? Oh I don't think so. If someone at one of the companies didn't manipulate the dates, surely some cosmic force did. C`mon, there's polarized competition between these companies, and it's even more heated among the fans. You need go no further than Betanews comments to feel the enmity. Just four stores and a walkway/pavilion will separate Apple and Microsoft shops. Should there be long lines at both stores and mall management accidentally lets them mix -- BOOM! -- matter and antimatter will collide resulting in an enormous explosion. Bye, bye, San Diego.

    Suddenly, I'm really looking forward to June 24. If there is any sense of competition in the universe, both CEO Steves would make special trips to San Diego. Imagine the media circus of Steve Ballmer opening the San Diego Microsoft Store and Steve Jobs greeting the first West Coast iPhone 4 buyers. Seriously guys, you should do just that. The news media loves conflict, and the two Steves would provide plenty, if only by their presence.

    But my challenge is to the fans. If you love Apple or Microsoft, Fashion Valley should be your destination on June 24. You can be sure plenty of bloggers and journalists will show up just to count the number of people in line. It's a measure of support for one company and its products or the other. Shouldn't you be there?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Steve Jobs - Apple - Steve Ballmer - Microsoft - IPhone
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/09/Will_you_buy_an_Apple_iPhone_4_'

    Will you buy an Apple iPhone 4?

    Publié: juin 9, 2010, 11:33pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Surely no one who regularly reads Betanews is surprised I ask the question. It was inevitable, like death or Whopper Wednesday. As usual, when I ask this kind of question, I'm looking for your responses -- in comments or by e-mail (joewilcox at gmail dot com). In a future post, I'll share your responses as I did with iPad. I asked the "will you buy" iPad question here and here, and offered your answers in separate January and March posts.

    Apple and AT&T will start taking iPhone 4 preorders on June 15, and the phone officially goes on sale June 24. Preorders should help keep lines more manageable, as they did with iPad. I plan on hanging out at one of my local Apple Stores, interviewing people waiting in line and shooting video and photos. If you're in San Diego and willing to leave the baseball bat (gun, knife or other injuring tool) at home, look me up on iPhone 4 launch day. Maybe I could interview you.

    I won't be buying an iPhone 4 on launch day. Should I decide to get one -- and I am reconsidering because of the camera -- it would be preorder or after June 24. As I explained yesterday, my main problems with iPhone 4 are generally all about AT&T's network. But to my surprise, AT&T is willing to solve all but one of the problems -- dropped calls. On May 23, I cancelled my AT&T account, returned the iPhone 3G and resumed using the Nexus One on T-Mobile. Today, an AT&T rep told me that I could reinstate the account within 59 days of cancellation. Reinstatement would restore account status at time of cancellation, which would mean lower early termination fee, unlimited data plan and iPhone 4 purchasable for the full subsidized price. It's tempting, particularly unlimited data, and, again, my main interest is the camera. I have long favored Nokia phones for their superior mobile cameras -- it's my top feature next to telephony. Perhaps if the Nokia N8 were available now, I wouldn't consider iPhone 4.

    That raises another question for you. Why? If you're planning on buying iPhone 4, why? What about the phone appeals to you? If you're not buying iPhone 4, why not? Are you locked into a contract, satisfied with your current handset or simply not interested? Please do tell. My main reason why is the camera and AT&T is the major reason why not. Should AT&T unexpectedly insist on metered data when reinstating the account, iPhone 4 would be an absolute no for me.

    I'm surprised how little ruckus there has been on the Web about AT&T's new data plans. I attribute this to bias. Many journalists use iPhones, and they have existing plans for which they can keep unlimited data. I guess that's double bias. I presume ignorance -- that people don't really understand what the 200MB and 2GB capped plans mean -- is main reason for most everyone else. I posted 10 things about the new data plans last week. Today at GigaOM, Stacey Higginbotham explains: "Why the iPhone 4 made AT&T change its pricing." I agree with her reasons -- and I had stated many of them already. She writes:

    This means that streaming an hour of Netflix on the 3G network would use up 168MB -- or about 84 percent of the cheaper AT&T data plan. Livestreaming a 5-minute video shot with the back-facing camera requires 64MB, or 32 percent of the cheaper plan. So clearly, anyone wanting to avail themselves of the video technology on the phone better get the 2GB plan or stay on Wi-Fi. But even with the 2GB plan and $10-per-GB overages a video habit over the 3G network is going to cost you, and possibly make you think twice about that download -- or upload.

    Multitasking and new HD video features mean more data consumption -- something AT&T wants to deter.

    Uh-oh

    While writing this post a bad feeling is stirring -- that I'm being dishonest about my reason for reconsidering iPhone 4, which is a long way from my "absolutely not" just three days ago. There is another reason why I would consider iPhone 4. Perhaps it's something TechCrunch's Michael Arrington, or popular tech blogger Robert "wears his heart on his sleeve" Scoble could understand. Like most people, I want to belong -- not to be left out. With so many people excited for iPhone 4 it's hard to be against the device or the communal energy behind it. I have this gnawing sense of being left out, and that feeling is clouding my judgment. Everyone else doing it is a bad reason. Perhaps I'm not alone feeling this way.

    Today, TechCrunch's iPhone fanboy MG Siegler writes about Arrington:

    According to a source close to the situation, he plans to buy an iPhone 4 when it launches on June 25. How good is the source? Well, it's Arrington himself...This is humorous for a couple of reasons. First, Mike has never actually seen the iPhone 4, nor has he used one. I have and Jason [Kincaid] has, but Mike has not. Even some iPhone fanboys are waiting until they get their hands on one to decide if they should buy it. Not Mike.

    Scoble's confession -- and it's not really surprising -- came two days ago. He compared iPhone 4 to Sprint EVO 4G and Verizon's Incredible on 13 criteria before asking and answering the inevitable:

    Will I start using an iPhone again? Yes, but I have the luxury of being able to afford two devices and I'm definitely keeping the EVO if just for the tethering. If I could only afford one? I'd go with iPhone 4 over the EVO. Mostly because the OS is nicer to use (hard to explain all the ways this is so in a short post, so you'll have to wait for a longer post after I get mine), the video features, and the battery life is dramatically better. But I totally understand why many of you will ignore those advantages because AT&T sucks so much.

    As for me, I'm still 80 percent committed to Android and Nexus One, which, admittedly, is 20 percent less than June 7. It's enough less I called AT&T to assess the aforementioned account reinstatement options. But enough blathering about me. What about you? Will you buy iPhone 4? Please answer in comments with your reasons why or why not.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    IPhone - Apple - Verizon - Nokia - IPad
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/08/5_things_you_should_know_about_iPhone_4'

    5 things you should know about iPhone 4

    Publié: juin 8, 2010, 7:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A day after Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced the iPhone 4, it's time for a reality check. Lots of people have questions, and we have answers -- even to stuff some readers might not have asked for. The list is more strategic than speeds-and-feeds informational. But first, quick links to yesterday's Betanews stories:

    Additionally, over at my Oddly Together blog, I consolidated my tweets (and others' responses) during Job's keynote. My tweets -- quick reactions in real time -- are foundation for this post. I hadn't thought of Twitter as a notepad before, but I suddenly see the utility. Others might try using Twitter this way: Punch out quick inspirations as they come and collect them later for other use.

    With that introduction, here are 5 things you should know about iPhone 4, presented in no particular order of importance:

    1. Jobs' health is back. Apple CEO's Worldwide Developer Conference keynote was tour-de-force marketing -- Jobs like we haven't seen him for two years. Jobs didn't just command the stage, he stayed on it. In the public engagements before his leave of absence, Jobs typically spent limited time on stage, handing off major presentation duties to others. Yes, he shared the stage yesterday, but in fashion as seen before summer 2008 -- when he was healthier.

    Jobs' renewed vigor is important to Apple investors and partners, and it's a blow to competitors. The icon is back, and he's badass. In December I asked: "Will 2010 be another year of Apple iteration, not innovation?" So far, I'd say the innovation is back, in part because Jobs is back. Apple innovation is as much about marketing as technology. Looking at iPad and iPhone 4 marketing, it's back to the caliber before Jobs' health declined more than two years ago.

    2. Jobs showed developers the money in iOS (formerly iPhone OS). Speaking of marketing, Jobs made the right pitch to developers yesterday: Money. All development platforms share several attributes in common:

    1. There are good development tools and APIs for easily making good applications.

    2. There is at least one killer application people really want.

    3. There is breadth of useful applications.

    4. Third parties make lots of money.

    5. There is a robust ecosystem.

    The fourth of these characteristics is the most important. No matter how good the platform, third parties will only support it if they can make money. Yesterday, Jobs spent nearly as much time showing developers the money -- whether directly made from selling apps or the potential from iAd advertising -- as introducing iPhone 4. Some highlights:

    • Slide quoting eBay CEO stating the company's iPhone app did $600 million in volume last year and an expected $1.5 billion this year.
    • Jobs telling WWDC attendees that Apple paid iOS app developers $1 billion as part of their 70 percent revenue share.
    • Slide with developer quote: "I earned more on sales of The Elements for iPad in the first day than from the past five years of Google ads on periodictable.com."

    Jobs showed developers the money, or where they can make it. But marketing is the key here -- how and what Jobs presents. Google and Microsoft have profitable platforms, too. It's time they started being this explicit about how much developers can make and where.

    3. FaceTime won't be big time -- at least not anytime soon. Jobs' Reality Distortion Field has lots of people pining about iPhone 4's new video-calling feature -- FaceTime. Say, folks, you need some face time with reality, and not the one spun by Jobs. At Business Insider, Dan Frommer asserts: "Why the iPhone's 'FaceTime' video calling will succeed where others have failed." At Businessweek a Connie Guglielmo story headline leads with "IPhone gets jump on rivals with video." An earlier version of the story attributed the video jump to analysts.

    Frommer writes:

    Why will Apple's "FaceTime" do better? First and foremost, because it will finally be available on a device that will achieve sufficient saturation among groups. Video calling is a social function and therefore there is a network effect in play. If not enough people have the capacity to make video calls, then even the people with phones that support video calls are out of luck.

    But think about all the peer groups -- like mine -- with iPhone penetration above 75%. That sort of saturation generally doesn't exist for other phones. As those groups upgrade to the new iPhone 4, video calling will be a reality for them. (And the requirement that both parties have iPhone 4s and not old iPhones or Macs or iPads could help Apple convert a few more customers.)

    Frommer goes on to cite the clarity of WiFi calling and ease of setup as other reasons why FaceTime will succeed. Get a grip, dude. You need some antidote to that Apple Kool-Aid. The important "network effect in play" is AT&T (See #4 more on that). Apple has said that FaceTime will be WiFi-only for 2010. There may be lots of groups that could make video calls but they largely won't because they can't do so anytime, anywhere. They need WiFi, and it's not available everywhere.

    It's the major reason why video hasn't taken off in the United States -- there's no carrier support. That FaceTime requires iPhone 4 is another huge limitation. The iPhone install base will be largely front-cameraless for some time. By the way -- do see #4 for more on this one -- AT&T has nixed unlimited data plans for new activations. So if in the future, the carrier does offer 3G video calling, the 200MB or 2GB limits will make it impractical for most people living in the United States -- unless iPhone pops up on another carrier first.

    4. AT&T will hurt iPhone 4 in the United States. Last night, at Businessweek, Rich Jaroslovsky asked: "IPhone 4 makes video call, how about voice?" Jaroslovsky writes:

    The device has always been miserable at a telephone's most basic function, especially in such critical markets as New York and San Francisco. It's never been entirely clear how much of the blame belongs to AT&T Inc.'s overstretched network, and how much to the fact that the iPhone was engineered by a computer company with no previous cell-phone experience. The Apple representatives who demonstrated the phone for journalists yesterday were primed to say as little as possible on the subject.

    The new design may help increase signal strength a bit, they said, but they made no claims for improvement in the ability to complete or maintain a voice connection. Improving the iPhone's performance as a phone may be the most important step Apple could take to sell more of them, short of making it available on the more robust Verizon Wireless network.

    Jaroslovsky's post resonates with an IM conversation Betanews founder Nate Mook and I had yesterday about iPhone 4. We both are using Google's Nexus One. Question of the evening: Would you switch to iPhone 4? My answer was an emphatic "No!" But my reasons have little to do with the device. They're all about the network:

    A phone should be a phone first and a smartphone should be a data device second. AT&T fumbles both criteria. The metered data plans will soon be as important a foible as calling. Most people I talk to don't seem to understand how those new data fees may limit their data usage. Clicker's June 4 video test post is a must read for every iPhone or iPad user on AT&T's metered plans.

    Clicker concludes:

    1. If you don't have the unlimited plan, get it before June 7. Run don't walk! (And yes, from experience, the 3G iPad is completely the right call. It's awesomely convenient.)

    2. If you don't get the unlimited plan, and plan to stream via apps on your iPad, go WiFi as much as possible. Otherwise it's going to cost you.

    Well, June 7 has passed, so you've been warned. Clicker tested on an iPad. I predict that with background applications running on iOS 4, many people will be surprised just how much data they will consume. Again, you've been warned.

    5. Apple's approach to rights usage assures the iBookstore will succeed. Yesterday, Jobs announced that iBooks would be available for iPhone and iPod touch later this month. He also made clear that the electronic books would be available and syncable across all three devices (including iPad). There is DRM, but like the early iTunes Store, Apple is making rights limitations largely invisible to users. Most people won't ever know DRM is there, so it won't matter to them.

    Last week, I noticed that Amazon replaced its big Kindle device promotion on the home page with "Kindle for iPad." That says something about how Amazon views iPad and iBookstore momentum as a rival e-book platform. That platform can only grow as iOS 4 opens up new devices to Apple's iBooks. The difference: Apple supports its own products, while Kindle is available for many devices. Will the many or the one -- or none -- own your library?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Steve Jobs - Apple - iPhone 4 - Microsoft
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/08/This_blog_post_could_save_you_from_Steve_Jobs__iPhone_4_Reality_Distortion_Field'

    This blog post could save you from Steve Jobs' iPhone 4 Reality Distortion Field

    Publié: juin 8, 2010, 12:21am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs gave one of his better sales pitches during the Worldwide Developer Conference keynote earlier today. He had to. Gizmodo's iPhone 4 prototype series revealed the major details. Other than the gyroscope, iBooks and iMovie for iPhone, Jobs shared little that wasn't already known or reasonably guessed from Gizmodo's reporting about iPhone 4.

    That's not to say the knowing spoiled the presentation. Jobs is simply too good a marketer. He has an amazing skill at emphasizing benefits while overlooking or diminishing shortcomings. Today he exerted a remarkably strong Reality Distortion Field, and it caught some tech users. Robert Scoble posted yesterday: "Back to Steve Jobs. If I were him I'd worry that I've lived without my iPhone for seven days so far and I haven't missed having the crappy cell phone service from AT&T, not to mention I like having the extra features of the Android OS that aren't yet available on the iPhone." Three days earlier, Scoble posted about his "experiences without an iPhone for six days so far." Bottom line: "Living without the iPhone has been a lot easier than I expect." But Jobs' WWDC keynote's RDF washed over Scoble, who today tweeted: "Is this enough to get me to give up Android? It has me itching."

    Scoble will go back to iPhone, I don't doubt. He won't be the only person caught by Jobs' RDF, which made the iPhone seem like a god among cell phones. Apple's iPhone 4 marketing tagline epitomizes Jobs' sentiments: "This changes everything. Again." No, it doesn't. But iPhone does foreshadow a future without PCs, and that would change everything. But hold further explanation on that topic for a few paragraphs. First: Nuts-and-bolts examination of iPhone 4.

    The majority of new iPhone 4 features play catchup to capabilities already available on other handsets. I'll go through some of the major features one by one:

    Dimensions: The phone weighs 137 grams and measures 115.2 mm height by 58.6 mm width by 9.3 mm depth. Jobs described the iPhone 4 as the thinnest smartphone. For comparison, my Google Nexus One weighs 130 grams and measures 119 mm by 59.8 mm by 11.5 mm. Jobs is probably right about the size, although I had limited time to look. Next thinnest I could find: The Nokia E71, at 10 mm.

    Screen: Apple calls the iPhone 4's 3.5-inch screen a "Retina Display," which is marketing speak for "We've got a high pixel-per-inch panel, but it's not OLED and we don't want to say." Resolution is 960-by-640 pixels, with 326 ppi and 800:1 contrast ratio. Jobs claims the human eye tops out at 300 ppi. Well, yes and no. It's true for print, but not necessarily for digital displays. Jobs did a little marketing magic, making the iPhone's 326 ppi seem more important than it really is.

    For comparison, my Nexus One's 3.7-inch display is 800-by-480 pixels, with 252 ppi and 100,000:1 contrast ratio, presumably because of the OLED display. Contrast ratio is often difficult to measure across devices, but other than outdoor viewing I expect my Nexus One display to be as good as or better than iPhone 4. Higher contrast ratio is one reason. For example, black is truly black on Nexus One.

    Camera: Steve Jobs really pulled some magician's distractions when talking about iPhone 4's 5-megapixel camera. He asserted that megapixels don't matter, which is just hilarious; pixels don't matter when Apple is playing catchup (the phone's camera) but they do matter when trying to get ahead -- or appearing so (screen ppi). Nokia has shipped 5-megapixel cameraphones with better optics (Carl Zeiss) and better flashes, for years. The forthcoming Nokia N8 will be 12 megapixels, and early samples are amazing. Apple is playing big catchup here.

    Megapixels matter, but the sensor matters more. There, Jobs referred to the camera's sensor as using "backside illumination," like he coined the term right on the spot. Attendees could have cooed : "Oooooh. Ahhhh. Backside illumination." I checked the Wikipedia entry a couple minutes later and someone had already updated with: "The iPhone 4 uses this type of sensor in its camera." Geez Louise, does Apple pay people do this stuff? Because all the pertinent information about other backside illumination manufacturers and deployers isn't there, but Apple gets a mention. Son of a bitch!

    Backside illumination is a nice feature, but it's not Apple innovation. OmniVision and Toshiba are among the manufacturers producing backside illumination sensors. Backside illumination is self-describing, by the way. The light is in the back rather than the front of the CMOS sensor. Frontside means the light must pass through transistors and other obstacles.

    HD video: The iPhone 4 will shoot 720p HD video at 30-frames per second. That would have been innovation a year ago. It's more catch-up today. That said, iMovie for iPhone is trendsetting for the features (It's not the first on-phone video-editing application). The new iMovie software could eliminate the need for desktop software -- meaning no PC required. I've been beating the "smartphone will replace the PC" drum for sometime now. Apple's iMovie for iPhone foreshadows the future, as do several hundred thousand mobile applications, when the smartphone will be good enough for most functions the PC does today.

    Something else: In 2000, Jobs pitched Macintosh as a "digital hub." I see Apple pushing in the same direction with iPhone. Perhaps as soon as the next generation device, camera, video, battery life and supporting services will be good enough for Apple to position iPhone and iPad as digital lifestyle hubs. No Mac or Windows PC required.

    Front-facing camera: Jobs ended his keynote by touting the iPhone's new front-facing camera, like the future had come at last. Nokia has shipped handsets with secondary front cameras for years. But US carriers don't support video calls, although AT&T has a video-messaging service. There's nothing new about video calling, except that a bazillion bloggers and reporters will make it seem so by day's end. Last week, Qik jumped ahead of Apple, announcing video chat for the just-launched Sprint HTC EVO 4G. Over at ReadWriteWeb, Sarah Perez declared: "Future, we are here."

    For today, the future is what Jobs' Reality Distortion Field makes it out to be. Are you susceptible to the effects? Were you sucked in? By the way, if not for AT&T's new metered data plans, I would recommend iPhone 4 to anyone considering an iPad.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Steve Jobs - IPad - iPhone 4
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/07/Is_AT_T_breaking_the_law_by_changing_iPhone_upgrade_eligibility_'

    Is AT&T breaking the law by changing iPhone upgrade eligibility?

    Publié: juin 7, 2010, 4:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the question to ask today, when Apple is expected to announce the new iPhone, and as AT&T subscribers continue to see their upgrade eligibility dates moved up. From one perspective, changes in upgrade eligibility would seem like good customer service -- AT&T allowing iPhone owners to get the new model subsidized sooner. But, unless in a few hours Apple announces that iPhone will be available from other US carriers, the smartphone is exclusive to AT&T. The Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department often look critically at exclusive distribution arrangements, particularly if there is any hint of price fixing.

    I've been reading about iPhone full-discounted upgrade eligibility changes for weeks, where a customer sees the date moved up many months to June. This morning, over at Apple Thoughts, Jeff Campbell asks: "Are you eligible? Find out today." He writes: "When I first checked mine months ago, I had my eligibility moved up to July of this year...I checked again on the AT&T website and found that not only had my phone eligibility been moved up but the other 4 iPhones on the account had also been moved up. Previously the other iPhones had varying dates of eligibility from August of this year to September of next year."

    September of next year? AT&T moved up eligibility by 15 months? Well, hell, Campbell and other iPhone owners should be happy about that. I wonder if either the FTC or Justice Department will share the same sentiments. AT&T institutes the upgrade restrictions because it pays Apple considerably more for each iPhone than customers pay; like most other handsets, the phone is subsidized. From one perspective, AT&T is giving away money by letting customers get early access to the new iPhone. But from another perspective, AT&T is fixing prices for iPhone compared to other smartphones -- assuming, of course, users of, say, BlackBerry or Nokia E71x aren't getting the same upgrade offers. I can't say, because I'm no longer an AT&T customer.

    Exclusivity is the clincher. Most lawyers I consulted during Microsoft's US antitrust trial said that had the software giant not engaged in exclusive deals that shut out Netscape, the Justice Department probably could not have pursued the case. But exclusivity changed everything. AT&T has an exclusive distribution deal for iPhone -- or it does as I write. AT&T is only the second-largest carrier in the United States, and Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphones.

    But Apple does have a monopoly in mobile applications, which are exclusively tied to iPhone OS, which runs on Apple's smartphone. To reiterate, the iPhone is exclusively available through one carrier. The FTC and Justice Department reportedly already are investigating Apple, as they work out which agency should take jurisdiction. There have been additional reports about the Justice Department investigating Apple's music business. The point: Investigations are underway and for seemingly less legally offensive acts.

    Much hinges on the answer to this question: Is AT&T providing deals favoring iPhone over other mobile phones? There are potential competition/consumer protection violations if iPhone owners are exclusively getting their eligibility changed or other smartphone users are getting their eligibility changed exclusively for iPhone. As such, AT&T would be favoring an exclusively distributed product over others, which could be construed as limiting consumer choice with the carrier's products and those from competitors.

    Remember, in this context there are two recent AT&T policy changes: On June 1, upping smartphone early termination fees to $325 from $175 and today's new data plans, which replace the unlimited option with 200MB and 2GB metered plans. Mix it all together and there are some pretty good reasons for either the FTC or Justice Department to look into the AT&T-Apple exclusive relationship.

    In this context, either agency could ask legitimate questions about price fixing. It's my understanding that Apple sets iPhone prices rather than AT&T. If that's true and Apple asked -- or even demanded as one criteria for keeping exclusivity -- that AT&T change eligibility dates, there would be reason for the FTC or Justice Department to investigate price fixing. In the United States, price fixing violates Section 1 of the 1890 Sherman Act. Exclusivity, Apple's mobile applications monopoly and burgeoning competition in the smartphone market would all be reasons for investigation.

    The question I can't easily answer, perhaps you can. Is discounted upgrade eligibility exclusive to iPhone users? If you're using another smartphone, please check your upgrade eligibility against what you know it should be and report back in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - AT&T - AT&T - iPhone 3G
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/04/Apple_s_HTML5_Showcase_is_rigged'

    Apple's HTML5 Showcase is rigged

    Publié: juin 4, 2010, 8:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's HTML5 Showcase is supposed to demonstrate how wonderful the Web can be without plugins while adopting Web standards. But when going to the site in Google Chrome (I haven't tested other browsers), the user is greeted with: "You need to download Safari to view this demo." Oh yeah?

    More: "This demo was designed with the latest Web standards supported by Safari. If you'd like to experience this demo, simply download Safari. It's free for Mac or PC, and it only takes a few minutes." Say that again? Isn't Chrome also based on WebKit? Shouldn't the browsers be about as equally supporting HTML5?

    My former eWEEK colleague Jason Brooks got the same error message, using a more recent Chrome beta build than me. "Ditto for Firefox," he tweeted.

    It turns out the error message is a marketing stunt. Apple must be detecting the browser and blocking the demo to encourage people to download Safari -- and also to insinuate that other browsers are inferior. I say this because from the direct Safari Technology Demos page, the demos work just fine in Chrome.

    Sneaky Apple. Will the smoke-and-mirrors marketing ever end? It's bad enough that CEO Steve Jobs will do one of his magician acts to kick off next week's World Wide Developer Conference. Jobs is notorious for emphasizing product strengths while glossing over deficiencies. That's what good marketing is all about. He's just remarkably good at it. For years I've said that when Jobs is having a bad keynote, you leave feeling like your life will be better for buying his "One More Thing" product. When he's having a really good presentation, the feeling is that if you don't buy the new thing your life will be worse for it.

    Chrome HTML5 testChrome HTML5 test results

    Jobs puts on a good show, and the HTML5 Showcase is a fine example of the magician's trick. So I got to wondering: Just how compliant is Chrome or Safari with emerging HTML5 standards? I trucked over to HTML5 Test, a project by Niels Leenheer. I used a Mac. Chrome 5.0.375.55 scored 142 out of 160 points. Safari 4.0.5 scored only 113. Uh-oh. Leenheer is beta testing a new version, so I tried that, too. Safari scored 129 out of 300 with 7 bonus points. Chrome scored 192 out of 300 with 7 bonus points.

    Safari HTML5 testSafari HTML5 test results

    In the newer test, Safari fell short of Chrome in Elements, Forms, User Interaction, Geolocation and Communication. In no category did Safari do better than Chrome. The browsers either rated identically, or Chrome did better. Perhaps not surprising, Apple's HTML5 test covers areas where Safari did well (and equally to Chrome), like Canvas, Video and Audio.

    So the notice I got technically is accurate: "This demo was designed with the latest Web standards supported by Safari." But the barrier to entry insinuates Safari is better. Based on the one test -- and granted it is only one test -- Chrome is the more HTML5-compliant browser. Apple talks Web standards. How about the company apply a little more honesty standards to its marketing. Now those are standards I would support. How about you?

    [Footnote: A commenter at the Houston Chronicle tech blog suggested that I poached this story from Dwight Silverman's "Apple's HTML5 demos are only semi-open." That's not my style. I didn't see his post until June 6th, when it was brought to my attention. I credited the one source, Jason Brooks' tweet, and would have credited Silverman had I seen his post, which went up before mine. We had similar suspicions and followed the same Google search to the HTML 5 Test page.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Safari - Google Chrome - Apple - HTML5 - Steve Jobs
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/04/10_things_you_should_know_about_AT_T_s_new_smartphone_data_plans'

    10 things you should know about AT&T's new smartphone data plans

    Publié: juin 4, 2010, 5:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I was talking with The Loop's Jim Dalrymple about AT&T's data-capped plans. Like other long-time iPhone users, he didn't seem too concerned after looking at his data usage. I gave him three reasons why AT&T changed to capped plans, to which he asked: "So did you write about that?" No. I had written a long post about AT&T's timing tactics but nothing really that succinctly explained why. So here I'll give five reasons why AT&T changed the data plans.

    But first a little preface. Many long-time iPhone users -- at least those with high Net visibility -- don't seem so concerned about the new AT&T data plans. Yeah? Well, that's an easy position to take when you're not affected. You long-timers get to keep your unlimited data plans. Starting June 7th, everyone else is capped at 200MB or 2GB, depending on how much they're willing to pay. Many people on the new plans will carry a psychological burden: How much data did I use this month? I agree with Spencer Ante, who wrote yesterday at Wall Street Journal: "AT&T's pricing shift will test behavior." Keeping that in mind, this post will be two lists of the fives. The other: Suggesting ways AT&T should make the plans better for customers.

    Five reasons why AT&T is moving from unlimited to metered smartphone data plans:

    1. The network is over-congested. Too many AT&T subscribers complain about dropped calls even when they have four or five bars signal strength. Increased data usage leads to congestion at the towers, which can't handle the load of connections. Something has to give -- hence, the dropped calls. By capping data usage, AT&T hopes to contain growing data usage, especially as it offers more smartphones (See. No. 4).

    2. Currently, most AT&T smartphone users don't consume much data. The carrier claims that "65 percent of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 200MB of data per month on average" and "98 percent of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 2GB of data a month." Over the last couple days, many iPhone user bloggers have confirmed these numbers. Skip to No. 5 for reasons why those numbers are meaningless.

    3. AT&T wants to increase smartphone adoption -- and not just iPhone. Lower data pricing, particularly the $15/month plan, removes a barrier to buying smartphones. If data usage is as low as AT&T claims, the $15 plan should open up more sales. I have to credit Business Insider for this one. Dan Frommer nailed it: "AT&T's New Smartphone Plans Could Send iPhone And BlackBerry Sales Through The Roof."

    4. AT&T offers more smartphones -- and data is compulsory. By my count, at AT&T's Website, 18 smartphones are available for purchase, including three iPhone models (the number doesn't include refurbished handsets). On Sept. 6, 2009, AT&T made data plans mandatory for smartphones. My guess: the $30 unlimited fee hurts smartphone sales. Rather than remove the mandatory data plan, AT&T is scaling back data plans to make them more affordable. So, related to No. 3, AT&T isn't just looking to drive up smartphone sales as it introduces new models -- one being the new iPhone -- but remove a sales barrier placed by the $30/month plan.

    5. iPhone OS 4 will dramatically spike data usage. The new operating system will allow more background applications to run. Then there is that forward-facing camera from the stolen iPhone prototype. Already, AT&T offers video messages, a feature not really advertised. If the new iPhone has the forward-facing camera and AT&T allows video messaging, data usage would hugely spike. But usage would be even greater if iPhone users can make video calls.

    Something else: There are rumors Apple may make MobileMe free. If the $99/year price is removed, many more iPhone users will use MobileMe, which would increase background data traffic. Individually, the data syncing wouldn't consume much, but it would be a significant extra load in aggregate. The new data caps introduce a psychological barrier to data consumption; people worried about using too much data will limit or turn off background services.

    Five changes AT&T should make to its smartphone data plans:

    1. Do away with compulsory data plans for smartphones. Not everyone wants to use the mobile Web. BlackBerries and other QWERTY keyboard smartphones, like the Nokia E71x, are popular for texting. Let smarphone users who only want unlimited texting to have that option. As backup, offer them metered data with a 200MB limit and $15 cap.

    2. Offer rollover data. AT&T offers rollover minutes, why not rollover data? If data usage is as low as AT&T claims, then let subscribers carry unusued data forward, even if just for three or six months (It's 12 months for voice).

    3. Bring back unlimited data. Some customers will pay more for the peace of mind or for data need. AT&T should offer an unlimited plan for $40-$45, throwing in unlimited texting as a bonus. iPad users should get unlimited data for less -- the originally promised $30 a month (See No. 5).

    4. Offer unlimited data with tethering. The plan doesn't have to be cheap, but it should be available.

    5. Make application store data usage free. Subscribers can call voice mail or customer service without using up minutes. Let smartphone users shop their local applications store without using up their data allotment. For smartphone users, apps won't consume much data, but the option would remove a psychological barrier that could hurt application sales. For iPad users, the free data usage would matter. Isn't the new Wired iPad app a 500MB download -- or more than twice the limit of AT&T's $15 data plan? For that matter, updates to media-heavy apps should be free, too. If Apple wants to drive up eBook usage, iBooks store should be free of data charges as well.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - IPad - Smartphone - BlackBerry
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/03/Steve_Ballmer_admits_mobile_failures__but_asserts__we_look_forward_to_competing_'

    Steve Ballmer admits mobile failures, but asserts 'we look forward to competing'

    Publié: juin 3, 2010, 11:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier today, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer spoke candidly with guru tech columnist Walt Mossberg at the D8 Conference. I found Ballmer's candor to be refreshing and it reaffirms my contention that he is the right man to lead Microsoft's mobile business.

    "We were ahead of this game, in terms of software for phones," Ballmer told Mossberg. "We are not ahead of this game. We haven't fallen off the face of the planet, but we were ahead of this game and now we find ourselves at No. 5 in the market."

    Ballmer acknowledged that Microsoft had missed a design and release cycle, and he took personal responsibility for the failure. "I chose to make a set of leadership changes in the team of people building and executing on our Windows Phone software," he said.

    Ballmer's stature, clarity and candor juxtaposed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In his D8 appearance, Zuckberg seemingly dodged every question, while Ballmer gave straight rather than the pat, deflecting answers common of media-trained chief executives. Many Ballmer critics slam him for Microsoft's stock performance over the past decade. As Ed Bott observed on May 31st:

    If you invested $1,000 in Microsoft stock on January 2, 2001, and reinvested all your dividends, you have roughly $1,468 today, or a 47 percent return over nearly 10 years. By contrast, $1,000 in Apple stock purchased on the same day is now worth $34,526.88, for a return of more than 3300 percent.

    Bott and I agree about another measure of Ballmer's performance. Bott writes:

    It's easy to pick on Ballmer's performance and especially easy to identify the big mistakes and the missed opportunities. But it's hard to argue credibly that he has failed at his number-one job, which has been to keep making a profit on Microsoft's enormous core businesses of Windows and Office.

    Of course, the biggest mistake is loosing mobile market share and mindshare to upstarts Apple and Google or failing to close on Research in Motion. Microsoft chased RIM in enterprise push-mail, while the BlackBerry gained elsewhere. Ballmer told Mossberg that RIM's volumes are "60-70 percent consumer. There's still this old myth that they're primarily an enterprise company, which is just not the case anymore."

    Ballmer seems to understand the dynamics of the mobile market and the challenges facing Microsoft. For the people still asking for Ballmer's head, shut up. Give him a chance to succeed or fail in mobile. If he fails, then ask for his head.

    [Videos courtesy of All Things Digital]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Steve Ballmer - Apple - Mark Zuckerberg - Facebook
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/03/Could_iPad_lift_Apple_revenues_above_Microsoft_'

    Could iPad lift Apple revenues above Microsoft?

    Publié: juin 3, 2010, 9:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In late April, I posted a long analysis about how Apple revenue and profits had closed in on Microsoft -- to within $1 billion. Judging from pageviews, comments and e-mail responses, few people seemed to get it. I saw the trend as being much more important than Apple market capitalization nearing Microsoft's. A month and two days later, Apple's valuation topped Microsoft's, which made headlines everywhere. But still few people seem to get the significance of the revenue and income comparisons. Until yesterday. Finally somebody gets it, yet missed to connect the final dot: iPad revenue could push Apple above Microsoft during this quarter.

    Business Insider's June 2 Chart of the Day, "Apple Races to Catch Microsoft's Profits," graphically depicts what I explained six weeks ago. Jay Yarow and Kamelia Angelova write: "Apple's operating income is still trailing Microsoft. But, boy is it growing fast. In the most recent quarter, Apple reported operating income of $3.9 billion, while Microsoft reported $5.2 billion." The Business Insider chart shows "operating income after depreciation," which is a nice touch. The approach also accentuates Apple's dramatic operating income rise from 2000 to 2010.

    I will repeat some numbers presented in my April 23rd post. During first calendar quarter, Apple revenue trailed Microsoft revenue by $1 billion behind Microsoft, while net income trailed by a little less -- about $940 million. In the same quarter in 2009, Apple revenue trailed Microsoft by $4.57 billion and net income by $1.36 billion. The bigger gap was obviously revenue. In the same quarter in 2005, the difference between Apple and Microsoft was $7.01 billion revenue and $3.6 billion net income.

    Angelova's and Yarow's "Boy is it growing fast" understates just how much Apple has closed on Microsoft. They assert: "It's a very real possibility that Apple's income could surge past Microsoft's in the new few years." For revenue, I expect Apple to surpass Microsoft much sooner. In April, I asserted: "It's not a stretch of the imagination or reasonable speculation for Apple to close the distance during second calendar quarter or sometime later in 2010."

    That assertion came before Apple shipped 2 million iPads within the first 60 days of availability. Assuming just $500 revenue per device, Apple opened a new product line worth $1 billion. On April 23, Wall Street analyst consensus for Microsoft revenue was $15.24 billion, with an estimate range between $14.59 billion and $15.91 billion. Apple was $13.7 billion with a much broader range of $11.6 billion to $15.08 billion. Today, the average analyst consensus for Apple is $14.02 billion, with a smaller range of $13.22 billion to $15.08 billion. For Microsoft: $15.22 billion, with range of $14.85 billion to $15.72 billion.

    SAI Apple-Microsoft Income

    These numbers are close, and I don't believe they fully reflect the revenue lift iPad will give Apple during second quarter. Assuming that iPad doesn't cannibalize iPhone, iPod or Mac sales, Apple could reap an unexpected revenue windfall of $2 billion, estimating conservatively -- 4 million units at $500 each. The added revenue would easily put Apple above Microsoft, unless the software giant reaps more than expected from back-to-school PC sales or late closings on business annuity license contract renewals.

    Income is another matter. Apple already has indicated that iPad would drive down gross margins. Then there are new product-launch logistics. Profits tend to be less up front. Apple secrecy means that most major new products don't ramp up manufacturing until after the official announcement. As such, Apple incurs higher early manufacturing and shipping costs, which typically are recouped in part through higher pricing. As sales increase and manufacturing scales, Apple profits per device go up and, later on, the company brings prices down. The point: iPad revenue will likely widen the income gap between Apple and Microsoft.

    My prediction: Apple and Microsoft revenue will be close during second calendar quarter. Based on the situation as it is today, I'd guess Apple revenue will pass Microsoft revenue in second quarter. If not, then the third. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. You don't ever get to be right without taking the risk of being wrong.

    So what's the significance of Apple topping Microsoft? Among the many scathing comments to my April 23rd post: "Apple makes hardware, Microsoft makes software, why even compare the 2?" To which another reader replied: "That's Mr. Wilcoxs' patented linkbait technology." Actually not. There are many reasons to compare the companies' performance. Among them:

    • The historical Mac and Windows PC competition that many people still obsess about -- Betanews readers among them.
    • Mobile devices are the future of computing, and it's a market where Apple and Microsoft compete and increasingly will do more so.
    • By market capitalization, Apple and Microsoft are the second and third most valuable public companies.

    So what do you think? Could Apple revenue top Microsoft revenue during this quarter? Should anyone care? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Microsoft - iPhone - iPod - IPad
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/02/There_s_something_sleazy_about_AT_T_capping_data_plans_right_after_raising_early_termination_fees'

    There's something sleazy about AT&T capping data plans right after raising early termination fees

    Publié: juin 2, 2010, 9:24pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For iPhone users already loathing AT&T, the carrier has given them a new reason: New data-capped plans introduced in somewhat sneaky fashion. Starting June 7th, AT&T will do away with unlimited smartphone data plans. The announcement comes one day after the carrier nearly doubled early termination fees for smartphones. Now we know the reason why AT&T instituted the new termination fees, or at least the timing.

    Before June 7th, new or existing customers can still snag an unlimited plan and keep it even after AT&T introduces 200MB and 2GB data caps. But if subscribers make account changes, including new activations, they get bumped into one of the new capped plans. AT&T also will offer iPhone tethering, which a customer service rep told me today will be supported by iPhone OS 4. But to get tethering, customers must sign up for or switch to the 2GB data-capped plan. AT&T won't let subscribers keep their unlimited plans and have tethering, too. AT&T also will impose data caps on iPad. A 2GB capped plan will replace the current unlimited option.

    Data-Capped Scenarios

    Family plan is one scenario where customers could see data cap on new activation. I say could because the AT&T customer reps I spoke to seemed sure but they also were trying to explain something just announced; they might not fully understand the new plans. I was told that even if someone has a family plan with unlimited data, new activations beyond the two lines already covered would be for one of the new data-capped plans.

    AT&T customers can keep their unlimited plans when moving to new smartphones. But for new customers waiting for the new iPhone, there will be some tough choices. Signing up before June 7th would lock in unlimited data but prohibit the fully discounted, subsidized price on the new iPhone. Neither of the two AT&T customer service representatives I spoke with today could say if a customer could sign up for service before June 7th, return the iPhone 3GS during the buyer's remorse period, keep the unlimited plan and still purchase the new iPhone for fully subsidized price. My interpretation, based on timing: AT&T is purposely making such a scenario difficult to impossible.

    Here's my reasoning: A number of existing AT&T customers have reported having their subsidized iPhone eligibility bumped up to June 21. Perhaps it's no coincidence that's 14 days after the new data plans come into effect. In most states, and California is not one of them, the buyer's remorse period is 14 days (Here it is 30 days). Phones can be returned during the 14-day period. By that reasoning, the new iPhone would be available for purchase as soon as June 22, just outside the zone where someone could easily sign up for new unlimited data service with iPhone 3GS but return the device in time to still qualify for subsidized pricing on the next Apple smartphone. The two-year contract is justification for the subsidy.

    The timing seems deliberate for another reason: AT&T announcing data caps the day after raising smartphone early termination fees from $175 to $325. Customers looking for better data plans but still under contract would be less likely to jump to another carrier. I'm suddenly feeling quite good about T-Mobile; in October 2009 the carrier switched its main plans to unlimited data, phone and text. For 29 days in April and May, I switched back to AT&T and iPhone 3GS only to go back to T-Mobile and the Nexus One. Dropped calls and the $325 termination fee were major reasons for the switch back to T-Mobile. I would have been royally pissed if as a customer I learned about the new data-capped plans one day after AT&T raised termination fees by 86 percent.

    What Price for Data?

    Clearly AT&T is looking to reign in smartphone users. I assert this because of something that isn't changing. AT&T offers unlimited data plans for dumb phones, too. For example, there is a $10/month unlimited data option for dumb phones on family plans. An AT&T customer services rep told me that the new data-capped plans only apply to smartphones and PDAs. Subscribers can still get unlimited data for their dumb phones.

    AT&T's press release is full of mumbo jumbo about how the new plans reflect the data usage of its smartphone subscribers. The carrier claims that "65 percent of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 200MB of data per month on average" and "98 percent of AT&T smartphone customers use less than 2GB of data a month." Really now? Then why cap their data usage and not that of dumb phone users, who assuredly use less? The answer isn't rocket science. Regardless of averages, in aggregate AT&T smartphone subscribers use more data than the network can handle.

    People complain about dropped calls on AT&T even with four or five bars service strength. The calls drop not because of the signal strength, but network congestion. All that data consumption leads to call-failing congestion. Last night at the D8 conference, attendee David Roth told Apple CEO Steve Jobs that he and his wife love their iPhones and that they're satisfied with the speed of AT&T's data network. "Our concern is that we can't make a phone call on it." There was applause from the audience expressing similar sentiments. Roth lives in Houston. "The network has gotten so bad in the last year that we can't be on the phone for more than a minute without dropping a call." Jobs said that he had been told, presumably by AT&T, that technical changes, such as reallocating bandwidth, would ease the calling problems this summer.

    But data capping could do lots more, particularly if smartphone usage is much higher than AT&T states. Something else: Because AT&T is letting subscribers keep existing unlimited plans, the carrier may be thinking more about the future. I must assume that AT&T expects the new iPhone will; be a bigger seller, which would mean more activations and even greater strain on its network. The strange thing: I don't hear anyone complain about data speed. The problem is calling. So what does it say about the robustness of the 3G telephony network, if AT&T must cap data as a means of improving calling?

    The real question: Will AT&T data subscribers be better off under the new plans? Perhaps you can answer the question. I would ask AT&T smartphone users to report their data usage in comments. If data usage really is as low as AT&T claims, on average, many subscribers will pay less. Whether or not customers pay less or more, AT&T collects less per month per activated line, while presumably paying Apple the same price per iPhone. That lesser amount is another explanation for AT&T raising smartphone early termination fees.

    The 200MB DataPlus plan is $15/month and, for overages, $15 for another 200MB. So that's half the cost of the current $30, unlimited plan. The 2GB DataPro plan costs $25/month, and tethering will add 20 bucks but not increase the 2GB data cap. Additional data costs $10 for 1GB. For iPad, the new fee will be $25/month for 2GB data, or $5 less than the soon-to-be-retired $30 unlimited plan. If you use less data than these amounts, AT&T just lowered your monthly data fees. If you use more than 2GB, which I expect is the case for many iPhone users, Apple just jacked up your data fees -- or put limits on 3G network usage.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - Smartphone - IPad - AT&T
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/02/10_questions_Walt_Mossberg_should_ask_Steve_Jobs_tonight'

    10 questions Walt Mossberg should ask Steve Jobs tonight

    Publié: juin 2, 2010, 12:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    All Things Digital kicks off its eighth D Conference this evening, with Apple CEO Steve Jobs taking the hot seat. Jobs' participation couldn't come at a seemingly better time. The Apple cofounder has taken asserted charge, after recovering from a liver transplant last year. Apple stock is high flying. World Wide Developers Conference convenes next week, presumably with an iPhone 4G announcement. Apple shipped 2 million iPads since last month's sales launch.

    But Apple also has been criticized for restrictive iPhone 4 OS developer terms and openness of its Web strategy. Then there is the rumored Justice Department investigation into iTunes business practices. So there is plenty for D8 organizers Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher to ask Jobs about. I've got 10 questions and not necessarily the most obvious one. Jobs is highly unlikely to answer obvious questions, like about iPhone OS, Apple TV or other rumored announcements.

    Here they are presented in no order of importance:

    1. What happened to the poor guy who lost that iPhone 4G prototype? Did you chew out his ass, fire him or what?

    2. What is your primary computing device? Mac, iPhone or iPad? We can assume you're not running Windows, right?

    3. What's up with you and this sudden responsiveness to e-mail? Do you really answer all those customer or partner e-mails, or do you farm out the work to some lowly assistant? If you do answer them, be honest, is it because you can't stop playing with your "magical" iPad?

    4. How can you possibly say with a straight face that "search is not happening on phones?"

    5. What would you like to say to all the iPad naysayers? C`mon, you're feeling smug about early sales, right? This is your chance to gloat.

    6. Could you offer some advice to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer? The other Steve has taken over running Microsoft's consumer and mobile businesses. Wait -- if the answer is "give up" you have to say why.

    7. Be honest. How did you react when learning the cops had raided Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home? Is there perhaps a Gawker lawsuit in the future for exposure of Apple trade secrets?

    8. Why suddenly is it so hard for Apple to get along with everybody? Adobe is one of the earliest Mac partners and Google was an important app/services developer for the original iPhone. Apple has fallen out with both companies. The Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department are barking Apple antitrust. Can't you be friends with anybody?

    9. Confess, when was your last civil word with Google CEO Eric Schmidt?

    10. How will you prevent history from repeating? It's hard not to make Mac and DOS/Windows PC comparisons between iPhone and Android handsets. How about giving three reasons why history won't repeat?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Steve Jobs - Microsoft - Apple - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/06/01/Apple_is_the_new_AOL_and_new_Microsoft__and_whoa_that_can_t_be_a_good_thing'

    Apple is the new AOL and new Microsoft, and whoa that can't be a good thing

    Publié: juin 1, 2010, 5:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Two astoundingly good analyses hit the InterWebs over the US holiday weekend: John Battelle's "Is The iPad A Disappointment? Depends When You Sold Your AOL Stock" and Kroc Camen's "Will Apple Embrace the Web? No." If you're a geek, developer or investor and read nothing else today, it should be these two posts -- and this one, of course. :)

    Battelle and Camen come at the topic from different directions, but end up at the same destination: The Web will be easier to use on iPhone OS devices, but Apple will confine consumers and developers to its, ah, walled apple grove. I expressed similar sentiments in posts "Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash' is just smoke" and "Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web." But Battelle and Camen offer better, while different, explanations.

    Quick summary: Apple is the new AOL because of iPad, which offers a safe, easy way to consume content without venturing out onto the vast Information Superhighway. Like an earlier computing generation, iPad users (hereafter referred to as iPadders) can travel the Infobahn's slow lanes. Apple is like the new Microsoft because of the browser. Like Internet Explorer to Microsoft, WebKit and Safari aren't core to Apple's business, which will lead to the browser's stagnation.

    Timing for both posts is appropriate in context of Apple shipping 2 million iPads in about 60 days. Battelle is seemingly stunned. Five months ago, he predicted that Apple's tablet would "disappoint." He's not the only geek to do so. In early April, I wrote about "7 people who are returning their iPads" -- geeks or long-time Web users one and all. After buying an iPad to test, I sold mine last week. I also didn't like AOL, and the online service is Batelle's explanation for iPad's early success. He admits being wrong about iPad in the short term but asserts: "I still believe I'll be entirely correct in the long term, in particular if Apple doesn't change its tune on how the iPad interacts with the Web."

    Battelle Likens Apple to AOL

    The iPad's AOL connection is the reason. He writes: "The iPad is a revelation for millions and counting, because, like [AOL founder] Steve Case before him, Steve Jobs has managed to render the noise of the World Wide Web into a pure, easily consumed signal. The problem, of course, is that Case's AOL, while wildly successful for a while, ultimately failed as a model."

    Will iPad fail? Early sales would suggest not. Failure will hinge on iPhone OS and whether or not Apple confines the Web to its grove. The Web killed AOL. Battelle explains:

    It was the link that made the Web what it is today, and it's the link -- reinterpreted in various new strains -- that drives innovation on the Web still. The link is the synapse between you, me, and a billion other humans -- and the signal (dare I say, a signal one might consider third party data) which allows a million ideas to flourish.

    So let me ask you one question, right now: Can you link to an app on your iPad? And I don't mean a link to download the app on iTunes, folks. I mean, can you create an ecosystem of links, deep into your iPad application(s), links that connect your particular activity stream inside that app with other streams, other links, and other intentions across the web? In ways that create new values, both predictable and unpredicted?

    The answers to Battelle's questions are several Nos. I gave up iPad because it doesn't deliver the real Web. But who else will feel so confined? Facebook has about 500 million subscribers, despite its mostly walled garden and bazillion privacy problems. Facebook is in many ways more like AOL than Apple. By Battelle's reasoning, Facebook should fail and MySpace shouldn't have declined.

    I agree with Battelle's AOL-Apple comparison, but not necessarily his conclusions about the future. Apple and Facebook business strategies are very much against the openness that made the Web so successful; yet both companies are hugely successful building walled gardens. They are the TV networks of the InterWebs. Apple CEO Jobs talks open in his battle cry against Flash, but his company's actions show openness ends with his interests.

    Camen sees Microsoft in Apple

    Hold that thought, because it relates to Camen's argument. Seemingly anyone and everyone, including Microsoft, is trying to kill off Internet Explorer 6, which security issues and non-Web standards approach are the butt of ongoing criticism. But it wasn't always that way. "Do you remember when Internet Explorer 6 was released?" Camen asks "It was hands-down the best, most standards compliant browser at the time." He's mostly right.

    I would never call ActiveX standards anything. But nitpicking aside, he has an important point to make: IE was not core to Microsoft's business. Once Microsoft won the browser wars, there was no more need to invest -- Camen might call it waste -- development on IE. He sees similar future for Apple browser development. Camen writes:

    What happened with IE is indicative when companies come to lead in a market that is not itself their core business interest, especially when that market directly threatens to obsolete that very core business interest of the company in question. Microsoft had to kill browser innovation otherwise it would directly affect Windows and Visual Studio sales if people could use whatever OS they wanted and whatever developer tools they wanted to participate on the web. Can you see where I'm going with this? I am about to make a statement that will remain controversial for years to come and [John] Gruber, if you're reading this, you can file this under 'claim chowder' for later reference. Safari will be the next IE 6.

    The Web is not Apple's business. The Web sells iPhones and iPads and iPhones and iPads sell Macs for developers to use XCode to develop native apps -- because native apps offer what the Web can't. And that Web, if left unchecked, threatens to remove the necessity to be tied to iPhones and iPads and Macs and XCode and the App Store. If the Web gets the same capabilities as native apps, why would you buy a Mac to code in XCode and be restricted to the App Store's brick-wall approach to customer support and Apple's changing whim of what is acceptable and what is not?

    The Open Web is Offensive to Apple

    Battelle and Camen come to the same conclusion: The open Web ultimately threatens Apple's business model. I'll state it differently:

    1. AOL's success wasn't just about an easier online experience. AOL also wooed content providers to its closed network, in part because so many consumers signed up for the service. Once AOL reached a critical mass of subscribers, content providers and application developers were sure to follow -- and they did, but doing things AOL's way. It was AOL's way or the Information Superhighway. Many partners chose the former. Apple's situation is quite similar, when looking at iTunes, which is the content and applications hub for iPhone OS devices.

    2. Microsoft didn't just win the browser wars, it won developers. Microsoft feared that Netscape would establish the browser as an alternative platform to Windows. But the real threat was the Web. Microsoft delayed the Web threat, but couldn't prevent it. Apple may be the creator of WebKit and may talk HTML5, but ultimately an open Web threatens its mobile platform much the way it did (and does) Windows. Apple is pushing an application stack that it solely controls. Such a model can't coexist with an open Web, particularly one where, say, Google can bypass the iTunes App Store by releasing browser-based HTML5 apps.

    Camen writes, and I agree:

    Essentially, as long as the iPhone and iPad are able to retain mindshare, developer support and an unignorable marketshare then Apple can shape the lowest common denominator for the Web (even if that low is very high, like the best HTML5 / CSS3 support) just as Internet Explorer has been and largely remains the lowest common denominator for the web as seen through desktop computers.

    The open Web is offensive to Apple's business model. Apple already is cuing up behind AOL and Microsoft, trying to control and contain the Web and developers along with it. They failed to contain the Web. Can Apple succeed? I sure as hell hope not. I like variety -- it's the spice of life, as the saying goes. Don't you like variety? Apple's walled grove means diet of one foodstuff: apples. Apple pie, apple crumb cake, apple fritters, apple pizza, apple pasta, apple, apple, apple, Apple. You can eat anything you like as long as Apple is the main ingredient. Bon appetit.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Steve Jobs - Apple - Google - Facebook - Microsoft
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/31/Apple_sells_2_million_iPads__but_should_anyone_get_excited_'

    Apple sells 2 million iPads, but should anyone get excited?

    Publié: mai 31, 2010, 8:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple is celebrating Memorial Day with a little memorial to iPad: Announcement of 2 million units sold in about 60 days. Typically, in Apple parlance, sold means shipped. However, given short supplies, the stated number is probably closer to sold, depending on how much Apple stocked the international channel for the weekend launch.

    Assuming an average selling price of just $500 -- and I expect it's more likely $600 or $650 -- iPad has generated at least an additional $1 billion in revenue for the company. For the full quarter just passed, Apple shipped 1.15 million desktop Macs, so already iPad has nearly doubled sales there. Desktop Mac sales generated $1.5 billion in revenue. Within weeks, if not already, iPad revenues this quarter will exceed desktop Mac for calendar Q1. Impressive.

    Today at Business Insider, Jay Yarow put context relevant to Apple investors: "In a note from April 14, Morgan Stanley analyst Katy Huberty estimated 'every 1 million incremental iPad units and related accessories equates to $0.20-$0.25 EPS.' So Apple could be adding $0.75 EPS for the quarter."

    The question everyone should ask: Will iPad outsell the Mac during its first quarter of sales? Apple has nearly 30 days left in the quarter. The only impediment iPad seems to have is supply. More people want to buy iPad than Apple can ship. With the international sales channel open, 3 million units are absolutely possible during the quarter.

    Lines were surprisingly longer in Europe than the United States for iPad, or so I gauge from the overseas' reports. That doesn't surprise me. According to both Gartner and IDC, netbook sales have been stronger in Europe than any other region, mainly because of carrier subsidies. Netbooks are available subsidized with carrier commitments. In looking over the UK 3G iPad plans, I see that the four major carriers offer more flexible plans than for netbooks, many without commitment and some plans available on single-day basis. The scenario is different than the United States, where most netbooks are sold for higher prices, unsubsidized by carriers. If iPad is going to suck away netbook sales anywhere, it will be Europe.

    Given Apple's sales milestone, it seems appropriate to look back at some of my past iPad stories. So here are 20 for your Memorial Day reading pleasure:

    So, what do you think? Does it matter that Apple sold 2 million iPads in about 60 days? Is there an iPad in your future? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Steve Jobs - Microsoft - United States - IPad
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/31/Steve__Ballmer_s_Reality_Distortion_Field_is_overheating_'

    Steve 'Ballmer's Reality Distortion Field is overheating'

    Publié: mai 31, 2010, 4:51am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Monday Note has a nasty indictment of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's ability to deal with reality. In post, "Ballmer just opened the second envelope," Jean-Louis Gassée writes about a different kind of Reality Distortion Field. The concept is normally applied to Apple CEO Steve Jobs and his ability to get just about anyone to believe anything. Gassée applies the Reality Distortion Field to Ballmer as a form of denial. He doesn't accept the reality of Microsoft or its failure to truly innovate under his decade-long leadership.

    "Microsoft shareholders ought to worry about Steve Ballmer's own distortion, and about the self-inflicted effects of such a strong field," Gassée writes today. "We all remember Vista, it was a godsend for Apple. Did Ballmer acknowledge that there were problems? What about the Xbox 360 reliability nightmare? The apologies were left to underlings.

    "Then Google comes out of nowhere to take 65 percent of the Search market, leaving Microsoft with an Apple-like market share (I'm referring to Macs, not iPods). In MP3 players, Microsoft failed again and again in its attempts to unseat the dominant (65 percent market share) iPod/iTunes combo. Social networks? A tiny investment (1.6 percent) in Facebook. And where is Microsoft in the Microblogging world, a.k.a Twitter? Nowhere, the old Microsoft Messenger is fading away."

    Gassée is a former Apple executive and founder of Be, which produced the ill-fated BeOS. He is now a venture capitalist. He later asserted in today's post: "Ballmer's Reality Distortion Field is overheating."

    Yesterday, I asserted that "Steve Ballmer IS the right man to turnaround Microsoft mobile." In view of Gassée caustic analysis, one reader asked by e-mail: "How can you counter this guy's arguments?" I won't. Gassée's points are all valid, and I made some of them yesterday, too.

    To the reader, I responded:

    Ballmer's the right man or he's finished at Microsoft. He fails at entertainment and mobile and it's game over. But I still contend it will take a master salesman with a CEO's stature to get Microsoft the partnerships necessary to give Windows Phone 7 the slightest chance. Microsoft has already lost the mindshare war, which means those deals will be tough getting. Microsoft needs Ballmer to get them.

    I wrote "The Windows is era is over" for a reason. Microsoft already is too far behind in mobile and cloud services now. I've been meaning to write about Ray Ozzie [Microsoft's Chief Software Architect] for some time. He was Bill Gates' boy. Notice how you don't hear too much from Ozzie anymore or the cloud services vision he espoused? The Office and Windows hawks won. Microsoft's services strategy is now reduced to being Office and Windows extensions. Microsoft can only go the way of IBM now.

    Ballmer deserves the chance to fail at Microsoft mobile, or succeed if he can get beyond the denial. In Ballmer's defense, he inherited a mature rather than a growth company. Gates' aggressive competitive style suited growth Microsoft, but not really the more mature company. Growth companies look for new customers, while mature companies seek to keep them. The marketing approach is different. Microsoft needed a salesman, someone attuned to customers, to keep reselling the same products to the same people over and over.

    He succeeded. Do the math. For 90 days. Microsoft reported $14.5 billion revenue and $4.01 billion net profit for first calendar quarter. But the majority of that profit comes from Office and Windows. They were cash cows when Ballmer took over as CEO in 2000, and they're bigger cash cows today. First calendar quarter 2000, Microsoft reported $5.56 billion revenue.

    Another CEO might have failed. Ballmer was the right man to take over Microsoft in 2000. He kept the same customers buying over and over again. Granted, Microsoft's stock is pretty much nowheresville over the decade. The question: Is he the right man to lead Microsoft in the 2010s? I predict that Ballmer's managing of Microsoft's mobile crisis will give the answer.

    I get lots of e-mail or read plenty of Betanews reader comments demanding Ballmer's head. Oh yeah? Then answer me this: Who would you have run Microsoft? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Steve Ballmer - Microsoft - Steve Jobs - Microsoft Messenger
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/29/Steve_Ballmer_IS_the_right_man_to_turn_around_Microsoft_mobile'

    Steve Ballmer IS the right man to turn around Microsoft mobile

    Publié: mai 29, 2010, 8:02pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The headline is my answer to the question "Is Steve Ballmer Really the Best Choice to Run Microsoft's Consumer Business?" asked by Kevin Tofel at GigaOM on May 25th. There are several good reasons why Ballmer is the right man at the right time, but one stands out. He turned around another important Microsoft product: Windows.

    "For the last 12 months, I've been running our Windows business," Ballmer told financial analysts in July 2009. It was a startling proclamation. The division, now called Windows and Windows Live, had no president running operations. There was Steven Sinfosky in charge of day-to-day Windows development, but no executive above him. Ballmer took the role that Sinfosky inherited in July 2009 as president. After bungling Vista, Microsoft got Windows 7 right, under Ballmer's supervision.

    Microsoft's May 25th Entertainment and Devices reorganization removed two key leaders from power: Divisional president Robbie Bach and creative leader J Allard. Same day, I called the reorganization "doomed," because of the leaders filling the vacuum. But since I got to thinking about the reorganization differently. Andrew Lees, senior veep of the Mobile Communications Business, and Don Mattrick, senior veep of E&D's Interactive Entertainment Business, will assume key leadership roles, but reporting directly to Ballmer. For now, there is no E&D president, just like there was no Windows division president when Ballmer was in charge. Accountability now firmly stops at the top.

    Competitors are invading Microsoft Territory

    At first blush, Ballmer doesn't look like the right man for the job. He represents Microsoft's past successes -- Office and Windows -- at a time when Microsoft must move beyond the products. As I asserted on May 26th: "The Windows era is over." The future is anytime, anywhere, on-anything computing, and the pace of change is accelerating. Microsoft will long dominate the PC, but the mobile device-to-cloud service apps stack is rapidly diminishing the Windows PC's relevance. Microsoft's mobile strategy is a train wreck. The company's living room strategy is ailing, with only Xbox and Xbox Live holding up the structure. Google TV and rumored new Apple TV will run mobile operating systems, supported by the Android Marketplace and iTunes App Store, respectively -- that's assuming the Apple TV rumors are true.

    Microsoft is under assault from non-desktop operating systems encroaching on long-held territory. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates introduced the Tablet PC about a decade ago, but it is now Apple's iPad taking the tablet glory. Google TV and Apple TV threaten Xbox, Xbox Live and Windows Media Center. Apple and Google already have games in their mobile app stores and infrastructure for collecting payments and delivering the goods. Xbox's next competitive threat may come from Apple, which already has squeezed Nintendo and Sony in the handheld gaming market.

    Ballmer is right to take charge, to be the go-to man for Entertainment and Devices. Microsoft's future is at risk if competitors confine the company to just one screen -- the PC. Microsoft has long advocated a three-screen -- PC, TV and mobile phone -- strategy, but failed to deliver. Do-or-die time is coming.

    The failure isn't Ballmer taking charge but not doing so sooner. Projects like the Courier tablet demonstrate how far off Entertainment and Devices leadership had strayed. Courier's two-panel design simply made no sense. It's not rocket science to see the usability problems and potential high manufacturing/component costs associated with a two-touchscreen design, particularly compared against Apple's iPad, which appeal is simpler single-slate design and reasonably low purchase price. How could Microsoft conceivably offer a two-panel tablet for $499? Ballmer is Mr. Common Sense. There's nothing sensible about Courier as a consumer product.

    Windows Phone 7 is the Sales Pitch of a Lifetime

    Ballmer is a sales guy. He understands customers, and he understands how Microsoft should treat them and how to successfully woo partners. Windows Phone 7 needs the sales pitch of a lifetime. Same may be said of aging Xbox and Xbox Live, particularly with Apple and Google circling the living room liking vultures over a carcass. Windows Phone 7 development is already far enough along. Like Windows, Ballmer needs to focus more on marketing and go-to-market strategy, stuff he is really good at.

    The challenge isn't so much technological but psychological. Ballmer must sell customers and partners on the revamped mobile strategy and show them that Microsoft can deliver. Given the mindshare and market share advantages that Apple and Google have, Ballmer may need to call in every favor, use every conceivable marketing pitch to win over customers, developers and other partners. The one thing Ballmer can say: "I turned around Windows. I can do it again."

    Ballmer starts off with a heavy burden, and not just Microsoft's troubled consumer and mobile strategies. The worst situation for any salesman is loss of a major customer. HP's Palm acquisition gives a major partner a rival mobile operating system. Following the acquisition, HP's Windows 7 tablet is essentially dead, and the company already has announced a WebOS-based tablet for release this year. HP also no longer has much, if any, incentive to keep licensing Windows Mobile Classic or taking up Windows Phone 7. Worse, Microsoft's once loyal customer is now a competitor.

    There's Nothing Ambitious About 30 Million Units

    Yesterday, the Web buzzed about a slide Microsoft presented during ReMIX on May 27th: 30 million Windows Phone 7 units by end of 2011. Most pundits pooh poohed the number as unrealistic. Some examples:

    The skeptics need a reality check. Thirty million units isn't too high a goal, it's way too low. For starters, Microsoft's slide misstated the numbers, which are for all Windows Mobile versions -- 32 million units -- through end of 2011. Microsoft based the number on IDC forecasts, and the analyst firm measures shipments into the channel rather than sales out to end users. Shipments to carriers and dealers would easily be higher than sales.

    More importantly, if the measurement is license shipments, 32 million is a no-brainer number. Thirty-two million license shipments actually wouldn't be ambitious at all based on where Windows Mobile is today. The forecast is actually dismal, suggesting modest but not great improvement coming from Windows 7. Sales numbers tell the story.

    According to Gartner, which measures actual sales, Microsoft moved 15 million Windows Mobile units in 2009 and another 3.7 million during first quarter. So with an aging operating system and stiff competition from Apple, Google and Research in Motion, Microsoft sold about 18.7 million Windows Mobile units over 15 months. During the same time period, Apple sold 33.25 iPhones. During first quarter, iPhone sales rose 112.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner; Windows Mobile was flat. Last week, Google asserted there are 100,000 new Android activations a day, which is a quarterly sales rate of 9 million handsets. Activations typically come after sales.

    E&D will be Ballmer's Last Stand

    I don't see anything outrageous at all in 32 million Windows phone units shipped by end of 2011. Based just on where major mobile competitors are today, Microsoft will need to at least double the number to keep even trailing pace behind Apple, Google and RIM. That's going to take some tough hands-out management and CEO sales intervention with carriers, developers and hardware manufacturers. Can Ballmer do it? Some folks surely say not.

    Emory Kale, writing yesterday at TG Daily, sees Ballmer as a "geezer CEO." More:

    You can tell because, he is still stuck in the same mental fortress that Microsoft put him in when he started out with Gates. It's a relentless pursuit of a vision that has been, to put it frankly, fulfilled.

    It's Windows this, and Windows that. It's Office this, and Office that. Game over. You won, dude. Stop telling us how great you are because of what happened thirty years ago... Geezers don't move on that easily. They tend to have a history and they've earned the right to rest on their laurels. Ballmer isn't going to cut it in the mobile space because he is a geezer CEO. He won't be able to hire anyone to cut it for him either because, he doesn't offer them any glory. Just a really well kept lawn.

    I disagree. If Ballmer is locked in to any "mental fortress" it's about sales. Office is rapidly morphing into SharePoint, because business customers' needs changed; under Ballmer's leadership, Microsoft adapted. The sales fortress is a potential problem because Ballmer isn't locked so much into an Office-Windows mindset as an enterprise mindset. Microsoft's core market is the corporation, with some small- and mid-size businesses mixed in. Ballmer will have to ditch the enterprise mindset if he is to make the consumer sales pitch to partners.

    In January, I asserted: "Microsoft, don't give up on Steve Ballmer just yet." But if Ballmer fails to turn around Microsoft's mobile business or loses the living room to Apple or Google, he should go. Because if Microsoft loses mobile, it loses the future. Office and Windows will remain profitable businesses for many years to come, but ones in certain decline. Blame for such catastrophe must belong to the CEO. Steve Ballmer.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Steve Ballmer - Windows Phone 7 - Robbie Bach - Windows
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/26/Apple_market_capitalization_tops_Microsoft'

    Apple market capitalization tops Microsoft

    Publié: mai 26, 2010, 9:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For weeks, pundits predicted what happened today: Apple's value exceeded Microsoft's. While writing post "The Windows era is over" early this afternoon, Apple's market capitalization was $227.95 billion and Microsoft's $228.47 billion, or just $520 million separating them. By the time I posted, at 2:56 pm, Apple's market cap was $225.98 billion and Microsoft's was $225.32 billion.

    In the 20 minutes after, the two companies went on a roller coaster ride of sorts, with Microsoft failing to near $221 billion and Apple rising above $228 billion.

    For Apple, there has been dramatic change since stock markets collapsed in autumn 2008. Apple's market cap was $88.68 billion on Oct. 2, 2008 and Microsoft's was $228.35 billion on Sept. 29, 2008. Mmmm, do you see a difference? Microsoft hasn't much changed, while Apple, boasted by surging share price, has rapidly gone up. About six weeks before the crash, on Aug. 13, 2008, Apple's market cap was $158.84 billion compared to $254.83 billion for Microsoft.

    From one perspective, market valuation doesn't mean much. It's mitigated by several factors, including the number of shares publicly traded. But its symbolic significance cannot be understated, particularly considering the long rivalry between Apple and Microsoft and Apple's near-death experience during the mid 1990s.

    Apple market cap

    Something else: Apple and Microsoft were founded about the same time and both companies played important roles launching the mainstream PC industry in the 1980s. But since 2000, Microsoft's stock has been moribund. Apple shares started a slow surge around 2003, which the September 2008 financial collapse reversed. But throughout 2009, Apple shares rose and rose and rose. Apple shares closed at $100.10 on Oct. 28, 2008. As I write, Apple is trading at $248.15.

    A more meaningful comparison of the companies -- at least as rivals -- is revenue and profit. During first calendar quarter, Apple closed the revenue and profit gap with Microsoft to just $1 billion dollars. A year earlier, Apple revenue trailed Microsoft by $4.57 billion and net income by $1.36 billion. In the same quarter in 2005, the difference between the two: $7.01 billion by revenue and $3.6 billion by net income.

    Microsoft market cap

    Update after 4 pm market close: In the closing half hour of trading, volumes for Apple and Microsoft were unusually high. Apple closed at $244.11 a share, down $1.11 from the previous close. The stock opened at $250.20 today. Microsoft closed at $25.01 a share, down $1.06 from the previous close. Microsoft opened at $26.24 a share. Despite the roller coaster trading, Apple ended trading with a market cap above Microsoft: $222.12 billion to $219.18 billion. But with market caps so close, Microsoft easily could top Apple in another day's trading.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Market capitalization - Stock market - Business
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/26/The_Windows_era_is_over'

    The Windows era is over

    Publié: mai 26, 2010, 8:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    About five years ago, when blogging as an analyst, I asserted that computing and informational relevance had started shifting from the Windows desktop to cloud services delivered anytime, anywhere and on anything. The day of Windows' reckoning is come: 2010 will mark dramatic shifts away from Microsoft's monopoly to something else. Change is inevitable, and like IBM in the 1980s, Microsoft can't hold back its destiny during this decade. The Windows era is over.

    What's surprising: New competition encroaching on Microsoft's Windows territory. Mobile device-to-cloud competition's shifting relevance bears striking similarities to the move from mainframes to PCs, and it is a long, ongoing trend. Microsoft's newer problem is sudden and unexpected: Competing operating systems moving up from smartphones to PCs or PC-like devices. Apple's iPhone OS on iPad is one example. More startling: HP's acquisition of Palm and plans to release WebOS tablets this year; and Android's push upwards to Sony TVs.

    Some readers of this post will balk at such assertion. Windows is a huge, profitable monopoly coming off version 7's successful launch. Windows & Windows Live accounted for 48 percent of the five Microsoft divisions' combined operating profit during fiscal 2010 third quarter -- that's without factoring in expenses or other charges.

    Windows is a cash machine. But so was the IBM mainframe monopoly before the dawn of the PC era and for many years afterwards. The DOS/Windows PC didn't destroy IBM or its mainframe monopoly, but simply diminish its computing and informational relevance. Windows is on the same track. The mobile device-to-cloud applications stack will merely displace Windows' relevance. It's inevitable.

    Before the PC, computers were large and expensive. Only large corporations really could afford them. The PC extended computational and informational utility to more people, and at much lower cost. Information could be accessed in many more places, too. IBM's mainframe monopoly made the company slow moving to adaptation, even when launching its own personal computer in 1981. The company's huge ecosystem and customer base made executives cautious, with many decisions made for fear of losing customers.

    Nearly three decades later, Microsoft's situation is so similar to IBM at the height of its mainframe monopoly's dominance. Microsoft's main business is reselling to the same corporate customers running the company's software, much the same as IBM 30 years ago. Many Microsoft business strategies follow a similar track: Making concessions and avoiding risks to keep existing customers coming back for more.

    Sudden Changes are Long Coming

    Still, it might not be obvious to many people that the Windows cash machine could run out. That's because change can be dramatic and sudden, although the causes and progression tend to be long-time coming. The Berlin Wall fell suddenly in 1989, but not without Perestroika and a warming of the Cold War preceding it. Similarly, Windows' dominance will seemingly change suddenly and, I predict, during the first half of this decade. A new era dawns.

    Microsoft has long known this day would come. It's why the company fought the browser wars with Netscape. During the US antitrust case, Microsoft repeatedly asserted it faced competition, not that the US Justice Department, suing state attorneys general or presiding judge believed it. The trial ignored how much Microsoft invested on sales, marketing and its huge channel of partners. The competition Microsoft feared has come, and there is some irony to it. Last week, Google announced the Chrome Web Store, which makes reality what Microsoft feared in the late 1990s: The browser as competing applications platform to Windows.

    Microsoft lumbers along, avoiding risks, clinging to Office and Windows revenues.  Meanwhile, companies without Microsoft's existing monopoly-bound customers drive change, and they are willing to take risks. The mobile-to-cloud service platform is to the PC what the PC was to the mainframe: It extends computational and informational utility to more people and places -- and for lower cost. The Windows era is giving way to the anytime, anywhere, on-anything era. The most dynamic innovations are occurring outside the Windows monopoly.

    Perhaps it's no coincidence that 2005, the year Microsoft originally planned to release Windows XP's successor, marks the beginning of dramatic changes affecting the company today. This month, YouTube celebrated its fifth anniversary -- of posting the first video, anyway. The service opened to the public in late 2005. In August 2005, Google bought Android, while seemingly innocuous then it is hugely problematic for Microsoft today. In 2006, Facebook opened to the public and Twitter launched. In the vacuum left by Windows, innovators, well, innovated. Most of the popular transforming cloud services in use today didn't exist before 2006. Then there is iPhone (released in June 2007) and Apple's App Store (launched in July 2008). Google followed with Android and Chrome in autumn 2008.

    The numbers show how dramatically computing and informational relevance is shifting to the mobile device-to-cloud app stack and how suddenly change can come:

    • Firefox launched in late 2004; according to Net Applications, its usage share was 24.59 percent in April.
    • Internet Explorer usage share dropped from around 95 percent six years ago to 59.95 percent in April, according to Net Applications.
    • Android and iPhone OS outsell Windows Mobile on smartphones; Windows Mobile was ranked fifth in Q1 by Gartner.
    • Google claims 100,000 new Android activations per day. Apple's iPhone run rate is close but just a little behind based on first-quarter phone sales.
    • App Store has more than 200,000 applications, and the Android Marketplace more than 50,000.
    • Facebook has close to 500 million subscribers, up from 30 million in July 2007.
    • Americans watched 31.2 billion videos in March, 42 percent of them at YouTube, according to ComScore.
    • Apple's market capitalization is $227.95 billion and Microsoft's $228.47 billion. Apple's market cap was $88.68 billion on Oct. 2, 2008 and Microsoft's was $228.35 billion on Sept. 29, 2008. Mmmm, do you see a difference?

    Unsurprisingly, all this competition -- and innovation -- is beyond Windows, much as the PC ecosystem was to the IBM mainframe during the 1980s.

    Loyal Partners Go Rogue

    Microsoft has a much bigger problem. Competition from without is to be expected. Competition from once loyal partners is something else. Nokia and Intel are partnering on MeeGo, which the companies plan to bring to mobile devices. In March I declared the end to the Wintel (Windows-Intel) hegemony when asking: "Which is eviler? Apple, Facebook and Google?" -- all Microsoft competitors. Microsoft can no longer count on Intel's loyalty, which has been in doubt since Apple shipped the first Intel-based Macs in 2006.

    But matters are worse. Compaq was Microsoft's most important partner. In the 1980s, Compaq popularized the IBM PC clone, which allowed Microsoft to broadly license DOS and later Windows. HP assumed the loyal partner role after acquiring Compaq, particularly for servers. Now, because of the Palm acquisition, HP is a turncoat.

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer should have listened to me. In December, I gave 10 reasons why Microsoft should buy Palm. Had he bought Palm, Microsoft's future phone strategy would be stronger and Windows wouldn't be weakened by a major partner adopting an alternative-OS strategy.

    HP already has announced a WebOS-based tablet. HP's next, logical step is to release a laptop running WebOS. Losing HP is bad, but there may be more trouble coming. Sony is yet another traitor in the making. Last week, Sony announced plans to support Google TV by offering a television running Android. As part of a recent reorganization, Sony execs responsible for VAIO PCs are in charge of TVs. OS migration from Sony smartphone (the Xperia X10) or Google TV-based television to tablet or PC is logical next step. What about Dell, which already has adopted Android for smartphones? Windows is bloated and moribund compared to these lither mobile OSes pushing up into the PC market.

    I'm making my proclamation today that the Windows era is over. But perhaps it's slightly premature. The defining moment, where people look back and say, "Ah, ha!", likely will be when Apple's market capitalization exceeds Microsoft's. As I write, $520 million separates the companies. How unbelievable is that?

    [Update: Almost as soon as I posted, Apple's market cap exceeded Microsoft's -- $225.98 billion to $225.32 billion.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Windows Mobile - IBM - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/25/10_reasons_I_dumped_iPhone_3GS_for_Nexus_One'

    10 reasons I dumped iPhone 3GS for Nexus One

    Publié: mai 25, 2010, 10:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On April 24, I put aside my Google Nexus One and purchased a white 32GB iPhone 3GS from AT&T. Two days ago, I returned the Apple smartphone and cancelled the service. My reasons should interest anyone considering AT&T and iPhone between now and June 1st, especially, and after June 7th. The first date is when AT&T jacks up early termination fees; the second, when Apple is expected to announce the iPhone 4G.

    Let me start by saying that I won't pull a Dan Lyons. The Newsweek columnist and Steve Jobs wannabe also is switching from iPhone to Nexus One. But he unleashed one helluva venomous diatribe explaining why. I've got no venom to spew. I really enjoyed the iPhone 3GS and will miss using the device. My reasons are more pragmatic.

    First some background: In October 2009, I moved my family from AT&T to T-Mobile, putting aside iPhone in the process. I had been an AT&T customer for about six years. My simple reason: Too many dropped calls. Six or more a day was a common number, with about as many failed outgoing calls. By comparison, I used T-Mobile for nearly five months before dropping a call.

    But following Apple's April 8th iPhone OS 4 announcement, I reconsidered the switch. My major gripe with iPhone is multitasking, something Apple should fix well enough with iPhone OS 4. I hadn't tested iPhone apps for many months and wanted to prep for Apple's newest mobile operating system. Also, I didn't having a portable music player or good stereo digital recorder for doing interviews. Apple's smartphone could fill in for both.

    So I finally decided to buy a new iPhone 3GS and start fresh with AT&T. In California, the buyer's remorse period is 30 days; I would have plenty of time to evaluate AT&T and iPhone 3GS. I also would be coming off the Nexus One, which would be a great comparison to the iPhone 3GS. To be clear: I planned on the switch being permanent; I ported my number to AT&T. But it was not to be. Here are my 10 reasons for dumping iPhone 3GS and AT&T (again), in no order of importance:

    1. Dropped calls. During my first two weeks back with AT&T, I experienced fewer dropped or failed calls than before my departure in October 2009. Then the experience deteriorated. Last week, dropped and failed calls returned with a vengeance. For example, in conversations with my father-in-law and The Loops's Jim Dalrymple over one 15 minute period, calls dropped six times. I simply gave up talking to both men.

    By the way, when I returned the iPhone, the AT&T rep asked where I live. She laughed and said that everybody at the store knows that my zipcode has some of the worst AT&T service in San Diego. "Oh?" I asked. "Then why when I asked about reception before, AT&T reps said it was strong in my area?" She didn't answer that question, but instead offered me an AT&T MicroCell. "We normally charge $150, but it's free to people in your area," she said. Basically, MicroCell acts as a local 3G hub connected to the home's broadband. Ah, no thanks.

    2. Google is leapfrogging Apple. That's the story headline from Gizmodo on May 20, and I so totally agree. Apple's yearly iPhone release cycle simply isn't fast enough to stay competitive. Google has taken Android from version 1 to 2.2 since the T-Mobile G1 shipped in autumn 2008; Google is rapidly innovating by iteration. The pace reminds me of the browser wars, where Netscape lumbered along while Microsoft lept ahead.

    The numbers tell part of the story. According to Gartner, Android handset sales rose to 5.2 million units during first quarter from 575,300 a year earlier. Last week, Google revealed 100,000 Android phone activations a day, which over one quarter puts units at 9 million -- or more than the number of iPhones sold during first quarter.

    3. Android 2.2. The new operating system is chock full of exciting features, many of which either close the gap on iPhone OS or push ahead of it. Installation of apps onto memory card, Web-based app store, better suport for multiple e-mail accounts and faster Chrome browser are among the new features that turned me away from iPhone, even when anticipating v4. Then there is support for Adobe Flash, which Apple CEO Steve Jobs disses. He can keep iPhone. The real Web runs Flash.

    4. Android notifications bar. Sometimes the simplest user interface feature can change everything. Good example is TiVo's program guide grid, which opened up the digital video recording market. Time-shifting wasn't a new concept. People could record shows on VHS tapes long before TiVo. But the program guide proved to be a simpler and much better motif. I say the same about Android's notifications bar, which by its placement, pull-down access and audible zing leaps way ahead of iPhone notifications. It's one of Android's killer features.

    5. Desktop widgets. Returning to using the iPhone 3GS at first felt like returning to something old after using something new. The Nokia N900 and Nexus One spoiled me with their widgetized home screens. For example, while iPhone forced me to use various news apps, Nexus One provides a Google News widget accessing thousands of news sites. Nexus One kept me more informed than iPhone. Widgets make what is important readily available and updated in real time.

    6. AT&T termination fees. On June 1st, AT&T will raise early termination fees from $175 to $325. I simply didn't want to be locked in to AT&T. I got to wondering why the increase, too. What is it that we don't know yet about iPhone 4G? Is Apple charging AT&T more for the new device? Is AT&T concerned about churn to other services, like Verizon and its two-for-one Android smartphone deal? Could AT&T and Apple be planning to lower iPhone's purchase price, increasing the carrier's subsidy while paying same price for the phone? Or perhaps could lower monthly subscription fees be coming? Is iPhone coming to other carriers and AT&T proactively acting to keep customers? As a journalist, I'm interested in the answers. As a consumer, with the number of dropped calls, I wasn't willing to be locked in for $325.

    7. My wife loves the Nexus One. My beloved is an artist and non-geek. She simply doesn't like gadgets -- but she loves her Nexus One. After switching to iPhone 3GS, I offered her the Nexus One, not really expecting her to take to it; for starters, I find the Google phone to be kind of ugly compared to iPhone. What got her: The aspect of the user interface I also found appealing -- the notifications bar (see #4). Now she does e-mail and Facebook on her phone, because of the notifications. My wife had used an iPhone 3G in autumn 2008 and asked me to return it, which I did within the 30-day buyer's remorse period. She's keeping the Nexus One. I had to buy another, and it arrived while I was writing this post. By the way, nearly two weeks ago there was big noise about Google stopping Nexus One direct sales. Oh, yeah? When? I ordered my phone from Google on Sunday (May 23rd).

    8. Blue Mikey. Like iPod Classic, when I had one, iPhone 3GS was to be my digital recorder with attached microphone. I purchased the Blue Mikey, which records in stereo on iPhone 3GS in airplane mode. I also purchased from the iTunes App Store $9.99 "FiRe - Field Recorder." But when I connected the iPhone to my computer, the recorded audio files wouldn't transfer. According to the FiRe's support site: "You cannot transfer your recordings using 'Sync' because it is proprietary to Apple." Say what? I was presented with ridiculous options like browser access over same WiFi network (which I couldn't make work) or uploading to FTP site. Frak that. When I'm recording interviews at events, there's no time to muck around with FTP sites. If sync isn't good enough, the product isn't good enough.

    9. Service costs. I have five lines on T-Mobile, four of them with unlimited phone, Web and text. These five lines cost me less per month than four did on the AT&T 2,100-minute family plan. I paid more for Nexus One ($529) versus iPhone 3GS ($299), but Nexus One is unlocked and the extra AT&T monthly fees would close the price difference in less than two months of service.

    10. I prefer the real Web to apps. With iPhone, there are too many disparate applications. Nexus One presents the real Web, which will be more real with Android 2.2. Google also presents the real Web in a really useful way, in the browser and with supporting app services. The emphasis is search and location -- what people need where they are. During the iPhone OS launch in April, Jobs asserted: "Search is not happening on phones." What alternate universe is he living? Search is one of the principle benefits of smartphones.

    By the way, of course I do use apps. Amazon's release of Kindle for Android also factored into my decision, which leads to something else. Nexus One is all the tablet I need -- better because it's always with me. So also with the switch back to Nexus One came something else: Yesterday I sold my iPad to a good friend. As asserted last week, iPad isn't for everyone, and that includes me.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - iPhone - Nexus One - Steve Jobs - Microsoft
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/25/J_Allard_and_Robbie_Bach_are_out__in_doomed_Microsoft_Entertainment___Devices_shake_up'

    J Allard and Robbie Bach are out, in doomed Microsoft Entertainment & Devices shake-up

    Publié: mai 25, 2010, 9:46pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Microsoft doomed its Entertainment and Devices division to failure, in a sudden shake-up removing key creative leaders. Timing is simply terrible. Microsoft is engaged in a pitched battle with Apple and Google in several strategic entertainment and mobile categories. It's like Microsoft changed generals on the eve of a major and quite possibly war-outcome-defining engagement.

    Out are Robbie Bach, president of the Entertainment and Devices division, and J Allard, Microsoft's Apple Jony Ive wannabe. In expanded roles: Andrew Lees, senior veep of the Mobile Communications Business, and Don Mattrick, senior veep of E&D's Interactive Entertainment Business. Bach will stay on through autumn in an advisory role, but the move leaves one of Microsoft's five major business units without a president. Allard is leaving. Period. Although Microsoft claims he will remain in an advisory role to CEO Steve Ballmer.

    The question to ask: Are Allard and Bach creative bozos who failed Microsoft's consumer strategy or are they creative visionaries crushed by the Office-Windows machine? I think the answer lies somewhere between, with the latter being more reason than the other. Allard is clearly some kind of casualty. Bach is quoted in Microsoft's press release. Allard is not.

    Last week, Mary Jo Foley asked: "Where in the world is J Allard?" Foley's sources indicated that Allard and Ballmer had a falling out over Courier, Microsoft's long-rumored tablet. Nearly a month ago, Microsoft confirmed Courier's existence and cancelled it in the same statement. At the time I wondered: "Why confirm something exists only to kill it?" Microsoft could have quietly pulled the plug, unless there was something else going on behind the scenes -- like the alleged Allard-Ballmer scuffle.

    Somebody did right by silencing Courier, which two-panel design simply made no sense. It's not rocket science to see the usability problems and potential high manufacturing/component costs associated with a two-touchscreen design, particularly compared against Apple's iPad, which appeal is simpler single-slate design and reasonably low purchase price. How could Microsoft conceivably offer a two-panel tablet for $499? If Allard was too attached to Courier, he has lost his creative mind.

    Then there is Robbie Bach, who really can't be blamed for many of Entertainment and Devices division's problems. Ballmer made the decision to launch Xbox as a money-losing product designed to steal market share away from Nintendo and Sony. That strategy worked. But the division never really left the pattern of generating loads of revenue with little return profit. For example, during fiscal 2009, E&D generated $169 million operating income from $7.76 billion in revenue.

    The division also was charged with pushing Microsoft products into the living room, a strategy that has repeatedly failed. While Xbox succeeded, other products did not. Windows Media Center stuck in a niche, which is unsurprising giving the advantages of incumbents, mainly cable and teleco providers; they built DVR and on-demand services into their set-top boxes. Last week, Google announced Google TV, which surely wasn't received well among Microsoft's upper echelons. Is Google TV perhaps a catalyst driving the reorg?

    Microsoft's mobile device strategy is the Britannic torpedoed. Research in Motion has consistently gained mobile market share, despite Microsoft's push-mail and other push-service efforts. Meanwhile Apple and Google storm the smartphone markets. Windows Mobile worldwide smartphone OS market share dropped to 6.8 percent in first quarter down from 10.2 percent a year earlier. Windows Mobile ranked fifth, behind iPhone OS (third) and Android (fourth). Meanwhile the catch-up strategy isn't looking great. Reviewers generally panned Microsoft's two KIN phones, which debuted earlier this month. Windows Phone 7 will come to market too late. Android phone sales are tracking to be 9 million units per quarter and rising, about the same as iPhone. Windows Mobile is stuck in the 3.7 million range.

    For years, Microsoft has talked up a three-screen strategy: Windows PC, TV and mobile phone. The company has real success with PCs, reasonably good success with game consoles and near failure with mobile phones. Even where there is success there's no real synchronicity.

    Given Microsoft's meager mobile and three-screen advancements, Lees' performance should be questioned as much as Allard's or Bach's. If the old blood is so bad, where's the life-reviving transfusion? On July 1, Lees will report directly to Ballmer, who views the world in enterprise business-shaded glasses. In December, I explained how Microsoft had lost its consumer edge, as the company shifts more resources to enterprise products leveraged off Office, Windows and Windows Server. Before assuming his Mobile Communications Business role in February 2008, Lees worked on Server and Tools division sales. Entertainment and Devices needs something more consumer not something corporate.

    Then there is the entertainment product horizon. Microsoft just launched KIN, Windows Phone 7 is coming in autumn, Project Natal also is due in autumn and Windows Live Wave 4 is just beginning its rollout. Microsoft mixes it up with another leadership shakeup. Microsoft made E&D organizational changes in January 2010 and February 2009 -- at least those are the ones I remember. How many more will there be?

    By the bean counter's measure, Entertainment and Devices is a failure; the profits aren't there. But from a creative and new market perspectives, E&D is a colossal success. The division opened new markets after many earlier failed attempts to push beyond Office and Windows.

    Today's reorganization announcement is the bloodletting of Microsoft key creatives, while replacing them with an incomplete organizational structure too closely tied to the old monopoly leadership. For anyone thinking things were bad, they're about to get worse.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Google - Robbie Bach - Xbox - iPhone
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/24/Apple_s_five_stages_of_Google_grieving'

    Apple's five stages of Google grieving

    Publié: mai 24, 2010, 6:52pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Grief typically follows any breakup, whether by the living separating or death taking one away. Apple's response to the disillusion of its Google relationship is near textbook case of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Apple is slowly coming to terms with life after Google, and like any grieving the process hasn't been easy.

    Denial. Two years before Apple released iPhone, Google bought Android. From the August 2005 acquisition, it was clear that Google would make mobile a priority, and surely that a phone would follow. "We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business," Apple CEO Steve Jobs told employees during a March meeting. Google released Android OS about 18 months after iPhone launched in June 2007, but the product was foreseeable. Jobs' retort is classic denial behavior.

    Jobs' claim that Apple "did not enter the search business" is another form of denial. Google's search business is all about monetization through advertising. Apple's iAd is such potential advertising competition to Google that last week the US Federal Trade Commission cleared way for Google's AdMob acquisition; before Apple announced iAd, the agency indicated the acquisition could be blocked.

    Anger. Jobs' temper is renown around Silicon Valley. Apple's anger against Google is simply undeniable; there are so many examples. Jobs has personally attacked Google in e-mails to Apple customers and partners and through public statements. In March, Jobs reportedly said that Google's oft-quoted "You can make money without doing evil" is "bullshit." Some of those angry statements exhibit deep denial, too, such as Jobs' early April assertion that: "Search is not happening on phones." Who is he fooling but himself?

    Apple's HTC lawsuit is a form of repressed anger. While Apple sued HTC, the claims are really about Android and Google. Can you say passive-aggressive behavior?

    Bargaining. Google's advances on Apple extend beyond the phone. There is the browser; according to Net Applications, Chrome usage now exceeds Safari. Google released Chrome about the same time as Android, rapidly iterating on the browser -- now approaching version 5 -- for technology developed first by Apple; Chrome is based on WebKit. In a clear swipe against Chrome innovations, Apple bargained with developers during the iPhone 4 OS announcement, on April 8, with new Safari features that extended some of Chrome's best capabilities. Chrome sandboxes tabs to improve performance and to minimize crashes' effects. Apple will go further with kernel-level multi-processing.

    Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" is more bargaining. While seemingly all about Adobe, Apple's anti-Flash campaign is as much about Google. As I explained last month, Apple and Google are taking two different, fundamentally clashing approaches to the mobile Web. Apple's approach is more applications-centric, while Google puts greater emphasis on the browser. Google supports Flash, which is coming with Android 2.2 (some people have it already; you lucky bastards). Google arguably will embrace the real Web, not the one Jobs is bargaining to makeover.

    Depression. Jobs has been remarkably prolific over the last couple months responding to customer and developer e-mails. It's commendable that such a prominent CEO is taking such an active role in such an unorthodox way. C`mon, how often do you read about the chief executives of GM, Microsoft or Pepsico responding to so many customer or partner e-mails? But the timing indicates post-Google breakup depression. Jobs' prolific responses started after Schmidt resigned from Apple's board (late summer 2009) and Apple-Google sniping reached public levels (early 2010). Actually, the e-mails are mixed denial, anger and depression.

    Acceptance. The e-mails also signal Apple's acceptance -- that Google is a competitor in mobile operating systems and Web browsers, and that the two companies will clash over customers, developers and other partners. In response to a May 22nd e-mail about last week's Gizmodo article asserting that "Google is leapfrogging Apple," Jobs reportedly responded: "Not a chance!" Google is buddy no more, but the enemy. If there was a sixth stage to grief, betrayal, Apple could be said to exhibit it, too.

    Apple's HTML 5 push is another form of acceptance, but more self-destructive. While Apple positions HTML 5 as an alternative to Flash, the technology looks to benefit Google much more than Apple. Already Google has used HTML 5 to circumvent Google Voice's prohibition from the iTunes App Store.

    Do you have more examples of Apple's five stages of Google grieving? Please offer them up in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/21/Are_you_a_Mac__or_are_you_a_PC_'

    Are you a Mac, or are you a PC?

    Publié: mai 21, 2010, 8:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The year 2006 will be remembered as transformative. Google bought the nearly year-old YouTube. Facebook opened to the general public, and Twitter launched. In May, Apple debuted the "Get a Mac" advertising campaign, which is one of the most memorable and quite possibly the most definitive for high-tech marketing -- at least in this century. "Get a Mac" is no more. Apple now redirects to Why You'll Love the Mac," which is merely informational. Four years of commercials are gone, too, although some will remain on YouTube until Apple demands they be pulled. That's already started.

    As I've asserted before, most of the popular social media services taken for granted today started during or after 2006. Even the iPhone came later. Something else happened in 2006, which gave Apple unexpected tailwind for Mac sales: Microsoft bungled Windows Vista's launch. The company missed the holiday sales period, launching Vista for businesses at the end of November, but not for consumers until late January 2007. Apple's "Get a Mac" marketing would shift from generally knocking Windows PCs to direct attacks on Windows Vista.

    For Apple, 2006 marked the beginning of a slow sales surge, bolstered by "Get a Mac" marketing and unencumbered by Windows; more Windows users stuck with XP than upgraded to Vista, with many of them switching to Macs -- or at least adding Apple computers alongside Windows PCs. In the quarter that "Get a Mac" debuted, Apple shipped 1.3 million Macs, with net revenue of $1.87 billion. Unit shipments rose 12 percent year over year and revenue by 19 percent. During its most recent quarter, Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs, up 33 percent year over year, generating $3.76 billion revenue for a 27 percent year-over-year increase.

    I was working as a senior analyst for JupiterResearch when Apple launched the "Get a Mac" campaign. I blogged on May 2, 2006:

    The appeal is the metaphor: People, one person a Mac and another a PC (presumably running Windows). Through their exchange, the two characters communicate the important presumed PC and Mac differences (crashes, viruses) and similarities (networking, Microsoft Office) in straightforward fashion. There is no complicated computer jargon, and the ads use the experiential to make concepts clear and meaningful. The approach is brilliant...

    No doubt, big husky Microsoft must tire of listening to the barking of that scrappy dog Apple. After all, there's a huge market share gulf between Windows PCs and Macs. And Microsoft does develop one very important Mac product, Office. But there's some bite to that bark, too. In looking over JupiterResearch household surveys, Mac OS does appear to be eking upward. Caveat -- and it's a big one: Any possible gains are still fairly small and well within margin of error. But some trends are other evidence, such as the number of multi-computer households with Mac OS compared to Windows XP. I presume that Macs are snatching up second or third computer purchases that might otherwise have gone to Windows. High proportion of Mac OS households with notebooks compared to Windows counterparts is another fascinating snippet.

    Apple has set up the "Get a Mac" Website with information for would-be switchers and the six TV commercials. Microsoft could learn a whole lot about Apple's marketing approach, particularly for the eventual release of Windows Vista. Other high-tech vendors should take notes, too. Communicating products' value is not easy -- otherwise why would high-tech companies spend millions hiring advertising agencies? Apple has taken one of the most recognizable metaphors--interaction between two people--and communicated something very big in a small way. The approach is compelling, to say the least.

    The approach was so compelling that Microsoft responded with the "I'm a PC" campaign in September 2008. The first commercial began with Microsoft employee Sean Siler dressed like actor John Hodgman, who portrayed the geeky PC in Apple's "Get a Mac" ads. "Hello, I'm a PC, and I've been made into a stereotype," Siler says. My initial reaction from Sept. 19, 2008:

    Overall, the commercials are endearing. I like them more than I expected. But their shortcoming is the same as the Bill [Gates] and Jerry [Seinfeld] ads: The commercials don't say much about Windows. In that sense, Apple set the agenda by using PC to identify Windows.

    The 'I'm a PC' commercials are sad Microsoft acknowledgment about how smaller rival Apple outmarketed the giant. But I still expect the 'I'm a PC' concept to embolden Apple to make even more aggressive 'Get a Mac' commercials and to rally the Mac minority to sound like a roaring majority, on blogs, in news stories, and among online and offline social circles. I see mixed benefit, therefore. Any debate is even more marketing for Microsoft, and free at that. So how bad can that be?

    It could be plenty bad. Apple ramped up the Windows assaults, including repeated jabs at Windows 7. The ongoing attacks sucked much of the charm and creativity out of the "Get a Mac" ads and turned them into caricatures of their former greatness. The motif remains a great one, but "Get a Mac" became "get the fast-forward on the DVR button." Apple should have pulled the campaign sooner. The question to ask now: With what will Apple replace "Get a Mac?" Surely the iconic marketing is far from over.

    It's Friday. Let's have some fun. I must ask: Are you a Mac? Or are you a PC? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/21/Google_TV_is_all_about_blood_sucking_television_ad_spending'

    Google TV is all about blood sucking television ad spending

    Publié: mai 21, 2010, 4:25am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Did you hear the news? The Internet is coming to your TV. It's going to be this big platform for which developers create applications. Pundits are saying the strategy is really impressive. Get this: Major television set manufacturers are going to support the platform, so you get the best of TV and the Internet. Oh you did hear about it. Google TV, right? Wrong! I just described variations of Microsoft's television strategy as announced over the years: Web TV, Windows Media Center, Mediaroom and Mediaroom for Xbox.

    Did Google execs not hear about Microsoft's mostly failed living room strategy, which Google TV shockingly sounds like? Several former Microsofties are now Googlers. Surely somebody knew about Microsoft's past TV bungles. If Microsoft couldn't make Internet TV work, why should Google do any better? Google's strategy sounds so similar that I'm stunned by some pundit's early cooing over the strategy.

    Early Google TV partners include Intel and Sony. Google claims that Google TV won't replace but augment cable or telco services. But that's really a load of bull. As I will better explain in a few paragraphs, Google is really launching a TV advertising platform -- and that sure as hell will compete with ads carried on cable and network television.

    Google TV will run on Android 2.1, bringing along supporting apps and the Chrome browser, too. Much of the rest of the strategy -- the program guide, the DVR, the developer opportunity, the Web-meets-the-living-room mumbo jumbo -- is tried and tired. Companies from Dell to Microsoft to TiVo -- hell, even Apple -- have talked up that big settop box augmenting but not really replacing the programming experience consumers get today. Each strategy is stamped with a big "Fail." From software, services or platform development perspectives, Google isn't saying much new. Even the marketing tagline has a familiar ring: "TV meets Web. Web meets TV." Yeah, I'm just blowing my brains out with enthusiasm for this same old failed thing.

    It's All About Advertising

    What Google wants from the living room is very different from Microsoft, although the fundamental concept is the same: To extend and preserve the existing monopoly -- Windows for Microsoft and search/online advertising for Google. But Google is looking to cash in on a market with major players, who are likely to resist the informational giant's embrace. For all the buzz in recent years about the decline of newspaper, magazines and radio, TV has remained largely immune to declining ad dollars -- or at least massive shift online.

    For years, television has been Google's holy grail. Company executives have talked, often privately, about the importance of TV ad dollars shifting online. Google had its search and ad platform bucket out to catch those dollars, but they never really came. Google scooped up some advertising moving from print or radio to online, while waiting for TV advertising to do the same. It came only in trickles. So if the ad dollars won't come to Google then, holy hell, the company will go get them. That's really what Google TV is all about, scooping up television advertising.

    In January, Forrester Research forecast that US TV advertising spending would rise slightly in 2010 to $69.5 billion. A month later, the analyst firm warned that, based on a survey of 100 national advertisers, media buyers were showing increasing dissatisfaction with television:

    • Sixty-two percent of advertisers complain there is too much clutter; they want fewer ads, and there is renewed interest in 30-second spots.
    • Seventy-eight percent of advertisers want targeted ads, but only 59 percent want to pay for them.
    • The majority of advertisers want new metrics; reach and frequency aren't enough.

    Forrester's report might as well be a blueprint for Google TV. Google's advertising business is all about targeting and metrics and delivered for low cost. Google could offer national advertisers what they want and something more: Better flexibility integrating ad campaigns across media categories. Microsoft talks about a three-screen strategy. Google has one, too -- delivering search and advertising to mobile phones, PCs and TVs.

    Who Will Give Up the Living Room to Google?

    For comparison, US advertisers spent $22.7 billion online in 2009, down 3.4 percent year over year, according to IAB and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Online ad spending accounted for 17 percent of all US advertising in 2009. For this year, eMarketer forecasts US online spending will reach $25.1 billion -- while an 11 percent increase, revenue falls far behind TV.

    To push into the living room, Google is going to have to push somebody out. As Microsoft learned -- and even TiVo -- that's not so easy. Cable and telco providers covet their subscription fees and local advertising revenues. Surely the big networks will fight against Google's free economy, which could reduce the value of their ad space. Why pay networks big bucks when Google will sell ad space for much less?

    Networks and cable and teleco providers have reason to worry, given YouTube's popularity and some surprising data from the IAB and PricewaterhouseCoopers report. US online video ad revenues rose 39 percent to about $1 billion last year. YouTube may yet be a big revenue generator for Google, which already offers rental content.

    Would you stop paying big bucks to a cable or telco provider if Google TV could bundle up a tidy subscription price for good programming? Say 30 bucks a month? I would, but Google will have to get Hollywood to cough up the content against network and cable and telco provider resistance. That all circles back to Microsoft's mostly failed attempts to conquer the living room, against less resistance. Can Google really do better? You tell me, please, in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Google - Apple - Sony - Microsoft - Television
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/20/Is_iPad_cannibalizing_Windows_PC_sales_'

    Is iPad cannibalizing Windows PC sales?

    Publié: mai 20, 2010, 9:16pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    About a month ago I asked: "Will iPad cannibalize Mac sales?" Today's report that iPad is outselling the Mac is another reason to ask. The answer may not come until Apple releases second calendar quarter results, to see whether there's cannibalization or new revenue. Oh, but I can speculate, meantime.

    RBC Capital Markets analyst Mike Abramsky released a report indicating that Apple is now selling about 200,000 iPads a week, compared to 246,000 iPhone 3GSes and 110,000 Macs. Data is for United States. That puts iPad's sales rate nearly double the Mac, and that's with constrained tablet supplies. How much greater could they be if Apple met demand.

    I first saw the report in a post by All Things Digital's John Paczkowski, earlier today. On May 17, Paczkowski answered my question, or perhaps thought he did, with post: "Is the iPad Cannibalizing Mac Sales? Not Really." Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster asserted that, based on April US retail sales, "iPad has a minimal cannibalization impact on Mac sales, and could be slightly cannibalizing iPod sales."

    But I wonder. Sales of a new product category typically come from completely new buyers or those buying the new thing instead of something else. The something else could be Macs, or even Windows PCs. As I asserted in late January: "iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the aforementioned $399 and $999." Various iPad models sell between $429 and $829. "Apple now offers portable computers -- and that's how I classify iPhone, iPod touch and iPad along with Macs -- ranging from $99 to $2,499. From a pricing strategy perspective, iPad is a brilliant product, because it fills the gap between iPhone/iPod touch and Macbook without price cuts or risk to the Mac's premium brand status."

    The cheapest Mac you can buy today is iPad. It's reasonable to ask if people who might otherwise buy a cheap Windows laptop are instead picking up iPad. It's also reasonable to presume that iPad will also cannibalize some Mac sales, particularly as education sales begin to kick in later in the quarter. But it's too early for there to be meaningful substantiating data, because:

    • Second calendar quarter tends to be stronger for Mac sales because of back-school-buying. However, iPad could reasonably appeal to educational institutions, particularly with budget cuts, as Macs.
    • About 45 percent of Apple sales are international, but iPad has only been available in the United States. The one market isn't measure enough to long-term gauge whether or not iPad will eat away global Mac sales.
    • Apple is heavily marketing iPad, but not Macs. Early marketing could be just as likely to generate new sales as take them away from some other Apple product.
    • Second quarter typically is slowest of the year for Windows PC sales, although it's typically strongest for Microsoft because of software license sales to businesses. Typical channel checks likely wouldn't yet reveal whether sales sluggishness, if any, would be seasonal or lost sales to iPad.
    • Recent stories about iPad cannibalizing netbook sales are probably wrong. I've looked over the data, and netbook sales declines started around the release of Windows 7. At least through April, cheap Windows 7 laptops almost certainly sucked away sales from netbooks. The question: What happened since?

    So, I don't yet have a definitive answer to either question. For Apple, the best two scenarios would be iPad opening a whole new revenue stream without cannibalizing Mac sales and/or iPad taking away new Windows PC sales. My educated guess based on years covering Apple: iPad is opening a new revenue stream and pulling in new sales from Windows users who couldn't justifying $999 or more for a Mac. Additionally, I predict that iPad will cannibalize future Mac sales; people satisfied with the device will augment their existing Mac, delaying its replacement.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/20/Five_reasons_why_Google_s_Web_apps_store_makes_sense'

    Five reasons why Google's Web apps store makes sense

    Publié: mai 20, 2010, 6:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, Google announced that, later this year, it will release the Chrome Web Store. The idea isn't complex and philosophically compliments the app store for Google Docs and even Android Marketplace: Provide a marketplace for third-party apps. The strategy is sensible for Google, given its heavy orientation around the browser and cloud services.

    Early last month I explained how Apple and Google are battling for the future of the mobile Web. Both companies are looking to capitalize on the shift from the PC client-server applications stack to the mobile device and cloud service stack. Apple's approach makes the mobile app primary, pushing up to the cloud, while Google pushes services down from cloud to device, mainly the browser. Already, Apple has built a huge application and developer ecosystem around App Store. Google needs to counter, but leveraging its cloud services strengths.

    By the way, about six years ago, I first directly told Microsoft executives that the company should develop an applications store for Windows. The idea: Utilize Windows product activation and update architectures to provide a means for developers to directly sell applications through the operating system. The mechanism would pay developers and combat rampant piracy, particularly for smaller developers. That's pretty much what Apple did with App Store nearly two years ago. I'm convinced that Microsoft's position with developers would be stronger had executives followed the advice.

    Now for those five reasons:

    1. Google is launching a new operating system. Google says the app store will support both Chrome browser and OS. There is a chicken-and-egg scenario that applies to new operating systems, and many have failed because of it: Which comes first? The OS or the applications? Generally, people won't adopt an operating system unless there are applications, but developers tend not to support an OS unless there are users. By launching a dual-platform app store, Google can woo developers, providing base applications (along with its own many services) to jumpstart adoption.

    2. Applications can drive up Chrome browser adoption faster. The dual-platform strategy can work because Google's browser is rapidly gaining usage share, while Firefox usage has leveled off and Internet Explorer declines. Good applications could give more people more reasons to adopt Chrome. It only takes one killer application to drive massive adoption. By the way, this is exactly the kind of scenario Microsoft tired to prevent during the late-`90s browser wars with Netscape: The Web browser becoming a pseudo operating system around which developers build applications and services.

    3. Developers can get paid for their Web work. Right now, the app stores where developers get paid are tied to mobile operating system supporting services, like Android Marketplace or Apple App Store, among others. None of the major computer OS developers offers integrated app stores, nor does any major service provider offer one for browsers (emphasis on major provider). Google is in position to provide developers a place to sell rich Internet applications and supporting services for browsers, which reach would be broader than just mobile phones. Google Checkout, or perhaps a new payment system, would get developers paid for their work. LOL, how strange if Flash developers could get paid by Google. What a stick up Apple's no-Flash policy that would be.

    4. Chrome Web Store can drive search usage and advertising dollars. Surely some developers will offer free apps, around which Google could bundle advertising -- something like what it already does and extended to something like Apple plans for its iAd advertising platform for iPhone OS 4. Based on Google's current behavior, its platform would offer developers more freedom than would Apple's. Google executives insinuate that applications could work with any browser, and that could arguably be the case for other Webkit-based browsers or applications supporting HTML 5. If so, Chrome Web Store would provide developers even more places to monetize their apps and for Google to drive its advertising and search businesses.

    5. Browser users already are accustomed to installing browser plug-ins. End users shouldn't have to learn new behavior. Based on what little information Google has disclosed, the app store would be about as easy to use as installing a browser plug-in. Assuming Google uses Checkout, people with accounts would need no onerous extra steps to purchase applications.

    Do you have reasons to add? Please offer them up in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/19/Research_in_Motion_surges_to_No._4_in_global_mobile_phone_sales__Apple_to_No._7'

    Research in Motion surges to No. 4 in global mobile phone sales, Apple to No. 7

    Publié: mai 19, 2010, 7:45pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Gartner released first quarter 2010 worldwide mobile phone sales data, and it's the set that matters. Unlike IDC or manufacturers like Apple, Gartner tracks actual sales to users rather than shipments to carriers or retailers. Shipment data is less accurate, because of unsold inventory in the channel. Based on sales, Apple ranked No. 7 in worldwide mobile handset sales, just behind sagging Motorola. That's for all phones, not just smartphones.

    For smartphones, Android and iPhone OS made huge gains, with Gartner describing them as the "winners" for the quarter. Android rose from 575,300 unit sales to 5.2 million year over year, pushing Windows Mobile down into the fifth position. Because there already is a fair amount of misreporting, such as Apple pushing ahead of Motorola, I will continue the main portion of this post with some quick -- and in some instances -- corrective facts:

    1. Nokia is not in rapid decline. While the manufacturer's market share dipped 1.2 percent, to 35 percent, unit sales rose by 12.7 million to 110.1 million.

    2. Apple did not outsell Motorola. But I've been reading this heresy for weeks based on unit shipments. Based on actual sales, Motorola is No. 6 worldwide.

    3. Motorola is rapidly declining, however. Year over year, unit shipments plunged from 16.6 million to 9.6 million.

    4. Research in Motion moved into the top five, at No. 4, for worldwide phone sales. That's while competing against cheaper handsets from competitors like Nokia. While growing less than Apple, 45.9 percent year over year compared to 112.2 percent, RIM sales are much stronger.

    5. White box competition is sucking sales from major manufacturers. Combined top-five share dropped from 73.3 percent to 70.7 percent year over year. White box manufacturers are mostly shipping from Asia, and some are mimicking handsets like iPhone, while offering more features, such as dual-SIM capabilities.

    Gartner Q0110 mobiles

    6. Like early early iPhones, Android-based phone sales are strong in North America -- up 707 percent year over year.

    7. Distribution mattered to Apple. "Growth came partly from new communication service providers in established markets, such as the UK, and stronger sales in new markets such as China and South Korea," Carolina Milanesi, Gartner research vice president, said in a statement.

    8. Only Android and iPhone OS made year-over-year market share gains among the top-five smartphone operating systems.

    9. The quarter's best performers controlled hardware, software and services -- essentially an end-to-end stack, except for carriers. Apple, Nokia and RIM are end-to-end providers.

    10. Windows Mobile market share declines are somewhat deceptive. While smartphone OS market share fell from 10.2 percent to 6.8 percent, unit sales were flat year over year. Windows Mobile is more standing still than moving backwards, as competitors race by.

    Gartner Q0110 mobiles

    Now for some additional data points and quotes from Gartner analysts. Mobile handset sales rose 17 percent year of year to 314.7 million. Smartphone sales rose 48.7 percent to 54.3 million. Smartphones accounted for 17.3 percent of all mobile phones sales in first quarter, up from 13.6 percent a year earlier.

    "Increasing sales of white-box products in some emerging regions, in particular India, also drove sales of mobile phones upward. We expect sales of white-box products to remain very healthy for the remainder of 2010, especially outside of China," Milanesi said in the statement.

    What this means: India is one of Nokia's strongest markets worldwide. Increasing white box popularity could drive down Nokia's share in India. For all major manufacturers, there will be increasing pressure to stay ahead of white box phone makers and, related, those imitating big-five designs.

    "To compete in such a crowded [smartphone] market, manufacturers need to tightly integrate hardware, user interface, and cloud and social networking services if their solutions are to appeal to users," Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst said in a statement. "Just adding a qwerty keyboard will not make a device fit the communication's habits of today's various consumer segments."

    What this means: Apple, Nokia and RIM have potentially stronger positions, the latter two only if they pull together weak services strategies. Google needs to standardize all Android handsets on one OS version and set of supporting services; even then, Google doesn't control enough of the stack.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/19/Would_you_like_a_mSpot_music_streaming_private_beta_invite_'

    Would you like a mSpot music streaming private beta invite?

    Publié: mai 19, 2010, 4:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Betanews has 500 of them. One could be yours.

    The mSpot private beta opened today. The concept is simple: Your music available, anytime, anywhere on anything. The streaming service initially offers clients for Mac, PC and Android 2.1 phones, so mSpot is still working on the anywhere. Perhaps that's good reason for the private beta.

    I've been asserting for years that the future of computing will be cloud services delivering anytime, anywhere access to anything -- with the primary emphasis shifting to mobile devices. In the 1980s, computing and informational relevance shifted from the mainframe to the PC because of lower costs and broader availability. The same factors are driving the shift away from the traditional PC client-server model to mobile devices and cloud services.

    With mSpot, users sync their music library to the cloud, then stream it back to any device supporting the service. I like the concept, but a full-streaming, no-upload service would be better -- where users verify ownership that unlocks music already available in the cloud. Of course, music licensing restrictions limit what mSpot can do. Such an approach would better align with mSpot's movie streaming service, which I see as being a much more accessible anytime, anywhere, on-anything service; granted there are additional fees.

    My music library is over 80GB, which would mean paying for upgrades. How large is your music library? The private beta limit is supposed to be 2GB. Services don't always strictly enforce such limits during private betas. We'll see what mSpot does. The service also syncs playlists, which is a must-have feature for a service like this one.

    With that brief introduction, I send you off to mSpot. Just go to the Website and use "betanews" to register for the private beta, which is scheduled to lift sometime in the second half of June. Happy streaming -- well, for the lucky, first 500 registrants.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    mSpot - Personal computer - Streaming media - Android - Cloud computing
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/19/Bogus_is_one_way_to_describe_Microsoft_s_patent_claims_against_Salesforce.com'

    Bogus is one way to describe Microsoft's patent claims against Salesforce.com

    Publié: mai 19, 2010, 3:46am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Three words sum up Microsoft's patent infringement suit against Salesforce.com: Competition by litigation. Microsoft knows plenty about competition by litigation, having been its victim through major antitrust cases on two continents. It's simply shameful action from a company which executies rightly wagged accusing fingers at litigating competitors over the years. Microsoft's "do unto them like they did unto us" approach cheapens the company. The proof is in the patents, which are hugely broad scope.

    Qualifying that I am no patent attorney, I have applied layman's eyes to the patents that Microsoft alleges Salesforce.com violates. The nine patents read to me as being very broad in scope and potentially applicable to many forms of end user to computer or Web browser interactions -- or none at all. If any of these patents are enforceable, the US patent system really does need some reform.

    I purposely did not read Microsoft's description of the patents and Salesforce.com's alleged violations from the 9-page patent infringement lawsuit. Instead, I looked over the actual patents, reading them as they are and looking at them in context of Salesforce.com's business, as I understand it. I see huge PR value for Microsoft in filing this lawsuit, possibly inflicting damage against a successful competitor. The patent violations are sure to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) about Salesforce.com's future business and may even cause some customers to look elsewhere -- ah, like Microsoft. However, I see nothing among the nine patents, based on a careful non-lawyerly review, that remotely suggests Salesforce.com has grossly violated Microsoft intellectual property rights.

    Now for the nine patents:

    7,251,653: "Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data," granted July 31, 2007, describes interaction between data in columns and their storage. The patent clearly was intended for spreadsheets.

    5,742,768: "System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu," granted April 29, 1998, describes the execution of menus in a Web browser by using an applet; Java is used as an example of applet delivering an "embedded menu" class. The patent was assigned to Silicon Graphics.

    5,644,737: "Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display," granted July 1, 1997, describes the display of stacked toolbars on computer operating systems, like Windows. Right, but Saleforce.com serves data to a Web browser. If Salesforce.com violates the patent, I have to ask: What service using toolbars on the Web doesn't?

    6,263,352: "Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications," granted July 17, 2001, describes a method for merchants to use hypertext links retrieved from "Active Server Pages." Say what? When did Salesforce.com become a merchant selling goods? What? Salesforce.com uses ASP.NET -- and not licensed with Windows Server? Gosh, and I thought the service was a Linux shop. :)

    6,122,558: "Aggregation of system settings into objects," granted Sept. 19, 2000, describes a method for adjusting settings in a "desktop environment." From the background of the invention section: "The Microsoft Windows, version 3.1, operating system, sold by Microsoft Corporation of Redmond, Wash., provides a control panel that allows a user to adjust various system settings, such as the color settings for the graphical user interface." Someone explain how a patent applied to the Windows control panel applies to cloud service Salesforce.com.

    6,542,164: "Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information," granted April 1, 2003, is yet another toolbar patent. This one applies to the interaction of a cursor and "graphical objects." It's hugely broad, even though the patent claims the "limitations of the prior art are overcome by the present invention." If Salesforce.com truly has violated this patent, the question should be: "Who else hasn't?" The interaction described is a fundamental in computing systems using cursors and graphical objects. Surely, some other companies' patents overlap this one.

    6,281,879: "Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information," granted Aug. 28, 2001, is nearly identical to 6,542,164. Same arguments against the other apply to this one. Inventors are the same. The inclusion of two near-identical patents by the same inventor so stinks of competition by litigation.

    5,845,077: "Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer," granted Dec. 1, 1998, describes a method for distributing software updates to computers over a connection, such as Internet Service Provider. The method describes how Microsoft might use Windows Update. Last I checked -- and it has been awhile -- Salesforce.com updates server software rather than pushing updates out to remote software. Am I wrong?

    5,941,947: "System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network," granted Aug. 24, 1999, describes the differentiating of access rights for "on-line services." From the background: "The present invention is directed generally to the problem of flexibly and efficiently controlling the access rights of a large number of users to a large number of objects or other data entities." Of the nine patents, this is the one most seemingly applicable to Salesforce.com. However, 5,941,947 specifically refers to the definition of "on-line services" contained in Microsoft patent 5,774,668. By my reading, the definition doesn't apply to cloud service Salesforce.com. Moreover, Microsoft did not include 5,774,668 in its lawsuit, which raises doubts about 5,941,947's applicability to Salesforce.com.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Salesforce.com - Intellectual property - Microsoft - Lawsuit - Patent infringement
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/18/iPad_isn_t_for_everyone__so_deal_with_it'

    iPad isn't for everyone, so deal with it

    Publié: mai 18, 2010, 10:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Thirty-two days ago, I purchased Apple's iPad, after proclaiming that I wouldn't. A gadget like this one should be tested if repeatedly blogged about. I would have used a for-reviews loaner, but I'm on the same fraked list as Gizmodo. I bought my own. A month-or-so usage later, I agree with Tumblr and Instapaper developer Marco Arment, who asked about iPad yesterday: "What's it for, really? Logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense for most computer owners...most people will have trouble justifying the $500 entry price."

    My problem is similar to Arment's: I like the iPad, but can't find a use for it. The tablet is too big to replace a cell phone and it's not functional enough to displace my laptop (singletasking is one of the major reasons for that). I would never buy the butt-ugly Amazon Kindle or slow-as-cold-molasses Barnes and Noble Nook, yet I find iPad to be a so-so satisfactory substitute e-book reader. I managed to reread Orson Scott Card's excellent Ender's Game and am trudging through sequel Speaker for the Dead. But it's reading for convenience, not joy.

    "A gadget just needs to be good at something that you need or want to do," Arment writes. Yeah exactly. He has found a few good-at-somethings, but I assert nothing that he couldn't do as well -- or better -- on a laptop. "It's the perfect living-room computer that lives on the coffee table and can be used to quickly look up a fact, find a restaurant, check mail, browse news, and play a game," he asserts. So is my smartphone, which doesn't cost $499 to $829.

    The personal computer succeeded in part because it is versatile, multi-use, all-purpose device. The PC does many things fairly well. Ubiquity is why the PC is ubiquitous. But as I predicted, Apple's tablet isn't really good enough to replace PC or smartphone. Arment writes:

    Accepting that the iPad isn't an all-purpose computing device is going to be a slow process for everyone, including Apple. They can't quite explain what it's for, either, which is why the launch marketing, software, and accessories are a bit scatterbrained. For instance, if you're using a hardware keyboard with the iPad very often, you'd probably be much better served by a MacBook Air.

    So what is iPad good for then? Arment and I agree on something else. Eleven days ago my post "Usability expert faults iPad user interface, calls it 'whacky'" dinged Apple's tablet. But in iPad's defense, I explained: "There also is UX, or user experience, which is as much emotive as it is functional...iPhone is more a joy to use [than Google Nexus One]. There's something about UI design and tactile, responsiveness of the screen that make me feel good. I can say the same about using iPad."

    Arment describes using iPad as "satisfying and delightful." I totally agree. It's the main reason I have resisted selling mine. Functionally, my iPad isn't good enough at anything to justifying keeping it. But emotionally, I'm hooked. I find parting with iPad to be difficult. Sitting down to use the tablet, I suddenly get girlie giggly. It's a happy experience. If you asked me why, I would say it has something to do with the the user interface's beauty and how it responds to my touch. But that kind of intellectual evaluation just doesn't nail down why.

    Yesterday, Nokia's Joe Gallo tweeted: "Can anyone explain to me why this video is funny http://bit.ly/hoXKj." Gallo referred to YouTube video "Charlie bit my finger -- again!," which has 191,352,797 views, as I write. I resisted laughing but couldn't stop on second viewing. "By that last tweet, I meant, I was cracking up and had no idea why!" Gallo later tweeted. In assessing my response to iPad, I have similar reaction. I can't put my finger on why (no pun intended) using iPad makes me happy.

    There are lots worse reasons for using a product than it makes you happy, and many product designers would kill to have that kind of customer problem. "Ah, our product gives you joy even though you can't fathom a use for it, and you're going to keep it even though you've got no use for it?"

    I'll use iPad for awhile longer to test the apps and to see whether this happy thing wears off. I've already had several good offers to buy the Apple tablet. But my answers have been nos. Functionally, iPad isn't for everyone, and it's probably not for most people. Too many features overlap the smartphone below and laptop above. Nevertheless, here's a question for potential buyers: How much joy can you get for $500 -- iPad's starting price? Stated another way, how much joy is worth spending $500?

    I giggle every time I turn the damn thing on. Who knows? Maybe someday I'll find a real use for iPad. For now, a little joy is reason enough.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/18/If_you_think_Facebook_privacy_is_so_bad__the_open_Web_is_worse'

    If you think Facebook privacy is so bad, the open Web is worse

    Publié: mai 18, 2010, 8:03am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It seems like anyone who wants to be anybody is whacking Facebook over its loose -- or rather loosening -- privacy policies. Earlier this month, with disregard to the grammer momma taught me, I asked: "Which is Eviler? Apple, Facebook or Google?" Even I whacked CEO Mark Zuckerberg aside the head about Facebook privacy.  As bad as pundits make out Facebook privacy to be, people can, and do, reveal plenty of information on the Web, too. Which place do they reveal more? I set out to find out in a non-scientific experiment, looking for publicly available information about one of my sisters.

    I got to rethinking Facebook privacy over the weekend, after reading New York Times post "World's Largest Social Network: The Open Web" by Randall Stross. "The links on the trillion Web addresses found by Google, and within the billions of Tweets that have followed, form an incomparably vast, truly worldwide, web of recommendations, supplied by fellow humans," Stross writes. "In this sense, the open Web has a strong claim to being more 'social' than does Facebook."

    I'll go further: Because of search engines' effectiveness and how many sites allow Bing-, Google- or rival-bot crawling, many people already expose lots of information -- and often without knowing. So I decided to compare Facebook to the Web. Just how much information is exposed?

    Information Exposed by the Web

    One of my sisters is a missionary in Central America. She is an experienced computer user -- actually works parttime for an IT support company -- keeps a blog and uses Facebook. My quest: Could I easily and quickly find as much information about her on the Web as she reveals on Facebook? I chose this sister because missionary work takes her out of the mainstream.

    I Googled her name, which pulled up as top hit: the results from a New York state bike race from the early 2000s -- and a walking race from a few years earlier later on the first page. Additional race information from other years suggested that she participates in an annual event. So there is one day of the year, where I know where she will be. I then searched for her name and missionary country, finding a blog revealing her full name, confirming her husband's name (from the earlier search) and providing additional personal information and photos, which helped to identify her and her husband as the searches continued. The initial search also led to a Facebook athletic group.

    Bing did better with her name, by pulling up as first hit a service called "My Life." Without registering for "My Life," I got her age, middle name and permanent US address. Another service, "ZoomInfo," revealed where she works (as corroborated by information revealed by other searches). Other race results confirmed the US address as being valid. But Bing fumbled her name and missionary country search, leading to no usable results in the first five pages.

    I circled back to my sister's blog, and clicked through links to three Christian ministries -- one of them in Central America. That missionary group page had a pastor's blog that included photos of my sister (matching the likeness on her blog) and identifying her role working for the ministry as recently as 2008. Another link revealed that she is affiliated with all three ministries, provided an e-mail address and exposed her telephone number, as contained in a recent newsletter.

    So, without ever using Facebook, and following the trail of search breadcrumbs, I got her full name, name of her husband, permanent US address, current location (but not physical address) in Central America, past (or possibly current) employer, names of three ministries she currently works with in Central America, e-mail address and phone number. I also identified several annual races she participates in, one which later in the search turned out to be affiliated with one of the ministries, and a Facebook group she belongs to. All of this took about 45 minutes using Bing and Google.

    Even More From Facebook

    What does my sister reveal on Facebook? OMG! Privacy? What is privacy? I set up a fake Facebook account (which should cancel out as I didn't verify the e-mail) and immediately searched for my sister. Since the fake account had no friends, I observed just how much personal information she  exposes. Available to any Facebook account holder is a treasure trove of personal information. "[Sister's name] only shares some of her profile information with everyone," according to her profile page. Some?

    Publicly available on her profile page: Name, two of her children's names, mother's name, sisters' names, her location in Central America, list of nearly 250 friends and Wall post galore. A fan page confirmes her place of parttime employment and the previously identified athletic group fan page. Wall posts reveal that she is attending a conference and where and identifies where her husband will be next month. So on and so on. My Facebook data mining took about 5 minutes. My sister has some control over what information is disclosed on Facebook. Most of the information I found in Web searches came from someone else. She really has no control over that at all.

    What Facebook didn't expose, the Web searches provided. My sister's Facebook profile picture is a childhood photo, but her blog and the pastor's blog have current pics. The missionary site disclosed my sister's e-mail address and phone number. My sister tends to be guarded about her personal data, or so she thinks. For someone less guarded, I should have easily gotten more personally identifiable information -- even from just a Web search. I presume that like many Facebook users, my sister extends privileges to friends of friends. I could have gotten even more information had I friended one of her friends (Oh I was tempted!).

    I'll have to ring my sister and explain that all her Wall posts are public. Perhaps because of something in my settings (I should check), I am not listed with my other siblings as being related to her. Then, again, maybe I'm disowned -- or will be after she reads this post. Perhaps my sister will forgive me, because I respected her privacy enough not to disclose her name. Perhaps. My public Facebook profile is pretty barebones right now, and nowhere do I see any public Wall posts that would reveal my sister's identity. Facebook friends probably could ferret out her name, though.

    [Update 12:07 pm: Someone tweeted about Profile Watch. I ran my suster's profile, which scored 8 out of 10. Uh-oh, meaning she doesn't reveal lots of information. Now how can that be? More surprising: Mine is a five. Facebook CEO Zuckerberg: 1.6.]

    So my question for you: Does Facebook reveal too much information? Hell, do Bing and Google? One way to answer: Conduct an exercise similar to mine and see how much information you can find out fast about a relative -- or even yourself -- through Web search and Facebook. Please answer the questions in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Facebook - Google - Mark Zuckerberg - Central America - New York
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/15/10_things_you_should_know_about_the_unsealed_Apple_Gizmodo_court_documents'

    10 things you should know about the unsealed Apple-Gizmodo court documents

    Publié: mai 15, 2010, 8:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Big news yesterday: A judge unsealed lots of juicy court documents related to Apple's lost smartphone, what Gizmodo calls the "next iPhone." Since seemingly every blog or news site on the planet covered the unsealing while I was out sick yesterday, I am writing a lighter, top-10 followup today.

    But first the news-heavy recap: An Apple employee lost the iPhone prototype in mid-March, while celebrating his birthday. The finder later sold the device to Gizmodo, reportedly for $5,000, although the unsealed court documents list the sum as $8,500 with promise of a possible bonus later on. Gizmodo published a series of stories, with photos and videos, starting on April 19. On April 23, San Mateo police officers raided the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen. Court documents refer to him as "suspect Chen."

    How did all this come to be? The court documents tell a pretty damning story. The backstory is damn interesting, too, like one of those reality cop shows. The day before the police raid on Chen's home, the iPhone finder, Brian Hogan -- whom some people would call thief -- removed evidence from his residence before police could sieze it. He was helped by a friend, who later gave up discarded memory cards after being arrested on two unrelated warrants. What drama! I can't help but wonder how that episode affected cops' decision to raid Chen's home the following day.

    With that introduction, here are the 10 things you should know about the unsealed Apple-Gizmodo court docs presented in no particular order of importance:

    1. Among the 22 items seized by police: A box of business cards. Whoa! There it is! The evidence that breaks the case wide open!

    2. Cops were supposed to sieze items "used as a means of committing a felony." Oh, yeah, that surely describes suspect Chen's business cards.

    3. Among the list of items to be seized: Memory cards. Eh, not business cards. Surely Chen would have given Apple one of his business cards had a PR rep asked.

    4. The list of items for establishing suspect Chen's identity would make Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg blush. Appendix B, "Description of items to be seized," identifies more than a dozen highly-private items, including utility bills, "driver's licenses, credit cards, passports, social security cards and photographs," but not business cards.

    5. Speaking of privacy, the unsealed court documents reveal Chen's full name, California driver's license number, cell phone number, address of residence, date of birth, height and weight. Facebook only reveals some of this information. We now know that Chen's astrological sign is Aquarius. Shocking!

    6. "Suspect Hogan" needs a new roommate. Hogan's rommie, Katherine Martinson, turned him into Apple security and later provided damning evidence to police. However, she did wait until after he sold the device to Gizmodo and for its publication of photos, videos and prototype description. Eighty-five hundred bucks. Rent money?

    7. Hogan lacks common sense. One of Gizmodo's stories claims that Hogan repeatedly called Apple, but got no response to his attempts to return the lost iPhone. Is Hogan lying, or perhaps he didn't try hard enough? Martinson easily contacted Apple on April 19, speaking to Rick Orloff, director of information security. The unsealed documents also reveal that Hogan obtained Powell's information from the iPhone prototype. What? Hogan didn't have another phone to call Powell with? Surely Hogan could have Facebook friended Powell and then private messaged about the lost phone. Hogan contacted Chen without using a business card. A Facebook profile is even better, thanks to Zuckerberg loosening up everyone's private information. Say, why didn't cops seize Chen's Facebook account?

    8. Apple really needs to work on its customer service. Chen is -- or perhaps was -- a good Apple customer. Cops seized three Mac laptops, Apple wireless base station, 32GB iPod (presumably touch) and 16GB iPhone when executing the search warrant. Since Apple gives reviewers 32GB iPhones, Chen presumably purchased the smartphone -- and other items, too.

    9. Gizmodo editor Brian Lam appears to be immune to Steve Jobs' "reality distortion field." According to the unsealed documents, Apple's CEO  personally called Lam, asking that Gizmodo return the iPhone prototype. Lam refused, demanding that Apple first document ownership. What? A call from Jobs isn't verification enough?

    10. Lam needs lessons in "ethics" and "good judgment" and perhaps a pink slip. His e-mail response to Jobs' begins "Hey, Steve" -- like they're the best of buddies. "This e-mail chain [that] is off the record on my side" is now very public. Lam claims that Gizmodo has got "nothing to lose" because "Apple PR has been cold to us lately." Huh? Lam thinks the "next iPhone" stories will warm up Apple-Gizmodo relations? Or that he can threaten the great Mac cult leader Jobs?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Steve Jobs - iPhone - Apple - Jason Chen - Facebook
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/14/Creative_Suite_5_Student_and_Teacher_Edition_licensing_key_scheme_deserves_a_failing_grade'

    Creative Suite 5 Student and Teacher Edition licensing-key scheme deserves a failing grade

    Publié: mai 14, 2010, 3:54am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, I received Amazon e-mail about a one-day sale on Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 -- hey, just $54.99 before a $20 mail-in rebate. What's not to like about that? The landing page listed something else: "Adobe Photoshop Extended CS5 Student and Teacher Edition," which releases on May 25. Whoa, could this be like Microsoft Office Home and Student Edition, with multiple licenses and availability to anyone with enough gumption to claim they're a student of life? Hardly. Adobe's license-key terms are so onerous, I predict there will be higher-than-normal attempted returns of this edition.

    But first a history lesson: Microsoft pulled something of a retail coup in autumn 2001 with the $149 Office XP edition for students and teachers. The edition let Microsoft drop the price for consumers without risking business version revenues. What success! As I wrote for CNET News.com in August 2001: "Retailers have sold 300,000 copies of the academic version of Office XP since October, taking in about $43 million in revenue, according to NPDTechworld. By comparison, the full standard version has racked up 121,000 retail sales and the standard upgrade version has sold 100,000 since Office XP's release in May 2001." Something else: Microsoft didn't card buyers at the door so to speak. No one checked (wink, wink) that buyers were students (wink, wink).

    Microsoft later formally named the product Office XP Student and Teacher Edition, with three licenses, all for $149. Microsoft renamed the product Home and Student Edition with release of v2007, swapping out Outlook for OneNote. The name change formalized what already had been occurring: Consumers of many types buying the software. Office Home and Student accounts for about 85 percent of the productivity suite's retail sales, according to NPD.

    Now Adobe has a Student and Teacher package, for CS5, and available through major retailers. Adobe had previously offered a Student Edition, but Student and Teacher is new with Creative Suite 5. Adobe is extending the price discounts to teachers and faculty as well as students, which is commendable. Discounts are big. Photoshop Extended CS5 Student and Teacher Edition is $199 vs $999 for the regular version. The two products are identical, except for licensing, and that includes commercial use. That's right. Adobe's Student and Teacher licensing allows for commercial use. While Amazon only offers the CS5 version -- for now, anyway -- Adobe will offer Student and Teacher editions across the suite versions.

    But there is a nasty catch. Student and Teacher Edition buyers do not receive a license key at time of purchase but afterwards. They must provide identification (usually a school or faculty ID) that shows they in fact qualify for the product. According to Adobe's FAQ:

    Proof of eligibility must be submitted to Adobe after purchase in order to receive a serial number and use your Adobe Student and Teacher Edition software...You will have to provide an electronic copy of your proof of eligibility via Web upload using the Web address provided in your Student and Teacher Edition package...You may use a digital camera or scanner to create a copy of your proof of eligibility. Make sure that all documents are legible and true to size. Acceptable formats include JPEG, GIF, BMP, TIFF, and PDF. The file must be no larger than 3MB...It may take up to three business days to receive confirmation of your proof of eligibility and your serial number from Adobe.

    Meanwhile, the purchaser must use the product on a 30-day trial basis. No offense to Adobe, but that process makes Microsoft product activation seem pretty benign. Submit an image of a student or faculty ID to get a license key in three days? Stranger -- what next? A new market for fake IDs for CS5 Student and Teacher license verification? Pay $200 for the software, another $20 for a fake ID and that's a savings of 780 bucks; Extended is by no means the most expense CS5 version; there's more savings to be had.

    What happens to people who submit identification and are rejected as qualified or fail to read that they must qualify? Big trouble. Most retailers won't accept returns of opened software. The policy is "You open it, you own it." For example, "opened computer software" is on Best Buy's "non-returnable" list. Uh-oh.

    Will some consumers make that mistake? Of course, and Microsoft is one reason. Microsoft sold Office Student and Teacher for about six years before switching to the not-so-discernibly-different Home and Student nomenclature. Microsoft's success selling both editions has set consumer expectations. Microsoft gives buyers not one but three license keys. Microsoft doesn't check student or faculty IDs. True, upgrades aren't available for the Office student version, which isn't licensed for commercial use, either. But confusion is confusion, regardless of the reason. Adobe also used a verification scheme for earlier Creative Suite Student editions. The new approach greatly opens up the number of potential customers while using familiar Student and Teacher naming. Many buyers will get caught by Adobe's unexpected verification process.

    Adobe should be commended for making discounted student Creative Suite versions available to more people in academia. Features identical to regular CS5 versions and the generous commercial use terms are commendable, too. But Adobe's scheme of providing license keys after purchase, once buyers submit verifying credentials, is cause for confusion and customer dissatisfaction.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Microsoft Office - Microsoft OneNote - Teacher Edition - Adobe Creative Suite
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/13/Adobe_to_Steve_Jobs___We_love_you_'

    Adobe to Steve Jobs: 'We love you'

    Publié: mai 13, 2010, 7:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yeah, but will Apple's CEO love Adobe back?

    The Adobe-Apple breakup has taken on strange tabloid-like qualities over the last 30 days or so. Quick someone call in the paparazzi, but first ask if they'll be editing those photos in Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Lightroom or Apple Aperture. Today, Adobe cofounders Chuck Geschke and John Warnock responded to Jobs' Aptil 29 "Thoughts on Flash" memo with their own: "Our thoughts on open markets." Adobe is supporting the memo with a marketing campaign -- "We love Apple" ads and "Freedom of Choice" Website." Adobe's response is measured and embracing, subtly placing the blame for the breakup on Apple. In the court of public and developer opinion -- perhaps shareholders in both companies -- Adobe may prove the venerable of the two parties here.

    I simply can't wait to finish this post and read what Macheads have to say about Adobe's response. Do they side with their cult leader, or one of the two largest, third-party Macintosh developers (Microsoft being the other one)? The old faithfuls shouldn't forget that Adobe products gave Macintosh its market footing in the 1980s and `90s and helped keep Apple going through the hard-luck `90s. Remember that Adobe released PostScript for Macintosh at Jobs' request. The first Apple laser printer supporting the technology released in 1985. So, Macheads, choose wisely your alliances.

    Adobe borrows from "Get the Facts"

    Adobe's Apple response has precedent. There is much about Freedom of Choice that reminds of Microsoft's "Get the Facts" campaign and Website against Linux. Adobe informational page "The Truth about Flash" is so reminiscent of Get the Facts. The campaign proved highly effective for Microsoft, as I expect Freedom of Choice will be for Adobe. Apple may be a growing tech superpower but Adobe's nuclear arsenal is, for now, bigger. Jobs may have launched a first strike, but Adobe's counterstrike is more impressive.

    Adobe may be a dwindling superpower, but one still with huge presence. PDF is the defacto standard for government documents worldwide, and a special archival version is used by the US Library of Congress. The presumption: PDF is so ubiquitous for digital documents, it will still be around in a century for preservation of archival documents. Photoshop is so widely used it's a verb, akin to Xeroxing rather than copying a document. Then there is the hotly disputed Flash, which PC install base is nearly 100 percent, according to the third-party data Adobe presents on The Truth about Flash.

    By the way, the one page shreds most of Job's arguments against Flash. For example, he asserted:

    lash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on "rollovers", which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple's revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn't use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript? Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

    Adobe's response:

    Flash was actually originally created as a technology for tablets with touch interfaces. And today, Flash has full support for working on touch-based devices. For existing Flash content developed with mouse input in mind, Flash Player will automatically convert the touch events into mouse events. This allows Flash content designed for the desktop, to work seamlessly on touch-based devices. For new Flash content developed specifically with touch in mind, Flash Player 10.1 provides a complete set of multitouch and gesture APIs.

    What is Open?

    The larger, more important question is that of openness. Jobs argues that Flash fosters a closed Web -- that Apple's approach is more open. Geschke and Warnock reverse the accusation:

    We believe that Apple, by taking the opposite approach, has taken a step that could undermine this next chapter of the Web -- the chapter in which mobile devices outnumber computers, any individual can be a publisher, and content is accessed anywhere and at any time. In the end, we believe the question is really this: Who controls the World Wide Web? And we believe the answer is: nobody -- and everybody, but certainly not a single company.

    Geschke and Warnock present a very accurate assessment of the past (Adobe's approach to openness) and identify the challenge/opportunity for the future (anytime, anywhere computing on anything). What is open? There is much confusion about this. There are adopted standards, which can be open standards, and then there is open source. Adopted standards tend to emerge from proprietary standards for which the developer opens up the code by publishing APIs or other information. Open source applies more to licensing, where the developer lets go of the technology by way of, say, the GPL; third parties can adapt the technology pretty much any way as long as they publish the new code under the same license.

    Adobe has a long history of opening up key technologies, starting with PDF and PostScript. Geschke and Warnock explain:

    We openly published the specifications for both, thus inviting both use and competition. In the early days, PostScript attracted 72 clone makers, but we held onto our market leadership by out-innovating the pack. More recently, we've done the same thing with Adobe Flash technology. We publish the specifications for Flash -- meaning anyone can make their own Flash player. Yet, Adobe Flash technology remains the market leader because of the constant creativity and technical innovation of our employees.

    Jobs whacked Flash and touted openness with words. Adobe's cofounders fall back on actions: Adobe's competitive risk publishing PDF and PostScript specifications. Adobe sought to establish their proprietary technologies as adopted standards, while still trying to innovate around them. PDF officially became an open standard in summer 2008, after being approved by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO 32000-1:2008.

    Then there is future of computing. Morgan Stanley predicts that the number of mobile Internet users will exceed the number of desktop Internet users by 2015. Mobile devices and the cloud share common appeal: Access to your information anytime, anywhere and on anything. But that promise can't be easily fulfilled, if at all, should one company come to control the mobile device-to-cloud applications stack. Adobe's development strategy is fundamentally cross-platform -- that is horizontal. Whereas, Apple's approach is vertical, a single stack controlled end-to-end by a single company.

    Yes, Apple supports adopted and open standards, but, based on Jobs' memo, where his more-closed applications stack most benefits. Flash has plenty of faults, but developers can create what they want, where they want pretty much without restraint. End users can consume the content anytime, anywhere or on anything -- well, as long as it's not an iPhone OS device. Apple's openness favors just three devices -- iPad, iPhone and iPod -- and the company exerts editorial over which applications can be published there. What's open about that?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/11/Usability_expert_faults_iPad_user_interface__calls_it__whacky_'

    Usability expert faults iPad user interface, calls it "whacky"

    Publié: mai 11, 2010, 5:48pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I have lots of gripes about the iPad user experience. Apple describes the iPad as "magical." I find it "frustrating." Usability expert Jakob Nielsen explains why, indirectly answering the question I asked last month: "Is iPad just a proof of concept?" In a post with two dates -- April 26 and, today, May 10 (from the homepage) -- he explains in summary: "iPad apps are inconsistent and have low feature discoverability, with frequent user errors due to accidental gestures. An overly strong print metaphor and weird interaction styles cause further usability problems."

    Haha, with all the fuss about Apple being too strict about approving applications, maybe with iPad more strictness is needed to ensure usability. Or perhaps the problems are less the apps but fundamental weaknesses to Apple's iPad UI approach, some of which may be there for business reasons. Apple CEO has pitched iPad as the savior of print media, and big publishers have signed on for the ride. However, in Nielsen's UI studies, the out-dated print motif approach is one of iPad's biggest usability shortcomings.

    Nielsen emphasizes that the findings are "preliminary." For time's sake, I'm referring to his blog post on top-line data. However, a 93-page report is available.

    Nielsen's findings mirror my own experience using iPad. The good: I really like the increased use of fingers, because the most natural user is you -- or me. The UI is most compelling when there are two-finger, or two-hand interactions. Web browsing is exceptionally easy and more enjoyable on iPad than any device I've used. I can't imagine why anyone would use the New York Times or Wall Street Journal apps when the Websites are so much more consumable on iPad; it's about the fingers. What makes the Web so good resonates with what makes the apps so bad, from a usability perpective; more on that topic in a few paragraphs.

    The bad: In my experience, the iPad UI -- and its supporting apps -- mix motifs and gestures, leading to lots of finger booboos. I accidentally tap this when I mean to tap that. News Websites are chock full of hot links that lead to accidental clicks when scrolling. After being so accustomed to the Web, the iPad motif is jarring. Navigating backwards, for example, is different from the browser-UI approach and inconsistent among apps. Features aren't always obvious and iPad's one-task-at-a-time orientation is frustrating.

    Because of my experience, Nielsen's findings ring true. Some of them:

    • "The iPad has a read--tap asymmetry, where text big enough to be read is too small to touch."
    • "Most Web pages offer a rich and overstuffed experience compared to the iPad's sparse and regulated environment; when an iPad app suddenly launches users onto the Web, the transition can be jarring."
    • "Swiping for the next article is derived from a strong print metaphor in many content apps. In fact, this metaphor is so strong that you can't even tap a headline on the 'cover' page to jump to the corresponding article."
    • The iPad offers no homepages, even though users strongly desired homepage-like features in our testing...In electronic media, the linear concept of 'next article' makes little sense. People would rather choose for themselves where to go, selecting from a menu of related offerings."
    • "The current design strategy of iPad apps definitely aims to create more immersive experiences, in the hope of inspiring deeper attachments to individual information sources. This cuts against the lesson of the Web, where diversity is strength and no site can hope to capture users' sole attention."
    • "A strategic issue for iPad user experience design is whether to emphasize user empowerment or author authority. Early designs err on the side of being too restrictive. Using the Web has given people an appreciation for freedom and control, and they're unlikely to happily revert to a linear experience."
    • "Once they do figure out how something works, users can't transfer their skills from one app to the next. Each application has a completely different UI for similar features."
    • "The first crop of iPad user apps revived memories of Web designs from 1993, when Mosaic first introduced the image map that made it possible for any part of any picture to become a UI element. It's the same with iPad apps: anything you can show and touch can be a UI on this device. There are no standards and no expectations."

    The latter finding is most significant from a usability perspective. Among my six principles of good product design: "Build on the familiar." Good design builds on something familiar to end users. For many of iPad's media content apps -- and that includes Apple's iBooks -- the familiar motif is the print metaphor. However, based on Nielsen's findings, which jive with my own experience, the Web browser is the more familiar -- and also more liberating -- motif. Apple presents a UI that could be liberating because of the intimate finger-touch approach only to chain users to the outdated, and increasingly archaic, print metaphor.

    UI inconsistencies lead to other problems, such as confusion about when and where to swipe; features that are difficult to discover; swiping and other finger motions that are difficult to remember and "accidental activation" of functions or features.

    Something else: Nielsen asserts that Apple defies long-standing design conventions about differentiating buttons and other functional features from content -- all so the UI can be prettier. "The penalty for this beauty is the re-emergence of a usability problem we haven't seen since the mid-1990s: Users don't know where they can click," he asserts.

    In Apple's defense, there's more to usability than the UI. There also is UX, or user experience, which is as much emotive as it is functional. From a broader usability perspective, such as multitasking, I have major gripes about the iPhone UI. There are simply too many limitations compared to, say, the Google Nexus One. But iPhone is more a joy to use. There's something about UI design and tactile, responsiveness of the screen that make me feel good. I can say the same about using iPad. Despite UI shortcomings, iPad is pleasing to use. In my experience, people are more forgiving of shortcomings when they feel good when using the product.

    Nielsen agrees, but cautions:

    The first impression of many iPad apps is 'beautiful.' The change to a more soothing user experience is certainly welcome, especially for a device that may turn out to be more of a leisure computer than a business computer. Still, beauty shouldn't come at the cost of being able to actually use the apps to derive real benefits from their features and content.

    Clearly, Apple has much work to do refining the iPad user interface and applying more consistent UI elements to the applications. Strangely, this is less a problem on iPhone/iPod touch, and I believe because of the constrained screen. There isn't space for much deviance. Nielsen asserts that iPad has a "wacky style." Yeah, but is that "magical and revolutionary," as iPad marketing asserts?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/10/Like_I_said__iPhone_can_t_win_the_smartphone_wars'

    Like I said, iPhone can't win the smartphone wars

    Publié: mai 10, 2010, 10:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Normally, I hate to say "I told yo so." But Macheads whacked me so hard for last October's "iPhone can't win the smartphone wars," I simply can't resist gloating. According to NPD, during the first three months of 2010, as measured by smartphone operating system unit shipments, Android outsold iPhone -- 28 percent to 21 percent market share. BlackBerry OS had 36 percent share. The data is for the United States only.

    Android has gotten a big US boost over the last seven months or so. Late 2009, Verizon launched the Droid, putting up $100 million in marketing. Apple isn't the only company that knows how to successfully sell gadgets. Some of that Verizon marketing attacked AT&T network reliability -- and quite effectively. Meanwhile, Android handset distribution increased from one to all four major carriers, while iPhone is confined to AT&T.

    Those are short-term reasons. Long term, Android is following a well-charted historical path. I wrote in October: "I'm going to make a bold prediction: Apple's iPhone will lose the mobile device wars...Put another way: iPhone is to Android -- and somewhat Symbian OS -- handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. The Mac's rocky start in 1984-85 gave way to great success because of several killer applications, with desktop publishing being among the most important. But by the mid 1990s, Windows PCs pushed down Mac market share."

    Some big pundits don't agree with this reasoning. On April 26, Mark Sigal posted at O'Reilly Radar: "Five reasons why iPhone vs Android isn't Mac vs Windows." I simply couldn't disagree more, with his five reasons and overall contention everything is different now. It's all so eerily familiar and moving in an eerily familiar direction: Apple vs everyone else.

    Sigal is a successful venture capitalist, and people aren't successful in that business without sussing out macro trends or choosing the right companies to invest with. But, hey, we all make mistakes. In this case it's either him or me, since I'm taking the opposing viewpoint. I won't critique his five reasons but offer five others matching his but supporting the "It's Mac vs WIndows again" perspective.

    1. Android's platform has broader appeal. Like the Macintosh, Apple controls the basic iPhone hardware and software platform end to end. There is but one iPhone manufacturer: Apple. Anyone can license Android, for free, and the list of manufacturers, carriers and handsets grows by the day.

    The smartphone and other connected devices are destined to replace the PC, by 2015, according to Morgan Stanley. Everyone wants a piece of the market. Late last year, IDC predicted that in 2010 major PC manufacturers would begin selling smartphones. Dell moved into the market and now HP is joining in by acquiring Palm.

    Apple's early iPhone platform success -- pushed on by App Store -- and mobile's increasingly important role has created an Apple vs everyone else scenario that is oh-so reminiscent of the 1980s and 1990s. It's also a free-for-all market, where aggressive and smart-executing companies can compete to be the next Microsoft, which has the PC locked down from any real competition.

    Successful platforms share five common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily making good applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    Only Apple sells iPhone, where mobile developers must follow strict guidelines. Even then, Apple rejects some applications, despite developers' financial investment and resources commitment to iPhone OS. Last month here at Betanews, Scott Fulton smartly asked: "Is news subject to Apple's developer agreement?" By comparison, Android is open source, freely licensable and developers aren't forced to undergo a rigorous app submission approval process.

    2. iPhone is a luxury product. Apple reaps some of the highest margins in the tech industry by keeping prices high. Third-parties capitalize on this caché. For example, Mac and iPhone accessories often are pricier than comparable products for Windows PCs or other handsets (I dare you to compare). Sure iPhone 3GS sells for $199 or $299 in the United States, but there is the two-year commitment, data fees, accessories and applications -- for the apps more of which are free at Android Marketplace than Apple's App Store.

    Most Android handsets typically sell for $99 to $199, by comparison. Among, BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- markets, iPhone can cost as much as $1,000 locked to one carrier. In India, for example, that's not how the majority of handsets are sold. Premium pricing was one of the factors dooming the Macintosh during the personal computing wars of the 1980s and 1990s.

    3. Developers go where the money is. Among technology platforms, the Windows PC is classic example of a robust and vital ecosystem. The Google informational/search platform is another. Around either platform, there is a discernible ecosystem of third parties -- not just software developers -- making lots of money. The two ecosystems are broad and deep. By comparison, Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform is narrower and shallower, despite the depth of applications, because the ecosystem depends on a closed, end-to-end technology platform. Apple controls everything.

    4. Location, location, location. Apple dismisses the importance of search on mobile devices, which is without question near the top of utilities. During last month's iPhone OS 4 launch, Apple CEO Steve Jobs asserted: "Search is not happening on phones." He is absolutely wrong, as data from ComScore, NPD and other analyst firms show. The killer mobile app everyone needs is search.

    The mobile Web is very much about finding stuff -- and close to you; based on location. Apple has relied on third parties and mobile apps, while Google provides some of the best tools, like voice search, built into newer Android versions, all leveraged from cloud services. There is a clash of worldviews: Apple is betting the mobile Web will be applications-centric, while Google pushes the cloud. One approach sees applications pushing out to the cloud, while the other sees cloud services pushing back to the mobile operating system and applications.

    Search and supporting services combined is Google's glue, and it's a more necessary utility than the hundreds of thousand App Store applications. I search for stuff from my phone all the time. Don't you?

    5. Apple strives to be better, but for most people good enough is good enough. Microsoft won the personal computing wars for many reasons, some stated above. But another is simpler and often overlooked: Good enough is good enough. Microsoft didn't produce the best products but those that were good enough for most consumer or business needs and, during the 1990s, delivered to market fairly quickly. The old axiom that Microsoft gets it right on the third try, meaning version 3, is a by-product of this rush to market before something might really be ready. By comparison, Google is improving and releasing newer Android versions than Apple is with iPhone. The only real risk to Google's iteration is Android version fragmentation.

    Droid isn't iPhone, but it doesn't have to be. It's a capable smartphone with something iPhone lacks: Physical keyboard. Sure Android 2.x user interface isn't as polished as iPhone OS and there are about four times as many applications for iPhone as Android. But the Android UI is pretty good and nearly 50,000 mobile apps are good enough.

    If a good enough product is cheap enough, available widely enough and supported enough by third parties, it generally succeeds. Buried in the tech marketplace graveyard are many better products ruined by something good enough. Betamax and Netscape Communicator are among the casualties.

    Apple revolutionized the cell phone, as it did the personal computer in the 1980s. But in the technology market, the spoils of war often go to the imitators not the innovators. The good enough principle is one major reason.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/10/Microsoft_pays_for_enthusiasts_Apple_gets_for_free'

    Microsoft pays for enthusiasts Apple gets for free

    Publié: mai 10, 2010, 6:04pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft is hawking partner wares through Windows Team Blog posts. My inclination is to praise -- and I will -- but I can't resist a little a little jab, too. A decade ago there were just a handful of Apple blogs or fan sites, like MacCentral and ThinkSecret, now there are bazillions covering every scrap of Apple news or rumor. Where are the Microsoft enthusiasts? Must they be employee bloggers selling new Windows PCs?

    This morning, not one, but two, Windows Team Blog posts caught my attention -- it's more when counting duplicates, but let's not go there (both posted yesterday). The first: "From Us With Love" by Ashley Brown and "Hands on with today's offer PC -- the Sony VAIO E Series" by Ben Randolph. Brown writes about three deals and Randolph what you can do with one of them. The emphasis in both is the same: "Our offers." Randolph's post reads like the kind of first-hand, enthusiast account that might pop up on an independent blog or in a comment or forum. The posts are part of a series highlighting Microsoft partner products. None of this is super new; I finally decided to blog it today.

    On the one hand, I commend Microsoft for using company blogs as marketing tools and for doing some aggressive evangelism around Windows 7 products. Microsoft critics are quick to wave the monopoly flag -- arguing that Windows sales are automatic. Oh yeah? Then explain the Windows Vista fiasco in terms of monopoly might. The majority of Windows XP users stayed put. Now their PCs creak at the bones and it's time for some fresh Windows 7 blood. Given the large number of Windows XP users who should be easy Windows 7 upgrades -- at least according to the monopoly might theory -- Microsoft should be able to sit back and collect the license fees. Instead, Microsoft is marketing the hell out of Windows 7, which is evidence enough that monopoly has more limited benefits than critics admit.

    Microsoft is Right to Crank Up the Volume

    Good reasons for Microsoft to crank up evangelism and marketing:

    1. Most products don't sell themselves. Companies advertise for a reason. People can forget a brand, particularly one like Windows that takes on the utility of a toaster or oven. How often do you replace your oven? Or your car? Marketing keeps the fire burning -- and so consumer awareness -- under the Windows brand.

    2. Many consumers and IT managers feel that what they've got is good enough. The old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" axiom comes to play. Monopoly is all the more reason to promote a new product, particularly when the market is saturated with earlier versions that compete with the newest one. In the personal computing market, next to software pirates, Microsoft's biggest competitor is Microsoft, not Apple.

    3. Microsoft faces fierce competition from companies betting on computing relevance shifting from PC applications and software to mobile device applications and the cloud. For starters, the three monopolies I identified last week: Apple, Facebook and Google. Windows anchors Microsoft's PC operating system-productivity suite-server software applications stack.

    4. Partners need and deserve help. There are simply too many Windows products out there for consumers or IT managers to choose from. Microsoft is right to support partners like Dell, HP or Sony through Windows 7 marketing and evangelism. Highlighting good deals -- "our offers" -- is good start. By the way, I'm a huge fan of Microsoft finally playing favorites. For years, the company seemingly treated all partners the same. But they're not. Some make better products or offer better deals.

    5. Enthusiasts are the best evangelists. Microsoft should engage Windows enthusiasts. However, there is too much enthusiasm coming from Microsoft and not enough effort nurturing organic enthusiasm.

    There's No Apple Team Blog

    On the other hand, Apple doesn't pay anyone for this kind of evangelism. There's no Apple Team Blog or other dedicated to iPad, iPhone or Macintosh. Apple spends hundreds of millions on advertising, as does Microsoft, but doesn't aggressively evangelize enthusiasts. (Before any Macheads comment, I'll acknowledge that while working for Apple, Guy Kawasaki practically pioneered product evangelism for Macintosh. His Machead death squads targeted journalists who wrote one negative word about Apple. Ah, that's not the kind of evangelism or customer enthusiasm I'm referring to here.)

    There are plenty of Apple enthusiasts out there, and the number of Apple product or rumor posts is simply mind-boggling. Then there are the bazillion comments or other reactions to the large number of Apple product or rumor posts. Apple's brand is hot right now. A decade and two ago, Microsoft commanded the news and newsgroup buzz, and the company offered plenty of incentives to Windows user groups, like free software. Microsoft had great enthusiast outreach. Apple has little to none.

    Apple has a strange way of rewarding loyal enthusiasts. Too much enthusiasm can lead to lawyers demanding that such-such photo or blog post be taken off the Web now, or to cops breaking down the door and confiscating computers and gadgets. Then there are Apple's rewards for loyal developers, who must agree to strict terms (like, no Adobe Flash, baby) and can never be sure their hot new application won't be rejected by App Store.

    At least Microsoft lets employees blog about its products and encourages social sharing and commentary, which are today's best tools for engaging enthusiasts. Apple does not. Last month's "Thoughts on Flash," penned  by CEO Steve Jobs, appeared on an Apple PR Website. No comments allowed. Apple's YouTube channel promotes iPad, but commenting is turned off. Apple's messaging and outreach is one-directional. The company restricts any public dialog on its sites to support forums. By the way, Kawasaki's Apple evangelism was one way, too, seeking to build a core of enthusiasts promoting the Apple Way by, in part, harassing any journalist who got in the way. His success is as much credit to users' passions for Apple products.

    But that was decades ago. Today, Microsoft engages enthusiasts from its Websites and by using social networking and sharing tools. The approach is good, but larger Microsoft brand and product problems hamper the work. Enthusiasts are any company's best evangelists. Microsoft's number has dwindled over the years, while Apple's numbers increased -- at least as measured by the volume hype. Noise about Apple is so much louder than for Microsoft.

    Who are you? Are you a Microsoft enthusiast? It's OK, confess. Are you perhaps an Apple enthusiast? Or maybe your digital lifestyle aligns with another company or product. Please answer in comments and explain why you're an enthusiast, or not.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Microsoft - Apple - Google - Steve Jobs - Windows 7
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/07/Apple_smartphone_shipments_grow_132%__Motorola_rebounds'

    Apple smartphone shipments grow 132%, Motorola rebounds

    Publié: mai 7, 2010, 4:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Worldwide in first quarter, smartphone manufacturers shipped 54.7 million units, growing 56.7 percent year over year, according to IDC. Apple surged strongest -- 131.6 percent. While seemingly good, Apple needs to look back at approaching HTC and Motorola. Motorola is making a big comeback, and by way of smartphones; shipments grew 91.7 percent year over year. Motorola is betting big on iPhone OS rival Android. IDC noted that Motorola is expected to launch 20 new handset models during 2010, shipping an estimated 12-14 million Android smartphones.

    About 27 percent of Motorola's total handset shipments were smartphones, which was higher than the market average of 18.8 percent, up from 14.4 percent a year earlier. Apple ships 100 percent smartphones.

    After several quarters declines, Nokia pushed back. Market share was 39.3 percent, same as first quarter 2009. However, Nokia unit shipments surged from 13.7 million to 21.5 million. Apple and Nokia are both expected to launch new flagship smartphones within months. Nokia already has confirmed the N8 for third quarter release. Apple will hold its annual developer conference in about a month. Analysts are speculating that Apple will either announce or make available the next iPhone during the event.

    In a statement Ramon Llamas, IDC senior research analyst, asserted:

    2010 looks to be another year of large-scale consumer adoption of converged mobile devices. Consumers will gravitate to smartphones not just because the devices themselves look 'cool' and 'slick', but because the overall experience aligns with their individual tastes and demands. Users are seeking -- and finding -- experiences that are intuitive, seamless, and fun. Already, we've seen what Palm's webOS and Google's Android can do. This year, we expect updates for BlackBerry, Symbian, and Windows Mobile to spark greater smartphone demand with their offerings.

    What Llamas didn't explain, but I will, is the importance of lifestyle. The personal nature of smartphones -- viewed either by form or use -- make them ideally suited to lifestyle marketing. Most successful brands, regardless of industry, sell some type of lifestyle. Apple already has established a mobile, connected, app-centric lifestyle around iPhone. Motorola is moving in the right direction with the MotoBlur skin, as one lifestyle anchor. However, Motorola's overall marketing is weak compared to rivals, and that's without a broader lifestyle approach. Motorola's biggest marketing boost comes from Verizon, which spent $100 million marketing the Droid.

    Q110 Smartphone Shipments

    However, HTC and Motorola, which are both betting big on Android, have a tougher lifestyle sell because they don't own the entire hardware-software-services stack like Apple, Nokia or Research in Motion. That said, BlackBerry is looking outdated compared to the competition. RIM has to hustle getting OS 6.0 to market. Meanwhile, Nokia already is pushing a new socially connected lifestyle around the N8 ahead of its release. Smartphone lifestyle marketing could be fierce during third and fourth quarters.

    For second-quarter shipments, Microsoft will make its first smartphone device showing with KIN, which went on sale yesterday. Verizon is the exclusive US distributor. Then there is HP's acquisition of Palm, which could bring WebOS to more smartphones this year.

    The broader handset market showed slower, but still impressive growth, compared to smartphones: 21.7 percent year over year. Manufacturers shipped 294.9 million units, compared to 242.4 million a year earlier. However, these seemingly strong shipments are deceptive. During fourth quarter 2008 and first quarter 2009, handset manufacturers shipped fewer phones. Following the September 2009 stock market crash, cell phone sales slowed, and most manufacturers reduced shipments to avoid overstocking the stores. Shipments rebounded in both Q2 and Q3 2009, making coming comparisons to those quarters more revealing about the health of handset shipments.

    IDC reports sales into the channel, while rival Gartner reports sales to end users. Combined, the data can give a better view of shipments to carriers, standing inventory and end-user sales. Gartner has not yet released Q1 2001 smartphone sales figures.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    Apple - Nokia - Smartphone - Motorola - Research In Motion
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/06/Which_is_eviler__Apple__Facebook_or_Google_'

    Which is eviler? Apple, Facebook or Google?

    Publié: mai 6, 2010, 7:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Three monopolies. All vying to be the next Microsoft. Will one of them succeed, and will it cost you dearly?

    Today, I officially announce the end of the Wintel hegemony. Like IBM before it -- heck, even the Roman Empire starting about 19 centuries ago -- Wintel will continue to dominate huge swaths of the technology industry, while rapidly declining in relevance. Perhaps duopolies Microsoft and Intel will make a last rally, maybe by changing leadership, and hold out longer against the advancing mobile-to-cloud hordes. Rome's decline was long, so could be Wintel's.

    But decline is inevitable because both companies are so entrenched in their commingled personal computing monopolies. The PC is giving way to the mobile device connected to the cloud. Morgan Stanley predicts that the number of mobile Internet users, 1.6 billion, will exceed desktop Internet users by 2015. This week, Apple announced shipment of 1 million iPads, in a category I asserted shouldn't succeed. Apple's App Store has more than 200,000 mobile applications. Change is coming, and faster than most people think.

    Intel is trying to move downmarket, with this week's Atom Z6xx family of processors, which are designed for smartphones and other low-power consumption devices. Om Malik isn't impressed, writing in post "Why Intel Will Be a Mobile Loser":

    Take a step back, and it becomes very clear that the company is facing competition from deep-pocketed, well-entrenched competitors -- and they're no pushovers. Because it had a monopoly on PC chips, and faced feeble competition in the x86 world, Intel managed to put its rivals out of business and maintain very fat margins, making it one of the most beloved stocks of the 1990s...

    Unlike in the PC market, where Intel's best competitor was an anemic AMD, its mobile industry rivals are pretty cash-rich. And none is stronger than Qualcomm, which in many ways is a proxy on the fast-growing Android smartphone market...If Qualcomm is a fearsome competitor in the Android ecosystem, Intel is locked out of the Apple ecosystem. Apple has bet the farm on its internal chip technologies such as the ARM-based A4 currently being used inside the iPad.

    Then there is Microsoft. Verizon is taking orders for KIN, the first Microsoft-branded smartphone, which received mixed to poor reviews. Microsoft has fallen behind newcomers Apple and Google in mobile phones, and KIN won't close the distance. Then there is the cloud, where Intel is clueless, Microsoft hawks Amazon-like storage services and Microsoft vaporously tries to carry its productivity suite monopoly forward with Docs.com for Facebook. Intel and Microsoft may be money machines, but they are secondary players in the mobile device-to-cloud platform. There Apple, Facebook and Google vie for dominance, and increasingly they compete with one another more than either Intel or Microsoft -- surest sign of Wintel's decline. Another sign: Follow the buzz. It's more about the three new monopolies than the two older ones.

    Apple Evildoings

    But which new monopoly will dominate or come to co-exist with one of the others? More importantly, would be the lesser evil -- ah, better choice?

    Apple has two monopolies -- portable music players and, more importantly, mobile applications. Apple feeds off rich margins in the mobile market (laptops as well as iPad, iPhone and iPod touch), like Intel long reaped them from PC processors. Recently, though, resurgent Apple is showing that it will be an aggressive and intolerant monopolist:

    • Apple shut out Adobe Flash on iPhone OS devices.
    • Section 3.3.1 of Apple's iPhone OS 4 developer agreement goes further -- prohibiting cross-platform tools that would enable Flash, Java and other technologies.
    • Last week, Apple CEO Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" memo made clear developers will use Apple-sanctioned tools; Flash be damned.
    • Apple exercises editorial control over mobile applications, which could someday affect mainstream media like New York Times or Wall Street Journal publishing on iPad.
    • Apple compelled an apology from comedian Ellen DeGeneres for her very reasonable iPhone parody. Apple is a marketing partner for American Idol, where DeGeneres is a judge.
    • Apple has started rejecting apps with "pad" in the name, contending they infringe on the iPad trademark.
    • Apple's promise to allow on iPhone OS 4 advertising platforms competing with iAd effectively proves false, because of prohibitions against third-party data collection.

    Perhaps there are reasons why when I asked Betanews readers if Apple had gone too far, you resoundingly answered "Yes!" Then there are alleged anticompetitive tactics, about which the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice jockey over which agency might open an Apple investigation. Google's 10 things -- its corporate philosophy -- asserts in #6: "You can make money without doing evil." This statement has come to be a measure applied to other companies. So, is Apple doing evil to make money? You tell me, please, in comments.

    Facebook Evildoings

    Facebook is a troubling monopoly. The social network is a black hole sucking all kinds of activities from other Web services, including blogs and photo-and-video sharing services. It's the watering hole for nearly 500 million subscribers, and it is increasingly a place where brands market (you know, fan pages). Then there are applications. Like iPhone OS, Facebook is a development platform. But where Apple drives the platform from mobile device through apps to the cloud, Facebook pushes from the cloud to devices.

    Facebook isn't just popular, it's aggressive and looking to crush established privacy mores for the purpose of making money. The company has a long history of seemingly evil behavior:

    • Three Harvard University seniors accused Mark Zuckerberg of using some of their ideas to create Facebook; he did work for them on HarvardConnection.com. The parties settled a court case in September 2008.
    • Facebook has repeatedly flouted privacy conventions, particularly with a series of redesigns starting in September 2008. Each redesign exposed more user information by default.
    • Installing applications discloses subscriber information to the publisher.
    • The May 2010 Facebook redesign is one of the most aggressive, forcing subscribers to either link Profile information to public pages or remove it altogether.
    • Facebook founder Zuckerberg reportedly doesn't believe in privacy, that it no longer is a "social norm."

    Perhaps money matters more. Facebook can profit from relaxed privacy in ways Google executives could only dream of. As good as Google search tools are, Facebook could do much more by tying mined data to real identities, which is the underlying goal of frameworks Connections, Like and Open Graph. Some pundits rightly observe that Facebook's new social tools would intertwine the service into the very fabric of the Internet. In essence, Facebook becomes the Web. Is any of that evil? Once again, you tell me, please, in comments.

    Google Evildoings

    In February I asserted: "Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was." I also asked: "Why is Google suddenly so evil?" My how things can change in just two months. Since those posts, Apple and Facebook have taken on auras of renewed aggressiveness. Suddenly, Google looks lots less evil today than it did more than two months ago. Still, Google is an aggressive monopolist. Some recent, ah, evil concerns:

    • Google's basic business is disruptive. The company offers free content others produced for some cost; Google profits by wrapping around search and keywords.
    • No one really knows what Google does with the digital equivalent to mountains of data it collects through search and other tools. Is your privacy at risk?
    • In early February, Google Buzz launched with default privacy settings open. The service laid bear user activity, leveraging Gmail in process.
    • Also in early February, Google shut down six popular music blogs, abiding by DCMA take-down requests. The majority of the blogs had acquired permission to offer the content.
    • In an apparent violation of "fair use" laws, in late April Google took down or disabled dozens of YouTube "Downfall" parodies, which used the same scene from the Hitler drama. The movie's distributor demanded the takedowns.
    • Irony: Google takes down some pirated content from YouTube while its search engine helps aggregators pirate content from thousands of news organizations.

    Google is aggressively pushing its monopoly, which size by various analyst estimates in the United States is 66 percent search share and 80-plus percent online advertising share. The company is tying together disparate services into a vertical applications stack extending from the cloud back to mobile devices, where Google also offers mobile operating system Android. Is Google evil? It's a frequently asked question. Please offer your answer in comments.

    In a future post, I'll explore where and how these three monopolies compete with each other and to the declining Wintel duopoly. But briefly, Apple and Google will fight it out on mobile platforms and mobile search and some cloud services. Facebook and Google will compete for search, marketing intelligence and broad cloud services. Apple and Facebook will compete for platform relevance/dominance -- whether developers write applications for the mobile device or to the cloud service.

    How evil is any of this? Let the commenting offer the first answers.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/05/Is_Microsoft_KIN_stud_or_dud_'

    Is Microsoft KIN stud or dud?

    Publié: mai 5, 2010, 10:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Will you buy Microsoft KIN? That's my question for Betanews readers on this fine hump day of the week. Will you or perhaps someone in your family purchase KIN? The Microsoft smartphone -- in KIN ONE and KIN TWO versions -- goes on sale tomorrow through Verizon Wireless. I took the "KIN is good for teenagers" stance last month. Today, here at Betanews, Tim Conneally asserts "KIN is not just for teenagers." So there's another question for you: Who is KIN for?

    Pricing isn't exactly tween budget friendly, since the lowest pricing -- $49.99 for KIN ONE, $99.99 for KIN TWO -- is only obtainable by $100 mail-in rebate, which comes as a debit card. That means the kiddies will pay 150 or 200 bucks out of pocket. Then there are the data fees -- $29.95 a month, which doesn't include texting (that costs 20 bucks more). Verizon's pricing is more like AT&T's for iPhone -- separate data and text -- but without the benefits.

    To Verizon I blow a raspberry. It's absolutely shameful that unlimited texting isn't part of the KIN data plan.

    I'd like to suggest that Microsoft soften the monthly money blow by offering new subscribers a free six-month Zune Pass. Let the kiddies drink from that $14.99/month well for free. KIN is the first handset fully supporting Zune software, store and services. It's a value-add many KIN buyers might not appreciate because of those other -- ah, nasty -- Verizon fees.

    Early reviews aren't exactly good, heck, my teenage daughter didn't want one to replace her busted Motorola CLIQ. Damn, I had been so hopeful about a Microsoft branded handset, but I've not yet given up hope.

    Joshua Topolsky writes at Engadget:

    While using the One and Two we found ourselves consistently confused or surprised by how many bad little interface problems there are. Not only does the phone make it hard to do simple tasks -- and not only are the social networking features poorly implemented -- but the handsets are often sluggish, hiccupy, and downright crash-prone. We were told by the devices on more than one occasion that we needed to restart (while performing basic tasks), and often it would just throw us a blank screen while we waited for the device to come back from whatever tragic internal situation was occurring. It would be wonderful to say more good about the phone's UI -- but we just can't.

    Boy Genius Report writes:

    The real issue is that we cannot remember a phone in recent memory that has felt so cheap and so clunky to use. Seriously. For some reason -- and I am really not exaggerating here -- I do not remember ever being so frustrated with a phone. It is slow and far from intuitive...I'm sorry, but I don't see the advantage of a device this limited in this day and age.

    The user interface is everything. For a company so full of talk about natural user interfaces as Microsoft, I would expect simplicity rather than complexity.

    Busted CLIQMy daughter's busted Motorola CLIQ

    Over the weekend, my daughter's Motorola CLIQ slipped off her tote bag and fell about 30 cm to concrete. The screen shattered. We discussed new phone options, and I suggested the KIN, forgetting it's only available from Verizon. My 15 year-old is a meticulous product researcher (I am not). She came back with a definite "No" on KIN and a litany of reasons, including hardware design and the user interface. Ha, maybe my daughter should be consulting for Microsoft. She saw problems with the UI (stuff I didn't) without ever using KIN.

    I expected KIN to be a stud, but early reviews raise concerns it's going to be a dud. Ha, what do reviewers know that you don't? So my question remains: Will you buy KIN? Please answer in comments. While doing so, consider something else: What if the UI really is clunky and chunky? What does that foreshadow about Windows Phone 7, for which Microsoft has invested so much? It can't be good.

    There is something else for measuring stud or dud status and whether you or anyone else you know buys KIN: Marketing. Verizon is a crack marketer. If Microsoft and Verizon turn up the marketing volume -- and that has got to include lots of TV spots -- KIN sales could push past the device's shortcomings, which Microsoft presumably could fix with a software update.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/05/10_Things_you_should_know_about_Apple_and_antitrust'

    10 Things you should know about Apple and antitrust

    Publié: mai 5, 2010, 7:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's reported problems with the Feds -- possible investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, US Justice Department, or both -- needs a primer. So I've prepared a list of 10 Things you should know about Apple and also US antitrust law. Should the FTC launch the investigation, as explained in #7, Apple's short-term risk would be greater but some kind of amicably resolution more likely. I would do another list then.

    Then there is #9, where I for the first time express my feelings about the US government's antitrust case against Microsoft and what that should realistically mean for Apple. With that introduction, here are the 10 things, presented in order of informational value rather than importance:

    1. Apple has a definable monopoly. Actually there are two: Portable music players and mobile applications. Apple does not yet have a monopoly in smartphones and may never obtain one.

    2. Apple legally acquired its monopolies. The government already ruled that Microsoft has a monopoly, and there is evidence enough that Google has one, too. Both monopolies were legally acquired, meaning no anticompetitive means were used. Apple is similar. There is no discernable, prior anticompetitive tactics behind Apple's monopolies. The company simply competed better. So what, is success illegal now?

    3. Monopolies aren't illegal in the United States. Contrary to public perception, monopolies are legal entities. Antitrust law merely seeks to prevent abuse of monopoly power, particularly collusion and price fixing.

    4. To win an antitrust action, the government must show consumer harm. The government must decisively demonstrate that the monopoly's actions harm consumers. That can be fairly straightforward, yet still hard to prove, when monopolies collude to fix prices. Price fixing harms consumers because they don't receive the benefits of competition; they may more. How exactly has Apple's tough developer rules, which favor its own tools, harm consumers?

    5. One competitor's complaint does not an antitrust case make. OK, so maybe Adobe went crying to the Feds. US antitrust law doesn't favor competitors but consumers, unlike Europe where competitor complains carry much more weight. The Feds may investigate, but that's a long way from filing against Apple.

    6. The rules apply differently to monopolies. As Microsoft learned during its US antitrust case, dominance leads to scrutiny. US antitrust law gives the Justice Department the power to apply different rules to monopolies than other companies -- the presumption being that size, dominance and influence can diminish competition, leading to consumer harm. I watched Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates testify for three days. At one point he asked the judge to give the company clear rules it could follow.

    7. Application of different rules can be arbitrary. That's where which agency, the Federal Trade Commission or Department of Justice, is important. The FTC would have more leeway in charging Apple with anticompetitive behavior than the Justice Department would bringing a broad antitrust action. Adobe can claim harm, but Flash is arguably a monopoly product, too. So, what, the Feds are going to slap one monopoly to protect another? Where's the consumer benefit in that? Apple could modify rules that would benefit smaller developers and possibly skirt around or settle any FTC action.

    8. Competition is more effective restraint than government oversight. Microsoft lawyers argued ad nauseum about there being competition, which the Justice Department, accompanying state attorneys general and US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson didn't believe. But Microsoft was right. Look at resurgent Apple, Google or computing's shifting relevance from Intel-based PCs (where Microsoft has a monopoly) to smartphones and other mobile devices (where Microsoft has limited influence). The technology market remains hugely competitive, regardless of Microsoft's monopoly or some competitor's.

    9. The government should never have prosecuted Microsoft, which is reason enough to let Apple go. I've covered Microsoft's antitrust problems since 1997 but never once publicly expressed what I felt about the case. Because of the many kick-Microsoft-kick-in-ass stories I wrote, many people may presume that I supported the government's case. I wrote those stories, because that's where the reporting led me. I set aside my opinions. But I'll say today that US trustbusters were wrong to prosecute Microsoft, and Microsoft executives were stupid for not making the kind of concessions that could have prevented legal action. Additionally, during the 1997 case, Microsoft lawyers repeatedly antagonized the judge. Different courtroom manner, some Microsoft executive humility, different legal team and even another judge likely would have led to a different outcome.

    While there are some similarities between Apple today and Microsoft yesteryear, any Apple antitrust case would be measurably weaker than Microsoft's. Apple's applications monopoly is relatively new. Considering Android Marketplace gains and and Nokia's new Ovi App Wizard, it's conceivable that competition may offer developers plenty of other choices for their applications. Nokia is the global handset market share leader, while Android is growing faster than iPhone. There simply is no sense to any action against Apple when competition can do more -- and faster -- than litigation.

    10. Robert Reich is right. I'm a big fan of Reich's blog, which yesterday featured post: "Apple isn't the Problem. Wall Street Big Banks are the Problem." He writes:

    Apple's supposed sin was to tell software developers that if they want to make apps for iPhones and iPads they have to use Apple programming tools...On the other hand, the four largest U.S. financial institutions are so big and the rest of the economy so dependent on them that if one of them makes a bad decision it can take us all down...So why is the FTC nosing around Apple and not around Wall Street?

    The University of California professor concludes: "Hands off Apple. But cut the big banks down to size." Would cutting Apple down to size really benefit Adobe and other developers? I leave that question for you to answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/05/05/Wall_Street_Journal_s_pay_more_pricing_is_stupid'

    Wall Street Journal's pay-more pricing is stupid

    Publié: mai 5, 2010, 3:27am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Are you paying Rupert Murdoch 18 bucks a month for a Wall Street Journal iPad subscription? I dare you to confess. Today, during News Corporation's earnings call, CEO Murdoch claimed that the Journal has 64,000 active users on iPad. Presumably one of them is you. Confess -- comments are open -- and tell us all what is your reason.

    I ask because I see the Journal as having gone too far with its paywall approach. I'm testing iPhone 3GS again, and I downloaded the WSJ app last week. I logged in with my Web subscription account, and the Journal let me read for a couple days. Then came the demand for more cash. Not much, just a buck a week. But I'm already paying for the Web subscription, for which the Journal charges about $150 a year. So Murdoch wants another 52 bucks a year for iPhone and about another $215 for iPad, which I also am testing? OK, it's only $207 a year for iPad if taking advantage of the $3.99-a-week promotion.

    What the hell? It's the same content, just the device is different. What's the consumer benefit in that? Does Murdoch have some magic formula whereby gullible people who can afford to pay two or more places for the same content should subsidize everyone else reading for free via the Google search backdoor? The Journal's pay-more paywall doesn't fit how people use mobile devices or even the personal computer. Consumption is contextual. Whereas, Wall Street Journal has removed the context and replaced it with premium pricing.

    Each device represents a different context for consuming the Journal -- or any other content. The iPhone app fills the on-the-go context, where the user is fully mobile and either doesn't have time or other device for accessing the content. The screen is smaller, and the Journal is highly condensed. But in that context, the app is good enough.

    The desktop or mobile PC is more standard context. It's where the subscriber demands full access to the content, including archives, and expects good presentation. People reading the Journal on a personal computer have higher expectations than consuming the same content on iPhone. Content is the same, only the context for consuming it has changed.

    Then there is the iPad, which context is tougher to define. For now, I'll arbitrarily call it the replacement context. Either leisure or consumption context would be appropriate, too. The slate form factor is meant to replace the PC and print media consumption. Optimized news Websites look exceptionally good on iPad. Many of the publication apps look even better. Around this context -- whatever you want to call it -- are even greater user expectations about presentation and overall consumption experience (Apple surely sets expectations about the experience high in its iPad marketing materials). Someone at the Journal must understand the greater expectations, otherwise why price the iPad subscription higher than even the Web edition?

    I'm not suggesting Wall Street Journal content isn't valuable enough to pay for. I subscribed in 1996 to the online edition, cancelled for a few weeks earlier this year and then resubscribed when the Journal offered a lower price offer. The content is plenty worth paying for, but how many times? I could understand if iPad, iPhone and Web subscribers paid for something different, but they don't. Only the device and context change.

    I make issue of the Journal's pay-more paywall approach because other publishers will have to make the same pricing decisions -- particularly those buying into iPad-can-save-old-media folklore. Some publishers will choose to just give it all away, while others will charge something. Those looking to charge should do what Murdoch's group hasn't: Consider context and appropriately charge for it.

    Tiered pricing makes loads of sense. Perhaps the publisher offers Web for free but there is a subscription fee for a mobile device and higher, but reasonable, fee for two devices (like iPad and iPod). Why not? If the reader really wants the content he and she will pay. But publishers should offer these paying subscribers something more -- and varied content simply isn't practical. But presentation is sensible enough. For example, publishers could make audio content, like podcasts, more easily consumed on a smartphone or make content simply accessible by voice search.

    Additionally, publishers could offer location-based news and other services. For example, headline about a car bomb being found in Times Square should be prominent when a subscriber located in New York opens the news app on iPad or iPhone. GPS could identify the subscriber's real-time location.

    The point: Subscribers being asked to pay or to pay more should get more. The Journal's approach of charging a separate fee for each device is simply stupid, and ignores each device's contextual character. Pay-more paywall is a huge disservice to subscribers. Plain, pure and simple.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati

    iPhone - Apple - Wall Street Journal - IPad - Google
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/30/The_real_reasons_why_Apple_silenced_Lala__and_bought_it__too_'

    The real reasons why Apple silenced Lala (and bought it, too)

    Publié: avril 30, 2010, 7:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As dorky character Ned Ryerson said in movie "Groundhog Day": "Am I right or am I right? Or am I right? Am I right?" Apple is shuttering the Lala service on May 31. While pundits galore said Apple was moving into the streaming music business, I asserted something else: That Apple bought Lala to improve music discovery and to combat Google music search.

    Apple announced the Lala acquisition in December, when I blogged "Lala could make iTunes' Genius smarter." As I explained then, the acquisition is about "improving iTunes music discovery and competitively combating Google search." About two months before Apple bought Lala, Google improved its music search capabilities, which included free streams from various services, including Lala.

    I sometimes complain about how bloated iTunes has become, but Apple can't be much faulted for music discovery. The iTunes player-store combination is simply one of the best mechanism's for new music discovery. However, Google music search put that discovery and underlying revenue stream at risk. Googling, say, Green Day or Ke$ha leads to free Lala streams of four songs. Lala charges for streams, too -- just 10 cents, which can be applied to purchase of the track.

    Or Lala did. The service has stopped taking new subscribers, according to a notice on the Website: "Lala is shutting down. The Lala service will be shut down on May 31st, 2010. Unfortunately, we are no longer accepting new users." By buying Lala, Apple set the stage to remove a cheaper streaming alternative, with option to buy, backed by the power of Google search.

    But Apple also acquired technology it can use to improve music discovery. One option: Within iTunes, offer one full-length stream per track, instead of the 30-second sample. Streaming then wouldn't be a separate business but means of improving the music purchase experience and even generate more sales.

    In the days and weeks that followed the Lala acquisition announcement, commentator after commentator pontificated about how Apple would move into the streaming music business, ala Lala. But that business makes no sense for Apple, which generates revenue from selling music -- not giving it away or streaming it on the cheap. More importantly, streaming offers limited benefits to iPhone OS devices. Apple already sells low-margin content to generate sales of high-margin devices. Streaming doesn't make sense, particularly when Apple has done so well with content people own -- or in the case of movies, sometimes rent.

    However, a TV subscription service would make sense because of its potential to disrupt how people consume the content. Hulu shows there is demand. If Apple offered the long-rumored TV subscription service for the rumored 30 bucks a month -- heck, even $50 -- I'd cancel my AT&T U-verse account the same day. Cheap portable TV is the logical next stage beyond DVRs. Apple has the devices to do just that, whether the content is streamed, downloaded with DRM protection -- or both.

    For Apple, a TV or other video subscription service is a more logical use of Lala technology and staff than music streaming. I would watch for TV subscriptions long before Apple would set up a music streaming service. So that makes a third major reason -- and one I didn't give in December -- for Apple acquiring Lala.

    I think Apple Watchers don't seriously enough regard how big Apple's plans may be for Lala. In December, I explained:

    There is something about this deal that reminds me of late 2000. That summer, Apple released new iMacs missing something: CD-RW drives. Windows PC manufacturers were going CD-RW, but not Apple, which stuck with DVD drives. In August 2000, I wrote for CNET News.com: Apple misses the tune on CD-RW drives." The Mac community flamed me. I got more than 200 e-mails (CNET didn't have comments back that), most of which essentially called me an idiot for not understanding that Apple was about movies not music.

    Not long after my CNET News.com story posted, Apple bought SoundJam, which technology became the core of iTunes, which Apple announced in January 2001. The first iPod followed about 10 months later. My intuition is that Lala could be as big for Apple as SoundJam was -- and it's not for running a streaming music service but something much more.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/29/Steve_Jobs___Thoughts_on_Flash__is_just_smoke'

    Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash' is just smoke

    Publié: avril 29, 2010, 9:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" memo is a rare glimpse into the mind of the rarest breed: A high-tech, cult figure who isn't a geek. Apple posted the nearly 1,700-word essay earlier today, in response to the ongoing debate about Adobe Flash on iPhone OS devices. Or perhaps more directly: Adobe's April 20 announcement that it had abandoned Flash development for iPhone OS devices; primary focus is shifting to Android.

    The Flash debate got ugly earlier this month after Apple announced iPhone OS 4 would not support the Adobe technology and made developer agreement changes that prohibited use of cross-platform tools that could enable rival platforms like Adobe's. Last week, Mike Chambers, Adobe's Flash platform Principal Product Manager for developer relations, sounded the retreat in a blog post.

    He wrote about the cross-platform tools: "We will still be shipping the ability to target the iPhone and iPad in Flash CS5. However, we are not currently planning any additional investments in that feature." Adobe had already baked the feature into Creative Suite 5, which was announced on April 12. Additionally: "Personally, I am going to shift all of my mobile focus from iPhone to Android based devices (I am particularly interested in the Android based tablets coming out this year) and not focus on the iPhone stuff as much anymore."

    Adobe's retreat seemingly should have been end of story, so why then did Apple's CEO write a long essay giving six reasons why Flash is prohibited from the iPhone? I surmise two main reasons, although there are surely others:

    • The Flash cross-platform tools will still be available with Creative Suite 5.
    • Apple is still getting pushback from somewhere, presumably from developers who want more options on iPhone OS.

    Letter of Lost Love

    So Jobs penned a memo laying out reasons why no Flash on iPhone OS devices. In first reading "Thoughts on Flash," the tone struck me as whiny. But in rereading I discerned something more complex, and I can't detect whether it's sincere or deliberate -- the latter for marketing gain. The memo reads like a forlorn letter of lost love -- like "if only" punctuates each of Jobs six points. If only you could be more "open," we could be together. If only you embraced the "full Web," we would never have parted. If only you would do things my way, I could embrace you.

    Jobs sets the lost love tone right from the essay's start:

    Apple has a long relationship with Adobe. In fact, we met Adobe's founders when they were in their proverbial garage. Apple was their first big customer, adopting their Postscript language for our new Laserwriter printer. Apple invested in Adobe and owned around 20 percent of the company for many years. The two companies worked closely together to pioneer desktop publishing and there were many good times.

    Since that golden era, the companies have grown apart. Apple went through its near death experience, and Adobe was drawn to the corporate market with their Acrobat products. Today the two companies still work together to serve their joint creative customers -- Mac users buy around half of Adobe's Creative Suite products -- but beyond that there are few joint interests.

    The "if only," lost love theme permeates the entire essay, which makes Apple's Flash divorce seem so reasonable -- all with a strong emotional undercurrent. But Jobs presents a one-sided argument, which is anti-social in a computing era of commenting and crowdsourcing. His essay is posted to the PR section of Apple's Website. No comments are possible. By comparison, Chambers posted to his blog, where comments are enabled. Chambers' post encourages dialog and interaction. Jobs' essay discourages it.

    The one-sidedness also seeps through nearly all of Jobs' six no-Flash justifications. I don't doubt his sincerity about wanting to protect the iPhone OS device user experience, but there's more. Apple calls iPad "magical and revolutionary," but the same phrase applies to Jobs' ability to make so reasonable arguments that emphasize the positives benefitting Apple products, while de-emphasizing or even ignoring the negatives. He is deservedly called a master marketer -- more like master marketing magician.

    Which Platform is More Closed?

    I won't critique all six no-Flash reasons but grab a couple to make the point: The reality Jobs evokes isn't the only viewpoint. Jobs begins with "Open":

    Adobe's Flash products are 100-percent proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

    Now I'll rewrite the same paragraph applied to Apple:

    Apple's iPhone OS products are 100-percent proprietary. They are only available from Apple, and Apple has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While iPhone OS products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Apple and available only from Apple. By almost any definition, iPhone/iPod touch/iPad is a closed system.

    By Jobs' logic, iPhone OS and devices running it are more closed. Adobe's cross-platform approach lets developers directly distribute Flash content or applications on major browsers and operating systems. Development for iPhone requires Apple's approval for App Store, and distribution is limited to three product categories -- all controlled by Apple.

    What About Adopted Standards?

    "We strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the Web should be open," Jobs writes. He doesn't say pertaining to the iPhone platform. Jobs continues: "Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript -- all open standards." For that position on open standards Apple should be praised. But Jobs' open-closed argument ignores an important reality: There is little practical difference between adopted standards and open standards, particularly when there are no onerous licensing fees attached to the adopted standards.

    In fact, adopted standards are more commonly used everywhere. Flash is an adopted standard used by millions of Websites, and Apple has chosen to make content and interactive features unavailable to iPhone OS device users. How is the issue any more complicated than that? Flash is everywhere on the Web, but not Apple's mobile Web.

    Jobs writes: "Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access 'the full Web' because 75 percent of video on the Web is in Flash. What they don't say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads."

    What Jobs ignores: Flash has supported H.264 since autumn 2007, with Flash 9 update 3. Also, H.264 is not an open standard. Like Flash, it is a proprietary adopted standard, for which license MPEG LA manages. By my count, there are 26 H.264 patent holders, among which is Apple.

    H.264 isn't free, either. In March, CNET's Stephen Shankland asked: "Is H.264 a minefield for video pros?" Shankland wondered about licensing fees for H.264 content produced by Adobe or Apple products. In contacting MPEG LA he learned there are fees, depending on circumstances -- hence the "minefield" reference. Something else: Firefox doesn't support H.264, because Mozilla won't pay the licensing fees. In January, after YouTube and Vimeo announced HTML5 support for video, Mozilla's Mike Shaver posted:

    Vimeo and YouTube seem to believe that reliance on proprietary plugins for video is a problem on the web. Mozilla believes that reliance on patent-encumbered formats is a problem on the Web...For Mozilla, H.264 is not currently a suitable technology choice. In many countries, it is a patented technology, meaning that it is illegal to use without paying license fees to the MPEG-LA.

    The point isn't rocket science: Licensing fees will affect H.264 adoption, and to places where Flash content already is available. Flash that Apple won't support on its iPhone OS platform.

    H.264 isn't a Competing Platform

    The difference between Flash and H.264 is important to Apple. Flash is a development platform, whereas H.264 is not. Then there is Apple being one of the H.264 patent holders. Jobs' essay isn't difficult to interpret, when viewed logically rather than as presented: Apple is pushing open standards where it benefits, as Microsoft did at the turn of century, mainly around the browser and where HTML5 preserves and extends the iPhone OS platform. But Apple is closed where it most benefits iPhone OS and App Store.

    Jobs makes a reasonable argument about technical issues, such as Flash's impact on battery life. He also reasonably explains why Apple doesn't want Flash or any other third-party development platform on iPhone OS:

    If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

    I won't quibble that reasoning, but must add perspective. Isn't what Jobs' describes the reality of iPhone developers? They are "at the mercy" of Apple deciding "if and when" it will make enhancements available to them. Apple also exercises editorial control over which applications are approved and even sets rules around their development.

    Why is this developers' situation? Because the iPhone OS platform is closed -- at least as much as Flash, and in some ways much more. Plain, pure and simple.

    [Editor's Note: Headline was changed from "Steve Jobs' 'Thoughts on Flash' is a snow job." There was concern some readers wouldn't understand snow job definition.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/29/Google_s_good_news__Microsoft_cannibalizes_Yahoo_search_share'

    Google's good news: Microsoft cannibalizes Yahoo search share

    Publié: avril 29, 2010, 4:23am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft sure is gaining search share fast. Too bad it's cannibalizing Yahoo rather than gaining on Google.

    Today, Nielsen released March 2010 US search share numbers, and, whoa, are they good news-bad news for Microsoft. The good news: Microsoft search share is 12.2 percent. The bad news: Microsoft closed the gap on Yahoo to within 1.2 percent. Yahoo's search share is 13.4 percent.

    A year ago, these gains would have been great cheering within the hallowed halls of Microsoft's campus. But Yahoo is Microsoft's new search partner. The two companies announced the deal, which will eventually hand over responsibility for Yahoo search to Microsoft, in July 2009. Cannibalization is not good for Yahoo, either. How can Yahoo make gobs of money from its Microsoft-powered search deal if Microsoft gobbles up search share?

    How much Pac-Man-like gobbling is that? According to Nielsen, in April 2009, Yahoo's US search share was a healthier 16.3 percent, while Microsoft had 9.9 percent share. Microsoft's month-on-month search share increases -- cannibalization of Yahoo share -- are much stronger in 2010 than December 2009. More problematic, Microsoft gains are taking nothing from Google. In April 2009, Microsoft and Yahoo had combined search share of 26.2 percent. March 2010: 25.6 percent. Google: 64 percent in April 2009 and 65.7 percent in March 2010. But the gains aren't all cannibalization. Microsoft also appears to be nipping search share from some smaller search engines.

    For more perspective, Nielsen also released number of searches. Americans conducted 9.72 billion searches last month. Microsoft-Yahoo combined, for March 2010: About 2.5 billion searches. Google: 6.5 billion. Microsoft-Yahoo combined April 2009: 2.26 billion searches. Google: 5.5 billion searches. So searches at Microhoo were lower 11 months earlier, but search share higher.

    March 2010 US Search Share

    Oh, yeah, Bing advertising is helping Microsoft to convert search users. Too bad, most are coming from Microsoft's new search partner and not its arch rival. In July 2009 post "Microsoft-Yahoo deal is Google's Christmas-in-July present," I warned that the search agreement would likely lead to search cannibalization. But even before the deal is complete, Microsoft is gobble, gobble, gobbling share because of its marketing, branding and search service success with Bing.

    Cannibalization already could be seen when the companies announced the search agreement. I wrote in July 2009:

    Further cannibalization is inevitable, and there is likely to be heaps of it. Matters would have been worse had Microsoft bought Yahoo and consolidated all search under a single brand. My prediction: Combined Microsoft-Yahoo share will be less than 20 percent within 12 months of the deal's closing -- and that's my being somewhat generous so that I don't get totally flamed in comments.

    Microsoft already is reaping benefits from its newfound search share. During fiscal 2010 third quarter, online advertising revenue rose 19 percent, or by $81 million, to $502 million. The company attributed most of the advertising sales increases to search share gains.

    April 2009 Search Share

    Increasing search cannibalization creates quandaries for both Microsoft and Yahoo. Microsoft is in process of logistically assuming responsibility for Yahoo search, with end of calendar year the target for US completion. But at the rate Yahoo is bleeding search share to its partner, will Microsoft end up paying too much to integrate with Yahoo search and for TAC (traffic acquisition costs)? Then there is Yahoo's responsibility for premium search advertising for both services to consider.

    Then there is the larger question of whether Microsoft should have cut a deal with Yahoo at all. Perhaps the money would have been better spent improving Bing and buying more advertising. After all, Microsoft has made remarkable gains organically.

    More number crunching is warranted. This post is late-day posting. I want to go through the numbers fresh and also ask for analyst comments about the overall value or cost to either Microsoft or Yahoo.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/29/HP_buying_Palm_is_like_Ke_ha_marrying_John_McCain'

    HP buying Palm is like Ke$ha marrying John McCain

    Publié: avril 29, 2010, 12:28am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Exactly, what do they have in common? HP-Palm is a merger of necessity. HP needs to jumpstart (for the umpteenth time) its mobile strategy and Palm needs to be bought by anybody or perhaps die. Hey, there is anybody and then there's anybody else would be better. In a parallel universe the situation is different. HP is doing what I said Microsoft should: Buy Palm, and what a steal HP is getting for $1.2 billion.

    Perhaps I'm missing something about things in common. While I was writing this post, Walter Lounsbery tweeted to me: "HP and Palm both share that has-been entrepreneurial spirit." Ouch! Get the Neosporin! And a Band-Aid! Alex Scoble poured salt on the wound. In a response to me at FriendFeed: "They both sell mobile devices...just no one knows that HP sells mobile devices." Whoa, put away that baseball bat, Alex!

    Adam Hall sees the glass as being half full (as opposed to my half-empty -- OK, nearly empty -- perspective). He tweeted: "Isn't it what Palm and HP don't have in common that makes this interesting? I see potential, but can they realize it?" HP must realize something to plunk down $1.2 billion. Hey, there is one more thing in common. Mark Kéy-Balchin tweeted: "Interestingly enough, the other thing they share in common is Tom Bradley, former CEO of Palm and current VP of HP's PC group."

    When I think HP, enterprise comes to mind. When I think Palm -- at least its latest post-PDA life -- I think consumer. HP: Stodgy handheld/phone design reminiscent of my college roommate's first calculator. Can you say black and grey? Palm: Curvy, round smartphone that reminds of a Sephora make-up compact. HP: Builds the hardware, licenses the software from Microsoft. Palm: Delightfully designs hardware and software. Ultimately, I worry that craggy old business-oriented HP will suck all the vitality out of the fresh, new Palm -- at least as run (or run into the ground) -- by Jon Rubinstein. Think: lifeforce-sucking Wraiths from cancelled TV series Stargate Atlantis."

    Yes, HP sells to consumers, and, I must admit, does a good job marketing to them. The Palm PDA once was an enterprise mainstay of 1990s business users. Maybe Hall is right and these differences mean something. Certainly they mean the end of Palm as everyone knows it. Look what happened when HP gobbled up Compaq, which was a huge brand at the time. Now Compaq is the name HP sticks on its cheapest-selling notebooks and keeps around because in some dark corner of the IT world there are people desperately clinging to the Compaq name. Say, it's the 21st Century, dude. You can let go and move on now.

    It's not rocket science to see why HP would want a Palm merger. The smartphone market is so smoking everyone wants a whiff. Late last year, IDC rightly predicted that major PC manufacturers would move aggressively into the smartphone market this year. Well, Dell has cued up Flash, Smoke and Thunder -- names evocative of the smoking smartphone market and the PC manufacturer's determination to scorch it. HP has chosen to buy rather than build. The smartphone and other mobiles are destined to replace the PC as the dominate Web-connected device, by 2015, according to Morgan Stanley. I believe. Do you?

    Anyone thinking HP can do much right by Palm should look no further than the waylaid Compaq brand, current HP PDA/phone lineup or disastrous iPod distribution deal. What? You don't remember that HP once sold iPod, right alongside Apple? Your memory answers just how badly it went (You can be sure Apple CEO Steve Jobs wishes everyone would forget that deal). I've read absolutely nothing about the HP-Palm shotgun merger other than the press release, so I wouldn't be influenced by anybody else's thinking. But I expect to read lots of punditry about how much Palm handsets and software will benefit from HP's huge retail channel. Oh, yeah? It did diddly squat for iPod. Apple had to build out its own channel.

    HP is a great technology company, as is Palm. HP needs to jumpstart its handset strategy, and Palm needs a white knight. In fairytales, the princess must kiss a frog for him to become her prince, her white knight. In fairytale mergers, the princess' kiss turns one -- or both -- into a frog.

    [Editor's Note: For closeted, out-of-touch geeks, here is the relief from your confusion. Ke$ha is a hugely successful, 23-year-old party-girl rock star. John McCain is a 73-year-old, war hero and US Senator who ran for president in 2008.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/28/10_reasons_to_get_excited_about_the_Nokia_N8'

    10 reasons to get excited about the Nokia N8

    Publié: avril 28, 2010, 6:06pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Move over Apple, Nokia isn't ready to give up its market share leading position just yet. After two failed flagship smartphone attempts -- the N97 and N900 -- Nokia has cued up the drool-worthy N8 for third quarter release. I'm suddenly excited about a Nokia handset again, and you should be, too. The N8 might also be the Nokia handset to crack the US market.

    Nokia is leaning on its strengths in hardware innovation, while improving software and services. The handset manufacturer has long excelled at hardware, whereas Apple does much better with software. For example, Nokia shipped cell phones with great cameras years before Apple sold one iPhone. But Nokia has struggled to extend steller photo and video capabilities into the capacitive touchscreen era.

    The N8 may change all that. Apple watchers might want to watch this Nokia smartphone, which should be available around the same time as or soon after the next iPhone. Now for those reasons:

    1. Symbian^3. American bloggers may pine for iPhone OS 4, but Symbian is a maturer mobile operating system. Symbian^3 is all about social connections and capable widgets running in the background (not makeshift multitasking like the iPhone).

    2. 12-megapixel camera. Nokia N-Series cameraphones are legendary for quality optics and sensor size. Nokia Conversations posted the first sample photos yesterday, and they are simply stunning and unedited straight from the handset. Click through the pics to the full-size images to see the detail captured and surprising low amount of distortion for a camerphone -- or many compact digital cameras. (My daughter has the same bike, but in red.)

    Nokia N8 camera sampleSample image from Nokia N8 smartphone. Click thru for full size.

    3. Xenon flash. Nokia aficionados have debated N-Series flash since release of the N82, which packed Xenon rather than the typical single- or dual-LED. Old as the N82 is, Nokia fan sites continue to do flash and image quality comparisons between the cameraphone and newer N-Series smartphones. The N82 remains the gold standard for Nokia image quality, although the N8 promises much more.

    4. 720p video. Now that YouTube supports HD, 640x480 simply isn't good enough. Apple's fourth-generation iPhone is rumored to have 720p, too. But will Apple's smartphone have Carl Zeiss optics and big sensor (for a handset)? The sample video below simply stunned me. It's simply the best quality I've seen produced by any cameraphone and most compact digital cameras.

    Nokia N8 camera sampleAnother sample image from Nokia N8. Click thru to see amazing facial detail.

    5. Support for AT&T and T-Mobile. Nokia has shortchanged American users for way too long. Most handsets support AT&T 3G frequencies, while there is limited support for T-Mobile (Nuron and N900). The N8 adds support for the 1700MHz band, which along with 2100MHz, would allow the smartphone to use T-Mobile 3G. Could this be the Nokia smartphone that either US carrier carries at a reasonably affordable subsidized price?

    6. Five colors. Kodak pioneered the five-color gadget concept during the late 1920s among several series of compact film cameras. Apple brought the five-color concept to new millennium gadgets with the iPod mini and later the iPod nano. Nokia will apply the concept to smartphones, with the N8, which will be available in black, silver, green, orange and blue. What's not to like about that?

    7. Capacitive display. Apple popularized smartphone capacitive touchscreens (which respond to electrical impulses in the fingers), while Nokia largely stuck with resistive touchscreens (which require physical touch). Too few Nokia handsets ship with capacitive displays today. Nokia is a latecomer, and it's about time that one of the company's flagship phones used capacitive instead of resistive touchsreen.

    Nokia N8 first HD video sample from Nokia Conversations on Vimeo.

    8. HDMI. Given the 12-megapixel camera and 720p video capture capabilities, HDMI output is a sensible necessity.

    9. Unified social networking. Already, Nokia's newer smartphones offer some of the best social networking features available on any handset. Apple is behind in this area in part because of its applications focus and iPhone's stunted multitasking. HTC also offers great out-of-the-box social with its Sense UI. Motorola's MotoBlur is another social-networking skin, and the Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 also offers social connections. N8 promises to be the social ladder climber of the summer (at least until the next, great smartphone announcement comes from somewhere else). As for iPhone, third party developers will have to do what Apple hasn't.

    10. Price. Nokia has priced the N8 at €370, unsubsidized. At today's exchange rate, that's about US $486. The N8 looks to be Nokia's lowest-cost flagship smartphone ever. Unsubsidized, the 16GB N8 would cost about $110 less than what Apple charges carriers for the 16GB iPhone 3GS. However, to be truly competitive with iPhone 3GS or Android-based smartphones, Nokia needs subsidized US carrier distribution.

    Regardless, photo and video capture quality promise to make the N8 a reasonable replacement for digital camera and pocket videocam. From that perspective, there is plenty of potential value in the one device to replace others. Oh, yeah, the N8 makes phone calls, too. :)

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/27/Readers_react_to_police_raid_on_Gizmodo_editor_s_home'

    Readers react to police raid on Gizmodo editor's home

    Publié: avril 27, 2010, 10:32pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I asked Betanews readers: "Should the police have been allowed to raid [Jason] Chen's home and confiscate his computers?" How did you answer? I've randomly picked some of the responses -- hoping to filter out some of the noise for better readability (There are more than 135 comments as I write this post).

    But first a quick recap of what happened and some of the broader reaction: Yesterday, Gizmodo revealed that on Friday evening, police searched and seized computers from Chen's home. Chen is a Gizmodo editor and writer of the first story about Apple's so-called "next iPhone," which the tech blog paid $5,000 to obtain. Gizmodo has since returned the prototype to Apple.

    There has been huge debate over the last 24 hours about whether the search and seizure was legal. Some folks say certainly yes, because the police are investigating a crime. Others contend that journalist shield laws should have protected Chen. Here's where I stand: As I blogged last week, somebody almost certainly broke the law, either as defined by California Penal Code or Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The lost phone could be considered stolen when the finder sold the phone after making no reasonable attempt to return the device to Apple.

    However, I don't agree with the search and seizure, because it violates federal and state journalist shield laws. These shield laws are designed to protect journalists' sources by way of protecting the journalists from being forced to divulge confidential sources or have documents, computers or other information removed by law enforcement. By taking all Chen's computers, police have access to confidential sources -- the majority of whom have nothing to do with the stolen iPhone prototype. I would react differently had the police only taken information pertaining to the one source and specifically to the phone.

    No surprise, Apple apologist John Gruber sides with law enforcement:

    Journalist shield laws are about journalists being able to protect sources who may have committed crimes. They're not a license for journalists to commit crimes themselves. Gawker is making an argument that is beside the point. They're arguing, 'Hey, bloggers are journalists.' The state of California is arguing 'Hey, you committed a felony.'

    Today, at All Things Digital Peter Kafka writes:

    Does the San Mateo District Attorney's office believe that Gizmodo Editor Jason Chen committed a crime by buying a prototype iPhone for $5,000? If they do, then the California shield law Chen's bosses at Gawker Media are citing won't do them much good. Because the law doesn't give journalists the ability to commit crimes.

    But if authorities are really pursuing the guy who sold Chen the phone, then the shield law should protect Chen and his employers. Because keeping the cops from busting down your door so they can uncover your sources is one of the things the shield law is supposed to do.

    I should point out that Gawker CEO Nick Denton already has admitted that his organization paid $5,000 for the iPhone prototype, which story of lost and found Gizmodo told last week. If there was a crime, there already is admission of guilt. But there are no charges, just search and seizure from Chen's home.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation offers a clinical, legal analysis asserting numerous problems with the warrant and its execution. Simply put: "Under California and federal law, this warrant should never have issued." It's a long analysis; do read it.

    What Do You Say?

    So here's the reader response portion of today's program. I'm skipping the "Joe is an idiot" comments; you can delight in those privately.

    mcg1969:

    Joe, I agree with your analysis of the purpose of the shield law -- to protect sources. But it does not give a journalist a blanket pass to commit felonies...Moving forward, what this means for sources is that they need to choose journalists who are reputable and honest. Obviously there is a small risk that they will get busted for something unrelated. But Gizmodo has a demonstrated track record of unprofessional behavior.

    godofbiscuits: "Joe, It's GAWKER. It's Nick Denton. Only journalists vet things. Nick's said plainly he's not a journalist. He's an anti-journalist, if anything. D-E-N-T-O-N. You might want to google that."

    Harry Taint:

    Gizmodo, Chen and the thief who failed to return the 'lost' iphone to the bar are sh!$%ing in their pants right now. Shield law does not prevent the DA from prosecuting felonies relating to selling/receiving stolen goods. 'No officer, I can buy this missing Picasso because I hyperventilate about art online!' Anyone using that logic is seriously mentally challenged. It may take months until the case is more clear, but as an attorney this much is clear to me, Gizmodo cannot afford the legal defense that it is going to need. They are going to be thrown under the bus, and no matter what the ACLU and other groups claim as 'Freedom of the press.'

    devstar:

    It's not so straightforward. Remember that in many cases the protecting of a source would be a crime if the the protector was not a journalist. The question is, is receiving stolen goods a crime for a journalist? I'd argue that if the journalist did not commission it, then it is not.

    For example, if NBC gets a hold of a memo that an Obama senior staffer dropped on the ground. This memo details how Bin Laden had been captured and they were going to reveal this in the coming weeks. Should NBC refuse this memo, or is it fair game? I'd argue that it is fair game, although technically the memo is stolen. As long as the journalist is publishing a legit newsstory based on the information, it should be fine. And clearly, at least based on page hits, Giz's story was legit.

    aduffbrew: "Seems the San Mateo DA's office is confirming the investigation is being put on hold as they review the potential application of shield laws to the seizure of Chen's equipment. How this all proceeds will prove interesting."

    raback: "Free information and trade secrets. Each one is trying to pull the blanket on its side. Do we really need/deserve a such small blanket?"

    OneToOne:

    Gizmodo is not bound to guard Apple's trade secrets by any agreement or law. It is not their business to be Apple's nanny and keep their secrets away from the public -- in fact, if they find any item, they can do whatever they please, including publishing photos, internal details, and so on. And Apple cannot do a single thing about it, because there is no law that says a third party must protect Apple's trade secrets. It is Apple's fault for losing the item, and on one else's.

    FalKirk:

    The purpose of the raid was to preserve evidence -- to keep the computers from being wiped -- and while the identity of the person who sold the phone to Gizmodo might have been one of the targets of the investigation, I think that the police are primarily interested in gathering evidence that can be used against the real culprit -- Gizmodo.

    ACMESalesRep:

    If this is about 'naming sources,' why wasn't Engadget also raided? They published photos of the phone, obtained from the same person that sold it to Gizmodo, but refused to deal with him/her because of legal concerns. Presumably they'd have just as much contact information as Chen does. This isn't about finding who sold the phone; it's about building a felony case against Chen himself (and possibly his superiors at Gizmodo) for buying something that he could have reasonably assumed to be stolen.

    tommydokc: "So this gives cops a right to break down your door over a g**d*** phone? I think not. what is this, Germany pre wwII?"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/26/Cops_raid_Gizmodo_editor_home____you_don_t_mess_with_Steve_Jobs'

    Cops raid Gizmodo editor home -- you don't mess with Steve Jobs

    Publié: avril 26, 2010, 11:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gizmodo's big "next iPhone" scoop has generated more than pageviews. Now it's the police raid. Late this afternoon -- actually at stock market close -- the gadget blog posted about the police raid, which occurred Friday night at the residence of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen. Law enforcement executed a search warrant before confiscating -- count `em -- four PCs and two servers. Chen wasn't home. The police broke down a door to enter his home.

    The timing (Friday night) and location (Chen's home) are oh-so revealing. Somebody wants to send a message to reporters about obtaining information and items that might belong to a big corporation -- say, Apple. While I've publicly scolded Gizmodo for scooping stolen goods (pun intended), the situation as recounted by the tech blog (and not yet corroborated) chills my soul. The action as described stinks of harassment, intended to scare off the free press.

    Otherwise, why wasn't the search warrant issued during business hours at a Gizmodo office? The tech blog never said that Chen paid $5,000 for the iPhone prototype. Nick Denton, CEO of parent company Gawker, is on record stating the company paid for the device. If there is criminal negligence, shouldn't it be further up the corporate ladder than the editor first writing about Apple's smartphone?

    It's true that Chen works from home, but surely Gawker has well-documented everything related to the iPhone prototype. Surely there is a clear e-mail trail on company servers -- then there are legal considerations. Surely Gawker's legal department vetted everything before allowing one word, photo or video to be posted about the iPhone prototype. Obviously, Chen's home is more vulnerable than a company's offices. Chen's home office is located in California, while Gawker offices are in New York. Apple is located in California, too.

    There's a message here: You don't mess with Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Apple keeps its secrets until Jobs is ready to reveal them. The free press be damned. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Apple is on the steering committee supporting REACT -- Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team. The detective executing the warrant, Matthew Broad, is assigned to REACT.

    Singling out Chen is harassment designed to scare off other reporters. I say that being strongly of the opinion that Gizmodo did in fact receive stolen goods under the California Penal Code. The tech blog likely violated California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. But the harassment of an editor/reporter/blogger to discourage him or his peers from exercising free speech shouldn't be mingled with Gizmodo's culpability -- or not.

    Then there are the direct assaults on free speech. Journalists in California are supposed to be protected from search and seizure. Gawker COO Gaby Darbyshire e-mailed the police detective responsible for the search and seizure, citing California Penal Code Seciton 1524(g): "No warrant shall issue for any item or items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code."

    California Evidence Code Section 1070 reads:

    (a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public....

    (c) As used in this section, "unpublished information" includes information not disseminated to the public by the person from whom disclosure is sought, whether or not related information has been disseminated and includes, but is not limited to, all notes, outtakes, photographs, tapes or other data of whatever sort not itself disseminated to the public through a medium of communication, whether or not published information based upon or related to such material has been disseminated.

    But do these protections extend to Gizmodo? Denton's Twitter bio identifies him as a "gossip merchant," and Gizmodo is regarded as a tech blog. Do the same laws that protect journalists apply to bloggers? It's a question I hear often asked.

    For certain, Chen's computers and servers are chock full of sources -- named and not. Should the police be able to raid a blogger's home (Chen is a Gizmodo editor, by title) and violate those sources' rights to privacy? Can the press truly be free, if the police have such free reign. I'm a journalist. I'm biased here. So I pose the question to you: Should the police have been allowed to raid Chen's home and confiscate his computers? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/26/Facebook_scores_huge_branding_coup_with__Like_'

    Facebook scores huge branding coup with 'Like'

    Publié: avril 26, 2010, 6:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The most successful brands share several attributes in common. One of the most important: Ownership of a single word that defines the brand. Last week, Facebook made the word "like" its own, in one of the biggest branding coups in decades.

    "Like" is seemingly everywhere this week and associated with Facebook. The social network didn't just extend the mechanism beyond its territorial borders, but claimed ownership over the word, too. Backed by the social network's reach and popularity -- approaching 500 million subscribers -- and Open Graph protocol, the "Like" thumbs-up icon already appears on hundreds of thousands of Web pages outside Facebook. Perhaps then, Facebook's branding coup is double -- not just 'like' but the thumbs-up symbol, too. I use Tumblr for my Odd Together blog, where the service's subscribers can like something by clicking a heart. The point: Facebook wasn't the only social service using a "like" mechanism. By the way, Tumblr rivals Posterous and TypePad have built-in easy support for Facebook Like. Hehe, they like Like.

    Big brands do big business by claiming ownership over a single word. For Volvo it's "safety." For, Nike it's "performance." For Apple, it's increasingly "magic." Barack Obama claimed "change" during his presidential campaign.

    In 2002, Rajendra Srivastava, Emory University Goizueta Business School professor, explained the importance of word ownership. "A brand really lies between the two ears of the consumer. The company owns the physical brand, of course, but the value of the brand really is what it means to the consumer." What could be more meaningful than like? The word is loaded with positive and personal connotations. "I like you" or "I like this," with the important emphasis on "I," which is me (or is that you). Good branding also is about generating good feelings. What could be more good feeling than like, other than perhaps love?

    From a broader branding perspective, word ownership is most potent when it is a verb, meaning there is action behind it. For some brands, like Google or Xerox, the word is the company name replacing a verb. People "Google" instead of "search" or they "Xerox" instead of "copy." Facebook is never going to be a successful verb, but like already is one.

    Facebook's Like branding is atypical from a larger marketing perspective. Generally, companies take ownership over a word because they want people to buy something. Facebook wants people to vote for something by Liking it. Around those Likes -- and the associated subscriber identities -- Facebook is looking to profit from advertising and marketing intelligence services. As good as cookies and other tracking mechanisms are, an identity is much better. Facebook can build demographic profiles around those Likes, which are marketing gold.

    Perhaps the closest atypical word branding campaign to Facebook is Barack Obama's run for the presidency. How strange, he sought people's votes, too -- wanted more Americans to like him than rival John McCain. The Obama political campaign ran one of the most effective marketing campaigns in US history. Advertising Age named Barack Obama marketer of the year in 2008. In Nov. 5, 2008, AdAge story "What Marketers Can Learn From Obama's Campaign," Al Ries explains how Obama came to own "change". He writes:

    Mr. Obama's objective was not to communicate the fact that he was an agent of change. In today's environment, every politician running for the country's highest office was presenting him or herself as an agent of change. What Mr. Obama actually did was to repeat the 'change' message over and over again, so that potential voters identified Mr. Obama with the concept. In other words, he owns the 'change' idea in voters' minds.

    "Change" didn't come easy. The Obama campaign effectively used social media tools to engage and marshall supporters. In Janaury 2009, PR agency Edelman released report "The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama's Social Media Toolkit." The report explains, and to my reading surprisingly effectively, how the Obama campaign converted "everyday people into engaged and empowered volunteers, donors and advocates through social networks, e-mail advocacy, text messaging and online video." Change was Barack Obama's message, but social media tools were the means for marshaling volunteers and voters.

    Social media is the other connection to Facebook. An April 1, 2009 FastCompany story explains "How Chris Hughes Helped Launch Facebook and the Barack Obama Campaign." Hughes created the social networking tools vital to the campaign's eventual success. Hughes' now defunct blog offers insight into how volunteers used My.BarackObama.com to establish "35,000 local organizing groups" in all 50 states. Hughes also is one of Facebook's cofounders.

    Facebook and Barack Obama share somewhat intertwined fates. A Facebook founder created the social networking infrastructure that helped a presidential campaign own the word "change," and to pull off one of the most successful branding campaigns in American political history. Now Facebook is claiming ownership over "like," using social networking tools to drive the brand ownership/association. Did Facebook marketers learn something from Hugh's work on the Obama campaign, or is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg just lucky? He would be the first geek to demonstrate accidental branding brilliance.

    Regardless, Facebook has taken ownership over the word like. Brand marketers around the world wish they could have done something similar. They'll cash in by association. Facebook Like is going to big marketing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/23/Apple_closes_the_revenue__income_gap_with_Microsoft_to_just__1_billion'

    Apple closes the revenue, income gap with Microsoft to just $1 billion

    Publié: avril 23, 2010, 10:29pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What a difference 12 months and an accounting change make. As I briefly noted yesterday, only about $1 billion separated Apple from Microsoft results in the first calendar quarter. With so many blogs obsessed about when Apple's market capitalization might exceed Microsoft's, perhaps the focus should be on earnings.

    Some people might not understand the significance. The comparisons here are real, because they're not fudgy market share or market capitalization comparisons. Apple has closed a huge revenue gap on Microsoft and lessened the lead in net income. This year promises the most visceral competition between Apple and Microsoft ever.

    Yesterday, Microsoft announced fiscal 2010 third quarter results: $14.5 billion revenue, $5.17 billion operating income and $4.01 billion net income, or 45 cents a share. On Tuesday, Apple announced fiscal 2010 second quarter results: $13.5 billion revenue and net profit of $3.07 billion, or $3.33 a share. Apple revenue is $1 billion behind Microsoft, while net income trails by a little less -- about $940 million.

    The year-ago comparisons show just how far Apple has closed the gap. A year ago, Microsoft reported 13.65 billion revenue, $4.4 billion operating income and $2.98 billion net income, or 33 cents a share. Apple: $9.08 billion revenue and $1.62 billion income, or $1.79 earnings per share. Apple revenue trailed Microsoft by $4.57 billion and net income by $1.36 billion. The bigger gap was obviously revenue.

    In some ways, it's an, ah, apples and oranges comparison. In fourth calendar quarter 2009, Apple changed its accounting to accomodate a new rule that lets the company realize most iPhone revenue in the given quarter. Before, Apple had to defer that revenue and recognize it over 24 months. Related, Microsoft still defers revenue from annuity licensing, which accounts for about 40 percent of total revenue. Apple gets a big bang that Microsoft defers. However, Microsoft typically realizes about 30 percent deferred revenue per quarter, making differences smaller.

    Still, the $1 billion gap was unthinkable a year ago and unimaginable a half decade ago. In the same calendar quarter of 2005, Microsoft reported revenue of $10.9 billion, operating income of $3.89 billion and net income of $2.98 billion, or 29 cents a share. By comparison, Apple reported $3.24 billion revenue and $290 million net income or 34 cents a share. The difference between the two: $7.01 billion by revenue and $3.6 billion by net income.

    Mac shipments are up from about 1 million units to 2.94 million units over five years (Note: Mac shipments were higher in other recent quarters). In first calendar quarter 2005, Apple shipped 5.3 million iPods compared to 10.9 million in calendar Q1 2010 (which was a decline from recent quarters). But the real difference maker isn't rocket science: iPhone, which generated $5.5 billion during the recent quarter, or about 41 percent of total Apple revenue -- and, of course, the accounting change helped.

    The question: What will happen in second calendar quarter? Or even the third? Wall Street analyst consensus for Microsoft is revenue of $15.24 billion, with an estimate range between $14.59 billion and $15.91 billion. By comparison, consensus on Apple is $13.7 billion with a much broader range of $11.6 billion to $15.08 billion. However, Apple hugely beat the Street during the last two quarters -- by $1.46 billion during fiscal Q2. It's not a stretch of the imagination or reasonable speculation for Apple to close the distance during second calendar quarter or sometime later in 2010.

    Second calendar quarter will be tough competing all the way around. The June quarter is typically Microsoft's best of the year because of the larger number of annuity license renewals. This year, Microsoft has some spice for the mix: New products launching during second calendar quarter, including Office 2010, and ongoing Windows 7 deployments among businesses. However, much of the annuity licensing revenue will carry forward as deferred revenue.

    Second calendar quarter promises to be big for Apple, too. It's the beginning of back-to-school buying season, and Apple is banking on iPad and Mac -- particularly the tablet -- despite public budgets being crimped by the recession's lingering effects on taxes. Apple upgraded MacBook Pros during the quarter, which should boost laptop shipments. If iPad sales are strong, Apple will likely get a revenue turbo charge but see net income fall. On Tuesday, the company warned that margins would fall to 36 percent from 41.7 percent, in part because of iPad.

    Some people will point out that it's just one quarter. What about the year? During calendar 2009, Microsoft generated revenue of $58.69 billion. Apple: $41.36 billion. However, for calendar 2010, based on one quarter's results and analyst estimates for another, Apple has hugely closed the revenue and earnings gap on Microsoft. Because analyst estimates are for fiscal years and Apple's and Microsoft's don't line up, 2010 forecasts are useless for comparison.

    The news media, computer enthusiasts and pundits have railed about Apple-Microsoft competition for years. But for more than two decades Microsoft beat Apple by most every measure. Windows PCs may have the greater market share, but the measure is suddenly outdated. What matters with public companies is revenue and profits. Market capitalization is another measure, but also not a good one because of inflecting differences, like the number of publicly available shares from either company.

    Microsoft has been hugely profitable, but now suddenly so is Apple, by comparison. For all the talk of Microsoft-Apple competition, it's now starting to manifest in the most meaningful way for any public company: Money.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/22/Microsoft_Q3_2010_by_the_numbers__Beats_the_Street__but_Apple_closes_in'

    Microsoft Q3 2010 by the numbers: Beats the Street, but Apple closes in

    Publié: avril 22, 2010, 11:23pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Recovering IT spending, robust worldwide PC shipments and strong Windows 7 adoption helped Microsoft to beat the Street. The software giant announced fiscal 2010 third quarter earnings, ended March 31, after the Bell, today.

    Microsoft revenue rose 6 percent to $14.5 billion, up from $13.65 billion a year earlier. Operating income: $5.17 billion, up 17 percent. Net income: $4.01 billion, or 45 cents a share. Net income rose by 35 percent and earnings per share by 36 percent year over year. If not for a $305 million deferral related to Office 2010, Microsoft would have reported $14.81 billion revenue.

    For about a year, Microsoft provided no guidance to Wall Street analysts, so there was none for fiscal Q3. Analysts' average consensus was $14.38 billion revenue and 42 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $13.81 billion to $14.75 billion.

    "Business customers are beginning to refresh their desktops and the momentum of Windows 7 continues to be strong," Kevin Turner, Microsoft's chief operating officer, said in a statement. "We are also seeing tremendous interest in our market-leading cloud services for business."

    Microsoft closed the quarter with $12.3 billion unearned revenue. Annuity license sales grew in the low single digits. The company reported 40 million paid seats for Azure cloud services. During a conference call late this afternoon, Peter Klein, Microsoft's chief financial officer, predicted "continued strength in hardware shipments," which would be good for operating system and productivity suite sales. He asserted that across divisions annuity revenue would align with OEM revenue. Klein also emphasized that fiscal fourth quarter is the "season high for our enterprise sales."

    Coming into the quarter, some analysts and armchair pundits started looking more closely at Apple compared to Microsoft. Unthinkable a year ago, Apple has closed a huge earnings and revenue gap separating it from Microsoft. On Tuesday, Apple announced fiscal 2010 second quarter results: $13.5 billion revenue and net profit of $3.07 billion, or $3.33 a share. In the year ago quarter, Microsoft reported $4.4 billion operating income, $2.98 billion net income or 33 cents a share. Apple: $9.08 billion revenue and $1.62 billion net income or $1.79 earnings per share. Apple made enormous revenue and earnings gains against Microsoft in just one year. The question now isn't so much if Apple might catch or surpass Microsoft but when.

    Q2 2010 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $4.2 billion, up 28 percent from $3.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $3.58 billion, up 2 percent from $3.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $4.24 billion, down 6 percent from $4.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $56 million, up 12 percent from $50 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $1.66 billion, up 2 percent from $1.62 billion a year earlier.

    Still, Office and Windows are cash machines, which are getting a boost from recovering PC sales. The really good news came about a week ago from Gartner and IDC, which reported strong double-digit growth in second-quarter worldwide PC shipments. But that wasn't the big takeaway, particularly for Microsoft. After more than 18 months of sluggish sales, businesses are finally beginning to buy PCs again. For Microsoft, the news likely means an increase in sales of higher-margin professional Windows, which is evident in fiscal Q3 numbers. During the worst of the global economic crisis and the 2008-09 surge in netbook shipments, the sales percentage dramatically shifted to lower-margin consumer Windows.

    By Microsoft estimates, worldwide PC shipments grew by 25 percent to 27 percent, which is inline with numbers from both Gartner and IDC. Netbooks, which typically ship with non-Premium Windows, accounted for 10 percent of shipments. according to Microsoft.

    "With a relatively positive macroeconomic outlook, business demand was more forthcoming," Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, said in a statement. "Major PC replacement demand driven by Windows 7 will become more apparent in the second half of 2010 and the beginning of 2011." That's exactly the kind of forecast Microsoft executives want to hear.

    But that's the future. The business recovery is still modest compared to consumer sales. In the United States, business PC shipments grew by 10 percent year over year compared to 30 percent for consumers, according to Gartner. There Windows 7, along with aggressive pricing, contributed to unseasonably strong shipments. "Although the first quarter is not typically a strong quarter for the consumer market, growth in the consumer segment was strong," Kitagawa said in the statement. "The positive economic outlook and affordable system prices drove US consumers to buy more PCs. These purchases either replaced aging PCs or became additions to buyers' households."

    Q2 2010 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $3.06 billion, up 35 percent from $2.27 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.26 billion, up 3 percent from $1.22 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $2.6 billion, down 6 percent from $2.8 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $713 million, up 73 percent from $411 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $165 million, flat from a $41 million loss a year earlier.

    Segment by Segment Results

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Revenue rose 29 percent year over year, or by $781 million. The division derives about 80 percent of its Windows revenue from license sales to PC OEMs. OEM license sales increased by 30 percent. OEM premium license mix was 72 percent -- 44 percent consumer and 28 percent business. Consumer license sales increased by 35 percent year over year and business licenses by 15 percent.

    Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because about 50 percent of revenues come from contractual volume-licensing agreements. Product revenue grew 2 percent, or $50 million, buoyed by Windows Server and Enterprise Client-Access License sales. Because of corporate layoffs, Microsoft has seen customers renewing license contracts at lower levels. Annuity license sales were flat year over year, which is somewhat surprising with new products in the pipeline. The division's services revenue grew by 5 percent, or $34 million. Microsoft put year-over-year server hardware shipment growth in the high teens.

    Business. Microsoft's other cash cow division reported yet another quarter of revenue declined. Two mitigating factors: 1) A 1 percent decline, or $37 million, in Office 2007 licensing. 2) Deferral of $305 million related to Office 2010 upgrade guarantees. Annuity licensing was flat year over year. However, Microsoft is launching Office 2010 this quarter, which should positively affect Office sales. Incidentally, Office consumer revenue rose 11 percent, or $77 million, buoyed by strong PC shipments.

    Online Services Business. The division's loss widened, despite ad sales increases. Online advertising revenue rose 19 percent, or by $81 million, to $502 million. Much of the ad sales increases came from search gains.

    Entertainment & Devices. Microsoft shipped 1.5 million Xbox consoles during the quarter, down 12 percent from 1.7 million a year earlier. Non-gaming revenue increased by 14 percent, or $77 million, driven by sales of PC hardware and Windows embedded devices.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/22/Docs.com__The_surest_sign_yet_of_Microsoft_s_defeat'

    Docs.com: The surest sign yet of Microsoft's defeat

    Publié: avril 22, 2010, 7:20pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made some amazing announcements yesterday, during the f8 conference. Docs.com wasn't one of them.

    "You can discover, create, and share Microsoft Office documents with your Facebook friends," according to the service's Website. What Docs.com really does more is provide Microsoft a lifeline, as the company seeks to maintain the relevance of its Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack before the rising mobile device-to-cloud applications/services stack. Docs.com is a futile, short-sighted enterprise that acknowledges Microsoft has already lost the new century's platform wars.

    Facebook: Windows in the Clouds

    For years, I've likened Facebook to Windows, blogging in July 2007 that: "Facebook has the potential to become a kind of operating system in the clouds that developers extend and plug into." At the time, Facebook had 30 million users; the number is closer to 500 million today. In September 2007, I explained further: "Facebook is like Microsoft, only the social networking company's platform is built on the Internet."

    More from the September 2007 post:

    Windows is widely regarded as a platform, but that's a misnomer. The PC is the platform. Windows is nothing without the PC. Windows is a platform, but secondary to the PC platform. Similarly, the Web is a platform (and, yes, arguably secondary to hundreds of thousands of servers). Web 2.0 platform companies like Google operate on the Internet platform.

    But Facebook is different from Google. Facebook is not a Web 2.0 operation; rather it's more like Desktop 1.0 than Web 2.0. Since May [2007], when Facebook opened up to outside developers, the service increasingly has morphed into an Internet operating system. Like Windows, Facebook is an enclosed platform, and one where people can install applications, post and share digital content and communicate with friends, families or others in ways they might do with Windows on PCs.

    Facebook is also a lot more like Microsoft than it resembles Google, because it's so-called openness is more of a one-way street. Information goes in, but it doesn't easily come out. Developers write applications for the one platform, which is different from, say, tapping into Google APIs (application programming interfaces) for use elsewhere. Facebook and Google both take platform approaches, but Facebook's way is more like Windows than Web 2.0.

    I blogged in December 2009:

    Facebook's cloud OS, with zillions of applications and more than 350 million subscribers, is now a vortex sucking in seemingly all Internet traffic. Many people who posted to blogs and photo sharing sites are moving their personal information and content to Facebook -- like they did Windows a computing generation ago. Facebook has huge customer lock-in potential, because the data is so much more personal than that put into Office and Windows a decade ago.

    Facebook ushers in Web 4.0

    Yesterday, everything changed. Zuckerburg paraded like a young Bill Gates (only with better oration and presence). Facebook's founder is cocky, arrogant, ruthless and visionary. He outlined a development strategy that would intertwine Facebook into the World Wide Web. It's brilliant and frightening. Zuckerburg is making the leap from Desktop 1.0 to Web 4.0 -- perhaps Platform 3.0 (Mainframe and PC being Nos 1 and 2). Nothing will be the same, if Facebook succeeds -- and the company has momentum that's shock waves should leave Google quaking in their wake.

    According to IDC, there were 1.6 billion Internet users in 2009, with the number expected to reach 2.2 billion by 2013. Facebook will soon have 500 million active subscribers, or -- assuming there are no duplicates (unlikely) -- nearly one-third the whole population of Internet users. Facebook's growth far exceeds that of Internet users. In less than three years, the number of Facebook users climbed from 30 million to nearly 500 million. By the way, that 500 million is about half the entire PC install base; many of those Facebook users access the service by mobile device, a market where Microsoft dropped the ball in the end zone.

    Facebook has enormous momentum. Microsoft is aligning its old applications stack with the new one, trying to keep its aging platform on life support just a little longer. Death is inevitable. Deal with it. Yesterday I tweeted: "Docs.com: Old content stack (Office) meets the new one (Facebook). Dunno. There are reasons nature abhors interbreeding of species." That Microsoft's FUSE Labs developed Docs.com at all is admission there is a new platform in town.

    Docs.com represents the old content model. Microsoft has good ideas about collaboration, but wrongly binds them to Office. As I asserted in January: "Office is obsolete, or soon will be." Same can be said about Google Docs. The productivity suite model focuses on how people create content, when along the mobile device-to-cloud applications/services stack the priority is what and where. By aligning Docs.com with Facebook, Microsoft is at least partly dealing with the what and where. But the what still puts too much emphasis on how -- meaning productivity suite. Are hundreds of millions of Facebook subscribers creating Word documents or Excel spreadsheets? Do they need to? No and no. They're sharing photos, videos and messages -- none of which requires Office or Docs.com to create. By contrast, Facebook's Social plugins put the emphasize on the what people create, where they create it and with whom they share it.

    The Facebook in the Mirror

    Things could have been different. Facebook is doing with platforms what Microsoft should have been able to with its applications stack -- become part of the very fabric of the Web platform. More startling, chunks of Facebook's Open Graph vision come from Microsoft's own HailStorm playbook, such as the single-sign-on concept. Microsoft pitched single-sign-on with Passport a decade ago.

    Facebook also is looking to tie quantifiable information to real user identities, something neither Google nor Microsoft dared to do but were accused of trying. Advertising potential is simply staggering should Facebook successfully leap all the privacy hurdles. Zuckerburg is just arrogant and aggressive enough to try and succeed.

    Docs.com demonstrates much about what is wrong with Microsoft today. The company focuses too much on preserving existing revenue streams when creating newer ones should be the priority. Microsoft's self-preservation approach compels its developers to bind new technologies to Office or Windows, when they should be set free to embrace standards and help establish others. Microsoft is a follower in a market it once lead.

    Three companies are now positioning for computing dominance -- Apple, Facebook and Google. All have a stake in the mobile-to-device applications/services stack. Adobe, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle and Sun were the major players during the desktop-to-server stack's heyday. Sun declined and Oracle acquired it. Adobe is in early stages of what I predict will later be a suddenly rapid decline. IBM, Microsoft and Oracle are locked in the enterprise, where their computing and informational relevance will slowly decline over the coming decade.

    That Facebook's Open Graph and other f8 announcements come ahead of Windows Live Wave 4 is foreshadowing. You tell me what Microsoft can launch that will trump what Facebook announced yesterday. Microsoft claims on order of 400 million Live users, a number that seemingly rivals Facebook. But Microsoft subscribers are scattered among disparate Web services. Facebook users are consolidated within a single platform framework, like Windows.

    A few years back, I stood in the pharmacy line behind an old geezer; he complained about buying medicines for his wife. The clerk joked: "Well, you married her for better or worse." He snarked: "I've had the better, now I've got the worse!" Microsoft has the worse now, too. Perhaps it's time for the company to divorce Office and Windows. Sure Microsoft depends on their income, but that won't last forever.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/21/Will_iPad_cannibalize_Mac_sales_'

    Will iPad cannibalize Mac sales?

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Clearly Apple is preparing for such a circumstance, or that's my interpretation of last night's fiscal 2010 second quarter earnings call. The question isn't if iPad will cannibalize Mac sales but when. If the cannibals are coming, they'll first strike during back-to-school buying season.

    Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer tipped off the company's thinking early in the conference call: "We expect gross margins to be about 36 percent down from 41.7 percent in the March quarter and reflecting approximately $36 million related to stock based compensation expense. We expect about 25 percent of the sequential gross margin decline to be driven by the first quarter of iPad sales." Whoa, one-quarter?

    "As we said in January when we announced the iPad we have been very aggressive with pricing and are delivering tremendous value to customers," Oppenheimer asserted. "We think the market for the iPad will be large, and we want to capitalize on our first-mover advantage."

    There are two intertwined issues related to Oppenheimer's statements: Mac cannibalization and margins. I'll start with margins. Whenever Apple launches a new product, the company absorbs additional upfront costs. Apple secrecy means that CEO Steve Jobs announces his "one more thing" product on Day X but availability is Weeks Y or Months Z later. Manufacturing ramps up in earnest after the product announcement, which is atypical of most industries. To get the product from Asia to Western retail, Apple typically absorbs higher upfront airfreight costs.

    This dynamic is one reason why purchasers of new "one more thing" products pay more upfront. Their privilege of being among the first buyers helps to soften the blow Apple's cockeyed manufacturing and distribution system places on margins. This process is underway now in the United States, and Apple will repeat it in nine additional countries next month.

    Margins Teardown

    Based on various iPad teardowns, the tablet's base hardware cost ranges from $230 to $300. The teardown by iSuppli puts the $499 iPad product cost around $260 and $348.10 for the $699 model (both are WiFi; 3G models ship next week in the United States). By comparison, Apple makes oodles more on iPhone. Right after iPhone 3GS launched, iSuppli put component cost at around $179. While consumers pay $199 for the smartphone, carrier AT&T subsidizes what Apple charges, which is in the $500-$600 range (ASP is $600, according to Apple, which includes 32GB model). Additionally, falling component prices and economies of scale should put Apple's iPhone 3GS margins much higher today than June 2009.

    Like iPhone and Mac products, Apple's base profit for iPad is pretty good. However, the aforementioned higher initial manufacturing and distribution costs sap profits by as much as half (based on my guesstimates). Assuming Oppenheimer is right about iPad demand, greater upfront sales volume would further sap margins, since Apple would pay more to get the product to market before achieving benefits from economies of scale. Higher sales volume would mean lower margins and a lowering of broder Apple margins.

    During yesterday's Apple conference call, Sanford Bernstein analyst Toni Sacconaghi put startling perspective on Apple's falling margin guidance and iPad's contribution to it:

    Let me just switch to one other topic if I may and Peter I think this is probably for you. Bear with me, I'm gonna, I'm gonna just plug through some numbers. You said gross margin is going to decline 600 basis points sequentially in the quarter that would be due to the iPad. So that is 150 basis point negative impact from the iPad.

    If you assume the iPad is 10 points lower gross margin than the company average which is way, way lower than most, you know, third-party tear-down services which it would suggest it basically means for that contribution to be true for your guidance iPad would need to be 15 percent of your revenue or $2 billion. So either iPad is gonna be more than $2 billion in terms of revenue per your guidance for next quarter and have a gross margin that is less than 10 points less than the company average or the gross margins of the iPad are more than 10 points lower than the company average.

    Apple COO Timothy Cook partly dodged, party answered the question, nearly repeating what Oppenheimer said earlier in the call:

    I would point out that when we priced iPad we priced it very aggressively in order to deliver tremendous value to our customers. We think the market size for the iPad is very large, and we want to capitalize on our first mover advantage. So, as we have done in other products, although I am not forecasting it, you can see that we have a good track record of writing down the cost curves with value engineering and volume manufacturing or at least that's certainly been our experience with other products.

    For iPad to reach 15 percent of revenue, Apple would have to ship 3.3 million units at an average selling price of $600 or 4 million at $500 ASP. The impact on margins would be colossal. But the margin pulldown could be just as strong if Apple shipped 1-2 million iPads, in process cannibalizing some Mac sales.

    Wading the Price Gap

    Until iPad, Apple computer selling prices were quite high, with the $999 white Macbook being entry point for most people to join the elite -- some might say elitist -- Mac club. In February, I reported that "Nine out of 10 premium PCs sold at retail is a Mac." Apple sells high and also reaps some of the highest margins in the tech industry. The Mac tablet changes the dynamic. Now, suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac you can buy is $499, filling a hole between $399 and $999.

    As I explained in a separate late-January post, "iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the aforementioned $399 and $999." Various iPad models sell between $429 and $829.  "Apple now offers portable computers -- and that's how I classify iPhone, iPod touch and iPad along with Macs -- ranging from $99 to $2,499. From a pricing strategy perspective, iPad is a brilliant product, because it fills the gap between iPhone/iPod touch and Macbook without price cuts or risk to the Mac's premium brand status."

    But there is risk to Mac sales, which would be greater during back-to-school buying season than any other time of year. Suddenly the cheapest Mac that schools can buy costs $499, too. Particularly for K-12 institutions, iPad could be a viable alternative to MacBook, particularly with budgets crimped by the lingering effects of recession on the tax base. Back-to-school buying season would also be the test of iPad's sales mettle, whether or not the product can succeed or will be doomed to ruin like the Power Mac G4 Cube. Low back-to-school iPad sales would perhaps be worse than many.

    There are positive benefits to consider, as well -- schools that: might not buy any Apple product this year, otherwise would purchase Windows PCs or would swap out Macs for Windows computers; because of price. Now they could buy iPad. By whatever measure of increasing sales -- higher in general or cannibalizing Mac sales -- iPad would crimp Apple margins.

    Yesterday, RBC Capital Markets analyst Mike Abramsky asked the obvious question: "Just wondering why you didn't see, or whether you expect any touch cannibalization from the iPad and what is your sense or do you think iPad is cannibalizing maybe competitive netbooks?"

    Cook responded:

    I can only tell you in the quarter we finished, Q2 that we finished in March. Although we announced the iPad in January there was nothing obvious in the iPod numbers or the Mac numbers to suggest cannibalization. There is an obvious difference announcing and people know it is coming and it is starting to sell. So that part of the equation we don't know yet. We will find out. We are thrilled with how the iPad is selling and the enormous response that we have received. We also announced new MacBook Pros that you probably saw last week and the whole line change. So we are also happy about how the Mac business is positioned and the level of product innovation in those notebooks. It is enormous. It is taking battery life up to 10 hours. That is absolutely amazing.

    That's executive-speak for: "Yeah, we think so but aren't sure and so don't want to say for fear of causing a run on Apple shares." On the one hand, Cook lets be the possibility of cannibalization, while at the same time emphasizing newly upgraded MacBook Pros. The response is oh-so media-trained executive deflection. Media professionals teach executives at companies like Apple to deflect tough questions by ignoring them and shifting focus to strengths.

    Of course, Apple executives expect at least some cannibalization of Macs by iPad. Apple's iPad pricing tells the story -- the aforementioned filling the pricing gap between $399 and $999. Then there is the guidance about margins declines to consider. Cannibalization is inevitable. The questions are: "When?" and "By how much?" Will there be a big surge of iPad orders during back-to-school season or will the lower pricing release pent-up sales among consumers pining for a Mac but unwilling or unable to spend $999? Or both?

    [Editor's Note: I initially used quotes provided courtesy of Seeking Alpha but corrected them after re-listening to Apple's FY 2010 Q2 conference call.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/21/Apple_Q2_2010_by_the_numbers__Best_non_holiday_quarter_ever'

    Apple Q2 2010 by the numbers: Best non-holiday quarter ever

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Can nothing stop Apple?

    The Cupertino, Calif.-based company's quarterly earnings again rose high above Wall Street consensus, which already was $600 million to $1 billion above guidance. Today, after the bell, Apple reported $13.5 billion revenue and net profits of $3.07 billion, or $3.33 a share, under the new reporting method implemented last quarter. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $9.08 billion and $1.62 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.79 per share. Fiscal 2010 second quarter ended March 27, 2010.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $11 billion and $11.4 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $2.06 and $2.18. Analyst estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $12.04 billion average revenue consensus and $2.45 earnings per share. Apple blew past the Street. Again.

    In a statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said: "We're thrilled to report our best non-holiday quarter ever, with revenues up 49 percent and profits up 90 percent."

    For fiscal 2010 third quarter, Apple forecasts between $13 billion and $13.4 billion in revenue, with earnings per share ranging between $2.28 and $2.39. Gross margins are projected to be 36 percent, a substantial decline. Apple expects sales of iPad to account for about 25 percent of the gross margins decline. "Customers are loving the iPad," Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer said during a conference call late this afternoon. Apple expects to have iPad in nine countries by end of May.

    Tim Cook, Apple's COO, responded to analyst concerns that either iPad volumes would be higher than expected or margins substantially less than projected. "We priced it very aggressively," he said. "We think the market size of the iPad is very large, and we want to capitalize on our first-mover advantage."

    My interpretation: Apple could be anticipating that iPad will cannibalize some Mac sales and/or high iPad sales volume during the back-to-school buying season. "There was nothing obvious in the iPod numbers or the Mac numbers to suggest cannibalization," Cook said. However, he observed that iPad's announcement in January may not have affected sales the way the released product might. "That part of the equation, we don't know yet."

    Q2 2010 Revenue by Product

    • Desktop: $1.53 billion, up 45 percent from $1.06 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $2.23 billion, up 17 percent from $1.8 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $1.86 billion, up 12 percent from $1.67 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.33 billion, up 27 percent from $1.05 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $5.5 billion, up 124 percent from $2.43 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $472 million, up 32 percent from $357 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $634 million, up 1 percent from $626 million a year earlier.

    Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs during the quarter, for 33 percent year-over-year growth. Wall Street consensus was around 2.7 million.

    While Apple posted strong year-over-year results, units and revenue sequentially declined in nearly every segment -- not surprising given the holiday quarter's strong sales. However, Oppenheimer said sequential declines were smaller than is typical.

    Apple's gross margin was 41.7 percent, up from 39.9 percent a year earlier. International sales accounted for a stunning 58 percent of revenue. Apple ended the quarter with $41.7 billion in cash, up from $39.8 billion three months earlier. Priority for cash is "preservation of capital," Oppenheimer told financial analysts today.

    Q2 2010 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktop: 1.15 million units, up 40 percent from 818,000 units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 1.8 million units, up 28 percent from 1.4 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 10.9 million units, down 1 percent from 11 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 8.75 million units, up 131 percent from 3.8 million units a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped -- what company executives really mean by sold -- 8.75 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal second quarter. A year earlier, Apple shipped 3.8 million iPhones. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. During the quarter, iPhone was available from 151 carriers in 88 countries.

    Wall Street analyst estimates ranged from about 6 million to nearly 9 million units. Revenue rose 124 percent year over year, giving the biggest boost to Apple's quarter. The smartphone and supporting services accounted for about 41 percent of total Apple revenue.

    Computers. Apple shipped 2.94 million Macs during the quarter, up from 2.6 million units a year earlier. Wall Street consensus ranged from about 2.78 million to 3.4 million shipments worldwide, with consensus around 2.7 million. Oppenheimer said Apple ended the quarter with about three-to-four weeks of inventory in the channel.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC released preliminary first calendar quarter PC shipment data. In the United States, Apple shipped 1.4 million computers, for 34 percent year-over-year growth, according to Gartner. However, IDC put Apple shipments lower, at 1.1 million, with growth a much lower 8.3 percent.

    Q2 2010 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $5 billion, up 26 percent from $3.9 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $4.05 billion, up 63 percent from $2.5 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $887 million, up 51 percent from $587 million a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $1.89 billion, up 184 percent from $665 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $1.7 billion, up 22 percent from $1.4 billion a year earlier.

    Apple ranked fifth in the United States, falling yet another place, with 8 percent market share, down 7.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner. But IDC reported that Apple's market share declined to 6.4 percent, from 7.2 percent. Just two years ago, Apple had risen to third place in US PC shipments. However, despite all the hoopla about increasing Mac sales, Apple US ranking declined, with risk the company might fall back out of the top five in some future quarter.

    Gartner and IDC won't tabulate Apple's worldwide ranking until the final figures are released, and generally the information is not publicly available. But the last time I could get data, Q3 2009, Apple ranked No. 7 in worldwide PC market share, according to IDC.

    iPod. Apple shipped 10.9 million iPods during fiscal second quarter, down from 11 million a year earlier. Analyst consensus for Q2 was around 9.4 million units. While units declined, revenue rose 12 percent from a year earlier.  Oppenheimer described iPod growth as the strongest in two years.  Apple ended the quarter with about four-to-six weeks of inventory, on par with projections. The iTunes Store ended the quarter with a library of 12 million songs.

    Q2 2010 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 971,000 units, up 20 percent from 809,000 units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 899,000 units, up 37 percent from 658,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 129,000 units, up 18 percent from 109,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 338,000 units, up 67 percent from 202,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 606,000 units, up 38 percent from 438,000 units a year earlier.

    Retail. Revenue rose 22 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 606,000 units, compared to 434,000 a year earlier. Apple opened three new stores in the quarter, for a total of 286 retail outlets worldwide. There was an average 284 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $5.9 million compared to $5.5 million a year earlier. Sales rose by average 8 percent per store. Apple retail stores had 47 million visitors during the quarter up 20 percent from 39.1 million a year earlier. Apple expects to open 40-50 new stores during fiscal 2010.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/20/Apple_should_sue_Gizmodo_over_stolen_iPhone_prototype'

    Apple should sue Gizmodo over stolen iPhone prototype

    Publié: avril 20, 2010, 5:05am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gizmodo was wrong to acquire a lost iPhone prototype -- quite likely a nearly finished version 4 design -- let alone pay to obtain it. Perhaps this marks the distinction between bloggers and journalists. I would have contacted Apple about returning a device so obviously stolen. There is grave difference between obtaining secret information for the public good and what Gizmodo did: Obtain property containing trade secrets belonging to a public company. Gizmodo has violated the public trust and broken the law. Free speech isn't a right to pay freely for something clearly stolen.

    I typically reserve this kind of treatise on journalistic ethics for my Oddly Together blog, where in late March I posted "The Difference Between Blogging and Journalism." Betanews founder Nate Mook asked me to write something here about the journalistic and legalistic ethicacy of Gizmodo's actions. I simply couldn't refuse.

    Earlier today, long-time Mac journalist Jim Dalrymple and I discussed the story. I asserted then, as I will here, that Gizmodo broke the law by obtaining stolen property and, related, by paying for an unreleased Apple product that disclosed trade secrets. The latter violates good journalistic practice, at the least.

    Gadget geeks' desire to know doesn't supplant a company's right to protect millions of dollars invested in developing a product or preventing millions of dollars lost by the leakage of product designs or plans to competitors. Gizmodo did more than cross the line here. The blog lept a chasm no less wide than the Grand Canyon. The legal ramifications could, and quite probably should, be as deep.

    The flow of events isn't complicated to follow:

    1. On March 18, someone left in a bar what later appeared to be a next-gen iPhone prototype or near-finished device.

    2. Someone else stole the device. Stolen is appropriate description because the device had been left in a public place -- presumably by accident -- and clearly belonged to someone else.

    3. Gizmodo obtained the stolen smartphone by paying cash  for it; Gizmodo's Jason Chen got access to the device around seven days before posting information about it.

    4. Today, Gizmodo posted pics and videos and offered some device teardown that reveals to competitors much about Apple's plans for the next-gen iPhone.

    5. The phone's seller sought to profit from the sale of the stolen property, while Gizmodo sought to profit from the pageviews that photos, videos and blog posts would generate.

    [Editor's Note: This post presumes that the iPhone prototype is the real thing and not a fake.]

    A Clear Case of Theft

    There are two primary questions regarding Gizmodo's actions. Did it break the law and did it violate good journalistic prudence -- assuming anyone would apply ethics to a new media blog. Let's start with the trade secrets.

    California's "Uniform Trade Secrets Act" is unambiguous, partly defining "trade secret" as "information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process." The Act uses several definitions of "misappropriation," of a trade secret with one being: "Acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means."

    An unreleased phone accidentally left in a bar and sold to Gizmodo surely qualifies as acquisition "by improper means." Proper means would be purchase of the device from Apple, following its public release. What about theft? According to Section 485 of the California Penal Code:

    One who finds lost property under circumstances which give him knowledge of or means of inquiry as to the true owner, and who appropriates such property to his own use, or to the use of another person not entitled thereto, without first making reasonable and just efforts to find the owner and to restore the property to him, is guilty of theft.

    There's nothing unambiguous about that. According to Gizmodo, Apple software engineer Gray Powell accidentally left the iPhone on a bar stool. The person later obtaining the device sat next him. By my reading of the law, the finder is guilty of theft and likely so is Gizmodo by paying for the Apple smartphone. Estimates range between $5,000-$10,000, but who knows?

    Yellow Blogging

    Gizmodo is part of the Gawker family of, arguably quite successful, Weblogs. On his twitter page, Gawker publisher Nick Denton's bio reads: "Gossip merchant," which says much about the news philosophy behind Gizmodo and other Gawker properties. In a Denton memo to employees last week, he wrote: "The staples of old yellow journalism are the staples of the new yellow journalism: sex; crime; and, even better, sex crime. Remember how Pulitzer got his start: [en.wikipedia.org]." I call its reincarnation "yellow blogging," as gossip and rumor blogsites ruthlessly compete for pageviews -- such as the well-publicized competition between Engadget and Gizmodo.

    In the memo, Denton outlined eight attributes that drive pageviews: "Scandal sells"; "the pseudo exclusive"; "drama"; "visuals"; "explainers"; "don't rubbish the headline"; "parody"; and "inside baseball." So far, the stolen iPhone story has seven -- eight, if I missed parody somewhere. Gizmodo has carefully unfolded the story, like today's "How Apple Lost the Next iPhone," over several posts, with supporting pics and videos. Clearly the goal is to maximize pageviews, which have topped 3 million perhaps on their way to 5 million or more.

    In many ways, this post isn't easy for me to write. I highly respect Denton for his success managing Gawker through the economic downturn and bringing back some of the drive to break stories. But there's breaking news and breaking the law. It's not like Gizmodo turned up a whistleblower revealing that iPhone causes brain cancer or that Apple uses 8 year-old boys on the manufacturing line. It's the difference between what does and does not qualify as free speech or the free press.

    According to the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act:

    Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit, restrict, or otherwise impair, the capacity of persons employed by public entities to report improper government activity, as defined in Section 10542 of the Government Code, or the capacity of private persons to report improper activities of a private business.

    Nowhere does the Act say that journalists may "misappropriate" trade secrets for personal or company gain.

    An Ethics Lesson

    Tech pundit Andy Ihnatko put the right ethical and legal response in the right perspective in a blog post earlier today:

    I would have thought very hard and then gone with my first impulse: return the phone to Apple. If it's been stolen, then Apple is the victim of a crime and the ethical answer is to side with the victim...If I was told that this phone had been found in a bar, I would have assumed that it had been stolen from Apple. Same result. And if the 'finder' wanted some sort of fee for this device, then I would have brought law enforcement into the discussion.

    That kind of situation is so shady that no journalist with an ounce of sense would come anywhere near it. Even if you could get past the professional ethical dilemma and your ethical dilemma as a human being -- look, smart people aren't confused about how to react when someone tries to hand them a knife wrapped in a torn and bloody UPS uniform and asks them to hide it for a couple of weeks. I don't mind these problems that you have to discuss with your editor. But I try to avoid the sort of problems that result in a conversation with a criminal defense attorney.

    I wholeheartedly agree. But I fall on my ethics as a Roman might fall on his sword. I'm a lowly freelance journalist. Yellow blogging is where the money is. That said, justice may come in the form of Apple's retribution. Today at TechCrunch, MG Siegler appropriately stated Gizmodo's legal situation:

    It may be the most high-profile hardware leak of all time from any company. If there has ever been anything that will draw the wrath of Apple's legal team, this would seem to be it. And yet, if Gizmodo (or its parent, Gawker) have gotten a take-down notice, they haven't let it be known yet. It's possible, and likely even probable, that Apple is taking this as something worthy of action much more serious than the fairly common takedown notices the company sends from time to time.

    Apple may have plenty of legal recourse. According to section 3426.3 of the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act:

    A complainant may recover damages for the actual loss caused by misappropriation. A complainant also may recover for the unjust enrichment caused by misappropriation that is not taken into account in computing damages for actual loss.

    Apple has sued over stolen trade secrets before, such as one lawsuit in 2004 against an "unknown individual" for leaks related to the Power Mac G4 Cube. In 2005, Apple sued several bloggers over release of trade secrets. The resulting settlement led to rumor site ThinkSecret's closure. Surely, Apple would and should take action against the "most high-profile hardware leak of all time from any company."

    Denton is a new media mogul and cult personality in his own right. Steve Jobs and Apple may find Denton and Gawker to be formidable opponents. Perhaps that's the win-win Denton sees. He gains scads of pageviews from the iPhone leak, while with a lawsuit opportunity to publish an ongoing blow-by-blow account about the Apple legal skirmish. If there was ever going to be a truly public Apple legal battle, Gawker would be it. Who says blogging doesn't pay?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/19/10_questions_to_ask_before_buying_iPad'

    10 questions to ask before buying iPad

    Publié: avril 19, 2010, 5:44pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On Friday night, I bought an iPad nearly three months after giving 12 reasons why I wouldn't. An unexpected reason came up: My wife's MacBook Pro died. I reckoned she could temporarily use the tablet (which cost way less than any new Mac laptop) and give me a chance to better test the device (than using the Apple Store display models). I'm not among Apple's inner circle of reviewers, nor on any of its other reviewers' lists. I'd have to buy an iPad to test one and pay the restocking fee should I decide not to keep it. The MacBook Pro failure presented reason to join the iPad Generation.

    Before getting to those 10 questions to ask, first it's the story of the failed MacBook Pro. I bought the computer used -- somewhat scratched and nicked but in excellent operating condition -- in summer 2009. Early last week, the laptop started acting strangely, with scrolling display or pixelated frozen screen that required reboot. Thursday, the computer rebooted to kernel panic -- Apple's version of the Windows blue screen of death -- every other reboot before freezing up again. So I hauled the ailing laptop into the local Apple Store, expecting prognosis that the graphics chip had failed; I'd already read on the InterWeb that generation of nVidia graphics chip was defective.

    At the Apple Store, the Genius confirmed what I expected but said something I didn't. The graphics chip is the only part "covered out of warranty," which in Genius Bar lingo meant free repair. Apple would replace the logic board. After handing over my wife's vintage 2008 MacBook Pro, I took another look at iPad, which I really wasn't interesting in buying (Hey, I gave 12 reasons why not, remember?). But I often swap computers, operating systems, cell phones and other gadgets to break up my routine, to minimize falling into habits. The finger-licking-good user interface certainly would disrupt how I normally interact with a computer. So I decided to buy an iPad. What's 700 bucks between frienemies? But there were none in stock. No problem. An Apple Store employee took my name to reserve one for whenever more shipped in.

    Next day, I got email that my iPad was waiting. Whoa, that was fast. I bought the 64GB WiFi model hours later, using money from my meager tax refund. My wife and I both used the tablet over the weekend, but she less time than either of us expected. About 6:15 Sunday evening, someone from the Apple Store called to say that my wife's laptop was ready for pick up. Whoa, that was pretty good service. Turnaround was less than 72 hours after I had been told the repair would take five-to-seven days.

    Based on my early iPad usage, I've formed some questions potential buyers should ask when considering the big purchase. I'm not ready to review or even recommend iPad, and I may yet return the device. It's an expensive toy for my budget, fun as iPad may be to use. Now for those questions:

    1. Can you rub your tummy, wave your hand, chew bubblegum and blink your eyes at the same time? If so, iPad isn't for you. The device is a multitasking-free zone. OK, some Apple applications kind of work at the same time -- on par with rubbing your tummy and chewing gum together. But iPad is, for now, mainly a one-thing-at-a-time device, which is one of several reasons why in early March I singled out the 55-and-older set as a viable market segment.

    2. Do you watch videos at places other than YouTube? If so, forget iPad. For me, the device generated scathes of frustration because the browser doesn't support Adobe Flash. Just try watching videos at MTV.com, Engadget or any (other) Wordpress.com site using the built-in video streaming service. They're Flash-based, baby, so they poop out using iPad's mobile Safari.

    Apple has gone on the offensive against Flash, and Macheads have joined in, justifying the attack. What a load of crap. For all the BS about Apple protecting the user experience, Flash is all over the Web. The Flash flap is like Apple releasing a digital-only TV four years ago and arguing that analog is inferior and has a monopoly on broadcasting standards. Digital is better, so Apple won't support analog. This is exactly the kind of argument applied to Flash, ignoring it is the major means by which video is delivered over the Web.

    3. Do you like to eat with your fingers? Then iPad is for you. The Apple demos don't lie. The tablet is pure finger food. Are you ambidextrous or would you like to be? Apple is a two-handed device, if rightly used. Think "Minority Report" for the kind of sweeping movements that make iPad fun to use and a remarkably more productive tool than mouse and keyboard.

    4. Do you have trouble managing your inbox? I sure as hell do. The mail just piles up for months before I finally get around to deleting and filing. On Saturday night, I cleaned up about six months of @me.com email, using iPad. It was unfraking believable. Using my fingers, I blew through the work in about one-third the time of using keyboard and mouse. Bee-Jesus!

    5. Did you rebuy music or movies you already purchased to get the content in a new format? You know, moving from vinyl to CDs or VHS to DVD or DVD to Blu-ray (or, gasp, defunct HD DVD). If so, you'll be primed to rebuy many iPod/iPhone touch apps as iPad versions, which typically cost more in the larger formatted size. Not only will you pay twice, but higher price, too. Welcome to the iPad economy!

    6. Do you like to read while sitting on the toilet? Wonderful, iPad is the ideal bathroom reader. You can choose from e-books, magazine apps or the Web --  even watch a TV show or (gasp!) movie if you need that long in there.

    7. Is your music library bigger than a cereal box? Mine is 78GB of music, and video content consumes a little more. The iPad offers storage capacity of 16GB, 32GB or 64GB, which is underwhelming for big content consumers. Since there are no USB ports, digital content stored on portable drives isn't a real solution either. Streaming music could be an option while you work, but -- whoops -- Apple prohibits third-party apps like Pandora from doing so.

    8. Have you pined for an Apple laptop but couldn't justify, or afford, $999 for the white MacBook? Well, well, for half that price iPad could be yours. It's the cheapest Mac you can buy. The tablet easily provides more than 90 percent of everyday portable PC functionality -- better than a Windows netbook, in my testing. But there is the puny storage (16GB) for $499, Flashless browser, no peripheral ports (OK, Apple sells extra-cost camera and VGA adaptors) and singletasking to consider. But if you can live with these compromises, iPad has plenty of appeal. The screen is so beautiful, you will want to lick it (and your fingers, too).

    9. Do you enjoy reading bulky magazines, like Brides or the old Computer Shopper? Then you'll love iPad for its heft, on the order of a later series Harry Potter book, but, of course, nowhere as thick. The iPad measures 24.28 cm by 18.97 cm by 1.34 cm (9.56 inches by 7.47 inches by .5 inches). The WiFi model is .68 kg (1.5 pounds) and the 3G model .73 kg (1.6 pounds).

    For my tastes, iPad is too large, about as long as a hardcover book and much wider, by about 3 cm. The black border surrounding the viewable part of the screen is about 2 cm around. By removing the border, iPad's length and width would be about the same as a hardcover book. The iPad doesn't compare well to ultra-thin, electronic paper screens, making it not nearly as "revolutionary" as advertised. In two or perhaps three years, Apple will unveil an iPad nano that is super thin with smaller dimensions.

    10. Do you travel often by air and find annoying and time wasting the security process of removing your laptop from its bag? Like me, perhaps you worry about notebook theft while going through the security line. If the answer is yes, iPad could save you time and troubles. In the United States, the TSA has deemed iPad as security check-in friendly. You can leave it in your bag. Yesterday, Altimeter Group analyst Michael Gartenberg tweeted: "Going through security with iPad was a breeze. Easiest pass through since 9/11. Nice to lose five pounds that quickly." That could be you!

    Wrapping up, do you have any questions to ask about iPad or perhaps others you think potential buyers should ask? Please offer them in comments. As for my iPad, I'm still weighing options. If you live in the San Diego area and would settle for a slightly-used Apple tablet, make me a reasonable offer.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/16/Has_Apple_gone_too_far_'

    Has Apple gone too far?

    Publié: avril 16, 2010, 8:47pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Pundits are chattering about some, ah, aggressive moves by Apple with customers and partners over the last couple of weeks. Rather than opine on the subject, I'd like to ask you to do so. I'm looking to write a future post with Betanews reader reactions about Apple's recent actions and to a surprisingly active CEO Steve Jobs -- he sure sent out lots of email responses lately; from iPad, perhaps, :).

    I'm most interested in responses from developers and content creators, which are two groups most affected by Apple's action. I ask anyone who wants to comment anonymously but to be taken seriously -- or those people wanting to open a larger dialog -- to contact me by email: joewilcox at gmail dot com. Everyone else, please feel free to comment below.

    To set the stage, I'll lay out some of the issues and reactions already vetted by the Web community. Among the topics:

    1. Apple's newly revised developer agreement that prohibits cross-compilers and private APIs, effectively shutting out workarounds that might have allowed Adobe Flash and other development platforms on iPhone OS 4.x.

    2. Apple's very public squabble with Adobe about Flash on iPhone OS 4.x.

    3. Apple's use of private APIs on iPad, such as for iBooks, that some developers claim give the company unfair advantage over them.

    4. Apple's position on third-party advertising on iPhone OS 4.x. Apple spokespeople had indicated that third-party advertising would be allowed. But the developer agreement seemingly prohibits the kind of data collection essential to advertising. Apple's iAd platform operates without the restrictions.

    5. The prohibition of the word "pad" in applications' names, because Apple has acquired a trademark for "iPad."

    These moves are unquestionably aggressive, but are they justified? The general consensus among pundits is largely split. Some people argue that Apple has every right to protect its platform, thus keeping the customer experience as pure as possible. Others argue that Apple has overstepped the bounds and looks more and more like Microsoft during the 1990s -- dictating terms to customers, developers and partners for its own benefit first. Let's briefly look at some of the pundit reactions to each of these moves:

    1. Prohibition of Cross-compilers and Private APIs

    Machead John Gruber:

    What Apple does not want is for some other company to establish a de facto standard software platform on top of Cocoa Touch. Not Adobe's Flash. Not .NET (through MonoTouch). If that were to happen, there's no lock-in advantage. If, say, a mobile Flash software platform -- which encompassed multiple lower-level platforms, running on iPhone, Android, Windows Phone 7, and BlackBerry -- were established, that app market would not give people a reason to prefer the iPhone.

    And, obviously, such a meta-platform would be out of Apple's control...So from Apple's perspective, changing the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement to prohibit the use of things like Flash CS5 and MonoTouch to create iPhone apps makes complete sense.

    SmugMug CEO Don MacAskill:

    What do I think? I love it. And I'm surprised more developers, end users, business leaders, and general web standards lovers everywhere aren't posting about how great this is...Finally, finally, someone has stepped up and done something about the de-facto Flash monopoly. Flash has helped the web and HTML standards to stagnate. It's sorta like a drug...it smashes through web paradigms left and right. Why? Because there's no competition...

    The iPad is already spurring HTML5 adoption even faster than before. Witness all the video and games sites that are already scrambling to announce and ship their HTML5 interfaces. Bring it on!...Best of all? It weeds out poor developers. And if the iPhone SDK and HTML5 aren't your thing -- go build somewhere else. I'm sure there'll be another computing revolution in a decade or two that you can ignore yet again.

    2. Apple-Adobe Squabble

    Steve Jobs, in reply to developer Greg Slepak about the Section 3.3.1 changes: "We've been there before, and intermediate layers between the platform and the developer ultimately produces sub-standard apps and hinders the progress of the platform." Jobs also separately replied: "We think John Gruber's post is very insightful and not negative"; it's linked in #1 above.

    Adobe platform evangelist Lee Brimelow, responding to Apple's Flash position:

    What they are saying is that they won't allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. This is a frightening move that has no rational defense other than wanting tyrannical control over developers and more importantly, wanting to use developers as pawns in their crusade against Adobe. This does not just affect Adobe but also other technologies like Unity3D...

    Personally I will not be giving Apple another cent of my money until there is a leadership change over there. I've already moved most of my book, music, and video purchases to Amazon and I will continue to look elsewhere.

    3. iPad Private APIs

    Tumblr lead developer Marco Arment:

    iBooks' use of tons of private APIs is frustrating on a few levels, the biggest that it makes all third-party reading-related apps second-class citizens. I won't be able to offer some features that iBooks has (such as a true brightness control), but my customers will expect them, making my app inferior to Apple's in key areas.

    This app's undocumented API use wouldn't pass the App Store submission process, yet developers need to compete with it for App Store attention. One of the great potential failures of an app-review system is inconsistent or unfair enforcement of the rules...I don't think Apple would ever implement such a policy for all first-party App Store apps, but I'd love to be proven wrong.

    Commenter Lurch Mojoff, responding to Arment:

    Apple's own applications have been using APIs and have had capabilities unavailable to third parties since day one. The only difference with iBooks is that the app is distributed through the store, but that is completely orthogonal to the issue of private APIs. I cannot make myself get outraged about this.

    4. iPhone OS 4.x Advertising

    Apple spokesperson Trudy Muller, responding to Wired.com: "Yes, we still allow developers or other advertising companies to serve ads within their apps."

    Section 3.3.9 of Apple's newest iPhone OS developer agreement:

    Notwithstanding anything else in this Agreement, Device Data may not be provided or disclosed to a third party without Apple's prior written consent. Accordingly, the use of third party software in Your Application to collect and send Device Data to a third party for processing or analysis is expressly prohibited.

    All Things Digital's Peter Kafa interprets: "This doesn't expressly prohibit ad networks from selling ads, but it prevents them from selling targeted advertising, which is close to the same thing when it comes to mobile devices."

    5. iPad Trademark

    Steve Jobs in response to AppIdeas founder Chris Ostmo: "It's just common sense not to use another company's trademarks in your app name." Ostmo had earlier received email from Apple telling him to change the names of iPad apps "JournalPad" and "JournalPad: Bible Edition." Ostmo had written Jobs: "This ruling came about only after we had two apps live in the App Store and had spent tens of thousands of dollars in marketing and getting our apps media exposure." AppIdeas later acquiesced, choosing new names journal.APP and bibleStudy.APP.

    There are other acts of Apple aggression stirring up discussion for and against the company, like removing Google's brand from the Web search box in iPhone OS 4.x. Please feel free to comment on any of it. I want you to be the story rather than my sole point of view. I also hope to extend the storytelling beyond punditry and news. Discussion and debate can do just that. So, please, have at it. :)

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/15/3_reasons_why_the_mobile_Web_will_rule_by_2015'

    3 reasons why the mobile Web will rule by 2015

    Publié: avril 15, 2010, 9:19pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last month I asked: "Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?" The answer looks more like five years, or about a half-decade sooner than predicted by Pew Internet in December 2008. I also asked Betanews readers: "Has your smartphone changed your life?"

    In preparation for readers' answers (coming in another post), I offer something meaty: Three indicators about what might happen by 2015 -- from the Morgan Stanley "Internet Trends" Webinar, Intel Developer Forum and the Nokia "Everyone Connect" event; all three conferences happened this week. If you're one of the iPhone-obsessed, either open your mind to fresh ideas or read something else. This post probably isn't for you.

    Morgan Stanley's "Internet Trends"

    On April 12, Morgan Stanley popped an 87-deck slide presentation, researched by three of its analysts. Morgan Stanley predicts that the number of mobile Internet users, 1.6 billion, will exceed desktop Internet users by 2015. It's a seemingly bold statement that actually is consistent with other analyst data, such as an IDC forecast released in December 2009. Morgan Stanley includes non-cellular devices, such as music players and handheld gaming consoles, in its definition of the mobile Internet.

    That said, 3G penetration rapidly rises in most geographies over the next four years. The sweet spot will be achieved this year, according to Morgan Stanley. The financial analyst firm predicts that by 2014, 3G penetration will be: 100 percent in Japan, 92 percent in Western Europe, 74 percent in North America, 40 percent in Eastern Europe, 37 percent in Asia Pacific, 35 percent in Middle East and Africa, and 17 percent in Central and South America. Morgan Stanley predicts global 3G penetration will be 43 percent, or 2.78 billion users, by 2014. The analysts are clear: "3G is key to success of the mobile Internet."

    In December 2008 blog post "The Mobile Internet is now, not 2020," in response to the aforementioned Pew report, I asserted: "The transition will happen much sooner. My prediction: Five years -- and that's being overly conservative." I've since stuck to 2015 as the date.

    Atom's Dual-Core Future

    On April 13, Intel CEO Paul Otellini spoke about the importance of the mobile Internet and development of dual-core atom processors. Atom processors have been most-widely used in netbooks, but they may have another future: Smartphones. Also at IDF, Intel revealed that Google's Android mobile OS runs on Atom processors. That opens the possibility of future Android Atom smartphones competing with handsets using chips from Arm and Qualcomm.

    During Intel's April 10 quarterly conference call, executives put lots of perspective around Atom and its importance to the company's bottom line during the global economic crisis. As netbook sales soared, so did sales of Atom processors. But trends are changing. With the exception of Western Europe, where telco carrier subsidies help lift sales, netbook shipments are slowing. The Atom-netbook goldmine has tapped out its vein. Atom-powered smartphones would be a logical next step, and why not dual-core from a company specializing in low-power consumption processors? Intel plans to ship dual-core Atom processors during this quarter.

    Posting at GigaOM late last night, Stacey Higginbotham smartly writes:

    As more vendors add multiple CPU cores to their chips aimed at mobile devices, the computing gap between a mobile phone and a laptop will close, leaving users to focus on features such as keyboards and screen sizes when choosing their mobile compute device. The real question is when this happens.

    How about 2015, if not sooner? Intel and Nokia are already working together on the MeeGo mobile operating system, which they showed off yesterday. Intel as the world's largest chip maker and Nokia as the world handset market share leader both have strong incentives to make a hard push into the smartphone-PC-replacement market. For Intel, the gold coming from the mobile Internet vein could be riches indeed. Manufacturers ship about 1.3 billion handsets a year, which is larger than the entire PC install base. Handsets are but one mobile Internet category, as Morgan Stanley analysts so astutely observed.

    Nokia's Smarter Dumb Phones

    On April 13, Nokia announced three new handsets -- the C3, C6 and E5 smartphones. These new mobiles compliment the C5 dump phone that was announced last month. Nokia's current handset strategy is simple: Bring more smartphone capabilities to dumb phones and add more social sharing features to smartphones. Nokia doesn't have a handset as sexy as iPhone, but the manufacturer's reach is large enough this shortcoming isn't yet detrimental. To date, Apple has sold 85 million iPhones or iPod touches combined. Nokia ships more handsets than that in a single quarter.

    Not everyone can afford to buy an iPhone or fancy Android smartphone. By offering more social capable -- and lower-cost -- smartphones and making dumb phones smarter, Nokia is looking to preserve huge market share in key geographic regions. According to Morgan Stanley, five countries account for 48 percent of Internet users: The United States, Brazil, Russia, India and China -- the latter four are often referred to as BRIC. BRIC is generally considered to be the most important block of emerging markets. In 2009, there were 620 million Internet users in BRIC compared to 238 million in the United States.

    US bloggers and journalists often ignore Nokia when writing about handsets, unless negatively comparing to Apple. Nokia has done poorly getting good carrier-subsidized distribution here, which contributes to the blogging and news reporting blindspot. But Nokia's BRIC presence is something else. Gartner doesn't publicly release geographic handset data, but IDC shared it with me once -- and not since (I have asked). From October 2009 post "iPhone global success is more marketing myth than reality," Nokia market share was: 38 percent in Brazil, 41.5 percent in Russia, 56.1 percent in India and 46.1 percent in China. No competitor came even close in any of the countries.

    Something else: Most emerging markets exhibit a past-seen trend -- skipping a more established technology in favor of something newer. Cell phones are often the first Internet-capable device used in many emerging markets, not PCs. The question: Will handset owners' next Internet-capable device be a PC or a smarter smartphone? Judging from Morgan Stanley forecasts, Intel chip positioning and adoption success of Android and iPhone OS, the answer could be the smartphone -- and by 2015.

    Nokia has embarked on a save-its-core-markets strategy that syncs well with emerging market trends and its sales success in BRIC. However, despite the strategy's merits, Nokia may yet lose the handset wars, particularly if Apple or Google establishes a more viable ecosystem around their mobile platforms. Nokia may enrich the mobile Internet experience for billions of handset users (the majority on 2G networks), only to fall away. The smarter dumb phone strategy is good for mobile Internet adoption, regardless of Nokia's future success.

    Handset competition is fiercer now than ever, and that's potentially good for accelerating mobile Internet device development, which Morgan Stanley claims already outpaces the desktop Internet's development (based on progress measured over 11 quarters). If 2015 is too soon for you, no worries. I concede that no one knows the future. Movie "Back to the Future II," predicted that 30 years from 1985 people would fly rather than drive cars, skateboards would hover and pizza would reconstitute nearly instantly -- hot and fresh -- from a freeze-dried state. There's still five years left. Who knows what can still happen? If some of you say smartphones will replace PCs when cars can fly, hehe, you might be right.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/15/Soaring_PC_shipments__Good_for_Microsoft__not_as_much_for_Apple'

    Soaring PC shipments: Good for Microsoft, not as much for Apple

    Publié: avril 15, 2010, 1:24am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    PC shipments are briskly growing again, in yet another small sign that economic recovery is possible. Today, Gartner and IDC both released preliminary shipments for first quarter. Gartner put shipment growth at 27.4 percent year over year, while IDC growth figures came in a little lower at 24 percent.

    But the numbers are mixed, surprisingly. While sales soared in EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) and Asia-Pacific "the U.S. and Latin America were slightly lower than what we had expected," Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, said in a statement. Respectively, PC shipments grew by 24.8 percent, 36.9 percent, 20.2 percent and 35.4 percent. China posted strongest growth -- 45.4 percent.

    But double-digit sales growth wasn't the big takeaway, particularly for Microsoft. After more than 18 months of sluggish sales, businesses are finally beginning to buy PCs again. For Microsoft, the news likely means an increase in sales of higherer-margin professional Windows. During the worst of the global economic crisis and the 2008-09 surge in netbook shipments, the sales percentage dramatically shifted to lower-margin consumer Windows.

    "With a relatively positive macroeconomic outlook, business demand was more forthcoming," Kitagawa said. "Major PC replacement demand driven by Windows 7 will become more apparent in the second half of 2010 and the beginning of 2011." That's exactly the kind of forecast Microsoft executives want to hear.

    But that's the future. The business recovery is still modest compared to consumer sales. In the United States, business PC shipments grew by 10 percent year over year compared to 30 percent for consumers, according to Gartner. There Windows 7, along with aggressive pricing, contributed to unseasonably strong shipments. "Although the first quarter is not typically a strong quarter for the consumer market, growth in the consumer segment was strong," Kitagawa said in the statement. "The positive economic outlook and affordable system prices drove US consumers to buy more PCs. These purchases either replaced aging PCs or became additions to buyers' households."

    PC Sales Q1 2010

    Worldwide, manufacturers shipped 84.3 million PCs during the quarter, according to Gartner. While HP led with 15.3 million PCs in Q1, every other manufacturer in the top five posted stronger growth -- 114.8 percent for ASUS and 59.2 percent for Lenovo, according to Gartner. US PC shipments were 17.4 million units, with Acer and Toshiba both growing about 50 percent. Apple shipped 1.4 million computers, for 34 percent year-over-year growth. However, IDC put Apple shipments lower, at 1.1 million, with growth a much lower 8.3 percent.

    Apple ranked fifth in the United States, falling yet another place, with 8 percent market share, down 7.2 percent year over year, according to Gartner. But IDC reported that Apple's market share declined to 6.4 percent, from 7.2 percent. Just two years ago, Apple had risen to third place in US PC shipments. However, despite all the hoopla about increasing Mac sales, Apple US ranking declined, with risk the company might fall back out of the top five in some future quarter.

    Gartner and IDC won't tabulate Apple's worldwide ranking until the final figures are released, and generally the information is not publicly available. But the last time I could get data, Q3 2009, Apple ranked No. 7 in worldwide PC market share, according to IDC.

    PC sales Q1 2010

    Apple is scheduled to announce second fiscal quarter earnings on April 20. Already, Wall Street consensus is for about 3 million Macs shipped worldwide, which would be on par with the last couple of quarters (3.3 million in the holiday quarter and 3.05 million in calendar Q3 2009). In the year-ago quarter, Apple shipped 2.2 million Macs.

    While these numbers are good Apple-on-Apple, recovery of the larger PC market bodes better for competitors. Increases in business sales, particularly those driven by Windows 7 upgrades, will favor Microsoft and its OEM partners. Apple still plays more strongly to consumers, which in part is by design. While Apple markets Macs to businesses, the focus is more on niches, such as content creators; the broader emphasis is the consumer buyer.

    Additionally, Apple doesn't much compete for sales below $1,000, where there are larger volumes. So as a measure of unit sales, Apple's ranking will likely continue to decline. However, Apple likely will continue to maintain high revenue share in the premium PC market, which is about 90 percent at US retail.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/13/Does_Apple_demand_too_much_to_be_cool_'

    Does Apple demand too much to be cool?

    Publié: avril 13, 2010, 10:14pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Apple upgraded MacBook Pros across the line -- 13.3, 15.4 and 17 inch -- but I'm not weeping with excitement. Could new MacBook Pros be any less inspiring? The hardware improvements are marginal, "Me-too" upgrades against Windows 7 laptops. New MacBook Pros, like older models, are perceived premium brand at premium pricing delivering maximum margins for Apple. It's the price people pay to be cool.

    About once a year I stir up this price-vs-value debate, mainly because of entry-model display resolution, system memory and harddrive capacity, for which MacBook Pros are arguably deficient compared to Windows laptops. Apple's iLife suite is one of the Mac's main benefits, but the `09 version launched in January 2009. The digital media suite isn't even keeping feature pace with third-party apps for iPad, iPhone or iPod touch. The point: I expect more from Apple? Shouldn't you, given what Mac laptops cost?

    According to NPD, the average selling price of Windows notebooks at US retail -- including online and brick-and-mortar stores -- was $512 in February, down $40 year over year (March numbers release next week). By comparison, Mac notebook ASP was $1,343, down $159 from February 2009. Higher pricing, stronger branding and better retailing increase MacBook Pros' perceived value among many computer shoppers. Apple also benefits from newness, meaning that for many Windows PC owners (the majority of the market) a Mac is something fresh. They've used Windows.

    Then there is the cool factor. People want to belong, to be noticed, to be appreciated. It's one reason consumers align themselves with celebrities and select brands -- or groupie girls chase some rock stars. Right now, Apple's brand is cool.

    Value vs Price

    To be cool, MacBook Pro buyers pay much more than Windows 7 laptop purchasers. MacBook Pro prices range from $1,199 (for the entry-level 13.3-incher) to $2,299 (for the 17-inch model). Windows 7 notebooks start as low as a few hundred bucks. My ho-hum reaction to today's upgrades is twofold: Apple offers incremental improvements over existing models, and hardware upgrades -- other than battery life -- mainly catch up with existing Windows 7 laptops for much more money.

    RAM is a good place to start. The MacBook Pro line is now standardized at 4GB, which finally catches up with most Windows laptops. For notebooks sold at US retail, "most are 4GB and then 3GB," explained Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analyst. "Between the two of them they represent about two-thirds of all Windows notebooks, and three-quarters of total, excluding netbooks." As measured by memory configuration, Best Buy offers 185 different laptop models, 128 of which come with 4GB of RAM. The 3 1GB portables are netbooks. Among the dozen notebooks with 2GB memory, five are Mac laptops (some of which will be replaced by new models announced today).

    How does storage compare? More than two-thirds of the laptops sold at Best Buy come with harddrives between 300GB and 899GB. Today's MacBook Pro upgrades leaves the entry 13.3-incher at 250GB, raises the high-end 13.3-incher's storage from 250GB to 320GB and moves up the entry 15.4-inch model to 500GB. Apple kept Intel Core 2 Duo processors for 13.3-inch MacBook Pro models, but modestly upgraded clockspeeds. The 15-inch and 17-inch models move up to faster Intel Core i5 and i7 processors.

    Over at Engadget, Paul Miller astutely observes that the move to Core "has caused quite the unprecedented wait." Windows PC manufacturers have long offered i5 and i7 processors, and for considerably less selling price than new MacBook Pros. Apple's lowest-cost Core i5 model is $1,799 compared to $1,357.98 for the comparably configured HP dv6t model (HP display is slightly larger, screen resolution slightly less and graphics memory four times more). Windows 7 laptops with slightly slower Core i5 clockspeeds (2.26GHz instead of 2.4GHz) can be purchased for under $600.

    Then there is the topic of screen resolution, of which there is some disagreement. I'm dissatisfied with 13.3-inch Mac portable screen resolution, which has stayed at 1280 x 800 for years. By comparison, my 13.1-inch Sony VAIO Z720 has 1600 x 900 resolution, and the display is simply breathtaking.

    "The notebook market has shifted from 16:10 aspect ratio to 16:9," said John Jacobs, DisplaySearch's director of Notebook PC Market Research. "The new 16:9 aspect ratio displays at 13.3-inch or 13.4-inch are 1366x768, compared to Apple's 1280x800. So, more columns, but fewer rows." So he agreed with me there.

    He emphasized: "When you compare that to the 15.6-inch 1366x768 display, which is the most popular notebook display on the market (about 40 percent market share), Apple is the winner there on both columns and rows...Apple's resolution is only lower, and only in one dimension (fewer rows) at only one size -- 13.3-inch -- compared to comparable products from brands that ship the Microsoft OS."

    Apple's Logo Advantage

    The slow move to Core i5 and i7 processors and marginality of other upgrades is typical Apple. The company maximizes margins at the front end, by offering a base set of features that deliver the best return on investment. As the product lifecycle progresses, Apple recovers its investment and supply-chain logistics lower production costs, incremental improvements begin. Apple typically starts by improving the hardware for the same price. Later, the company adds better hardware or features and cuts the price. Along the Mac's lifecycle, Windows PCs comparably come with faster processors, more storage and more graphics memory for considerably less money. Apple's starting price is always more -- $999 for the white MacBook.

    There are many reasons why the strategy works for Apple, such as its tight end-to-end control over Macs, premium branding and fierce price competition among PC manufacturers (something that hurts comparable premium branding). The branding works, and people pay more to be cool.

    There's a science to branding, for which logos are hugely important. A 2008 Duke University branding study by professors Gavan Fitzsimons, Gráinne Fitzsimons and Tanya Chartrand compared different logos. In a Duke University video, Gavan Fitzsimons explained the study sought to measure "incidental branding" -- very short exposure to brand logos. One a typical day the average person is exposed to between 3,000 and 10,000 different brand logo impressions. "We assume that incidental brand exposures do not affect us, but our work demonstrates that even fleeting glimpses of logos can affect us quite dramatically," he said in a statement.

    Researchers subliminally exposed students to Apple and IBM logos. Those exposed to the Apple logo "had a goal to be creative," based on a seemingly unrelated additional task using bricks, Chartrand explained in the video. "Apple has worked for many years to develop a brand character associated with nonconformity, innovation and creativity."

    The studies' results could easily apply to anything or anyone that people identify with. They inherit characteristics from the thing or person they attach to. Peer influence can magnify the sense of purpose or belonging. Will using an Apple product really make people more creative over time? Certainly they may feel more creative or feel better about themselves for the brand association. By comparison, what feeling does the Windows logo generate? Unfortunately, the study didn't use the Windows logo, but IBM's.

    I bring up all this for an important reason: The Mac-vs-Windows PC pricing debate is often heated (at least in BetaNews comments) and unresolved. There are plenty of people looking at configurations and pricing -- how much more they could get from a Windows laptop vs a Mac notebook -- and expressing bafflement about why anyone would pay more for less. Human beings make many purchase decisions for emotional reasons, about how XYZ product or brand makes them feel.

    Something is working right for Apple, regardless of Windows PC price comparisons. The Mac is but one product with sales momentum, which likely will be reconfirmed when the company next announces earnings -- on April 20. According to NPD, US retail Mac laptop unit sales rose 43.3 percent in February year over year. Unit sales for all notebooks rose 33.9 percent and 36.6 percent for Windows laptops (with netbooks removed). Mac notebook sales measured in dollars rose 28.1 percent compared to 24.7 percent for all notebooks or 21.6 percent for Windows portables (with netbooks removed). The point: The whole market is growing double digits, including Windows laptops, which is a major turnaround from early 2009.

    Microsoft is benefitting from the release of Windows 7 and, perhaps more importantly, aggressive and quite good marketing. The "Windows 7 was my idea" advertising campaign is exceptionally good. But unlike Apple, Microsoft doesn't have a corporate logo. Apple's recognizable logo covers all products, whereas Microsoft has many logos, with Windows being the more widely recognized. Apple has a brand advantage in the single logo.

    Perhaps the question shouldn't be "Does Apple demand too much to be cool?" but "Why don't Microsoft and its Windows PC partners demand more?" Apple doesn't have a monopoly on premium branding or pricing. Regarding new MacBook Pros, I expected more than Windows 7 laptop "Me-too" from Apple. Other people can debate the price comparisons, and comments below would be a good place to start.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/09/Don_t_tell_spammers_that_you_re_on_vacation'

    Don't tell spammers that you're on vacation

    Publié: avril 9, 2010, 8:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft has made the right decision to temporarily turn off Hotmail's vacation (e.g., out-of-office) reply feature. Flip the switch off permanently, I say.

    "In our fight against spam, we sometimes have to make hard choices, and we had to make one this week. We discovered that spammers were using Hotmail's automatic vacation reply feature to send spam from their Hotmail accounts," Krish Vitaldevara, Windows Live Hotmail lead program manager, blogged late yesterday. I missed the post because of Apple's iPhone OS 4 launch (I blogged "Apple shows developers the money" and "Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web"). I spotted the announcement first at LiveSide about an hour ago.

    Vitaldevara continues: "We decided to temporarily shut off the feature in order to shut down the spam. Of course, we know some of you like and use automatic vacation replies to let people know when you can't respond to e-mail for a while, and we'll turn this feature back on as soon as we've worked out the best way to prevent it from being misused by spammers."

    I'm surprised it's taken so long for this kind of problem to surface. For years I've recommended against using out-of-office replies because they reveal to spambots valid email addresses. Two best practices for avoiding spam:

    • Never use out-of-office replies
    • Turn off automatic HTML rendering

    I'm amazed that so few people make the connection between out-of-office replies and spam, considering how much of the crap is anonymously sent. Your vacation reply reveals that the email address is valid, and that can open a torrent of additional spam.

    Automatically loading images is another sure way to validate an email address. Spammers typically include clear gifs -- meaning you can't see them -- in HTML email. These images, also known as Web beacons, call back to a server, letting the spammer know the email address is valid. Outlook and most email applications or Web mail services turn off email image rendering by default. But, of course, people turn on the feature because the mail looks prettier.

    Like many other people, my inbox collected porn spam during the late 1990s. Once I disabled automatic image rendering, the porn spam subsided over about six months. I rarely get this kind of spam anymore, and on the rare occasions I do images don't load anyway. Hey, I'm married and a one-woman guy.

    I applaud Microsoft for making the tough but smart decision about vacation replies. I would encourage the company to go further and help people to change their behavior. There are plenty of better ways to inform people when you're away, such as status messages on Facebook, IM, LinkedIn, Twitter or Windows Live --heck, even location-based services like Foursquare. The only people who really need to know you're out of the office or away from home are the people you know. Don't tell the spammers.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/09/Apple_shows_developers_the_money'

    Apple shows developers the money

    Publié: avril 9, 2010, 2:04am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier today, Apple unveiled its iAd advertising platform as part of iPhone OS 4. Over the next couple of days pundits will rail about Apple competing with Google in advertising. As I explain in the previous post, "Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the open Web," there is a more fundamental, worldview war underway. Apple isn't trying to compete with Google so much as make its mobile platform more appealing. The right approach is simple: Make lots of people rich.

    Apple is building out a mobile platform around iPhone OS and extended services. There are right ways to make a platform more appealing, and Apple did just that with today's announcement. Successful platforms share five common traits:

    1) There are good development tools and APIs for easily making good applications. 2) There is at least one killer application people really want. 3) There is breadth of useful applications. 4) Third parties make lots of money. 5) There is a robust ecosystem.

    The fourth of these characteristics is the most important. No matter how good the platform, third parties will only support it if they can make money. The classic competing example is Apple versus Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s.

    Apple retained tight control over its operating system, while Microsoft licensed DOS and later Windows. Microsoft's approach allowed a huge ecosystem of hardware manufacturers, resellers and software developers to make money. Large businesses saved millions of dollars deploying PC hardware and software (instead of mainframes and terminals) and later generated revenue from new business processes and efficiencies. More third parties made more money supporting Microsoft's platform than Apple's. It's the fundamental reason why the Macintosh lost the PC wars in the 1980s and early 1990s.

    There is a sixth attribute that follows the other five: Scale. Once there is enough third-party support, the platform and extended ecosystem rapidly scales, such that it's like a tsunami washing away any competitors. From that point, there no longer is choice. Developers will create software and consumers and businesses will buy into the platform. More for businesses than consumers, there also comes a point where it costs more to switch than to stick with the platform. This describes the state of Microsoft's Office-Windows-Windows Server platform.

    Apple's app store/iPhone OS platform is remarkable for how quickly third parties supported it, how rapidly they made money from it and how suddenly there is scale -- at least around applications. The hardware numbers are good but not great, nearly 86 million iPads, iPhones and iPod touches sold combined. There is no single reason for Apple's mobile success although products and services released in 2001 are foundational to much of Apple's late-Noughties gains.

    Logistically, Apple started with the same platform approach that failed in 1980s and 1990s but reimaged it for the 2000s. Like Macintosh, with iPhone, Apple maintains tight control over hardware, software and services. But the company did much better offering an appealing platform for developers and mobile device buyers. Something else: No Microsoft monopoly. Apple didn't have to compete with an entrenched incombent on handsets the way it did on personal computers. The phone market is highly fragmented (even among Nokia handsets).

    The strategy worked in part by building in a direct mechanism by which developers could make money. Apple provided in App Store ways for developers to easily distribute software, to get paid for their apps and to protect them from rampant piracy. Flipped around, consumers can easily buy, sync and pay for the applications.

    Until today, iPhone OS developers sold their applications or gave them away for free. The problem with free is free. How do developers make money from free stuff? With iAd, Apple will provide developers another way to monetize their applications, which will be more important to content publishers like the New York Times or to developers giving away stuff for free.

    "These developers have to find a way to make some money, and we'd like to help them," Apple CEO Steve Jobs said during today's iPhone OS 4 launch event.

    As I explain in the companion post, built-in advertising isn't direct competition to Google. Apple's iAd is confined to its mobile platform. However, Apple is offering developers even more ways to make money and on a platform already highly scaled. During today's iPhone OS 4 event, Hasan Ahmad tweeted to me: "iAd demo -- All Android developers just packed their bags and went for the iPhone." If he's right, they'll be looking for the money.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/09/Clash_of_the_titans__Apple__Google_battle_for_the_mobile_Web'

    Clash of the titans: Apple, Google battle for the mobile Web

    Publié: avril 9, 2010, 1:25am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today marks the beginning of the great Apple-Google war. Contrary to what some other people will write, it's not advertising competition but something more fundamental. This clash of the titans is about competing worldviews -- whether the future mobile Web will be about the browser or applications.

    There have been skirmishes over these opposing worldviews, but Apple's iAd platform is finally a declaration of war -- not because it could compete with Google's search-based advertising platform but because it provides a better way for mobile applications to make money. Somebody has to pay for all those free mobile apps. Apple will offer developers the advertising platform and give them a 60-percent cut.

    Worldviews Apart

    Businesses fundamentally seek to make money, but corporate cultural worldviews determine the means. Terms like philosophy or principles are often overlooked by bloggers or journalists writing about corporations and competition among them. Perhaps these concepts are more the study of academics, but they shouldn't be. These operational principles overreaching corporate philosophies shape the worldviews the companies bring to the marketplace.

    In December 2009 post "Google's 'Open' definition: Simply brilliant business, but is it evil?" I explained the differences between Google and Microsoft worldviews. Quickly recapping, Microsoft's model presumes that companies produce something and are paid for it. The thing produced belongs to the producer. By comparison, Google's so-called "open" model presumes everything should be free, around which third parties profit indirectly and from things they didn't necessarily create or control.

    The Apple-Google worldview clash is similar but different. Like Microsoft, Apple's business is about platforms and applications. Google's business is about information and services. Apple profits directly from products it develops and sells to businesses or consumers. Google mostly profits indirectly from content or information someone else created. Its intellectual property is tied to the means, not the end.

    In approaching the mobile Web, Apple leverages its strengths as an end-to-end hardware/software developer. By comparison, Google already offers services in the cloud via the browser. Apple's worldview is more applications-centric while Google's is more Web-centric. Apple wants to pull computational and informational relevance to applications, while Google seeks to shift relevance to the Web.

    The Problem with Free is Free

    Where these two worldviews clash is the mobile device, such as the smartphone. HTML5 promises rich Internet applications consumable in a browser, which favors Google's worldview and search-and-advertising business model. Mobile applications favor Apple, which tightly controls the hardware-software platform -- and applications development by the APIs it chooses to expose and the terms dictated to developers.

    By comparison -- and only by comparison -- Apple's mobile platform is fundamentally more closed than Google's. Apple's platform is narrow, built around devices, software and services it controls. Google's platform is deep, with search and advertising services spanning the Web and an open-source mobile operating system (Android). Google has built a huge economy around search, keywords and advertising.

    Until today, iPhone OS developers sold their applications or gave them away for free. The problem with free is free. How do developers make money from free stuff? There is no pervasive Google search and advertising economy on iPhone OS devices, because most of the activity takes place in applications not in the Web browser. Apple tightly controls the applications stack, which is a Google-free zone. With iAd, Apple will provide developers another way to monetize their applications, which will be more important to content publishers like the New York Times or to developers giving away stuff for free.

    Apple is not interested in the browser-centric mobile Web, regardless of Safari's presence. During the Q&A following today's iPhone OS 4 event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs affirmed there would be no support for Adobe Flash or for Java. Their absence reflects Apple's app-centric approach. Flash and Java belong in the Web-centric world, and Flash is a developer platform. Apple doesn't want competition from another development platform on iPhone OS devices. The application-centric mobile Web keeps Apple in control.

    Closed vs Open Approaches

    In his April 2 post "Why I won't buy an iPad (and think you shouldn't, either)", Cory Doctorow astutely identifies what's wrong with Apple's mobile platform: It's closed. He writes about Apple's content lockdown:

    For a company whose CEO professes a hatred of DRM, Apple sure has made DRM its alpha and omega. Having gotten into business with the two industries that most believe that you shouldn't be able to modify your hardware, load your own software on it, write software for it, override instructions given to it by the mothership (the entertainment industry and the phone companies), Apple has defined its business around these principles. It uses DRM to control what can run on your devices, which means that Apple's customers can't take their 'iContent' with them to competing devices, and Apple developers can't sell on their own terms.

    From earlier in the post:

    What does Marvel do to 'enhance' its comics [on iPad]? They take away the right to give, sell or loan your comics. What an improvement. Way to take the joyous, marvellous sharing and bonding experience of comic reading and turn it into a passive, lonely undertaking that isolates, rather than unites. Nice one, Misney.

    By comparison, Google's worldview favors a more open approach to content, information availability and software and services development. The Google free economy (supported by search, keywords and advertising) has turned my industry, journalism, on its head (Man does that hurt!). But information remains free. Rich Internet Applications consumable in any browser are freely available. Software development and cloud services use more open standards and development tools. The majority of this kind of Internet, in its mobile form, is consumed in the Web browser -- even as applications' role increases on Android and competing handsets.

    So, Apple and Google mobile device worldviews differ in two fundamental ways: Closed/tightly controlled versus more open/loosely controled and applications versus browser centricity.

    Which platform wins remains uncertain, despite all the hobgoblining around from Apple defenders insisting it will be iPad/iPhone/iPod touch. There also are hints Google is directionally changing towards Apple. Google is unifying applications and services and offering more mobile apps for different mobile platforms. Google also is integrating apps and services around Android handsets. The winning platform, if one is to dominate will make lots of people rich. While I've focused here on Apple and Google as titans, Nokia is still the reigning mobile device maker by a huge margin, Research in Motion dominates the smartphone market and Microsoft is plotting a comeback. There are plenty of platforms in play, but Apple and Google are the most opposing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/08/7_people_who_are_returning_their_iPads'

    7 people who are returning their iPads

    Publié: avril 8, 2010, 3:13am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    You could be among them, but don't delay.

    Months of hype built up your expectations -- like one of those Internet romances. There's what you imagined the iPad to be, and now there is the reality. Can you annul this sorry relationship? Yes, within 14 days of purchase and by coughing up a 10-percent restocking fee.

    Don't worry, you're not alone. You gave into the peer pressure -- "Hell! Everyone was buying iPad." But there also is a support group of returnees. You can join them, and you can be free. You can reclaim your mind from the "reality distortion field" effects. Other returnees:

    Jeff Jarvis fell out of love with iPad, nearly immediately. On Sunday he tweeted: "After having slept with her (Ms. iPad), I am having morning-after regrets. Sweet and cute but shallow and vapid." So much for the Internet romance. Ms. iPad looked beautiful on the WebCam and even more so in person. But there's beauty and there's depth.

    Jarvis tweeted late yesterday: "I just talked with two people who, like me, are planning to return their iPads." Tweeted today: "Sitting in the 5th Av Apple Store before a breakfast meeting, reading tweets about me saying on @sternshow that I'm returning my iPad." To which Story Worldwide CEO Kirk Cheyfitz replied: "Is it better to have loved an iPad and taken it back than never to have loved an iPad at all? (With apologies to Tennyson.)"

    Old media-turned-new-media convert Jarvis has yet to say why he is returning the iPad. Surely the saga will continue playing out on Twitter.

    Michelle Alexandria "hates her iPad and is Returning it!" Alexandria has a litany of gripes -- from "ridiculous price gouging" e-books to "numerous syncing issues" to "gimped" WiFi-only connection (no 3G model yet). Yesterday, I asserted the necessity of multitasking on mobile devices. Alexandria agrees: "The lack of Multitasking was irritating as heck. While downloading stuff, in the above mentioned apps, the only thing I could do is sit there and stare at the freaking downloading bar." She's giving up for now, but not forever:

    I'm fairly certain I'm returning this in the next week or so and going to take the $80 (10 percent of $800) Apple Tax for the privilege of being able to return something. We're launching a new iPad website so I have to have this thing, but I'm going to wait for the 3G model ??" yeah AT&T sucks, but what else can I do?

    Nick O'Neill announced his qualms in an April 5 blog post:

    Not only did I feel like Steve Jobs' pawn when I walked into Apple to purchase the device, but I also spent at least 8 hours following my purchase trying to justify the expense. Ironically I find that the majority of tweets on Twitter are attempts to do the exact same thing: justify the purchase after the fact. Unfortunately though, while Steve Jobs may be able to dictate that a few million people should buy a device, I am not a true Apple cult member.

    Today, having returned iPad, he gave some reasons. Apple marketing describes iPad as a "magically and revolutionary product." But that wasn't O`Neill's experience: "It isn't magical and it isn't revolutionary."

    Jerome Nichols confessed his lover's regret in a tweet reply to CNET's Molly Wood -- not three hours ago: "I literally just walked out of the Apple store after returning my iPad -- not impressed, just a big iPod touch." Wood had tweeted: "Why on earth can't I edit a Google Doc on iPad? I can edit a spreadsheet, but not a Doc, in either mobile or desktop mode. Augh!" Nichols' blog nor his Twitter feed explain why he returned his iPad.

    Mike O`Connor returned his iPad "after 3 hours." He did so with vague uncertainty: "I don't really know why I returned my iPad after 3 hours. I guess it just didn't deliver $600+ worth of smiles." O`Connor rattled off some reasons, nevertheless, such as no Safari plugins, no Adobe Flash and the "whole iTunes/Marketplace sandbox," which "weirded me out." Cory Doctorow's post "Why I won't buy an iPad (and think you shouldn't, either)" impacted O'Connor.

    The simplest reason: "Mostly it just wasn't fun. So I returned it and took the 10% 'restocking fee' haircut. 60 bux, for 3 hours, so 20 bux an hour."

    Marc Mercuri briefly tweeted late yesterday: "Returned my iPad tonight (wanted it for an Azure+iPad demo) because of wifi+constant rebooting. Genius bar was 5 strong with iPad issues." Mercuri works for Microsoft, but don't assume that as reason for the return. Wifi problems on a wifi-to-Internet only device is reason enough.

    Nick Ellis bought his iPad on Saturday only to return it -- along with a case. He explains why in a post from earlier today:

    I took it home, started playing and something weird happened. I wasn't blown away. It was cool and all, but I just couldn't figure out how it fit into my life. It seemed to be an "if" device.
    • If I didn't already have an iPhone.
    • If I didn't have a laptop.
    • If I had time to actually read books or watch movies.
    • If I really needed it.

    But I didn't need it. If anything it was going to complicate my life. One more device to sync, keep charged and clear email from.

    Ellis got a surprisingly good deal. The Apple Store charged no restocking fee (saving him $60) and he had renewed MobileMe for $30 off when purchasing the iPad.

    Wrapping up, are you ready to part with your iPad? Do you want to return it, or perhaps you have already? Go ahead, confess in Comments. You'll feel better for it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/07/Should_Microsoft_franchise_its_retail_stores_'

    Should Microsoft franchise its retail stores?

    Publié: avril 7, 2010, 12:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you believe Mid-March job postings, Microsoft is preparing to launch two new retail stores, in Denver and San Diego, bringing the count to four. That's not exactly rapid expansion, given two other stores opened in October -- Mission Viejo, Calif. and Scottsdale, Arizona. Microsoft has to move more aggressively into retail, if it's going to rebuild its brand image and establish an appealing digital lifestyle for the twenty-tens.

    The company has an image problem that smart marketing and savvy retailing can repair. Yesterday, at MSNBC, Bill Briggs called Apple "fresh" and Microsoft "frumpy". The nut graph: "Microsoft, to some, appears a tad flabby in the middle -- a Chrysler Town & Country driver with a 9 p.m. bedtime. Apple, in some eyes, looks sleeker and younger -- a hipster in ragtop Beemer packed with chic friends sporting mobile toys."

    Microsoft is getting the marketing part down. Bing and Windows 7 TV commercials are remarkably good (I love the French one, by the way). But marketing alone won't fix Microsoft's image problems. All successful brands sell a lifestyle, something companies like Apple, IKEA, Pepsico and even Walmart excel at. Retailing is the other part of the solution. Like Apple and Sony, Microsoft needs retail stores to hawk its products, improve customer satisfaction and sell a lifestyle. That's not going to happen with a few stores opening every year.

    So why not franchise? Apple wouldn't do it. But franchising is highly congruous with Microsoft's long-loving channel ways. Rather than compete with retailers and resellers, Microsoft should make some of them part of the family. The company already has robust channel programs in place. Surely Microsoft could create from that foundation a franchise program faster than the time needed to build 20 or 30 new stores on its own.

    I'm not talking authorized dealers, but real Microsoft Stores. Malls are filled with, say, AT&T or T-Mobile stores and their authorized dealers. They confuse consumers, and the approach is not a clear, clean way to build a lifestyle brand. Like other franchises, the stores would conform to design and operational standards set by the franchiser. Like McDonalds franchises, these Microsoft Stores would be indistinguishable from company-owned shops. Although a smart Microsoft would give franchisees some pricing latitude and perhaps opportunity to offer additional services.

    Microsoft Store Geeks

    Timing is excellent:

    • There is plenty of available retail space -- even in shopping malls -- presumably for more reasonable prices than, say, two years ago.
    • The Obama Administration is looking for ways to stimulate small business growth; franchising could be good PR as much as good retailing.
    • Microsoft's financing arm could help worthy franchise applicants to secure financing in these tough-borrowing times, which, again, would be good PR.

    Franchises would offer many benefits to Microsoft:

    1) They would generate additional revenue, in the upfront franchise cost and any cut Microsoft might choose to take from the stores.

    2) Microsoft could rapidly build up its retail presence, assuming there are businesses looking to buy the franchises (Surely there would be).

    3) The company could more rapidly learn what does and what does not work in retailing and apply those lessons to its operations. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer claims that running Yahoo search provides scale for improving search queries. The same scale principle can be applied to improving the retail experience.

    Microsoft could (and should) continue building its own stores even as franchisees open others. My advice: Set a target for what number of stores would have enough geographic reach, then end the franchising program. Ideally, Microsoft should want more company stores than franchises. They are but a means to end -- scaling the retail operation faster. Microsoft could inform potential franchisees from the start that the program would eventually end. Those folks buying in early could get something not available later on. That would be incentive for them to participate.

    The other option is for Microsoft to build retail stores faster. But at present pace, Microsoft isn't moving fast enough.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/06/Hey__Apple__Microsoft__mobile_multitasking_is_a_necessity'

    Hey, Apple, Microsoft, mobile multitasking is a necessity

    Publié: avril 6, 2010, 8:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's "Get a sneak peak into the future of iPhone OS" event, in two days, is reason enough to re-raise the thorny topic of multitasking on smartphones. Apple's iPhone OS 3.x -- on iPad, iPhone and iPod touch -- limits running background applications. Microsoft is taking a similar approach with Windows Phone 7 (Thank God, the company dropped "Series" from the name).

    Here's where I whack aside the head my former analyst colleague, Michael Gartenberg -- or you can whack me (in comments) if you agree with him. Gartenberg and I are polarized on the topic of mobile multitasking. He thinks it's unnecessary, I say it's a necessity. In March 25 post "Windows Phone 7 Series imitates Apple's iPhone in the worst ways," I asserted: "People take multitasking for granted on the PC, which will make its absence more noticeable on the smartphone." I'd argue that because of applications' or features' contextual appeal, running background applications will increase in appeal over time. There are reasons why Google, Nokia or Palm operating systems allow multitasking, and seem to do so without any major hit on battery life (I've tested Android, Maemo and Symbian devices, but not WebOS).

    "The idea of multitasking on mobile devices has been a hot topic for years," Gartenberg explains in March 26 post "Mobile multitasking is mostly a myth." He continues: "I think it's a non-issue for the most part, and that Apple and Microsoft are doing the right thing for the mass market by limiting multitask use for third party apps... Multitasking is far more important on the personal computer -- whose windowed UI and raw horsepower make it not just a luxury but a necessity -- and one way the personal computer trumps the phone."

    Well, I simply don't agree, and I wonder about my former colleague's real opinion (analysts do have clients they might not want to offend). While saying multitasking isn't necessary, the Altimeter Group partner also longing writes about how much he wants more running background applications:

    There are two use cases that do matter. First are music apps such as Pandora and Rhapsody. I'd love both of those apps to work on the background of my device and using those apps on Android and WebOS phones is a big differentiator. Second, GPS and turn-by-turn direction programs both benefit from the ability to access GPS content while another app is running such as a navigation program. There's arguments for apps like Twitter as well but I think most of those use cases could easily be handled through things like notifications services to let me know something has happened.

    I agree about streaming apps and turn-by-turn functions but disagree about Twitter. Social media is perhaps the most important case for why running background applications on smartphones is necessary. The core functionality of any handset is communications. Before 2007, communications generally meant telephony or texting. No longer. Google, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Sony Ericsson incorporate real-time social networking features into their multitasking OS handsets for good reasons. Social sharing contextually extends the mobile phone's core communications capabilities -- as did texting and multimedia messaging earlier in the decade. Push-notifications aren't enough. Sorry, Apple and Microsoft.

    "What I'd really like to see is Apple and Microsoft figure out some way to allow third parties to do multitasking and run in the background," Gartenberg wishes. The question he should ask -- and everyone else reading this post: Why makers of other smartphone operating systems -- and their hardware partners -- can allow third-party applications to run in the background? Perhaps more: What's functionally flawed with Apple and Microsoft hardware/software/services that third-party applications must be prevented from running in the background?

    Gartenberg also asserts that mobile multitasking is not a "mass market case." Really? Why then do all major US carriers offer a fairly broad selection of multitasking mobiles to consumers? Some of these handsets come with customized UIs, such as Motorola's MotoBlur, for connecting to social networks in real time. Why also are Canadian and European carriers announcing plans to offer the hot, new Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 subsidized to consumers? The smartphone offers real-time social connections and, of course, allows third-party applications to run in the background.

    Context is key, particularly for Millennials accustomed to doing many things -- blogging, gaming, homework, listening to music, social networking and watching videos -- at once on PCs. Even more than the PC, the smartphone is highly contextual, with usage changing depending on circumstance and often demanding multiple functions or applications to be available nearly simultaneously. Gartenberg's turn-by-turn example is a good one, if, say, the user is walking to a destination, streaming from Pandora, searching Google for the nearest coffee shop, using location services to see if any friends are nearby, but suddenly stopping to snap a photo of a llama in the street and then uploading it to Facebook and Twitter. Multitasking mobile operating systems make easier these kinds of rapidly changing contextual scenarios.

    Do you agree with Gartenberg or me -- or perhaps neither? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/05/Is_iPad_really_just_a_proof_of_concept_device_'

    Is iPad really just a proof-of-concept device?

    Publié: avril 5, 2010, 9:50pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today, Apple announced modest launch-day iPad sales of 300,000 units, which include preorders. On March 26, in post "Of course media bias favors Apple," I put launch sales at about 330,000 -- based in part on over-widely reported rumors. Five days earlier, in post "Be smart, don't buy into iPad hype," I warned that bloggers, journalists and Wall Street analysts had gone bonkers over the device, losing some common sense along the way. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster is among them. Over the weekend, he revised first day iPad sales to 600,000-700,000, leading to today's admission he got it wrong. Munster also lowered full year sales estimates to 4.3 million from 5.6 million. Forrester Research forecasts 3 million iPad shipments.

    Modest initial sales aren't surprising, even though some Apple watchers will wonder if 300,000 units live up to the hype. As I explained on April 2, modest early sales follow the pattern of most other new-category Apple products, including Macintosh, iPhone, iPod and iTunes Store. Distribution is limited to the United States and the 3G model isn't yet available, which also mitigate early sales.

    In looking at iPad early sales -- and having seen the device closeup at Apple Store -- one question comes to mind: Is this a proof-of-concept device? My answer is "Yes!" (Please share your opinion, particularly if you bought an iPad, in comments.) My reasoning:

    1) The v1 device is a misfit, fitting uncomfortably between smartphone and laptop (or even netbook). The iPad replaces neither. Something more is needed.

    2) The primary usage scenario is content consumption, which is closer to consumer electronics devices than to smaller PCs. A future iPad with more powerful graphics and bigger storage could conceivably replace a netbook or laptop; that's where Apple should take the device. Something more is needed.

    3) Apple has done some remarkably transformative work on the user interface design and user experience (UX). From that perspective, iPad is just a starting place, extending from iPod touch and iPhone. Last week, Forrester Research analyst Sarah Rotman Epps expressed that  "in three years, we'll look back and marvel not at how many units Apple sold, but at the way Apple changed computing." Concepts for you as the natural user interface are in place, but something more is needed.

    Proof-of-concept isn't necessarily negative, as some readers might assume. I'm not saying that it is. For years, a so-called "version 3 syndrome" has followed Microsoft -- the idea being the company gets products right on the third try. For example, Windows 1.0 clearly was a proof-of-concept. Windows 3.x got it right. Internet Explorer 2 was another proof-of-concept product -- for version 4 (v1 was proof of nothing).

    Companies have to start somewhere with new product categories, and Apple's development objectives clearly are much larger than the actual v1 slate. Among them:

    • Moving computer users to a new portable PC/device paradigm
    • Establishing a new platform for consuming professionally produced content
    • Transforming how people interact with personal computers and related devices

    Based on those goals, iPad is a work in progress -- a proof-of-concept. By getting out the device now, Apple can secure publisher and other content creator relationships, give developers time to create and extend applications, build sustainable mindshare through marketing and iterate iPad improvements over a couple generations.

    The question: Should you pay for proof-of-concept iPad? I consider the original iPhone to be another proof-of-concept device, for which early buyers paid more than those coming later on. The v1 device initially sold for between $499-$599. Apple quickly lowered the v1 price and, again, to $199-$299, when releasing iPhone 3G. The iPhone 3G is still available, for just $99.

    At Fast Company, Gina Trapani asserts: "First-generation Apple products are for suckers. Only lemmings with no self-control and excessive disposable income buy first generation Apple products, especially in a new gadget category. When they do, they pay the double the price for immature hardware and software."

    Is that you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/03/Will_iPad_bomb_or_be_the_bomb_'

    Will iPad bomb or be the bomb?

    Publié: avril 3, 2010, 2:02am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I'm now convinced that iPad can't fail, if for no other reason than the momentum of hype. Too many people believe in iPad. It's like a religion. But there are measures of success, and I don't expect iPad will be a fast starter -- nor does it need to be. Forrester Research conservatively forecasts Apple selling 3 million iPads this year.

    Apple's history of new product categories is evidence enough that iPad sales will slowly proceed -- after a modest early surge -- before really taking off. For example, Macintosh (in 1984), iPod (in 2001) and iPhone (in 2007) all started off modestly. Some overly enthusiastic Mac fans will question any assertion that iPhone sales started off modestly. Hey, but they did compared to what came later. Apple reached 1 million iPhone v1 shipments in 74 days, a number later paled by iPhone 3G and 3GS launches.

    Each of these three products had a surge point, where modestly growing sales dramatically pivoted upward. In 26 years, Macintosh sales surged many times during Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' two tenures as CEO; they're too many for this post. For iPod, release of iPod mini (first half 2004) and iPod nano (second half 2005) hugely impacted sales.

    These weren't singular events, but surrounded by other important Apple business activity. 

    According to Apple 2004 SEC filings:

    Strong iPod sales were experienced in all of the Company's operating segments during the second quarter of 2004 with unit sales of 807,000, surpassing record units sales in the prior holiday quarter by 10 percent. In addition, iPod sales during the current year were favorably affected by several factors including shipment of the iPod mini which began in the second quarter of 2004; the introduction of Macintosh and Windows compatible models; the Company's introduction of a new version of the iTunes Music Store in the U.S. for both Macintosh and Windows users in October 2003; and expansion of the Company's iPod distribution network.

    A 10-percent sales surge over the holiday quarter is quite remarkable. The iPod nano also surged sales ahead. During holiday quarter 2005, the first following launch of iPod nano, Apple shipped 14 millon music players, up 207 percent from 4.6 million units a year earlier.

    These are two of many examples of iPod sales surges, all related to incremental changes made by Apple over the years. For iPhone, the initial surge came following price cuts introduced not long after the smartphone shipped in June 2007. But the biggie came with the introduction of the App Store concurrent with release of iPhone 3GS and broadening of international distribution in July 2008.

    I expect iPad to follow a similar pattern. Early sales will be reasonably but not exceptionally good, regardless of how Apple PR might present sales data. As Apple makes incremental changes, including price cuts, increases storage capacity and eventually adds a WebCam, sales surge spurts will follow. But for iPad to succeed on the scale of App Store, iPhone, iPod or iTunes Store, there must come a concurrence -- marketing, distribution, pricing, services, etc. -- around a single marketable product or service. Apple's tablet shipments will then either dramatically surge or level off.

    Apple's Incremental Formula

    Apple's 21st-Century sales successes follow a clear formula, which surely the company will apply to iPad. Part of that formula I've already lightly touched on -- feature and distribution expansion -- and will let be at that. The rest is nearly all about marketing and maximizing margins.

    Like a graceful dancer, figure skater or gymnast, Apple makes sales success look easy. But for each product category, Apple makes huge investments, particularly in marketing. The company sets a baseline of initial features and customer benefits then improves them incrementally over several product releases.

    Apple's business is all about incremental improvements based on longstanding and successful retail principles. One of these is the "pay more" principle. There is always someone willing to pay more. Clothing stores use this approach when bringing in cool new wears. Somebody will pay full price to look good -- to look cool. Stores maximize early sales from full-price buyers, then generate several new waves of sales through ongoing discounts. Apple's approach is somewhat similar.

    Apple's newest, trendiest products -- like iPod, iPhone and iPad at their respective launches -- tend to be higher priced. The products are perceived to be cool. Early buyers are willing to pay more for cool, and Apple certainly doesn't discourage them from doing so. The approach allows Apple to maximize margins at the front end. The company then iterates -- incrementally improves -- the products over time. The process is essential to Apple maximizing margins.

    Some incremental improvements, like release of iPod mini or iPod nano, are larger than others. These products restart the sales process -- people paying to be cool.

    There has been fierce debate among technophiles about what iPad is missing, as there was with iPhone. Apple often sets different design and feature priorities than competitors and, as aforementioned, seeks to maximize margins at the front end. From one perspective, early buyers get less than later ones -- and often paying more money. That follows the "buy again" principle, that people who bought, say, a first generation iPod will buy again and even again as new features or models release.

    One question to ask: How many people buying iPads this month will buy another when Apple releases a new model?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/03/Rating_three_months_of_personal_iPad_punditry'

    Rating three months of personal iPad punditry

    Publié: avril 3, 2010, 1:24am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Tomorrow morning, Apple's iPad goes on sale. Today is then perhaps a good time for assessing my last three months of prognostications about the tablet. I have not exactly been iPad's biggest fan, and I'll admit some of that trepidation is reaction to my journalist peers going so gaga over the device -- pretty much sight unseen.

    Earlier today at BoingBoing, Cory Doctorow wrote: "I think that the press has been all over the iPad because Apple puts on a good show, and because everyone in journalism-land is looking for a daddy figure who'll promise them that their audience will go back to paying for their stuff." I agree.

    Altimeter Group's Michael Gartenberg didn't. He tweeted: "I think that the press is all over the #iPad because it's a genuinely interesting product. Period." I responded: "Until this week, 'generally interesting' was just hype. I hope iPad succeeds, but, seriously, trade that Kool-Aid for Diet Coke." His retort: "Use one for a few hours and then we'll talk :)" Mine: "That's a very reasonable response. Had iPad v1 shipped with WebCam and 128GB storage, I almost certainly would have preordered."

    Now it's time to open my past iPad prognostications to microscopic inspection. I won't be super hard on myself, so that you can have your fun in comments.

    1) In late December I asked: "Are Apple stock price gains the reason for recent tablet rumors?" Absolutely they were, I assert, and they continue to be as I expressed in last week's posts: "Be smart, don't buy into the iPad hype" and "Of course media bias favors Apple." Apple's share price has consistently risen with the degree of iPad hype. The stock reached a new 52-week high today, $238.73, before closing at $235.97. Share price is up from $192.06 in late January and $112.71 a year ago.

    2) Early January post "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other" stirred up lots of heated discussion. I stand by my reasons, among them the functionality overlap of smartphones below and laptops above. The New York Times is an interesting authority questioning iPad's consumer appeal, considering the publisher has a prominent -- and oft-touted -- iPad application. From today's story, "Doing the iPad Math -- Utility + Price + Desire":

    Many consumers do not understand the device's purpose, who would want to pay $500 or more for it and why anyone would need another gadget on top of a computer and smartphone. After all, phones are performing an ever-expanding range of functions, as Apple points out in its many iPhone commercials.

    David Pogue expressed similar reservations in his complex iPad review for the Times.

    3) My January post "12 reasons why I won't buy an iPad" stirred up Betanews readers to comment. I now have a companion in iPad crime. Today at BoingBoing, Cory Doctorow posted: "Why I won't buy an iPad (and think you shouldn't, either)." Hell, that reads like one of my snarky headlines. Doctorow sees iPad as more suitable for general consumers than computer aficionados and packing unwanted usage restraints, like DRM that prevents sharing of content like comic books. From the post:

    The real issue isn't the capabilities of the piece of plastic you unwrap today, but the technical and social infrastructure that accompanies it.

    • If you want to live in the creative universe where anyone with a cool idea can make it and give it to you to run on your hardware, the iPad isn't for you.
    • If you want to live in the fair world where you get to keep (or give away) the stuff you buy, the iPad isn't for you.
    • If you want to write code for a platform where the only thing that determines whether you're going to succeed with it is whether your audience loves it, the iPad isn't for you.

    Over at Fast Company, Trapani throws harder punches: "Only lemmings with no self-control and excessive disposable income buy first generation Apple products, especially in a new gadget category. When they do, they pay the double the price for immature hardware and software."

    4) In late February, I asserted: "Apple should ban freebees from the iPad App Store." Many Betanews commenters called the idea simply idiotic. But today I feel vindicated. The whole point of the idea was to establish iPad App Store as a premium service over its iPhone/iPod touch sibling. Clearly, many developers are taking that approach, although some consumers may feel jilted by the price increases.

    Some random examples: NetNewsWire is free for PC and Mac. It's free or $4.99 (Premium version) for iPhone and iPod touch, but the iPad app costs $9.99. Scrabble is $2.99 for iPhone and iPod touch and $9.99 for iPad. Brushes is $4.99 for iPhone and iPod touch or $9.99 for iPad. Of course there are zillions of free apps, which I still say is money developers are foolishly flushing away, particularly considering the tiny install base come tomorrow compared to iPhone or iPod touch. Low volume is a different business than high volume. It would be better to charge more -- with the larger display reasonable justification -- and discount later.

    5) About a month ago I asked, "Who should buy the iPad? Hint: People of a certain age (and that's not you)." I wrote that Apple CEO Steve Jobs "turned 55 on February 24. He's a Baby Boomer, and iPad is for his generation and that of his parents. It's computing made easy, with all the basics covered in a device simply and comfortably handled."

    Yesterday, Forrester Research analyst Sarah Rotman Epps asserted that "the iPad is the right device for the wrong consumer. We think there's a fundamental disconnect between the design of the device and the profile of the customer who would most benefit from using it."

    Epps didn't peg the geriatric set, as I did, but her profile user is similar to mine: "The casual PC user." Right, like Gramps, who doesn't need a complicated computer or hasn't invested in a lot of tech gear.

    By the way, Forrester expects Apple to sell 3 million iPads this year. Epps writes: "In three years, we'll look back and marvel not at how many units Apple sold, but at the way Apple changed computing...it's a road map for where computing is going: Curated, cloud-based experiences that are visual and tactile." I agree with that.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/01/What_does_Steve_Jobs___inner_circle__say_about_Apple_'

    What does Steve Jobs' 'inner circle' say about Apple?

    Publié: avril 1, 2010, 9:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Over at Digital Inspiration, Amit Agarwal asserts there is an inner circle of 10 journalists that get advance review access to hot new Apple products -- ah, like iPad. The first iPad reviews appeared overnight, and many of them are quite favorable. The reviews come just days before iPad goes on sale -- Saturday 9 a.m. local time here in the United States.

    Agarwal does an excellent job detailing the three-phase process, who is in the inner circle and what are the benefits to Apple. I won't repeat what he so astutely explains. Read his post. Too much Web content is the regurgitation of what someone else reported, rather than bloggers or journalists doing original reporting. However, Agarwal graciously gave me permission to use the inner circle graphic he created. If you don't know who these people are, read Agarwal's post!

    I want to extend Agarwal's fine analysis and generate some debate about its meaning here at Betanews. On Twitter, Steve Drake asked me: "Does 'inner circle' = ability to control?" To which I responded: The 'Inner Circle' posts reviews that are reblogged everywhere. Apple gets big bang promotion, but somewhat controlled." Hells, bells. One 140-character-limited tweet isn't space for proper answer. Hence, the post you are now reading.

    Apple's approach to early reviews of blazingly new products is old school, and then some. At first glance, the approach seemingly defies all the new social media conventions. But from control and personality perspectives, Apple's approach is understandable.

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs is a cult of personality. Is it surprising then that Apple has an inner circle of reviewers that happen also to be personalities? It's not so much about the publications but the reviewers. The 10 people are a veritable Who's Who list of tech reviewers -- all personalities with followings. I don't mean to diss any of these reviewers, particularly as I respect most of them. I'm just spinning this from an Apple perspective -- creating a mini-cult of personalities reflecting the larger one. Apple seeks to maximize the impact of the reviews, which it can only hope will be positive, by choosing respected reviewers. Are they impartial? Surely, Apple hopes not. I hope they are -- and find many to be reasonably so.

    Apple's 'inner circle' of reviewers

    Then there is the control issue. Early reviews shape the reaction to new products. Microsoft learned this from Windows Vista. Following the disastrous Windows Vista laptop loaner program, Microsoft couldn't get a break from reviewers. Microsoft's wide distribution of loaners backfired in a big way, precipitating negative Vista reviews and persistent negative perceptions the operating system could never shake.

    Now compare to Apple, which sends out early review units of hot, new products to a select few. Apple can better control any damaging reviews and maximize any positive ones. In this era of social media and sharing, the approach seems non-sensical. Isn't more better? Sure, but the more Apple gets comes from other blogs and news sites sharing the few reviews -- even big gadget blogs post about early, hot, new Apple product reviews. So Apple can somewhat filter information, while still getting the social media big bang.

    How big is the bang? By mid-afternoon today, BBC, Barons, CNN, Detroit Free Press, Forbes, PC Magazine and Wall Street Journal were among the major mainstream news organizations with iPad review roundups. Then there are the blogs, the blogs, the blogs. The roundups are everywhere. Everyone wants a chunk of the pageviews iPad review roundups will generate (Oh, yeah, maybe somebody cares about regular readers, too).

    All this information dissemination comes with Apple in the best control it can exert short of giving out no early review units whatsoever. Or so I assert.

    Many companies place tremendous emphasize on social media and networking as part of their marketing efforts. However, Apple isn't buying into social media, because the company can't control the image, the perception. Apple's YouTube site is such good example. After years of abandon, Apple recently started populating its YouTube site with iPad videos. Apple wants people watching but not responding -- at least not there. Comments are disabled.

    By the way, it's my experience Apple typically only activates the inner circler for big product releases. Also, the circle of people with iPads is likely larger than 10 when factoring in analysts and other people -- and I've heard other reviewers have been getting devices today. The inner circle, as I see it, refers to the select early reviewers with permission to write about the product. Fair disclosure, before some commenter makes an assertion: I wasn't expecting an iPad review unit from Apple, so this post doesn't reflect any hard feelings on my part. I'm not jealous of the 10 journalists, nor should be anyone else.

    I've done my analysis. Now it's your turn. What do you think about how Apple handles important product reviews or generally disseminates information? Is the company controlling or not? If controlling, too much or not? Please respond in comments, also adding your own questions to the discussion.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/04/01/What_1984_Macintosh_marketing_reveals_about_iPad'

    What 1984 Macintosh marketing reveals about iPad

    Publié: avril 1, 2010, 4:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The strangest of role reversals is occurring right now as Apple prepares to release iPad on Saturday. In 1984, Apple needed the media and publishers to promote Macintosh. Twenty-six years later, the media and publishers need -- or seem to think they do -- Apple and iPad. How strange is that?

    Apple's "1984" Super Bowl commercial is legendary advertising. The commercial aired just once on TV, although it lives online in its original form and in many spoofs. But Apple's Macintosh promotion didn't stop there. For example, Apple purchased all the ad space -- 39 pages -- in the Newsweek 1984 election issue. The Graphical User Interface Gallery has scanned and preserved all 39 pages of ads.

    Apple needed the big media splash to launch Macintosh. How strange that with their fortunes waning, it's big media coming to Apple, hoping that iPad can revive failing print business models. New York Times has an iPad app and Condé Nast reportedly plans to offer six magazines -- Vanity Fair and Wired among them -- on Apple's tablet.

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

    The Journal, which will offer an iPad app for a $17.99 monthly subscription, also is signing up advertisers -- six of which have agreed to a $400,000 four-month ad package. "Magazine publishers see the device as crucial to their future as they scour for new ways to make money, with print advertising still under threat," write WSJ reporters Shira Ovide and Suzanne Vranica.

    Mac Newsweek Ad 1984Mac Newsweek Ad 1984

    Strange Destinies

    While their destinies may once again intertwine, Apple and the media and publishers pursue different paths. Apple is attempting something new, while publishers are doing the same `ol thing. Macintosh was a revolutionary product in its day, as the company hopes iPad will be. Before some smoke-pouring-from-the-ears Betanews commenter can write it, I'll acknowledge that the slate computer isn't a new concept, which also can be claimed of the Macintosh in 1984. But, like Macintosh, with iPad Apple is greatly trying to improve the user interface and user experience (UX).

    By comparison, publishers are really trying to apply the print motif they know to a digital medium. The print layout motif hasn't paid off so well on the Web, but clearly -- based on prototypes demoed or leaked -- old media and publishers hope to take the familiar and marginally improve it for iPad.

    It's the only sense I can make of so many publishers committing so much to an untried, unreleased, uncertain product. They know print page layouts, which they can replicate and even improve on a device like iPad. Apple's slate fits publishers' comfort zone, which would be the wrong reason for supporting iPad.

    Mac Newsweek Ad 1984Mac Newsweek Ad 1984

    In late-January Advertising Age post "Is the IPad Publishing's Savior? Pro and Con," Hill Holliday's Ilya Vedrashko expressed:

    This sums up about how I feel about the argument that iPad will single-handedly save traditional periodicals. It's not enough for the publishers to be thrown a life raft; they will also have to figure out how to last for days without water and how to avoid getting eaten by the sharks (or by each other, for that matter).

    What makes publishers so sure they can do better offering the same motif and means of selling and qualifying ad space? At least on the Web, publishers have tools for analyzing ad reach and effectiveness.

    Apple stays the Marketing Course

    I've chided the media and publishers for not adapting -- for trying to largely keep but marginally improve the old page-layout motif. Strangely, Apple deserves praise for staying the course somewhere else: Marketing. Macintosh and iPad marketing share a similar aspirational quality. Aspirational marketing defines iPad as much as it did Macintosh 26 years ago. Some comparisons:

    1) Macintosh: "Despite all the amazing technology and engineering genius we've put into Macintosh, the most impressive thing just might be what you can get out of it: Magic." iPad: "A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price."

    2) Macintosh: "A funny thing happens when you design a computer everyone can use. Everyone uses it." iPad: "It's going to change the way we do the things we do everyday."

    3) Macintosh: "If you can point, you can use Macintosh, too." iPad: "I don't have to change myself to fit the product. It fits me."

    On second thought, maybe Apple hasn't changed approach that much. Based on original Macintosh and iPad advertising, several UX themes are observable: Magic, simplicity, finger-usage and creativity. If the media and publishers can incorporate some of these concepts into their content apps, perhaps there is hope for them yet. Perhaps.

    [Magazine Ad Scanning Credits: Graphical User Interface Gallery]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/30/Apple_must_apply__right_price__right_rights__model_to_e_books'

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

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Mistakes will Haunt Apple Customers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/26/Of_course_media_bias_favors_Apple'

    Of course media bias favors Apple

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

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

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

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

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

    Acts of Faith

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

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

    Apple Shares 3-26-10

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

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

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

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

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

    Kool-Aid Messiah

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

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

    Apple Shares 3-26-10

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

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

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

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

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/25/Windows_Phone_7_Series_imitates_Apple_s_iPhone_in_the_worst_ways'

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

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

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

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

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

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

    The Wicked Taskmaster

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

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

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

    Waste Not, Paste Not

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

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

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

    Making Small Sense of Nonsense

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

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

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

    Related Posts:

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

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/23/Palm_s_not_dead__so_why_write_its_epitaph_'

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

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    'I'm Not Dead'

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/21/Be_smart__don_t_buy_into_the_iPad_hype'

    Be smart, don't buy into the iPad hype

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/16/Microsoft_s_Bill_Buxton_tells_UI_developers_to__do_it_naturally_'

    Microsoft's Bill Buxton tells UI developers to 'do it naturally'

    Publié: mars 16, 2010, 8:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft should make Bill Buxton its front man -- the main spokesperson. Buxton,  principal researcher for Microsoft Research, has style, great enthusiasm and vision. In an alternate universe, Buxton founded a company like Apple; only better. Buxton is more visionary than Apple CEO Steve Jobs, has better sense of good design (he is a designer, after all) and understands great design in context of the flow of history. Perhaps if Buxton had more ego, he would run a company as successful as Apple, or Microsoft. But humility is part of his appeal.

    Buxton stormed the Microsoft MIX10 stage today, bringing along hearth of wisdom and loads of energy. His energy is simply intoxicating. Last year, Buxton kicked off the MIX keynotes. This year he ended them -- and not with enough stage time. The first keynote, yesterday, started with sedate Scott Guthrie, Microsoft corporate vice president, talking Windows Phone 7 Series. Today's keynote began with Internet Explorer 9 team leader Dean Hachamovitch debuting the new browser, which is available as developer preview.

    Hachamovitch, like Guthrie, is a competent  speaker. By comparison, Buxton is dynamic, enthralling -- and he tells great stories about great design. Buxton roams the stage like a caged tiger, but his ferociousness is insight. Scattered grey hair and lean build give him a stereotypical mad scientist look, and he rambles like one, too. I look at Buxton and think of Uncle Monty from Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. "Some of you might say I'm hysterical," Buxton joked today.

    Microsoft should have made MIX10 Buxton's birthday bash. He turned 61 last week. Buxton shows that excellence knows no age -- that Baby Boomers have user interface design and user experience (UX) wisdom that tech-savvy Gen Xers and Net Gen-ers need to understand. Today's cutting-edge technologies are descendants of earlier generations' bleeding edge tech. Decades, sometimes centuries, of refinement define many established technologies' UX. Take the design of AAA batteries, for example (mine not Buxton's).

    Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Bill Buxton is principal researcher for Microsoft Research

    Buxton's personal mantra reveals something important about his design philosophy. From his Website:

    Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the 'things' that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have. Design that ignores this is not worthy of the name.

    This philosophy defines the differences between his approach to good design and UX from Apple's. Buxton sees good design as an expression of culture and history rather than the personality of a single designer or company. For Apple, good design is about "the things that we sell."

    Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Buxton is an expert about natural user interfaces and their historical context

    Good UI design is often about human usage context, and understanding longstanding design interfaces requires some understanding of historical context. Buxton used the example of buttons on a woman's shirt. He called the buttons wrong, because of their placement. But why are they that way? Buxton explained that when buttons were introduced, women didn't dress themselves. The buttons were correctly positioned for the person doing the dressing. Men dressed themselves, so the buttons are on the right, rather than the left.

    "Do it naturally," Buxton commanded the MIX10 audience, referring to user interface design. While Microsoft and some other tech companies treat natural user interfaces as something new, Buxton made clear they are something very old. Natural user interfaces are varied, depending on function.

    Bill Buxton, Microsoft Research Buxton demonstrates a natural user interface

    Buxton asked: "What the heck does natural mean?" One of his answers: "It's the ability to acquire skills." Good natural user interfaces affect the skills that the users have acquired. He answered with another question: "How well does it [the user interface] reflect me, the end user?"

    Ultimately, a good natural user interface must address four human skill sets:

    • Motor sensory skills
    • Cognitive skills
    • Social skills
    • Emotional skills

    Stated differently, good natural user interfaces answer the question: "How do people function?" He emphasized that it's not technology that is changing but people. Good user interface design isn't about technology. It's about people. The message is particularly important for MIX's developer audience.

    Pen and touch UI Demonstration of what Buxton calls a "pen and touch" user interface

    Sadly, Buxton could only briefly touch on one of the most important natural user interface challenges facing Microsoft and many other technology developers: Mobile devices. Development of applications for mobile must have a "sense of place," understanding changing contexts, he said. Mobile devices are all about usage context.

    Buxton joined Microsoft about four years ago, after running his own Toronto-based design firm (Yes, he ran a company in this universe). Before Microsoft, Buxton was perhaps better known for being chief scientist of Alias/Wavefront -- from 1994 to 2002. He is one of Microsoft's best hires in years.

    While Buxton talks about putting user interface design in context of human use, it's his ability to put UIs in cultural and historical context that makes him so unique among technologists. Microsoft should set up a mentorship program under Buxton and his research team for all product managers. To Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer I ask: Do you get it?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/15/Windows_Phone_7_Series_actually_looks_pretty_good'

    Windows Phone 7 Series actually looks pretty good

    Publié: mars 15, 2010, 10:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Zune -- along with Expression Blend, Silverlight, Visual Studio and XNA -- may yet save Windows Phone 7 Series. During the kick-off MIX10 keynote earlier today, Microsoft product managers showcased features, development scenarios and, most importantly, user experiences derived from Zune HD. Perhaps Windows Phone 7 Series isn't a hopelessly lost cause after all. Microsoft's competitive postion would actually look good, if phones were shipping now and not in six to eight months.

    In September, I asserted that Zune HD should have been the Microsoft phone. The user interface and user experience (some of that derived from Zune 4.0 software) is exceptionally good -- particularly coming from Microsoft. Finally, Microsoft is carrying forward and extending a great user interface motif. Better: Windows Phone 7 Series is inheriting and extending the social sharing concepts imbued into Zune 1.0.

    Microsoft launched Zune 1.0 in November 2006 with marketing tagline "Welcome to my social." Zune distinguished from iPod by making music a more social and sharing experience. It was a visionary approach for the time -- sadly held back by Microsoft's limited commitment (Zune distribution in United States only) and iPod's huge market share lead.

    But social as executed by Microsoft was truly visionary in 2006. Many of the most popular social media/networking tools taken for granted today originated in 2006 or later. YouTube officially opened in November 2005. Facebook opened to the public in 2006 and Twitter a few months later. Most of the most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last three years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumblr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others.

    Joe Belfiore Corporate Vice President, Windows Phone Program ManagementJoe Belfiore, Corporate Vice President, Windows Phone Program Management

    What differentiates Windows Phone 7 Series from iPhone is the same thing that made Zune so different from iPod: Social sharing. Sure, there are other mobile phone social sharing alternatives available, like Motorola's MotoBlur user interface for Android phones.

    Windows Phone 7 Series a social hubWindows Phone 7 Series as social hub

    But Microsoft is making social a platform that runs deep into Windows Phone 7 Series. I've repeatedly asserted that the smartphone will replace the PC as primary computing device. As the social hub for all communications, the smartphone already has replaced the PC for many people.

    Shazam for Windows Phone 7 SeriesShazam detects music and provides tools for social sharing

    That's communications within limitations. It's one thing to use Facebook on a mobile phone. It's a whole other order of experience interacting around disparate content repositories, which is the differentiating direction Microsoft is taking Windows Phone 7 Series -- and it's a path Apple has failed to follow with iPhone.

    Netflix streaming for Windows Phone 7 SeriesNetflix app streams movies to Windows Phone 7 Series

    Social is Apple's achilles heal, because it's not in the company's corporate DNA. Apple has historically only allowed social sharing where it has some control. The company has a deserved reputation for deleting negative forum threads, going back years. Try to comment on Apple's YouTube channel. Comments are disabled.

    Windows Phone 7 Series calendarEvery aspect of the Windows Phone 7 Series UI reminds of Zune HD

    Then there are iPhone limitations to consider, such as truncated multitasking and (related) the fixed battery and battery life. Apple's idea of social interaction is the push notification. It's a weak compromise that Microsoft seems ready enough to exploit (granted, Windows Phone 7 Series has push notifications, too).

    Comics for Windows Phone 7 SeriesComics in this app can be dynamically and quickly resized

    By comparison, "Welcome to my social" is a platform on Windows Phone 7 Series. Social sharing and interaction are seemingly available from pretty much anywhere, including third-party applications.

    Associated Press app for Windows 7 Phone SeriesThis Associated Press app packs real-time social sharing features

    I'm still not overly optimistic about Windows Phone 7 Series because Microsoft is restarting so late and from so far behind. That said, there's hope if Microsoft is willing to commit as much marketing -- and really loads more -- as Bing. What I saw today is encouraging. Finally.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/14/Apple_s_HTC_patent_lawsuit_is_a_bluff'

    Apple's HTC patent lawsuit is a bluff

    Publié: mars 14, 2010, 9:27pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Now that buzz about Apple's patent lawsuit against HTC has quieted a bit, I'm ready to pipe in with some contrarian analysis. I agree with other pundits suggesting that the lawsuit is competition by litigation, where Apple hopes to scare off mobile manufacturers from licensing Android. Surely some handset manufacturers will pull back, but they would be foolish to do so. For other existing and potential Android licensees, the lawsuit is a get out of jail free card. Apple's patent case should embolden, not restrain them. There may never be a better time to license Android than now.

    Apple claims infringement of 20 patents related to iPhone's user interface. Engadget's March 2nd patent breakdown is a must-read clinical analysis. But there's more to competition by litigation than the actual patents. Lawsuits often aren't so much about what's right but what lawyers think they can prove; often the winner tells the more believable story, even in patent cases. Similarly, much strategy goes into lawsuits -- how they're presented, where they're filed and when. Then, of course, there is whom. In this case, Apple took on HTC and not Google. Now why is that?

    Apple's initial goals have little to do with protecting intellectual property as much as scaring away competitors. I hone in on this because Apple chose not to sue Google, Android's major developer, but instead the largest licensee of the mobile operating system. HTC's Sense UI gives Apple a bit more range to single out the one manufacturer, but based on various analyses of the patents that's more bark than bite.

    Why HTC and not Google?

    Why not sue Google? Eight primary reasons:

    1) Apple potentially gains more by scaring off potential Android licensees than engaging in a protracted patent lawsuit. It's easier and more effective to raise bluster (and loads of free press) by engaging HTC than Google. Meanwhile, Apple can drag out the lawsuit as a distraction for HTC and other (frightened) Android licensees -- for years.

    2) Apple doesn't want to take on Google, which already has come to HTC's defense. Google would fiercely fight Apple, understanding that mobile devices are the future of search and advertising.

    3) Apple needs Google more than Google needs Apple. Unless Apple is willing to switch to Bing -- not a good idea considering iPhone buyer demographics -- Google search and maps are a necessary evil. If Google is willing to play tough with China, Apple is easy enough for Google to snuff off. Apple won't take on Google from a weaker position.

    4) HTC is somewhat disadvantaged, being a Taiwan-based company. Google has home-court advantage (like Apple), making it a much more formidable opponent than HTC.

    5) Patent lawsuits take years to resolve, hence Apple's separate complaint with the International Trade Commission. Again, Apple is using scare tactics to psychologically attack existing and potential Android licensees. So, this is quite similar to No. 1.

    6) The patent claims are likely not as sure as they appear. Since most of the claims are really about Android, Google is the more sensible target of any lawsuit. If Apple lawyers were truly confident of winning against Google -- and in reasonable timeframe, they would file lawsuit against the search giant.

    7) Android's open-source status creates all kinds of logistical and legal problems for Apple. The company really doesn't want to be labeled with a big Scarlet Letter as an open-source opponent. Apple has benefitted from open-source community development. It's a vocal group Apple doesn't want to piss off. Then there are all the nasty legal issues and potentially damaging precedents should Apple make a frontal open-source assault.

    8) The iPhone-Android phone market looks much like the Mac-Windows PC market did in the 1980s and 1990s. Apple unsuccessfully sued Microsoft for infringing on Macintosh user-interface intellectual property. The lawsuit dragged on for years, ending in settlement in 1997. But what if in the early days of the Windows PC, Apple had sued clone king Compaq instead? Compaq was more vulnerable to a UI copyright claim than Microsoft, and other DOS/Windows licensees would have received the message to back off. By attacking HTC, Apple hopes to prevent a repeat "us against everyone else" scenario.

    What Apple Fears

    Apple has good reasons to fear Android. In the three months from December to February, Android's US smartphone subscriber share shot up from 2.8 percent to 7.1 percent. Worldwide, in 2009, Android smartphone market share -- based on sales -- rose from 0.5 percent to 3.9 percent, according to Gartner (The first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1, shipped in late 2008). Last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt asserted that 60,000 Android handsets are shipping by the day.

    All this circles back to my claim that the patent lawsuit is a bluff. My reasoning:

    1) Apple chose HTC, not Google. There is no immediate risk to any patent claims against HTC. Since the real claims are against Google, Apple may find the court -- or even the ITC -- reluctant to rule against an Android licensee in good faith. There is perceived risk, but none in the short term, which is long enough for a united Android front to do market damage against iPhone -- particularly in emerging markets.

    2) Apple filed against HTC and not other licensees. Apple had its chance to take on Android licensees, choosing instead to go after one. HTC is enough:

    • If the claims are shaky.
    • If Apple is looking for one case to establish precedent.
    • If the more immediate objective is to scare off existing or would-be Android licensees.

    HTC being enough for this lawsuit isn't enough to legally or even logistically hurt other Android licensees.

    3) Apple is unlikely to sue other Android licensees anytime soon. A good legal strategy -- from cost and logistical perspectives -- is to make a single case. Rather than being afraid, existing and would-be Android licensees should feel emboldened by the HTC lawsuit. Behind the bluster, Apple has really given the all clear -- it's safe to go ahead; that's Apple's tell. Apple's bluff is meant to convince other licensees that they can't win; so they lay down their Android hands. Yes, Apple could file against other Android licensees, but the only immediate benefit would be to create more fear -- that licensees should fold their hands. Hardware manufacturers should look at Google's backing HTC; there is a heavy-sitting ally at the table across from Apple.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/12/Bing_gains_show_why_Microsoft_Yahoo_search_deal_is_a_dumb_idea'

    Bing gains show why Microsoft-Yahoo search deal is a dumb idea

    Publié: mars 12, 2010, 11:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    One of Microsoft's major justifications for the Yahoo search deal is scale. CEO Steve Ballmer has repeatedly asserted that greater scale would allow Microsoft to improve search accuracy. Just last week he told Search Marketing Expo West attendees: "The ability to put together Yahoo's volumes and Microsoft's volumes and use that in a way that improves the experience more, let's call it all involved parties, we think is absolutely fantastic."

    But the scale argument presumes that Microsoft and Yahoo would combine search share. The deal is in place but not fully implemented, and already Microsoft's Bing is taking away search share from Yahoo -- not Google. In February, Bing's US search share reached 11.5 percent, up from 11.3 percent month over month, according to ComScore. Yahoo share declined to 16.8 percent from 17 percent during the same time period. In June 2009 -- the month before announcing their search deal -- Yahoo search share was 19.6 percent and Microsoft 8.4 percent. But Microsoft already was rising, because of the Bing launch and millions of dollars in supporting advertising. For perspective, Google search share was 65.5 percent in February and 65 percent in June 2009.

    The Microsoft-Yahoo search deal is a dumb idea, for three main reasons:

    1) Microsoft's marketing push behind Bing shows that share can be gained organically, without taking on the expense or logistical hassle of managing Yahoo's search business.

    2) Microsoft search share gains foreshadow the inevitable: Microsoft-Yahoo combined search share will diminish rather than aggregate. Combined share would have been 28 percent in June 2009; 28.3 percent in February. At first blush, the numbers might seem encouraging for aggregated share but the cost is declining Yahoo share. Cannibalization is inevitable.

    Also the ComScore share data is for search engines and doesn't include heavily searched cross-domains like YouTube. Americans conducted 9.9 billion searches at Google in February, 2.496 billion at Yahoo and 1.498 billion at Bing. YouTube (and a few other Google sites): 3.553 billion or about 30 percent more than Yahoo. If ComScore ranked YouTube like Google, Yahoo would be No. 3 in search share.

    I first warned about flawed combined search share math about a year before (May 2007) Microsoft gave up its hostile Yahoo takeover: "There is no guarantee a Microsoft-Yahoo could successfully aggregate search share." Bing is more likely to cannibalize Yahoo share than combine with it over the next 12 months. In July 2009 I predicted: "Combined Microsoft-Yahoo share will be less than 20 percent within 12 months of the deal's closing." We'll see.

    Feb 2010 Search Share

    3) Search is -- or was -- Yahoo's crown jewel. Yahoo started as a search engine and remained a contender even as Google gained share. As I asserted in May 2008: "Removing search would be akin to lobotomizing Yahoo." That's essentially what the Microsoft search deal will do to Yahoo.

    Yahoo's banner advertising business is still big, but its future is uncertain during the Microsoft search-take-over transition. Meanwhile, Google has added banner ads to YouTube and to mobile search.

    Yahoo is little more than a beloved brand without search, particularly with CEO Carol Bartz dismantling the company's other prized assets. You know, little things like disbanding the mobile group earlier this week. Would someone please take away the axe from that woman!

    So what do you think? Should Microsoft and Yahoo have cut that search deal? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/10/Android_picks_up_more_US_subscribers_as_Windows_Mobile_share_plunges'

    Android picks up more US subscribers as Windows Mobile share plunges

    Publié: mars 10, 2010, 8:16pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows Mobile phones continue to bleed US subscribers, with Android devices picking up most of the lost subscriber share. Can you say free falling? Today, ComScore released standard handset and smartphone data for the three-month period of November 2009 to January 2010. ComScore designates the platforms by vendor. Microsoft smartphone subscriber share fell to 15.7 percent from 19.7 percent three months earlier. Meanwhile, Google rose to 7.1 percent from 2.8 percent during the same time period.

    What about iPhone, for which American bloggers and journalists are seemingly obsessed? If Apple is gaining smartphone subscribers, it's not substantially showing in the data. Subscriber share rose from 24.8 percent to 25.1 percent, which is statistically negligible. Meanwhile, Research in Motion slightly climbed -- to 43 percent from 41.3 percent.

    There were 234 million mobile subscribers ages 13 or older between November and January, according to ComScore. Nearly 43 million Americans owned smartphones. The number of smartphone owners increased by 18 percent compared to the previous three months.

    The data is obviously bad news for Microsoft, which is making a major mobile platform switch to Windows Phone 7 Series. First devices aren't expected until late third quarter at the earliest. Next week, T-Mobile is planning a launch event for the HTC HD2. Unfortunately, the Windows Mobile-powered device, considered one of the hottest smartphones on the market, isn't eligible for Windows Phone 7 Series. Can Microsoft gain lost share despite the HD2's non-upgradability? Future ComScore data will tell.

    But the numbers aren't good for Apple, either. Huge growth marked iPhone's first three releases. Questions to ask now about iPhone's stalled subscriber growth:

    • Has Verizon Wireless "There's a map for that" counter-AT&T advertising hurt iPhone sales?
    • Is Verizon's other marketing campaign -- for Droid -- slowing network churn to AT&T for iPhone?
    • Are AT&T's well-publicized network problems (dropped calls and failed connections) hurting iPhone sales?
    • Is Android benefitting from the increasing number of handsets, which are available through all US major carriers while iPhone is tethered to AT&T?
    • Do smartphone buyers perhaps care about multitasking, which Apple hobbled on iPhone but is available on all other major competing platforms?

    My answer is "Yes" to all five questions. Carrier subscriber data is revealing. During fourth quarter, AT&T gained 2.7 million subscribers for a total of 85.1 million. Verizon wireless subscribers grew by only 2.2 million, to 91.2 million, but beat Wall Street consensus of 1.5 million. Three months earlier, Verizon gained 1.2 million subscribers; 1.1 million in second quarter 2009. For third quarter 2009, AT&T gained 2 million subscribers; 1.4 million in second quarter 2009. Late-year AT&T gains are to be expected following release of iPhone 3GS in June last year. But Verizon's fourth-quarter surge is revealing and follows two major marketing campaigns and introduction of several Android-based handsets.

    Marketing is a factor often overlooked by iPhone-obsessed bloggers and journalists. Apple spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year marketing iPhone. Verizon is spending $100 million on its Droid marketing campaign, which has helped raise Android smartphones' profile. Meanwhile, Verizon continues to club AT&T with aggressive advertising about network reliability. Verizon's marketing answer to Apple and AT&T is more bite than bark.

    Oh and what about Microsoft? When did you last see Windows Mobile smartphone advertising from Microsoft? The company plans to spend big on Windows Phone 7 Series, but that's months away.

    In early 2010, Apple changed tactics with iPhone marketing, and it will be interesting to see the affect on consumer perceptions.  Presumably to combat competitor counter-marketing about there being no real multitasking, newer TV commercials insinuate that iPhone users can do many things at once.

    Two of three newest iPhone commercials focus on families and feature female narration. That says heaps about where Apple sees the next big market segment for iPhone. Typically, gadget geeks (many of them male) are the first adopters of products like smartphones. Later, manufacturers tailor the products and their marketing for women and, more importantly, families. Timing is right if, as Sylvia Ann Hewlett asserts, "Women are the biggest emerging market."

    As for Windows Phone 7 Series marketing, it's too soon to guess Microsoft's approach or its effectiveness. As for Android, its future looks bright.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/08/10_things_Microsoft_did_right_in_2010__so_far_'

    10 things Microsoft did right in 2010 (so far)

    Publié: mars 8, 2010, 9:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's throw-Microsoft-a-bone Monday, not that I can promise much meat on it. Microsoft may have fallen behind in mobile, been talking about a three-screen strategy off of two screens, and clumsily competed as usual, but some early 2010 actions deserve at least a little praise. So here's where I give it.

    First, some context. There's doing right -- and there's doing right. Some of the stuff here I'll assert Microsoft did right I previously dinged the company for getting wrong. That's because what's right for Microsoft might be wrong in a greater competitive landscape, like taking right action A too slowly or not soon enough. With that introduction, here are 10 things Microsoft has done right in 2010 (so far), presented in no order of importance. Microsoft...

    1. Started over with Windows 7 Phone Series. Microsoft was right to start with a fresh new mobile operating system (if it's really as new as claimed). Windows Mobile -- now called Windows Phone Classic -- had run aground. I called Windows 7 Phone Series a "lost cause" because new supporting handsets aren't expected until around the holidays. The time horizon is simply too long. But matters would have been much worse had v7 been a makeover v6.x and delivered (as rumored) next year. Microsoft made the tough decision of building new.

    2. Put user experience before backward compatibility with Windows 7 Phone Series. I do hope this is a sign of more changes to come. For decades, Microsoft has prioritized back compatibility, often hobbling new products -- and so the developer and customer experiences. With Windows Phone 7 Series, existing 6.x devices will not be upgradable. From a Windows 6.x device sales perspective, the no-upgrade policy is nothing short of disastrous. That's a short-term sacrifice Microsoft makes now for possible long-term gain -- assuring a better user experience for Windows Phone 7 Series devices. Like many of the things in this Top 10 list, something done wrong also is something done right.

    3. Took down the Waledac botnet. In late February, Microsoft wrangling gained a court order to shutdown nearly 230 Internet domains alleged to have been used by cybercriminals. Microsoft scored a major triumph against a major botnet.

    4. Released Outlook Social Connector beta. Outlook is rapidly looking outdated, even with the spruced up user interface coming with Office 2010. Outlook Social Connector beta for Office 2007 mimics functionality built into v2010. The People Pane is a nice start, but Microsoft has got to expand its social circle beyond LinkedIn and in-company or outside-organization relationships exposed through Outlook (and other supporting Microsoft corporate software).

    5. Filed a complaint -- and encouraged others to do so -- against Google in the European Union. Google is rapidly becoming a dangerous monopoly, more so than Microsoft in the 1990s. While the EU's investigation is at best preliminary, the complaints are potentially more dangerous than some Microsoft Watchers suggest. A single complaint, made by Sun in 1998, led to the Europe's Competition Commission 2004 ruling that Microsoft violated local antitrust laws. A second ruling followed, leading Microsoft last week to offer a browser ballot box in Europe. Microsoft's own experience is lesson enough how potentially beneficial a competitive complaint can be.

    6. Killed Essential Business Server. EBS was a great idea in 2008 -- to offer midrange, midpriced server software for midsize businesses. But the weak economy and loss of the project's originator (from Microsoft to to the Federal Communications Commission) changed everything. Perhaps if Steven VanRoekel had stayed at Microsoft, EBS' fate would have been different.

    7. Extended .NET, Silverlight and XNA development across three screens, including Windows Phone 7 Series. Microsoft already had development pieces in place for two screens -- PC and game console. By supporting Windows Phone, Microsoft creates opportunity for developers to create games or other applications one time for consumption on multiple devices.

    8. Demonstrated Skinput. During last week's TechFest, Microsoft researchers showed off skin -- on the forearm -- as a natural user interface. Microsoft Research paper "Skinput: Appropriating the Body as an Input Surface" offers a wonderful overview of the concept. My teenage daughter writes reminders on her arm nearly everyday. In California, seemingly everyone under the age of 35 has several tattoos. Why not use the skin even more functionally? The technology takes advantage of the varying acoustic properties of skin and bones.  Skinput is the kind of out-of-the-box thinking that gives hope about future Microsoft innovation.

    9. Launched Mediaroom 2.0. Microsoft's living room strategy is a work in progress -- and has been since the debut of Windows Media Center nearly a decade ago. Slow progress is still progress -- and Mediaroom 2.0 offers much for telcos looking to deliver a television programming experience better than cable (as an AT&T U-verse customer I can attest to the better-than-cable experience). Then there is the coming Mediaroom support for Xbox. As aforementioned in No. 7, Microsoft already is preparing developers for delivering games across three screens.

    10. Set Office 2010 business launch for May. The timing is just about right for the first big wave of enterprises to deploy Windows 7. Traditionally, larger businesses deploy new versions of Office and Windows at the same time whenever possible. Microsoft simultaneously released Office 2007 and Windows Vista. But slow -- or no -- enterprise Vista migrations meant that simultaneous Office and Windows release didn't equate to simultaneous deployments. By offsetting Office 2010 and Windows 7 business launches by about 8 months, Microsoft gave business customers time enough to test and qualify Windows 7. Meanwhile, a very public Office 2010 preview allowed for additional testing, too. Many more businesses will now have the more logistically viable option of deploying both products simultaneously or around the same time.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/08/Who_should_buy_the_iPad__Hint__People_of_a_certain_age__and_that_s_not_you_'

    Who should buy the iPad? Hint: People of a certain age (and that's not you)

    Publié: mars 8, 2010, 6:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    "Who will buy?" is the question to ask now that Apple has turned on the advertising spigot. I saw the first iPad commercial three times during yesterday's Academy Awards program. No one should underestimate the power of Apple marketing for generating millions of initial iPad sales. Advertising will differentiate iPad from ebook reader or tablet competitors.

    For years, Apple advertised iPod unchecked. Competitors simply didn't aggressively advertise their MP3 players. So from about 2002 through end of 2004, iPod owned media player advertising -- at least in the United States. For a short time, Creative had a campaign, then nothing after 2005. No wonder so many people bought an iPod -- it seemingly was  the only choice.

    What other competitor will offer another choice to iPad through such aggressive marketing? You tell me. The first commercial is very benefits oriented, putting common PC-like functions in the lap instead of on the tabletop. Apple should be wary of consumer confusion. Some potential buyers might not easily understand the difference from iPhone or iPod touch. Whom that might be will become more apparent in a few paragraphs.

    I predict that within a few months of release, unless there is a shortage of storage cards, Apple will reconsider the 16GB model -- as it did the original 4GB iPhone; 16GB is the new 4GB, but for different reasons. From the start, summer 2007, 8GB iPhone quickly outsold the lower-cost 4GB model. Buyers wanted more storage. At $499, I expect the 16GB iPad to easily outsell the $629 16GB 3G or 32GB WiFi model. But in short order, many iPad buyers will find that 16GB storage is inadequate. They'll want more storage, which they didn't get at first because of price -- how affordable is $499 compared to $629. There are reasons why retailers use prices like $19.99 or $599. The six in $629 seems so much more than $499. I expect Apple to make price adjustments by summer. Latest. But only after an iPod touch price reduction or  introduction of 128GB model at $399.

    All this meandering finally leads to the question posed by this post's title: Who should buy iPad? With no backing data -- but a good sense about marketing -- I can see four consumer demographic groups that should buy iPad. I'm ignoring institutional segments like education or training; none of the four groups would fit nicely into analysts' survey spreadsheets. They are:

    People Steve Jobs's age or older. Apple's CEO may run a company producing hip products, but Jobs is middle aged. Jobs turned 55 on February 24. He's a Baby Boomer, and iPad is for his generation and that of his parents. It's computing made easy, with all the basics covered in a device simply and comfortably handled.

    Yesterday, a friend asked if his 85 year-old dad should buy an iPad. "Absolutely," I said. He was surprised because of my post "12 reasons why I won't buy an iPad." The iPad will get the dad on the Web with email and other connected features, serve up ebooks and provide applications that are easily chosen, purchased, installed and used.

    Apple's tablet isn't right for me, or many other people comfortable with technology and used to multitasking. In its first iteration, iPad is more a single-task device, which is right pace for many older folks (Hey, this isn't agism just the reality of aging). Among the Boomer-plus set, I expect iPad will appeal most to digital immigrants, meaning those people who didn't grow up with computers and aren't all that comfortable with them (Gen Xers tend to be digital resident aliens and the Millennials digital natives).

    The iPad as a device for the old (55 and older) could be quite good for Apple. According to a recent AdMob report, 65 percent of iPod touch users are 17 or younger. By comparison, 72 percent of iPhone users are between 18 and 54. Neither device has much pull with those 55 or older, 14 percent and 5 percent, respectively. The 55 and over crowd is a desirable market segment. Marketers assume this group has more  discretionary spending power because of savings and less pull by outside factors -- children, for example. Then there is the large number of Baby Boomers (in the United States about 77 million still living out of 309 million total population, according to Census data). The oldest Boomers reached retirement age in the Noughties.

    The Mac faithful. It's often called the cult of Mac for a reason. Anecdotally, this group can be relied on to buy pretty much anything new with an Apple logo.

    Mac wannabes on a budget. From a marketing perspective -- looking at Apple computing products as a range of features and prices -- iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the $399 iPod touch and $999 MacBook. More importantly, iPad lets people pining for a portable Mac get one for less than $500. Suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac portable is $499. The average consumer doesn't care about the operating system, whether iPhone OS 3.2 or Snow Leopard. Mac wannabes will care more about what the device can do for them. Apple has packed most of the basic, most appealing functions of the Mac portable -- including iWork -- into iPad. Then there's the App Store offering loads of fun applications that are cheap and easy to install.

    Niche buyers. Singly, niche buyers won't amount to much. Combined, they could be a sizable buying segment. Among them I see people interested in ebooks, gadget collectors (especially those obsessed with geek envy) and artists.

    To many artists, iPad should be a desirable canvas. Anthropologically, used together, the mouse and keyboard are an unnatural user interface. Human beings are tool users. We experience and interact with the world through five senses. The best tools are really extensions of the hands; the mouse and keyboard UI is neither. Hands, fingers and touch are especially important for experiencing and manipulating objects or surroundings -- and for artistry. Apple's tablet is the canvas for which many artists' hands will create. What will the hand and finger create on the touchscreen? Who knows, the answer might be a future iPad commercial.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/05/So__iPad_will_change_the_PC_industry__Yeah__right'

    So, iPad will change the PC industry? Yeah, right

    Publié: mars 5, 2010, 5:51pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's fraking Friday and to celebrate Gartner analysts are predicting Apple's iPad is going to change everything you know about the PC market. Everything. Betanews readers, will you let such prognostications go unanswered?

    "Apple's iPad is just one of many new devices coming to market that will change the entire PC ecosystem and overlap it with the mobile phone industry," Ranjit Atwal, Principal Gartner analyst, said in a statement. "This will create significantly more opportunities for PC vendors as well as significantly more threats." Threats to whom or to what? The traditional PC.

    "Apple will begin taking orders for iPad on March 12, the company announced today. Buyers can pick up their purchases on April 3 at a local Apple Store as alternative option to shipping. I'm already on record giving "12 reasons why I won't buy an iPad." I haven't found a reason yet. Have you?

    Gartner predicted that PC shipments would rise 19.7 percent  in 2010 to 366.1 million units from 305.8 million units in 2009. Worldwide PC spending is expected to rise 12.2 percent year over year to $245 billion. The big growth will be in mobile PCs, which accounted for 55 percent of PC shipments last year. Gartner predicts 70 percent by 2012.

    "The PC industry will be overwhelmingly driven by mobile PCs, thanks to strong home growth in both emerging and mature markets," George Shiffler, Gartner research director, said in a statement."We expect mobile PCs to drive 90 percent of PC growth over the next three years."

    Once again, netbooks -- or what Gartner calls mini-notebooks greatly contributed to sales growth and boost in the mobile-to-desktop ratio. However, netbooks "contribution is expected to decline noticeably afterward, as they face growing competition from new ultra-low-voltage (ULV) ultraportables and next-generation tablets. Desk-based PC shipment growth will be minimal and limited to emerging markets." What's going to suck the wind from netbooks' sails: The iPad and other tablets. Gartner expects 10.5 million unit shipments this year, with iPad presumably leading the way.

    In the past, Gartner showed much less enthusiasm for the Tablet PC, a concept Microsoft tried to jumpstart in the early "Noughties." In a November 2002 statement, Gartner analyst Leslie Fiering asserted: "Only the bravest will implement Tablet PCs widely toward the end of 2003." It's true that the Tablet PC never found a mass market.

    Gartner is making bold predictions about iPad -- and also other smaller form factor-connected devices -- in part because of cloud computing. "Vendors can no longer afford to just think in terms of traditional PC form factors or architectures," Atwal asserted. "With the rise of Web-delivered applications, many users no longer need a traditional PC running a resident general-purpose operating system and fast x86 CPU to satisfy their computing needs."

    The PC's Cloudy Future

    Yesterday, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer asserted he was betting the company on cloud services. My question: How many times is some Microsoft senior executive going to make a "betting the company" claim before the bet pays off. I've heard that assertion many times before. Haven't you?

    Still, Ballmer's heart is in the right place -- the cloud. Microsoft should embrace the cloud. About three years ago, I started warning about the platform transition underway. The cloud (and mobile device) is shifting computing and informational relevance away from the PC much as the PC shifted relevance away from the mainframe in the 1980s and 1990s. I explained in February 2007 post "Microsoft Seeks More Mobile Relevance:

    IBM had a huge monopoly in mainframe computers, which only large businesses could afford. The size and cost of mainframes greatly constrained informational utility; people consumed information from terminals tethered to the big computers. When the PC came along, IBM embraced it, seeing no direct threat to its computing dominance.

    However, Microsoft and its IBM-PC clone partners did compete with mainframes. The PC extended informational and computing utility to more customers, for a fraction of mainframe costs. IBM's mainframe monopoly continued, but its relevance changed as the PC economy exploded. IBM most certainly continued and it remains a computing and services giant even today. But the PC also changed IBM's business and the relevance of the mainframe.

    The Web platform promises even greater informational and computing freedom: Access anytime, anywhere, on anything. The broader threat is really the Internet, which Microsoft tried to push back in the late 1990s during the browser wars, when Internet Explorer was integrated with Windows. The Internet offered huge informational utility, with no Windows required.

    A decade later, Microsoft grapples with a renewed Internet threat, but fiercer than before. The success of Google search has increased informational utility; there are more informational clients (such as the cell phone); and more developers are developing for the Web platform. The Internet remains Microsoft's biggest informational threat and, at the same time, opportunity. Microsoft has pushed back by doing what it does well: code client software, which can help maintain or pull back informational relevance to the desktop. Web platform companies like Google seek to pull relevance to the browser and the Web.

    I'm a firm believer in the mobile-to-cloud applications stack displacing the Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. That's one reason why yesterday I asked: "Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?" Sure I can see mobile PCs and smartphones make huge gains, but iPad and other tablets? I still contend that there will ultimately be too much functional overlap between iPad (and similar devices) with smartphones below and laptops above -- a problem that helped doom earlier tablet PCs. That said, there is an undeniable shift to mobile computers, whether laptops or smartphones. The PC is by no means dead, but how people use it (e.g., more cloud applications) already is fast changing.

    "Connected" is the key word of focus. Gartner's predictions assume there will be overlap between tablet PCs and handsets -- meaning they have 3G radios and presumably would be available subsidized by telcos. Subsidies already are the major driver of connected-netbook sales in some geographies, particularly Europe. Will the prevailing winds favor iPad and other tablets or smaller portable PCs?

    For opinionated Betanews readers there are two main questions: Will iPad lead a tablet revolution that will change the PC as we know it? Will mobile devices -- smartphones included -- rapidly displace desktop PCs, essentially making them irrelevant within two or even three years? Please answer these questions -- or anything else from this post -- in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/04/Will_the_smartphone_replace_the_PC_in_three_years_'

    Will the smartphone replace the PC in three years?

    Publié: mars 4, 2010, 6:10pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the question to ask after the bold statement made yesterday by Google's John Herlihy. According to Silicon Republic, Herlihy told Digital Landscapes conference attendees that: "In three years time, desktops will be irrelevant. In Japan, most research is done today on smartphones, not PCs."

    My answer is an easy "Yes" for desktops, assuming Herlihy meant desktop PCs. Mobile PCs will take longer -- not much, unless 3G radios come to be standard equipment on most laptops; that's for displacement, not irrelevance. Yesterday I asked Betanews readers: "Has your smartphone changed your life?" The smartphone most certainly will change your life if it displaces the PC. How much more dramatic will be the change whenever PCs should become irrelevant?

    No doubt, plenty of Betanews readers will disagree with Herlihy's assertion. Great. Please share your opinions in comments. This is a topic deserving heated discussion, and it's one PC and handset manufacturers had better carefully watch. The winds of change are in the air, but will they blow slowly across the current computing landscape or quickly?

    "The digital world is fundamentally different to the traditional business world," Herlihy told Digital Landscape attendees. "Things happen much faster, Websites spring up from nowhere, a video could be a YouTube hit in hours." He is absolutely right, and the social media boom is glaring example of how rapidly things can change in short order.

    Before 2005, newspaper revenues remained high, while declining slowly. Fast forward four years and the industry started to rapidly collapse -- but, of course, not go away. According to a report released this week by PEW Internet, 94 percent of US Internet users get news online. Only 38 percent of Americans get news offline only -- and the numbers skew much higher for the old than the young.

    Social media is a large part of the change, as Facebook and Twitter status messages, blogs and other sources augment or even replace traditional news sources -- all of it free and some of it supported by Google search keywords and related services. People take Facebook, Twitter and YouTube for granted, but these are all relatively new services released just beyond the time horizon of Herlihy's mobile prediction.

    YouTube officially opened in November 2005; Google purchased the service less than a year later. Facebook opened to the public in 2006 and Twitter a few months later (I signed up for Twitter on Dec. 26, 2006). Most of the most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last four years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumblr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others. New social sharing services seemingly appear every day. Google Buzz and Chatroulette are among the most recent.

    Apple's iPhone released in June 2007. The supporting App Store -- now with more than 140,000 applications and 3 billion-plus downloads -- launched in July 2008. Google purchased Android in 2005, and the first supporting smartphone shipped in late 2008. In Android's first full year (2009), handset manufacturers sold 6.8 million smartphones, according to Gartner. Google released the Chrome Web browser in late 2008 and is already testing version 5. These are changes all occurring within just three years.

    These technologies have dramatically reshaped cultures and societies across the planet. All of it happened in less than five years. For people clinging to the PC's importance, look around you at the rapid cloud services-driven social networking changes. The PC could easily be displaced that fast.

    The pattern of technological displacement is centuries old and fairly consistent. Something new comes along and slowly erodes the existing technology. But pace picks up until there is a dramatic shift to the new from the old occurring within a short time span. Some older technologies continue for a time and disappear, while many others remain but in new niches. Some recent -- and not-too-hard-to-grasp -- examples:

    • Horse drawn carriages and trains
    • Trains and automobiles
    • Telegraphs and telephones
    • Mainframes and PCs

    There are so many other examoples, but I'm trying to make a simple point not give a history lesson. Trains were displaced by autos in the United States but they didn't go away. PCs displaced mainframes, but they're still used as well. Landlines and wireless phones are near their dramatic changing point in many mature markets. Newspapers are in process of being displaced by Web content for PCs and mobile devices, but are likely to co-exist with them for a long time.

    Three years -- most certainly five -- is not an unrealistic time horizon at all. Even if it proves wrong, Google is acting like change will come rapidly. Last month, Google CEO Eric Schmidt asserted the company would put mobile first -- yes, before the PC. There is no Windows monopoly on mobile handsets to stop Google, Apple or any other would-be mobile competitor from rapidly advancing. Cloud services, whether delivered by applications or browsers, promise anytime and anywhere access to anything.

    I've blogged about this coming change plenty in the past. It's why I've been so hard on Microsoft's stalled handset operating system strategy and why I called Windows Mobile 7 Series a "lost cause." But there it is -- a goal for Microsoft from Google. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer seems so obsessed chasing Google, now he has a goal to meet: Three years. He shouldn't dally. The recent social media revolution is clear example of how fast the new thing can push the old aside.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/03/Steve_Ballmer_talks_Bing__Google__Xbox_and_Windows_Phone'

    Steve Ballmer talks Bing, Google, Xbox and Windows Phone

    Publié: mars 3, 2010, 11:04pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For anyone that missed Microsoft CEO's Q&A during the Search Marketing Expo West yesterday, a transcript is now available online. I went through and picked out key quotes, so that you don't have to read the whole thing.

    Several things stand out from Ballmer's comments:

    1) Mobile operators that want a search engine other than Bing can't have Windows Phone 7 Series.

    2) Microsoft almost certainly is stirring up trouble for Google in Europe through third parties.

    3) Microsoft isn't interested -- at least for now -- in releasing a Bing application for Android phones.

    4) A Bing for iPhone search deal is still possible, simply because Ballmer deflected the question rather than denying it.

    5) Twitter is a great Microsoft partner, but the value of an acquisition is "not clear."

    My favorite quote from the Q&A: "I haven't found that when you're trying to sell something to somebody yelling is very effective." How funny is that. coming from boisterous Ballmer?

    Bing

    When asked if Microsoft could be No.1 in search, Ballmer answered: "There's no good answer to this question...If you say yes, you sound arrogant. If you say no, you sound like you have no faith. So the answer is, yes, someday."

    The truth of the matter is the number one thing that Google benefits from in search is they did it right first. And put culture aside and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I love our culture, I think we've got great people, they're innovative, they're doing great things, but we started later.

    Ballmer's Binging family: "We have Bing evangelists, age 18, age 11, and age 15. We are definitely a religiously pro-Bing family...My dad worked at Ford for 30 years, I still drive a Lincoln. I hope my kids 30, 40, 50 years from now, they'll still be using Bing."

    I love to make the assertion about apartments in Paris. I have a buddy from Stanford who rents apartments in Paris and if she wasn't my buddy you wouldn't find her on page one of Bing, you would find her on page one of the other guy, and that is a quality. From the standpoint of the searcher if you're looking for an apartment in Paris it's not going to show US in the algorithmic results. So, it's really important for us to get scale in terms of value to the searcher themselves.

    Is Bing Cashback a success: "The Cashback has been interesting. I would say it has worked. It hasn't worked fantastically. I mean, in the sense that it has completely changed the economic structure of the business."

    Google Competition

    Regarding Microsoft encouraging third-party antitrust complaints against Google in Europe:

    As in our case, a lot of times initial complaints will come from a competitor. We're clearly a competitor, there are other competitors, as well. But, we have a blog post on our public policy blog that kind of makes clear we're not being silent in this game, we're expressing some of the issues and frustrations that we see, and certainly sometimes unsolicited, but oftentimes because we've been asked.

    Google in China: "I think we all understand, the real force in China isn't Google and it's not Bing, it's Baidu."

    Google's book search deal: "The book deal essentially takes somebody who has a very strong position, and gives them a stronger position relative to everybody else in the space. It doesn't seem right to me, let alone what it might mean for publishers' rights. So, we'll express our points of view, but ultimately it's up to the regulators."

    Smartphones

    Regarding Bing replacing Google on iPhone: "I read that rumor...It was very funny, I was in Europe someplace, and I read it, after a journalist had asked me about it. Weird how rumors start."

    Do I search when I'm out on the move? The answer is too much relative to what my wife thinks I should be doing when I'm driving. So, I'm trying to -- I'm trying to tame my search behavior while I'm -- I mean, literally I only have a phone when I'm in the car, because if I'm not in the car I'm in a meeting, and it's impolite, for me at least, to bring phones to most meetings.

    About Bing for Android phones: "It's not like our open religious principles can be questioned here, but it is a little bit tricky to understand exactly where the market opportunity might lie for us in the mix of Android kind of cacophonous implementations."

    Stop and take it outside of the specific Android-Windows phone debates. How does Apple make money on phones, basically with a licensing fee on their own phones. It's a positive gross margin on the phone. If you offer a phone of high value, there is money to be made. We happen to, in our model, split that with a phone manufacturer who makes some of the money that Apple might have made and we make some of the money that Apple might have made.

    Search-engine choice on Windows Phones: "My guess is we're not going to get a huge amount of operator support for Windows Phones who don't want Bing. I mean, in some senses it's an essential part of the definition of the Windows Phone, and if you have an operator who would want to do something with another search player, they'll probably do it with a non-Windows Phone."

    Xbox

    "How many hours of practice do you need on Xbox to catch your kids?...Ten thousand hours. Ten thousand hours of Xbox and you can be as good as your eight-year-old."

    Twitter

    Should Microsoft buy Twitter:

    Not clear. I mean, we have a great relationship and partnership with Twitter. Not clear to me. I mean, I would hate to not have that partnership. Whether we need to own the company or not I think is far less clear. In some senses, as an independent, they have a lot of value and a lot of credibility, I think, with their user community. Would they have that same credibility with the user community if they were captive? Not clear.

    Does Ballmer have a stealth Twitter account: "Of course."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/03/Has_your_smartphone_changed_your_life_'

    Has your smartphone changed your life?

    Publié: mars 3, 2010, 8:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That's the question I pose to Betanews readers on this fine Spring afternoon. If "Yes" then please further answer: How has your smartphone changed your life?

    I'm raising the questions today because of AFP news story "Australia is social networking capital of the world." (Mike Cherng tweeted the story -- my thanks to him.) Reporter Amy Coopes quotes Danielle Warby: "My smartphone changed my life. Serious. It has my calendar, all my contacts and is an easy and intuitive communication tool."

    I'm with Warby. My smartphones changed my life, starting with the original iPhone, which I described as "life changing" two weeks after buying it in June 2007. I've used many smartphones since -- and a few before -- including all three iPhone versions; several HTC models, including the AT&T 8525, Google Nexus One and T-Mobile MyTouch; Nokia E71, N97 and N900, among others.

    In assessing the original iPhone's value I identified five areas as important: Synchronization, mobile Web, mobile mail, battery life and joy (from the user interface). I would add as important for more modern smartphones: Social media, mobile applications and quality photos and video (with easy sharing capabilities). Some enterprising marketer should use something like "Your life in your pocket," or "My life in my pocket" as a slogan to sell smartphones.

    The smartphone can be life changing because it's so personal, in terms of how and how often the device is carried and how it is used to connect and to extend relationships. There's a real intimacy about cell phones -- smartphones, particularly -- that no other technology device matches. Probably many geeks reading this post are long-time smartphone users. But how many of you often use a smartphone as a makeshift PC on the go?

    The South by Southwest conference convenes late next week in Austin. Following last year's event, Gizmodo's Jack Loftus blogged:

    The tech and media savvy hipsters currently at SXSW could very well be a snapshot of things to come. The conference is chock full of smartphones, but there's nary a notebook (or netbook) in sight. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but these folks are undoubtedly ahead of the curve on technology. And what they're saying is they're more comfortable using mobile devices as a primary computing and communications tool than they are with notebooks, or even netbooks.

    There's a reason why AT&T loudly promises that there will be adequate service for SXSW 2010: Many attendees will pack smartphones -- and many will be iPhones.

    Buzz? So What?

    Sure there is big buzz about smartphones, but how important are they really? According to Gartner, cell phone sales -- not shipments -- were 1.21 billion in 2009, with 380 million sold in fourth quarter. Smartphones: 172.4 million for the year and 53.8 million for fourth quarter. Smartphone sales grew by over 41 percent year over year in 2009. Android's smartphone market share increased by 680 percent, while unit sales rose by 961.4 percent. Among American adult cell phone owners, 33 percent get news from cell phones; 88 percent of adults who have mobile Internet, according to PEW Internet.

    In a report issued today, ComScore revealed that in January 30.8 percent of smartphone owners used their mobile Web browser to access social networking sites, up from 22.5 percent a year earlier. By comparison, only 6.8 percent accessed social networking sites from standard phones, up from 4.5 percent in January 2009.

    Nokia C5Clearly manufacturers see potential in smartphones, which I repeatedly have asserted will replace the PC as primary connected-computing device in this decade (within five years in some markets, I predict). Yesterday, Apple sued HTC for infringing iPhone patents. It's competition by litigation -- like Apple-Nokia patent infringement lawsuits (one is suing the other).

    Today, Nokia released Skype for Symbian^1-based devices, making free voice calls over 3G a possibility for some 200 million handsets. These include E and N Series devices.

    Yesterday's Nokia C Series announcement is huge, not that many American bloggers or journalists seem to get it. Nokia is brilliantly taking smartphone OS features downmarket to standard handsets. Nokia, the global handset market share leader according to Gartner and IDC, sells more low- and mid-tier phones than any other category. The first device, the C5, will sell for €135 (US $185) unsubsidized. The phone is tiny, cheap but robust, particularly connected features like social sharing and networking.

    Nokia is taking the right approach for persevering and extending sales particularly in emerging markets. Apple's iPhone might have sex appeal, but the C5 has worldwide mass market appeal. Come second quarter, dumb phones will be much smarter coming from the world's handset leader. Will the C5 pack enough punch to be life changing for many current dumb phone users in markets like Brazil, China, India and Russia (commonly referred to as BRIC)? That's a future question to answer.

    The point: 2010 promises dramatic changes for the handset market. That brings me back to my questions for Betanews readers: Has your smartphone changed your life? If so, how? And how long ago (That's the bragging rights question for longtime smartphone users)? Please respond in comments or by email: joewilcox at live dot com. I'll collect the best responses for a follow-up post.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/02/Got_a_Windows_Mobile_phone__There_s_no_Windows_7_Phone_Series_upgrade_for_you'

    Got a Windows Mobile phone? There's no Windows 7 Phone Series upgrade for you

    Publié: mars 2, 2010, 10:21pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Could someone please give back Steve Ballmer's brain? He really needs it. The Web is buzzing about a Microsoft executive telling APC Magazine that existing Windows Mobile handsets will not be eligible for Windows Phone 7 Series upgrades. Is Ballmer, Microsoft's CEO, out of his fraking mind for letting this happen? Oh, right, someone took away his brain. Please return it.

    What's all the fuss about? Firstly, the no-upgrade policy gives every possible Windows Mobile buyer every reason not to purchase. Secondly, the hottest WinMo phone, the HTC HD2, is suddenly a Windows Phone 7 Series brick. According to Natasha Kwan, Microsoft's Asia-Pacific region Mobile Communications Business GM, the HD2 "doesn't qualify because it doesn't have the three buttons." The smartphone has too much of a good thing--five buttons.

    OK, sometimes Microsoft executives shoot off at the mouth, so I contacted the company's PR firm for clarification. I got one of those twisty statements that could mean one thing when it probably means another: "For Windows Phone 7 Series we are enforcing a strict set of hardware requirements to ensure a consistently great experience for end-users and developers. While we cannot confirm that WM6.X phones that satisfy those requirements will be upgradeable, every Windows Phone 7 Series device will be upgradeable with improvements and features we deliver with subsequent Windows Phone 7 Series releases."

    That's doggy talk for "no Windows Mobile 6.x handset will qualify for Windows Phone 7 Series upgrades, but we don't dare say so." The unstated strict hardware requirement: That Windows Phone logo button. With the HD2, I'd wager the problem isn't so much too many buttons but not enough of the right kind. Because by all other measures -- processor, screen size and kind and graphics capability, among others -- the HTC HD2 should otherwise be able to run Windows Phone 7 Series.

    For frak's sake, Microsoft, why don't you make your own phone? If the hardware requirements are going to be so strict for an operating system manufacturers must pay for -- rather than get, say, Google Android for free -- Microsoft should just make its own phone. Dissing HD2 owners is simply unthinkable. It's the hot Windows Mobile phone -- the only one really. Please, thief, return Steve Ballmer's brain because, as the Ramones sang it: "My brain is hanging upside down."

    Unlucky T-Mobile USA is ready to launch the HD2. How's that for the mother of lousy timing? The company's offices are in Bellevue, Wash., or about 10 miles drive up the 405 to 1 Microsoft Way in Redmond. T-Mobile should dispatch employees to assist in the search for Steve Ballmer's brain.

    Microsoft's position -- or lack of it -- about Windows Mobile handset upgrades is brain boggling times three. Nilay Patel writes at Engadget:

    Making matters even less clear, we asked Microsoft's Director of Consumer Experiences Aaron Woodman about the HD2 directly on The Engadget Show, and he politely declined to tell us about the device's upgradability, and said that WP7's final required specs would be revealed at MIX '10. We'll be honest: we're taking all this confusion to mean that Microsoft hasn't quite figured out how to say the HD2 is at a dead end just before it launches on T-Mobile US.

    Yeah, Microsoft sure loves its hardware partners. You can ask any of the MP3 player manufacturers that supported PlaysForSure six years ago. Microsoft was all huggy, kissy before dumping them all for Zune. Microsoft's branded music player ended any Microsoft blabber talk about device "choice." Surely, there's a Microsoft phone somewhere in the future. Why drag out hardware partners' misery?

    Unless -- gasp -- they learned something from Microsoft's past behavior. Microsoft's wishy washy statements about WinMo handsets' future fate might just be enough for many partners to cool their Windows Phone 7 Series jets and look elsewhere -- like Android. That's a path still leading to a Microsoft branded phone, assuming few manufacturers really step up to license the new OS.

    There really isn't any confusion here, by the way. Microsoft is keeping Windows Mobile alive for a reason. Company execs can't exactly look existing hardware partners or customers in the face and say, "There's no Windows 7 Phone Series upgrade for you," if there's no Windows Mobile alternative. By continuing the operating system as Windows Phone Classic, Microsoft has placed a back door for quick escape: Windows Phone Classic is the upgrade path for Windows Mobile.

    I tease about Steve Ballmer losing his brain because I like the guy. No offense is intended. I stand by my late-January post defending Ballmer. That said, starting over with a new mobile operating system was smart. Good job, Microsoft. But potentially killing sales of existing Windows Mobile handsets is simply stupid. Potentially alienating existing hardware partners and customers is stupider still.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/02/Pew_Internet_study_offers_Microsoft_s_mobile_strategy_a_glimmer_of_hope'

    Pew Internet study offers Microsoft's mobile strategy a glimmer of hope

    Publié: mars 2, 2010, 12:05am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    How disastrous is Microsoft's hobbled mobile strategy? Today's Pew Internet report, "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer," offers some glimpse and even some hope. The report reveals that more Americans than ever rely on their cell phones for news and other information. Speaking personally, I find the Google News widget on my Nexus One to be indispensable.

    Fifty-three percent of US adults "access the Internet wirelessly either through a laptop or a cell phone, BlackBerry or other handheld device," according to the report. Adults? What about measuring teen Internet usage -- and not just cell phones but WiFi devices like Apple's iPod touch? (More griping about Pew overlooking teens will come later in the post.)

    "Pew Internet studies have shown that wireless Internet users are different from other online adults in important ways: they are 36 percent more likely than wired Internet users to access the Internet on a given day, and they engage in virtually all online activities (including email, social networking, and blogging) at higher rates than other internet users."

    According to Pew, about 80 percent of US adults have cell phones, with 37 percent connecting to the Internet or email. "Overall, 26 percent of American adults say they get some form of news via cell phone -- that amounts to 33 percent of adult cell phone owners and 88 percent of adults who have mobile internet." For the broader category of cell phone users, those seeking news varies by age: 43 percent for those under 50 and 15 percent for those over the big five-oh.

    What do these mobile information hounds most care about? The weather (72 percent); news and current events (68 percent); sports scores (44 percent); traffic data (35 percent); financial data (32 percent); and news alerts sent by text or email (31 percent).

    Wireless News

    Analysts love to breakout data into demographic subgroups, and the Pew team is no exception, identifying "on-the-go-news consumers."

    Not surprisingly, on-the-go news consumers maximize their cell phone use. They are 67 percent more likely than other cell phone users to text message, more than twice as likely to take pictures with their phones, and four times as likely to use their phones to instant message. They are also especially heavy Internet users -- 80 percent of this on-the-go group are online on a given day, compared with just 67 percent of other internet users -- and they engage in activities such as blogging (20 percent v. 11 percent ), using social networking sites (73 percent v. 48 percent), and using status update sites like Twitter (29 percent v. 14 percent) at significantly higher rates than other internet users.

    Pew surveyed 2,259 US adults, ages 18 or older, between Dec. 28, 2009 and Jan. 19, 2010. However, the number referring to "Internet users" is 1,675. The valuable data is sadly incomplete because PEW ignored teens, which is simply inconceivable to me.

    As for what this all means for Microsoft's mobile strategy:

    1) More than half of US consumers already get news and other real-time information wirelessly -- laptops more than cell phones. Microsoft should seek to improve news gathering on Windows laptops and transfer the behavior to Windows Phone 7 Series. Tactically, Internet Explorer 8 features like Accelerators and Web Slices are a starting point. New Outlook social networking features are another.

    News on Handhelds

    Microsoft can then use established behavior on the desktop and leverage it to Windows Phone 7 Series, by offering similar capabilities. Consumers should be able to sync capabilities and their behavior from mobile Windows desktop to Windows Phone.

    2) Microsoft should retool Bing for better news and information dissemination coordinated across the desktop and mobile device -- something Google already is doing with newer features like GPS location-based search and inclusion of news and weather widgets on Android 2.1 handsets. Based on other sections of the PEW report, Microsoft is right to make social networking such an important and pervasive feature in Windows Phone 7 Series.

    3) "On-the-go-news consumers" are an ideal demographic for Microsoft. According to Pew Internet: "The typical on-the-go news consumer is a white male, age 34, who has graduated from college and is employed full-time." Many gadget companies target younger (ages 25-34), educated males for a reason. The same demographic going after online information may also be likely to buy bleeding-edge gear -- say, a new Windows Phone.

    News on the Go

    Pew's study may also help explain some odd findings from last week's AdMob study -- that the majority of Android users are male (73 percent). By comparison, iPhone: 57 percent. Additionally, 51 percent of Android users are between 25 and 44 compared to 42 percent of iPhone users. By the way, 65 percent of iPod touch users are under 17 -- and Pew ignored that market segment in its study? Shame. Shame.

    Microsoft should focus some -- perhaps much -- of its initial Windows Phone marketing on males 25-44, provided OS and applications capabilities are information and social sharing focused.

    [Editor's Note: All charts are from Pew Internet report "Understanding the Participatory News Consumer."]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/03/01/Let_the_Internet_Explorer_6_death_watch_begin'

    Let the Internet Explorer 6 death watch begin

    Publié: mars 1, 2010, 7:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    All praise the great gods of the InterWeb for their divine intervention. March 1, 2010 is Internet Explorer 6's judgment day, when mighty Google and Microsoft looked down from the heavens -- or Mt. Olympus, if you prefer - and cast IE6 into the abyss. Starting today, Google is beginning to phase out support for Internet Explorer 6, while Microsoft presents European Union Windows users with a ballot screen for choosing even the most obscure browser, but not IE6. Microsoft's once mighty browser has fallen -- and not a second soon enough.

    IE6's heart turned evil long ago. Microsoft released the browser in 2001 only to later let development languish. Only after Mozilla released Firefox in late 2004 and, around the same time, Google showed that bundled search could make browsers profitable did Microsoft start seriously working on IE7. But by the then, IE6's cold-hearted proprietary standards had polluted the InterWeb with wicked metatags.

    During IE6's reign of terror -- before there were real alternative browsers other than Opera -- Website designers paid tribute by using a DOCTYPE (or Document Type Declaration) tag to open browser-specific pages or stylesheets. DOCTYPE was created with other page-rendering purposes, but because of IE6's wicked dictatorship -- ah, proprietary standards -- it came to be mainly used for setting the browser's layout mode, mainly "quirks" or "standards."

    Meanwhile, IE6 amassed a great group of worshipers -- malware writers looking to exploit security vulnerabilities for profit. In the early "noughties," IE6 brandished ActiveX as a great sword and shield, unleashing lightning that promised to spread a great horde of plug-ins across the InterWeb. IE6 blinded enterprise IT managers with great ActiveX promises. By adopting ActiveX, IT managers could automate processes, thus saving time and money. Their promised reward: Heavenly respite from their labors -- the chance to leave the office at 5 p.m. and enjoy a real life, rather than be chained to Web servers demanding manual servitude.

    But IE6 betrayed enterprise ActiveX followers by allowing malware worshipers to spread malicious code across the InterWeb and Intranets. The promise of early work days became long hours of work nights trying to repair the damage done by ActiveX and other IE6 security exploits.

    Like Zeus, who often couldn't keep his god children in check, Microsoft did little to reign in Internet Explorer 6 for far too long. After all, IE6 was Microsoft's child, as wicked as it had become. Parents love even the wickedest child. Now, with the birth of Internet Explorer 8 and growing InterWeb population demands to oust IE6, Microsoft has finally taken action. But only after the great god Google acted first. Google pledged to smite IE6 before Microsoft, even though their first strikes come the same day.

    IE6 will be missed by malware worshipers and enterprise IT managers too dependent on ActiveX controls to easily switch browsers. ActiveX remains in IE7 and IE8, but Microsoft caged the plug-in architecture by changing the default settings. ActiveX is "Prometheus Bound," unless freed by IT managers or end users changing the default settings.

    Google and Microsoft may have struck down IE6, but the browser won't easily or suddenly go into the abyss. Too many worshipers remain. According to Net Applications, 19.76 percent of Internet users used IE6 in February -- that's more than IE7 (13.57 percent) but not IE8 (22.52 percent). IE6 usage share was more than Apple Safari, Google Chrome and Opera combined (12.41 percent). Even for the great gods Google and Microsoft -- and the massive powers of monopoly -- IE6 won't easily be vanquished. But at least they're finally trying.

    The IE6 death watch is finally underway. The question: How long before the browser is cast down into oblivion? I ask Betanews readers for predictions. How long do you think it will take before IE6 usage reaches zero? When will you and all the InterWeb population be free from IE6's lordship? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/26/Developers__save_us_from_the_Microsoft_undead'

    Developers, save us from the Microsoft undead

    Publié: février 26, 2010, 9:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    More software developers should follow the lead of Adobe and Skype, which have abandoned Windows Mobile -- what Microsoft now calls Windows Phone Classic. The mobile operating system already was brain dead, even with, according to Gartner, 15 million unit sales in 2009. The heart pumped out licenses, but there was no brain activity to keep the platform going. Windows Mobile flatlined, and it's about time that some Microsoft developers admit it. Others should get over the denial and do the same. Microsoft doesn't have the courage to pull the plug. But smart developers can.

    Skype's move was quite audacious -- pulling the Windows Mobile version of the telephony software from download. Those WinMo users with Skype can continue using it. Adobe is doing something different. It's shifting Flash 10.1 development to Windows Phone 7 Series, sidelining any Windows Phone Classic version. Both developers acted wisely. Microsoft may have kept Windows Mobile on life support by the Classic renaming, but the operating system has no real future. There's little reason for hardware manufacturers to release new Windows Phone Classic handsets or for anyone to buy them -- with Windows Phone 7 Series phones coming late in the second half of the year.

    Adobe and Skype have set an example not just for other developers but for Microsoft and its customers. Microsoft has for too long made backward compatibility a top development priority, and the approach holds back platform development. Microsoft's willingness to prioritize backward compatibility makes it too easy for large enterprises to run older software versions seemingly forever.

    That's why I'm proud of Google and other developers that are saying no to Internet Explorer 6. The browser is ancient by computing years. I calculate computing years as actual years divided 1.5 (Moore's Law) times 7 (dog years), which makes the browser more than 44 years old. By just dog years, IE6 would be a rickety nearly 70 years old. Antiquated software like IE6 has no place on computers anywhere, particularly considering how different the Internet is today than in 2001. Nine years ago, malware making was still more malicious than criminal. Now it's a bloodsport. IE6 isn't young enough or tough enough.

    Enabling Bad Customer Behavior

    Then there's Windows 2000. In this era of massive layoffs, someone's head should roll in organization running Windows 2000 anywhere. But, of course, Microsoft enabled the bad behavior by backward compatibility and nearly endless life support -- eh, lifecycle support. But Microsoft plans some massive life support plug pulling this year -- although not nearly enough of it, I assert. Windows Vista gold code support ends on April 13. Support for Windows 2000 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 end on July 13. I wish these operating systems well in the afterlife, if that were possible. They will linger still, as ghosts, and for that Microsoft bears some responsibility.

    Microsoft's approach to fighting piracy includes preventing presumed pirated Windows copies from downloading important updates. Legitimate Windows XP or Vista customers can apply a service pack and let their aged operating systems live another day. But those expired, pirated versions will became the Windows undead. Malware writers can use the Windows undead to haunt the Internet with phishing email or, among other nefarious activities, to use Trojans to control living Windows. Call them the possessed.

    Windows Vulnerabilities

    Perhaps it's telling that the Honeynet Project uses unpatched Windows 2000 and XP systems to bait botnets: "This system is thus very vulnerable to attacks and normally it takes only a couple of minutes before it is successfully compromised." Microsoft's own data (see chart) shows that older Windows versions are more vulnerable to exploit than newer ones or those older ones with newer service packs. How strange, or perhaps revealing, that Microsoft's twice-yearly Security Intelligence Report ignoresthe topic of unpatched pirated Windows versions.

    But older, unpatched operating systems are only part of the problem. There is client software, like the aforementioned IE6, or Office. Microsoft anti-piracy tactics can prevent these products from updating, too. Last year, SANS identified to two serious "cyber security risks," one related to client software. Even when updates are available to legitimate customers, they're too slow to apply them. According to SANS: "On average, major organizations take at least twice as long to patch client-side vulnerabilities as they take to patch operating system vulnerabilities. In other words the highest priority risk is getting less attention than the lower priority risk."

    But all of this would matter less if more businesses or consumers used newer software -- and if Microsoft enabled good behavior by shortening lifecycle and backward compatibility support.

    Developers: The Undead Slayers

    Developers have the power to change Microsoft's behavior. They demonstrated this with Windows Vista, which launched without broad application or hardware driver support. By holding back on Vista, developers contributed to early customer bad experiences using the software. Developers should use this power differently -- to get businesses and consumers off older Microsoft software versions. Adobe and Skype (with Windows Phone Classic) and Google (with IE6) show the way for other developers. If Microsoft can't pull the plug. They should.

    Microsoft is ready to be helped by developers. The company seems near acceptance that prolonged life support is bad business. The Windows XP-to-Windows 7 upgrade process is example. For once, Microsoft put the experience of the newer thing before compatibility with the older thing, by making XP customers do a clean install to Windows 7. Yes, the approach caused customer migration headaches, but Microsoft's priority was in the right place.

    Developers also can help kill off the Windows undead, by removing applications -- particularly Web browsers -- for older operating systems. Sure, there are too many torrents to feed the Windows undead with older software, but developers can make a start by officially yanking their stuff.

    Security is one consideration. Usability is another. If there's a Moore's Law for software, it's coming from the Internet. New connected Web services and applications pop up every week. Is the better (and safer) experience going to come from IE6 running on Windows 2000 or IE8 (Chrome, Firefox, Opera or Safari) running on Windows 7? The answer isn't rocket science. The scourge of older software creates barriers to innovation.

    Look at how Apple handles iTunes or iPhone OS. The upgrades are forced during X time period. For iTunes, users are prodded to upgrade until at some future time they can no longer access the music store without a newer software version. For Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard), Apple encouraged Leopard users to upgrade by $29 pricing -- or $100 less than previous versions. Microsoft does some of this forced upgrading with connected apps like Windows Live Messenger. But, overall, the company's approach favors backward compatibility until the software atrophies on life support.

    Pull the plug, developers! Because Microsoft won't do it soon enough otherwise.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/25/Apple_should_ban_freebees_from_the_iPad_App_Store'

    Apple should ban freebees from the iPad App Store

    Publié: février 25, 2010, 9:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple shouldn't treat iPad like iPhone or iPod touch. The iPad App Store should be stocked full of premium content, meaning no freebees. It's the right way to help establish iPad as a premium product, as something special like the Macintosh. Unfortunately, Apple has little incentive to take this right approach benefiting its developers (because they make more money), customers (because they get better quality apps) and the iPad brand (because it comes be to viewed as a more premium product).

    Apple's business is about selling hardware, using software and services as differentiators. Sure, Apple sold its 10 billionth song at iTunes yesterday, but the company's business isn't about selling content. The content is a means to selling more high-margin hardware. From that perspective, paid apps only marginally benefit Apple. Free is better, because there can be more applications, which is good for building out the App Store/iPhone OS device platform.

    The question: Is the platform already big enough? I say, "Yes!" -- for a few reasons:

    1) At the end of first fiscal quarter 2010, Apple had shipped 75 million iPhone OS-capable devices. The iPod touch may already be outselling iPhone, something often not factored into industry smartphone sales data. Apple's mobile platform is much bigger than iPhone.

    2) Apple boasts more than 140,000 applications at its App Store, or about 7 times more than the Android Marketplace.

    3) The majority of App Store applications -- 75 percent -- already are paid ones, according to analytics firm Distimo. By comparison, 57 percent of apps at Android Marketplace are free. Nokia's Ovi Store has highest percentage of paid apps -- 85 percent.

    If three-quarters of the apps are paid ones already, why not 100 percent on iPad? Sure some people will balk, but, hell, they're the early adopters paying somewhere between $499 and $829 for iPad. What should they expect? It's a new product category for Apple and one where competitors have repeatedly failed. If Apple is going to try and breakthrough with tablets, why not freshen the approach: Make the product even more chic by making it more exclusive -- even at $499. Paid apps, and only paid apps, is one way to do it.

    Paid vs Free Mobile Applications

    The approach also would better differentiate iPad from iPhone and iPod touch. The differences would then become something more than the applications, gaming and Web experience benefits coming from the larger screen size and processing power. Apple could pitch the iPad as the better App Store platform because the applications are better. They're not just better because of the hardware but investment developers make for something they get paid for.

    Free isn't just about monetary value. It's about perceived value. People inherently value something more they paid for than what they get for free. That difference can be huge for developers and content providers trying to build brand loyalty. Free apps are throwaways. People are more likely to keep stuff they pay for. Brand loyalty is important for generating future applications sales, too.

    The iPad is a unique opportunity for Apple to change the rules and take a paid-app only approach. Publishers will love it, especially content providers seeking to build audience as well as make money. If I were a news content provider, my iPad app wouldn't be free. There would be some fee attached to it. Better still: Apple should work with publishers on a news aggregation application. The iPad user spends, say, $120 a year and gets access to content from Economist, Financial Times, New York Times and Wall Street Journal -- or any other combination of five to 10 news sources.

    Mobile Paid Apps

    Apple's risk is low, from my perspective, although company execs might balk at any strategy that could hurt early iPad sales. The people who are going to buy have already decided to do so. According to a report released today by AdMob, 16 percent of iPhone users and 24 percent of iPod touch users plan to buy an iPad within six months.

    But there is concern, for and against paid-only apps, revealed by the AdMob report. The good: 50 percent of iPhone users and 35 percent of iPod touch users buy at least one app a month, compared to 21 percent for Android. However, while the majority App Store applications are paid and Android Marketplace apps free, the monthly averages are similar: iPhone users download an average 8.8 apps a month compared to 8.7 for Android users. Among these apps, on iPhone 7 are free and 1.8 paid. For Android: 7.6 free and 1.1 paid. Considering the huge differences in number of paid-versus-free apps between the two stores, the similarities in customer download habits are surprising.

    For Apple, this data cuts two ways, therefore. Firstly, there is risk of alienating customers used to free apps for iPhone and iPod touch. Secondly, if Apple does nothing, iPad will be yet another hardware device for distributing free applications.

    Free Mobile Apps

    Developers need to make money; the value of free apps is often something else: brand exposure, upsell to paid apps, upsell to paid extras or advertising revenue, among other things. But I contend those same benefits could be available by charging at least 99 cents for applications. Apple should make 99 cents the new free on iPad.

    Would you pay a buck for better mobile apps -- or is free the right price for you? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/24/Google_is_a_dangerous_monopoly____more_than_Microsoft_ever_was'

    Google is a dangerous monopoly -- more than Microsoft ever was

    Publié: février 24, 2010, 8:09am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The European Union's preliminary antitrust investigation of Google isn't the least surprising. But the timing is shockingly foreshadowing.

    In December 2007, when Google announced the DoubleClick acquisition, I blogged: "The Google Monopoly Begins." I asserted that the acquisition would change everything about Google's search and advertising dominance and perceptions about the company's growing status as gatekeeper to all online information. The preliminary antitrust investigation comes as Google makes major changes to DoubleClick with hopes of boosting its display advertising business. The changes mark the final Googlefication of DoubleClick -- or the realistic, final integration of the acquisition into Google.

    I don't believe in coincidence. More than two years ago, I asserted that DoubleClick marked the real beginning of the Google monopoly. The same week Google begins to flex that monopoly, the European Union starts informally investigating the information company. The European Competition Commission is taking seriously three competitor complaints, made by, according to a Google blog post: "UK price comparison site, Foundem, a French legal search engine called ejustice.fr and Microsoft's Ciao! from Bing."

    For clarification, after I posted, the European Commission released statement: "The Commission has not opened a formal investigation for the time being." Right. It's preliminary, subject first to Google's response about the three complaints. In the Google blog post, Julia Holtz, senior competition counsel, asserted: "We will be providing feedback and additional information on these complaints," presumably to the European Commission. Microsoft's antitrust problems in Europe started in the late 1990s from a single complaint made by Sun Microsystems (now absorbed into Oracle).

    Coincidence or not, the European Union is starting too late. Too much has changed in Google's favor since December 2007. The acquisition should never have been approved by European regulators. The mess they'll be cleaning up is one they helped create. I blogged 26 months ago:

    The Google monopoly could be prevented, just as the Microsoft monopoly could have been. To be fair, monopolies aren't necessarily bad, and they certainly aren't illegal in the United States. But Google is positioned to fulfill the decade-old predictions made about Microsoft but as a more dangerous and consumer harming monopoly. Google's monopoly would be over information, and there is just too much opportunity for abuse. DoubleClick significantly cranks up the potential volume of abuse.

    Much has changed; since the DoubleClick acquisition was announced, Google:

    • Released the Chrome Web browser, which in less than 18 months reached version 5 beta.
    • Launched the Android mobile operating system, which sales rose 961 percent year over year in 2009.
    • Announced development of a new operating system -- Chrome OS -- for mobile devices, including netbooks.
    • Negotiated a deal (now being scrutinized) for making millions of books freely available online via Google search.
    • Increased search share on mobile devices, bolstered by new location-based search, local search, mapping and other services.
    • Erected a mobile applications stack, by leveraging together Android, Chrome, disparate Google Web applications and search services.

    That's a short, condensed list. But their meaning simply stated:

    1) Google is expanding a monopoly over Web search and arguably trying to extend it into several adjacent markets, including display advertising, desktop operating systems, mobile operating systems, mobile Web applications and Web browsers. Microsoft's antitrust problems started with leveraging its Intel-based desktop operating system monopoly into the market for Web browsers.

    2) Google's free business model is disrupting many, major established informational industries by reducing their contents' value to zero -- subsidized by search and adjacent services from which Google profits. While analyst estimates vary, the most reliable put Google's online advertising share at about 90 percent in the European Union.

    3) Recent Google activities raise serious questions about trust, such as Buzz privacy settings. Can Google be trusted with all this information? Buzz demonstrates Google's increased willingness to put its interests ahead of customers. Likewise, ongoing tweaks to the search and keyword business model, technology or terms of agreement put Google's interests before partners.

    A Monopoly Matures

    In my December 2007 post declaring the Google monopoly, I gave five reasons it matters. I'll reiterate four of them here:

    Google is the information gatekeeper. The US Justice Department went after Microsoft in May 1998 partly out of fear the company would become the Internet's gatekeeper. That never happened with Microsoft, but it most certainly is occurring with Google. Its business is all about profiting from information. For years, I've argued that Google is not a search company. Google is an information company, with search being a means to an end -- the end being information around which the company sells keywords and advertising. Google's search share reaches 70-80 percent or more in some geographies, according to combined analyst reports.

    Google's business is rife with conflict-of-interest. Google provides through search the road leading to a destination, then profits from many of the businesses established around it. Additionally, as I explained 26 months ago:

    Google doesn't just offer search, but advertising, keyword search and demographic services around information and businesses pay for this stuff. DoubleClick will greatly enhance the latter activity. Marketers are hungry for demographic information, and they're willing to pay for it. Google provides the door, checks who's coming inside and can pass that information onto marketing paparazzi. The temptation to mine the information will be huge, and that temptation will increase as Google matures, its growth slows and its stock falls to earth.

    Google leaches off the good work of others -- for free. As I explained 26 months ago:

    Google produces nothing. Shall I repeat that statement? The company's core business is about search and advertising, which relies on the content of other people and businesses. Google doesn't own the information from which it makes nearly all its revenue. Google is the middleman of the information, which it takes for free. At least Microsoft produces software and makes money off the licensing. Microsoft owns what it sells, but not Google.

    Google abuses the intellectual property rights of others. "Google's information grubbing ways come without any asking permission," I wrote in December 2007. "In one sense, people want their Web sites to be found, for information to be mined. But they're not compensated for something for which Google makes oodles."

    Much has changed -- for the worse -- since Google announced the DoubleClick acquisition. A late-2009 Fair Syndication Consortium study found that over one 30-day period 75,195 Websites published unlicensed content lifted from newspapers. Additionally, 112,000 unlicensed "full copies of U.S. newspaper articles were found on sites across the Internet." The profit motive: Search-driven revenue, with Google accounting for "53 percent of the total monetization." Interestingly, "38 percent of the sites were ranked in the top 100,000 most trafficked sites." Google's business model essentially allows -- and even encourages -- further intellectual property abuse.Better stated: Stealing.

    Wrapping up, Google is a dangerous monopoly. Being a monopoly isn't illegal in the United States, although in Europe it seemingly is so (because of weight given to competitor complaints). Being dangerous doesn't necessarily mean acting dangerously. But the potential is there. How dangerous a company do you see Google -- or not? Please answer in comments.

    Some related posts putting the Google monopoly in context:

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/23/Android_and_iPhone_smack_down_Windows_Mobile'

    Android and iPhone smack down Windows Mobile

    Publié: février 23, 2010, 6:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Worldwide, Windows Mobile smartphone operating system market share declined in 2009 to 8.7 percent from 11.8 percent a year later. Windows Phone 7 Series couldn't come soon enough -- if holiday 2009 could even be enough to hold back Apple's iPhone OS and Google Android.

    The smartphone data comes from Gartner, which measures actual sales to customers rather than to carriers or dealers. By that reckoning, Windows Mobile sales only declined by 1.47 million units to around 15 million units year over year. By comparison, iPhone OS sales more than doubled -- to nearly 25 million units -- with share rise to 14.4 percent from 8.2 percent year over year. Android made significant gains -- and at the expense of other Linux-based smartphone operating systems, too -- with share rising from 0.5 percent in 2008 to 3.9 percent in 2009 on 6.8 million units shipped. Android made its biggest gains of the year during fourth quarter.

    "Android's success experienced in the fourth quarter of 2009 should continue into 2010 as more manufacturers launch Android products," Roberta Cozza, Gartner principal research analyst, said in a statement.

    Between 2008 and 2009, Android's smartphone market share increased by 680 percent, while unit sales rose by 961.4 percent. By comparison, Windows Mobile market share decreased by 26.27 percent and units sales fell by 8.9 percent. iPhone OS: 75.6 percent increase for share and 118 percent increase for unit sales. BlackBerry OS: 19.9 increase in market share and 48.4 percent for unit sales. Symbian: Market share declined by 10.5 percent, while unit sales rose by 10.9 percent.

    Mobile phone sales reached 1.21 billion last year, 380 million during fourth quarter. Device sales were strongest at at the fringes -- smartphones and lower-cost handsets. Apple, Google and Research in Motion benefited from smartphone sales, while Nokia gained from cheaper and mid-tier handsets, particularly those selling into emerging markets.

    "Smartphone sales to end users continued their strong growth in the fourth quarter of 2009, totaling 53.8 million units, up 41.1 per cent from the same period in 2008," Carolina Milanesi, Gartner research director, said in a statment. "In 2009, smartphone sales reached 172.4 million units, a 23.8 per cent increase from 2008." Milanesi noted that "smartphone-focused vendors" captured "market share from other larger device producers."

    The only really good news for Microsoft is that Windows Mobile share stank but sales didn't reek. As aforementioned, Windows Mobile dramatically lost more market share than number of units shipped. Windows Mobile fell to No. 4 position from No. 3, replaced by iPhone, for smartphone OS share. Microsoft still has some footing for recovery, particularly as it up to Windows Phone 7 Series device releases. That said, Android and iPhone OS are rapidly rise stars, even as Windows Mobile's shine dims.

    Mobiles 2009

    Nokia remains the market share force for all other handset competitors to reckon with. While Nokia lost market share in 2009, prospects are much better for 2010. Symbian OS smartphone share dropped from 52.4 percent to 46.9 percent on an increase of about 8 million more handsets sold than 2008.

    "Symbian had become uncompetitive in recent years, but its market share, particularly on Nokia devices, is still strong," Cozza said in a statement. "If Symbian can use this momentum, it could return to positive growth." Much depends on the operating system's first, truly open-source version, Symbian^3, which the Symbian Foundation announced during Mobile World Congress.

    "Nokia will face a tough first half of 2010 as improvement to Symbian and new products based on the Meego platform will not reach the market well before the second half of 2010," Milanesi warned. "Its very strong mid-tier portfolio will help it hold market share, but its ongoing weakness at the high end of the portfolio will hurt its share of market value."

    Smartphone OS 2009

    Nokia stood out from nearly all other handset manufacturers during Mobile World Congress by not announcing a slew of new handsets. Still, Symbian^4 is expected to release by end of year. Both new Symbian versions will add functionality as much to mid-tier handsets as smartphones. Nokia sales may be weak in the United States, but they're strong in nearly every other region and across nearly every handset category.

    I take a moment to focus on Nokia because of American blogger and journalist obsession with smartphones, particularly iPhone. In many regions of the wolrd, the cell phone is the first connected device that people own -- not a PC. In emerging markets, services like mobile money (and mobile banking) are transforming peoples' lives in meaningful ways. Application stores and touch-feely touchscreen features American bloggers and journalists coo so much about matter much less to people in emerging markets with more basic needs that a Symbian -- or even Android or Windows Mobile -- handset might better serve.

    [Editor's Note: Paragraph inserted with percent change in smartphone OS market share and unit sales.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/22/Email_phishes_for_Windows_Live_IDs_and_passwords'

    Email phishes for Windows Live IDs and passwords

    Publié: février 22, 2010, 10:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The flu pretty much wiped out most of last week, which is just a blur to me. This morning, I started catching up on email and found a real frakker in my Windows Live Hotmail inbox. Someone wants to steal my Windows Live ID and password -- and probably yours, too. The message is dated Feb. 22, 2010.

    The email caught my attention for several reasons: 1) Windows Live Hotmail didn't flag the message as junk or suspicious; 2) The apparent originating address -- "communications@microsoft.windowslive.com" -- seems legit enough; 3) Sender is "Windows Live Team"; 4) The email effectively uses threats and cajoling.

    I know that phishing emails are common enough for me not to single this one out. But, hey, I'm catch-up blogging and concerned someone else will get suckered to cough up their credentials. The email might have slipped through Windows Live Hotmail security checks because there cleverly are no links. It's an old school phishing attack. Instead of sending the user to a Website to enter in credentials -- surely something Microsoft would catch -- the information is given via reply email.

    By the way, you don't want to lose your Windows Live ID. Have you ever tried to cancel one? It's not desperately difficult for one simply attached to Hotmail. But once Microsoft has your credit card on file and attached to several paid services, the process gets tough. Last time I tried to cancel a Windows Live ID, three different Microsoft reps insisted I independently cancel Xbox Live and Zune subscription services first because a credit card number was attached to them. Imagine criminals controlling your ID and perhaps purchasing "points" at your expense -- among other nefarious activities -- all while you struggle to cancel or suspend the account. If faced with that situation, I would report a terms of service violation, which might get faster response.

    Having been sick with the flu, I laughed at the phishing email's "We are having congestions due to the anonymous registration of Hotmail/Live accounts" as justification for demanding ID and password. Full text of the email:

    Are you protected?

    Dear Account User,

    This Email is from Hotmail/Live Customer Care and we are sending it to every Email User Accounts Owner for safety. We are having congestions due to the anonymous registration of Hotmail/Live accounts so we are shutting down some Hotmail/Live accounts and your account was among those to be deleted.

    We also noticed a violation use of your account and if you think you have not violated the Terms and Condition of Hotmail/Live, please verify below with information requested

    You will have to confirm your E-mail by filling out your Login Information below after clicking the reply button, or your account will be suspended within 48 hours for security reasons.

    • Username: ...............................
    • Password: ................................
    • Date of Birth: ............................
    • Country Or Territory: .................

    After following the instructions in the sheet, your account will not be interrupted and will continue as normal. Thanks for your attention to this request. We apologize for any inconveniences.

    Warning: Account owner that refuses to update his/her account after two weeks of receiving this warning will lose his or her account permanently.

    Sincerely,

    The Windows Live Hotmail/Live Team.

    Just a reminder: Microsoft will never ask for your password in an email, nor would just about any other responsible service. Passwords should never be sent by email. I would have to check with Microsoft about whether information sent via Windows Live Hotmail is in the clear -- another reason not to send any confidential information via email. Windows Live log-in is https but my Hotmail page link is http, suggesting no encrypted connection. By comparison, Gmail is now https, a change Google made after the recent Chinese hacks.

    I have to ask: Anyone else out there get this e-mail or something like it?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/19/Apple_s_problem_with_Flash_is_mobile_applications_competition'

    Apple's problem with Flash is mobile applications competition

    Publié: février 19, 2010, 7:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple CEO Steve Jobs wants publishers to support iPad, but not with Adobe Flash. Jobs' anti-Flash campaign has grown bolder since the company announced iPad last month and during this week's Mobile World Congress, where Flash 10.1 inched a little close to widespread mobile device availability. What's Apple's problem with Flash? Simply put: Competition.

    Apple wants to control the entire mobile applications stack. The App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform, which will soon include iPad, is a closed stack that Apple tightly controls. For developers, it's Apple's way or no way. But Apple could conceivably lose control of the stack -- most importantly the applications and their user experience -- should Flash run free and unfettered on iPhone OS devices.

    Why Apple Disses Flash

    As Adobe readies Flash for most every mobile platform -- other than Apple's, of course -- and publishers ask what about Flash on iPad, Jobs and Co. have responded by slandering Flash's reputation: Flash is too buggy, or iPad battery life would be 1.5 hours instead of 10 if running Flash. Flash slandering shifts the debate away from why Apple won't allow Flash on iPhone OS devices to why Apple supposedly protects customers by holding back the Adobe technology. It's the clever kind of counter marketing Apple excels at (Just watch most any "Get a Mac" commercial).

    Apple's Flash slandering obscures the real reason for resisting the technology. Because of Flash's huge video success, too many people look at the technology in that context for iPhone OS devices. Long before Flash became the most common way of delivering video over the Web, developers used it to create applications -- and they still do today. Flash is a rival development platform, and one Apple doesn't control. If Apple lets Flash roam iPhone OS devices, uncaged and free, developers can create applications that bypass the App Store. By keeping out Flash, Apple:

    • Maintains tight control over the user experience
    • Avoids competition with a major third-party application platform
    • Keeps user interface fairly consistent across different iPhone OS applications
    • Ensures App Store remains iPhone's primary application development and delivery platform

    Apple's problem with Flash is competition. The company doesn't want any. Hence the anti-Flash campaign now under way. The Flash slandering will only increase as Jobs courts more content publishers for iPad and Flash becomes widely available on every other mobile device.

    There are Other Reasons

    Of course, there is a secondary reason for all this campaigning to, ah, dim the Flash: Apple-Adobe rivalry. With the notable exception of PDF, Apple competes with Adobe in most of the same content-creation categories. That was by choice. Apple chose to compete with this major, long-time Mac supporting developer.

    Something else: Contrary to commonly held convention, Apple's iPhone OS device strategy is not about the mobile Web. Apple seeks to establish iPhone OS devices as alternatives to the mobile Web. The mobile Web is all about the browser. The first iPhone was about the browser, but all that changed with App Store, which channels content consumption (or creation) away from the browser into application containers of disparate and discreet functions. "There's an app for that" -- Apple's well-known marketing slogan -- means that people work within separate applications; separately from one another since background operations are restricted or prohibited.

    Apple wants any video capabilities to occur within these applications, using its technologies and the H.264 codec. Apple has worked around Flash, rather than support it, by iPhone's YouTube implementation. Jobs wants iPad publishers to work around Flash, too, by supporting H.264 streaming instead of Flash. The publisher controls the user experience (on Apple's terms, of course) with the application either way. The bigger benefit goes to Apple, which keeps out a rival development platform.

    HTML5: Backdoor Lover

    What I find fascinating is the backdoor Apple opened to yet another rival development platform: HTML5. Apple offers partial HTML5 support in its desktop and mobile Safari browsers, and the company has touted the advantages for video streaming without Flash. Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it, too, as the saying goes: Video streaming without the platform development competition.

    But HTML5 support is hugely risky. Last year, at GigaOM, Alistair Croll asked the same question I did: "Will HTML5 break Apple's stronghold on apps?" Google has answered with a resounding "Yes." In 2009, Apple (or was it AT&T -- or both) refused to accept Google Voice in the App Store. In January, Google responded by releasing Google Voice for iPhone as an HTML5 app running in Safari. Last week, when launching Buzz, Google released an HTML5 mobile version for Android 2.x and iPhone 3.x devices. No Apple App Store approval process required.

    Apple should be more concerned about Google. As I will explain in a subsequent blog post, the mobile Internet is diverging along two paths: Discreet applications and the mobile Web browser. Apple strongly advocates applications, which benefit its closed App Store/iPhone OS device platform. Google is pushing the browser for consuming services or running HTML5-based apps (even while supporting mobile apps in the Android Marketplace). Microsoft also is taking a hybrid mobile Web browser/applications approach with Windows Phone 7 Series. Nokia favors browser and widgets more than discreet applications, which are more open on Symbian^3, Maemo or MeeGo, like Google's Android.

    Competition is in inevitable. It's the nature of things. Life on earth is about living things competing for survival -- something that transfers to the things humans create. Apple may try to shut out Flash as a rival development platform to App Store/iPhone OS devices, only to see HTML5 take its place. Google is a much bigger problem for Apple than Adobe ever could be.

    Steve Jobs responded to Flash competition with words -- anti-Flash marketing that came out of his mouth and which blogs and news sites candidly reported, all without him providing substantive evidence to back up the claims. How will Apple handle Google or try to close that HTML5 backdoor? The answer may be soon coming.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/17/Windows_Phone_7_Series_is_a_lost_cause'

    Windows Phone 7 Series is a lost cause

    Publié: février 17, 2010, 9:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Could Windows Phone 7 Series save Microsoft's mobile platform? Yes. In 2007. In 2010, it's a non-starter. That's not easy for me to write, because with Windows Phone 7 Series Microsoft is following much of the advice I offered via blog posts over the last few years.

    That advice would have meant something when given, not months and years later when the competitive landscape has radically changed. Then there is the crucial analysis given last week -- that Microsoft failed to deliver on: Immediate release of new phone software and/or Microsoft phone. Holiday delivery on new Windows Phone 7 Series handsets is simply too late.

    The geeks may be gaga this week about Windows Phone 7 Series, but that won't much last beyond next month's MIX10 conference. Apple's shipment of iPad and presumably March iPhone 4.0 OS announcement will change geek chatter away from Microsoft mobile. (For the last two years, Apple announced new iPhone OS versions in early spring.)

    Microsoft's problem is more about timing than strategy -- or technology (Hey, I like the user interface and presumed user experience, too). If Microsoft were running a marathon, its new runner would be entering the race to replace the one falling behind the leading group. But the new runner would be starting when the others already were well ahead to their 26-mile goal. No matter how good the runner, the leaders would be too far ahead to easily catch.

    Sure, the market for converged handsets (e.g., smartphones) is seemingly small-- about 15.4 percent of 2009 global handset shipments, according to IDC -- but it grew 39 percent last year. Microsoft is reviving its mobile strategy just as competition increases among established players like Nokia and Research in Motion and newcomers Apple and Google -- all while losing market share and mindshare.

    Because I'm still struggling with the flu, I'm going to blast from the past, using my previous predictions for context about now and the 12 months or so ahead (I purposely have chosen posts before 2009, for predictive emphasis). In short, Windows Phone 7 Series is a lost cause because:

    • There is no Windows monopoly leverage to jumpstart the platform
    • Windows Mobile has lost too much sales and developer momentum
    • Android adoption -- by manufacturers and mobile users -- is too great
    • Microsoft doesn't have an end-to-end software plus hardware plus services platform

    Now for some long-form explanation:

    Windows Phone has no Windows Leverage

    Just the opposite, mobile devices leverage against Windows. I've been predicting -- for years -- that during this decade the connected mobile device would replace the PC as primary computing platform. I wrote in February 2008 post, "Microsoft's Mobile Madness":

    The future of mobiles is PC replacement. It's an inevitable outcome and one Microsoft simply isn't accepting. Microsoft's denial is madness, too.

    The cellular phone market is:

    • Enormously bigger than that for PCs. For every PC in use there are three cell phones, based on analyst estimates of 3 million mobiles in 2007.
    • Captive, as most people carry mobiles most of the time; but not PCs.
    • Personal, because people care more about their cell phones than PCs. Who asks to be buried with their computers, but it's a common request for mobiles.
    • More global, as more people are likely to have cell phones than PCs, particularly in emerging markets.
    • More connected than PCs, as cellular services reach many places than does the wired or WiFi Internet.

    To update the first bullet point, combined analyst estimates put the total number of cell phone subscribers at 4.6 billion worldwide. PC install base: About 1 billion. IDC predicts the number of cellular subscribers will increase by 1.3 billion by 2013.

    In July 2008 post, "iPhone 3G: Windows 95, Only Better," I wrote: "The mobile remains the future of computing and connectivity. How long before dictation replaces typing? If you don't need a keyboard, why would you need a PC when the cell phone offers anywhere computing, any time?" Dictation already replaces the keyboard on Google's Nexus One.

    Matters are worse, Apple and imitator Google have better platforms already because of mobile application stores. In 2005, I warned Microsoft executives they should use product activation to build a third-party application store into Windows. Developers could sell and distribute applications from within Windows, ensuring a revenue stream for them, while better protecting their software from piracy. A Windows app store would have been great leverage to mobile devices.

    About three years later, Apple did with App Store on mobile devices what Microsoft failed to on the desktop. As I explained in October 2008 post, "Windows Mobile Is an Also-ran," in Apple's application store, developers have:

    • a software distribution mechanism built into every device and means for getting paid for the applications
    • access to millions of captive devices because people carry cell phones everywhere
    • digital rights management protection that hugely diminishes piracy of distributed applications

    Apple claims about 135,000 mobile applications in the iTunes App Store and more than 3 billion downloads. By the time the first Windows Phone 7 Series handsets ship, Apple will offer apps for three mobile devices -- iPad, iPhone and iPod touch. Meanwhile OEMs are pushing Google's Android on ebook readers, netbooks and smartphones. The two rising stars already have leverage, with developers and mobile users, because of applications stores. Sure, Microsoft has an app store, as some Betanews commenters will surely observe. I say them: Have you looked at it lately and seriously compared what Microsoft offers compared to the Android Marketplace or App Store? Yes, games will come for the holidays, but Apple will only have widened its portable gaming lead to three devices.

    Windows Mobile has Fallen Too Far Behind

    The chart below, which Silicon Alley Insider put together from ComScore data, is nearly all that's needed to demonstrate Microsoft's mobile fall from reign. The data is for US subscriber share (from a poll of 30,000 consumers). Some other perspective: Based on global smartphone sales to end users, Microsoft's mobile market share declined to 7.9 percent during third quarter from 11.1 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner (Q4 data isn't yet available).

    Mobile OS subscriber share

    Smartphone is the category where Windows Phone 7 Series will compete with upstarts Apple and Google and leaders Nokia and RIM. IDC has released full-year smartphone shipments, but not for operating systems. For Apple, they're synonymous -- 21.5 million. Based on the first three quarters of data, it's likely that more iPhone OS handsets shipped than Windows Mobile devices in 2009 -- and that's without accounting for iPhone touch.

    Android Adoption is Simply Too Great

    In June 2007 post, "Why Google Succeeds, Part 2," I warned: "If Google and its partners can bring to mobile devices what they have to the desktop, I predict it will be game over for Microsoft. Windows' relevance will diminish before the Web platform." Google delivered with the G1, as I explained in September 2008 post, "How Android hurts Microsoft." I referred to the G1 as Google's "alternative platform to the Windows PC."

    A month later, in the Windows also-ran post, I wrote:

    Once Android reaches the world markets, it will be too late. Microsoft has no Windows desktop leverage to drive mobile development or sales. The question now: When will HTC make Android a priority over Windows Mobile? That will be the day when all doors close Microsoft's mobile operating system into a tomb.

    Android has global reach (and competes with Windows Mobile/Phone for same licensees), nearly all of the coolest HTC handsets run Android and Google claims surprisingly brisk sales. Yesterday, at Mobile World Congress, Google CEO Eric Schmidt said that 60,000 Android phones ship every day. That works out to nearly 22 millions for the year, but the figure could be hugely conservative. According to IDC, 1.35 million Android phones shipped in third quarter (Q4 data isn't available), or 14,674 a day. That puts daily shipments up nearly 4 times in less than two quarters. If the growth curve continues, and Schmidt's figure is accurate, Android shipments would easily exceed iPhone as early as this year (but not when combined with iPad and iPod touch).

    "Android is reaching the mainstream," IDC analyst Kevin Restivo expressed during our Skype chat earlier today. "Awareness efforts are paying off in the form of increased distribution, which is widening quarterly. More importantly, additional models are being offered by Android manufacturer partners -- hence increased sell-in."

    The day of Android as "alternative platform to the Windows PC" has come. Yesterday, Schmidt said that Google's priority would now be mobile applications "first" before desktop apps: "Our programmers are working on things mobile first." While Microsoft has little Windows monopoly leverage for Windows Phone 7 Series, Google has huge leverage from search and supporting Web services.

    There's No Microsoft Phone

    For years, Microsoft has rallied behind the banner of software plus services. But in January 2008, I boohooed Microsoft for failing to add hardware to the equation. In post, "The Minus in Software Plus Services," I explained that Microsoft needed to add hardware to the software-plus-services equation. At the time, there was no Google phone. I wrote:

    Microsoft enters 2008 in position to leapfrog Google by early 2009 or 2010, depending on how both companies execute. The company that best delivers software plus hardware plus services will best the other. Yes, that's a prediction.

    Google has done much better than Microsoft delivering software plus hardware plus services -- to the point of having a phone (the aforementioned Nexus One). But Apple has done even better, as I acknowledged in post "iPhone 3G: Software + Hardware + Services." Apple's approach is one stack it controls. Google has it both ways -- three, really, considering open source -- by making Android available to hardware manufacturers and shipping its own handset. Microsoft is a licensor only. There is no Microsoft phone.

    Apple is making huge margins from selling iPhone as a single software-plus-hardware-plus-services device. The iPhone accounted for about 36 percent of Apple's fourth calendar quarter $15.6 billion revenue. Microsoft will compete against Apple, which makes mountains of money off iPhone, and Android, which is free. Microsoft will charge for licenses (of course) and make little for its efforts. According to Silicon Alley Insider estimates on Windows Phone 7 Series OS revenue during Microsoft fiscal 2011: "A reasonable average is somewhere in the $300 million range, which is less than 0.5 percent of the $66 billion in revenue that Wall Street expects Microsoft to generate in fiscal 2011."

    My November 2008 post, "I Believe in a Microsoft Phone," expressed hope Microsoft would do a handset -- keeping with a software-plus-hardware-plus-services approach. "The time has come," I wrote. "It's inevitable: Either Microsoft has a secret phone project or its mobile strategy is collapsed." I warned that even for 2009 "Microsoft's biggest problem is time to market," because of Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform.

    Time-to-market situation is way worse looking at holiday 2010. Microsoft needed to announce a phone this week, shipping within a few months. Perhaps Microsoft executives think they can show off a reasonable software-plus-hardware-plus-services strategy next month at MIX. Maybe they can without Microsoft doing its own phone. But time to market is too long -- and Microsoft competes with Apple big money making software plus hardware and services (Nokia and RIM, too) and Google free. Microsoft has started the marathon late. Apple, Google, Nokia and perhaps even RIM will set the agenda for your mobile future. Microsoft's mobile platform is a lost cause.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/15/Windows_Phone_7_Series__The_good__the_bad_and_the_ugly'

    Windows Phone 7 Series: The good, the bad and the ugly

    Publié: février 15, 2010, 9:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier today, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announced Windows Phone 7 Series at Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain. The new operating system is a bold move for Microsoft, which is looking to reinvigorate its mobile strategy. But how bold is Windows Phone 7 Series in context of other mobile platforms? That's the question this post seeks to answer.

    Because I'm miserably sick with the flu today, I'll limit this post to three areas: Windows Phone 7 Series as Microsoft's mobile Manhattan Project, mobile applications competition and garnering developer interest.

    1. Mobile Manhattan Project

    The Good. Finally, Microsoft is on a path of reinvention, which its mobile operating system desperately needed. Windows Phone 7 is something new, deriving heritage from Zune. Windows Phone 7 Series is a refreshing departure from Windows Mobile -- it demos well, anyway. Microsoft finally is making the kind of commitment necessary to once again be a major competitor in the handset market. Microsoft also seems to have at least some sense about how the mobile device market is changing.

    Last week, IDC reported that the mobile sector, which now is an $850 billion market, accounts for nearly 60 percent of the global telecom market. Combined analyst data puts the worldwide mobile subscriber base at 4.6 billion. IDC predicts another 1.3 billion subscribers will be added by 2013.

    "The mobile sector is in transition from its prior focus on subscriber growth," Courtney Munroe, group vice president of IDC Worldwide Telecommunications, said in a statement. "The expanding demographics of smartphones and new operating systems, the arrival of mobile broadband, and the explosive growth of applications and content are combining to reshape the landscape of mobile telecommunications."

    Windows Phone 7 hub

    The point: Microsoft still has time to recover lost momentum and consumer mindshare.

    The Bad. The transition from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone 7 could cost Microsoft market share, as manufacturers transition from one operating system to another and consumers delay purchases (or buy a competing handset). Today's announcement makes Windows Mobile even less appealing, because something new is coming.

    In fourth quarter, based on a survey of 30,000 US consumers, ComScore put Microsoft handset subscriber share at 18 percent. Research in Motion: 41.6 percent. Apple: 25.3 percent. Google: 5.2 percent, up from 2.5 percent three months earlier.

    The Ugly. Microsoft is taking too long to bring Windows Phone 7 Series to market. Today, Microsoft announced holiday 2010 availability for new handsets, which isn't soon enough. In between, Apple will start selling iPad and is sure to release a new iPhone. What's trendy from Microsoft today could look less appealing come the holidays. New Android-based and Nokia handsets are sure to ship in between, too.

    IDC predicts a mobile operating system transformation in 2010 because of open-source operating systems (like Android) and user-interface and user-experience (UI and UX) improvements in new categories such as iPad. Microsoft's time to market will put it on the tail-end of this transformation.

    2. Mobile Applications

    The Good. Microsoft has done well to leverage existing products or services, such as Xbox and Zune, for Windows Phone 7 Series. The new Mobile IE will be based on the desktop version 8 and no longer 6, which should hugely improve the browsing experience and safety. Windows Phone 7 Series devices will also extend to Web services through features like "hubs" and "live tiles." However, I predict that Windows Phone 7 Series poses greater risk to BlackBerry, rather than Android-based handsets or iPhone.

    The Bad. Microsoft's core leveraged applications are games and music, where Apple has a huge lead, with consumers and developers, on iPhone, iPod touch and presumably forthcoming iPad. Microsoft's core entertainment push knocks up against Apple's huge lead. Microsoft will offer mobile Office on Windows Phone 7, which I contend is totally unnecessary for consumers, although it's good for extending and preserving Microsoft's productivity suite monopoly.

    The Ugly. For years, Microsoft executives have talked about software plus services. But on mobile devices, Apple and not Microsoft has brought them to market. Apple claims about 135,000 mobile applications in the iTunes App Store and more than 3 billion downloads. Meanwhile, Google, which does offer the Android Marketplace, is pushing Web services, leveraging its strengths and offering alternatives to mobile applications. Once again, Microsoft's long time to market -- holiday 2010 -- will allow competitors to widen their leads.

    Windows Phone 7 Series3. Wooing developers

    The Good. Microsoft is using the time between Windows Phone 7 Series' announcement and availability wisely, For starters, the company plans to woo developers during next month's MIX10 conference. Meanwhile, Microsoft is opening up its mobile platform to more third-party customization than does Apple (but not Google or Nokia). Microsoft also is a notoriously good development partner, providing lots of documentation and support.

    The Bad. Windows Phone 7 Series doesn't really offer anything shockingly new for developers to embrace -- other than perhaps Office support. That's great for the enterprise market, but Microsoft needs to make a big consumer play. Microsoft will have to work developers all year long, and, once again, time to market -- meaning, when developers can profit from the platform -- is a deterrent to supporting it.

    The Ugly. Apple already has huge mobile application developer lead among closed platforms. Meanwhile, today, Symbian Foundation announced open-source Synbian ^3. Nokia and Intel revealed that they will combine their Maemo and Moblin platforms into the single MeeGo. Like Symbian ^3 -- and Google's Android -- MeeGo is open source. Closed Windows Phone 7 Series must woo developers from closed iPhone OS and three open source mobile operating systems -- Android, MeeGo and Symbian 3.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/12/10_ways_Microsoft_can_save_Windows_Mobile____starting_NEXT_WEEK_'

    10 ways Microsoft can save Windows Mobile -- starting NEXT WEEK!

    Publié: février 12, 2010, 9:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What will Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer announce during Monday's Mobile World Congress press event in Barcelona, Spain? There's what he will announce and what he should. I'm skipping the speculation about what and going right to should. Microsoft's mobile strategy is a mess. Apple and Google have routed Microsoft in mobile operating systems. Android and iPhone OS make Windows Mobile look about as fresh as Windows 95. Meanwhile, Microsoft has chased Research in Motion's BlackBerry in the enterprise for years, never making any real gains.

    It's long past time for the Big Ballmer to step up and offer something substantial -- not promises of future technology coming but goodies available immediately or nearly so. I've condensed what easily was a list of 15 or so items down to 10 things Microsoft must do immediately to save Windows Mobile from extinction. Microsoft has no more time. It's do or die, and even doing now may be too late. With that introduction, Microsoft should:

    1. Release Windows Mobile 7. That's not announce but release, either next week or within 60 days. Anything less than immediate or near-immediate timing is simply too long. Google's Android is on rapid development and end-user adoption pace now, and Apple is sure to release a new iPhone model by summer. Meanwhile, Windows Mobile continues its decline. Gartner and IDC haven't yet released worldwide smartphone OS shipments for fourth quarter, but ComScore has released US phone subscriber share, based on a survey of more than 30,000 mobile users. Android phone share (based on actual subscribers not shipments) was 5.2 percent in fourth quarter, up from 2.5 percent sequentially. Share by phone OS vendor: RIM, 41.6 percent; Apple, 25.3 percent; Microsoft, 18 percent.

    Ballmer will make a huge mistake if all he has is something to show. He can drone on about how much better is the Windows 7 Mobile user interface or blow about natural user interface enhancements. Big fraking deal. Microsoft's theme for Windows Phone at MWC is "Ready. Set." If Windows 7 isn't ready, set, go, Ballmer should stay in Washington State (or fly back if he already is in Spain).

    2. Announce Zune phone -- or, at least, a handset based on Danger technology. Of course, Microsoft should do its own phone. A Danger phone -- the so-called "Project Pink" -- would be something better than nothing, but a Zune phone would be much better. Sure Microsoft risks alienating some of its OEM partners, but many of them are pulling back Windows Mobile in favor of Android anyway. Microsoft risks more by doing nothing.

    In my September review of Zune HD, I wrote:

    The Zune HD's size, particularly its thinness, would be ideal for a cell phone -- way better suited than iPhone. With a 3G radio, Bluetooth and application store, Zune HD could be a helluva phone. The task-oriented user interface, while very non-phone like, is ideally suited for a multi-functional device, even one with 3G telephony. Task-oriented UIs emphasize simplicity and hide complexity, increasing usability.

    That's self-explanatory enough as to why a Zune phone makes sense.

    3. Make a major mobile acquisition. I expect that Windows 7 Mobile or Zune phone won't be ready come Monday, and Microsoft simply can't afford to wait. Even if Windows Mobile 7 released to manufacturing next week, new handsets would still be months away -- at least. Microsoft needs to acquire some company with good mobile hardware, software and services. Kara Swisher made similar suggestion on February 8:

    Microsoft and its giant wallet might be better served by buying one of the big and more established telecom companies, such as Research in Motion, Palm  or even -- as another Microsoft exec said to me, 'Why not?' Nokia. Nokia has a market cap of close to $50 billion, with RIM at close to $38 billion. And Palm? A paltry $1.74 billion. Microsoft's current valuation is $246 billion, and the company has $40 billion in cash and marketable securities on hand...many sources at Microsoft have told me that CEO Steve Ballmer has expressed interest in buying RIM many times (while also dismissing any interest in Palm).

    In late December I stated "10 reasons why Microsoft should buy Palm now." Maybe Ballmer has hard feelings about Palm because of past competition and the short-lived commitment to Windows Mobile. If so, he should act logically, not emotionally. Palm would be a cheap acquisition that would instantly give Microsoft great hardware (Pre), operating system (WebOS) and services, particularly synchronization. RIM and Windows Phone overlap too much in the enterprise. Microsoft needs some consumer pull, and Palm has it. What Palm doesn't have is a strong company backing its great technology. Microsoft could provide that.

    4. If no Zune phone or mobile acquisition, announce Windows Phone handset development contest. Microsoft needs a Manhattan Project for mobile. If the company has got nothing, it should encourage third parties to come up with something. Microsoft should announce a contest to develop the Windows 7 Phone. Major manufacturers, startups and individuals should be allowed to submit prototypes (with all appropriate NDAs and contracts in place to protect designs). The contest must last no more than 120 days (Hey, it's a Manhattan Project!), with Microsoft committed to choosing one to three designs within 30 days and begin manufacturing 30 days later. Microsoft would commit to buying the prototype design for pre-stated price and -- for existing, major manufacturers -- promising exclusive production deal for at least 12 months.

    The contest would be worth the buzz alone -- and there should be plenty of that. Suddenly anyone could conceivably develop Microsoft's own Windows Phone and get a big, fat contract in process. The Web would buzz with speculation and ideas about what Microsoft should do. The contest could be the ultimate in crowdsourcing but instead of culling the crowd for free Microsoft could put forth its longstanding corporate axiom that people should be paid for their creative work. Take that, free-monger Google!

    5. If no mobile acquisition or Zune phone, make closer development, strategic and business ties with Nokia. Barcelona is the right place, given Nokia's handset dominance across major parts of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. Buying Nokia wouldn't be a bad idea, either, as Swisher suggested.

    In most emerging markets, the mobile handset is the first Internet-connected device, not the PC, that most people first use. During fourth quarter, Nokia sold 126.9 million handsets worldwide for 39 percent worldwide market share. Worldwide, there are 4.6 billion mobile phone subscribers, and manufacturers ship about 1.3 billion mobile phones each year. By comparison, the total PC install base is only about 1 billion.

    The point: The future of computing is the mobile device, not the PC. Nokia has huge presence in most countries, particularly emerging markets. A Nokia deal, or acquisition, should emphasize extending Microsoft products and services to cell phone users in these markets. Microsoft also should align any Nokia deal with the "Unlimited Potential" program.

    6. Release -- not announce -- a new mobile browser. The browser should be based on Internet Explorer 8 or WebKit, and it should be available for all major mobile platforms, starting with BlackBerry OS, iPhone OS, Symbian OS and Windows Mobile. It's OK if Microsoft snubs nose at Android -- for now. Microsoft's new browser should be available in beta, at least.

    7. Unveil Zune Silverlight client. As big as Windows market share is, Microsoft needs to extend Zune's reach, particularly to sell more music players or to launch a phone. Microsoft should release a Zune client for Mac -- and even Linux -- and that could be easily enough done with Silverlight. Microsoft could go all Web-based, but the Zune UI and features are already compelling in the Windows client. That said , Silverlight could allow for the option of both -- Web-based and desktop clients.

    8. Release Silverlight for Mobile. In two years, HTML 5 could make Silverlight less relevant, not just Adobe Flash. Microsoft already is off to good start supporting HTML 5 streaming with Silverlight. What Microsoft needs more is a Silverlight client for all major mobile platforms, including iPhone OS. Windows Mobile won't be near good enough. Support must be broad, starting with Symbian S40 and S60 handsets. Microsoft should make beating Flash to market a top mobile development priority. Flash 10.1 is nearly ready for mobile device release and could debut as early as next week.

    9. Tag it! Barcodes have a huge future on mobile devices, and so far only Nokia really gets it. But Nokia is lumbering too slowly to market. Google also gets tags, for search and advertising, but misses the broader utility in emerging markets. Enter Microsoft Tag. Mobile money is the hot topic in emerging markets. The idea: That people spend and also receive money via accounts attached to their mobile phones. Mobile phones also could be used for distributing financial aid.

    In emerging markets where people don't otherwise bank, the mobile phone can contain funds access and be used to pay for items. On possible future payment option: Scanning barcodes with the phone's camera. Microsoft already is an aggressive technology provider in emerging markets. Mobile money tied to Microsoft Tag would be glue binding new customers to the company's products and services.

    10. Make mobile location-based search immediately available. Google is there now. Mcrosoft's Bing needs to offer even better location-based search services -- tied to advertising and maps, for starters. Nirvana: Jack Consumer searches for Patti Smith book Just Kids, on his computer. While out and about, his smartphone beeps and, based on location and store database stored in the Azure cloud, informs that the Borders shop on the next block has Just Kidsin stock.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/11/Why_is_Google_suddenly_so_evil_'

    Why is Google suddenly so evil?

    Publié: février 11, 2010, 9:52pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Google is the great Internet God of goodness, or so claims No. 6 of the company's "10 Things" corporate philosophy list: "You can make money without doing evil." But this week, Google has suddenly put its doing no evil claims in doubt.

    Yesterday, Google launched social networking service Buzz with opt-out privacy settings, meaning that a user's list of followers and followees are fully viewable in Google Profile, by default.  Unrelated, but by Twitter -- ah, buzz -- standards even more evil: Google deleted six popular music blogs hosted at its Blogger service.

    How evil these actions are -- and others coming later in this post -- depends on viewpoint. To whom is Google's first obligation? Itself? Its shareholders? Or its customers?

    Customers-First Scenario

    By the viewpoint of customer standards, opt-out privacy and blog deletion -- without forewarning, I should emphasize -- are evil acts. Google absolutely is making money while doing evil. Plain, pure and simple. The blog deletions, whether or not justified by DCMA take-down notices, are also the worst kind of public relations. People love their music, and they rally behind the underdog -- David standing before Goliath. The blog deletions are worse than evil. They're stupid.

    How about Buzz, which requires users to opt-out of exposing followers and followees rather than opting-in to make the information public? While various news sites and blogs have suggested the opt-out approach could expose, say, secret relationships (like that girlfriend you were boxing on the side), I immediately thought about China. There, Google is making a stand against censorship (supposedly). Because Buzz doesn't self-censor by default, new users in China could expose dissident relationships to government investigators. Buzz uses Gmail to auto-generate follower lists. Whoops.

    Buzz privacy also is as much stupid as evil, because of the negative buzz generated over the past 24 hours. Example news headlines or blog titles demonstrate how much:

    Google-First scenario

    But the customer is only viewpoint. There is Google itself and taking actions for its benefit over customers. The blog deletions and Buzz privacy approach seem to put Google before the customer. As YouTube popularity increases and Google negotiates more deals to offer legal, commercial content -- such as TV shows and movie rentals or sales -- there is increasing pressure to respond to DCMA take-down requests.

    Then there is the return on investment in Blogger, which is a free service anyway, to consider. Google risks more by losing paying content than it gains by defending presumably infringing content on a free service (Although one could argue that Google could delete offending music like it removes soundtracks from infringing YouTube videos without wiping out whole blogsites). The point: Google put its own interests before customers. Is that doing evil?

    Buzz privacy is even more about putting Google interests before customers. Buzz clearly is designed to compete with Facebook, Twitter and other real-time social services. Buzz can't generate buzz without users. By auto-generating follower lists from Gmail and making them publicly viewable, Google increases the means by which Buzz can scale users faster. Facebook now has more than 400 million subscribers -- 100 million of them from mobile devices. Buzz needs to quickly scale, which wouldn't happen as fast by taking an opt-in approach. Is putting Google's interests before customers evil?

    Shareholders-First Scenario

    Shareholders are the third viewpoint -- that Google put the interest of shareholders first by its approach to the music blog deletions and to Buzz privacy. Google's shareholder priority is simple: Make money -- return value back to shareholders, who are the company's owners. From that perspective, these actions were good, because they put shareholders first. But from a yet another perspective, the actions could be argued as being evil since the two largest shareholders are Google's energetic cofounders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, whose voting control is 59 percent. They are the major beneficiaries of any action that makes money for Google. But is that really evil?

    The answer is yes, by Google's own philosophic standards. Google's first of the 10 Things: "Focus on the user and all else will follow." The statement strongly suggests that the customer is top priority. But the blog deletions and Buzz privacy options don't "focus on the user." They arguably violate the user -- and in the case of the music sites the millions of users who lost access to the blogs. No. 2: "It's best to do one thing really, really well." Google further explains: "We do search...Our dedication to improving search helps us apply what we've learned to new products, like Gmail and Google Maps." OK, how does having a blogging service -- and one where blogs are deleted without notice -- "improving search" or doing "one thing really, really well"?

    Then there is Buzz, which like many other Google products or services -- including  Apps, Blogger, Chrome, Picasa or Reader -- is another thing, not one done well. Some other Google services enhance search or use search to enhance something else (like book search or mobile mapping), but Google has gone way beyond doing "one thing really, really well."

    Protectionism as Evil Behavior

    There is a fourth viewpoint. As Google grows and extends a monopoly over advertising and Web search, priorities change -- as they did with Microsoft, for example. Microsoft the growth company behaved differently than Microsoft the mature company. Monopolies seek to preserve their status quo and as such they chase every competitive threat. During the second half of the last decade, the majority of Microsoft online services followed something Google did first. Then there are Google services that potentially threaten Microsoft products. Example: Google launched Apps. Microsoft responded with Office online services and soon Office Web Apps.

    Buzz, and also Google Wave, are in part responses to Facebook and Twitter, but mainly Facebook. Protectionism will lead Google to evil, at least by someone's measure, and to making stupid decisions (like opt-out default for Buzz). Why? Because they're reactionary. Competitive reaction can lead innovating companies away from responding to customers, or even to shareholders. Microsoft is one example of how reactionary business practices are simply bad business.

    Microsoft went from being viewed as an innovator (doing good) to being perceived as quashing innovation (doing bad). Google stands at the precipice that most monopolies come to. Does Google operate by its principles -- the 10 Things -- dilute them or adopt new ones?

    In closing, I ask Betanews readers: How good or evil do you see Google? In November, I aske:d "How would you rewrite Google's '10 Things?" Please answer either or both questions in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/10/Why_former_employees_say_Microsoft_can_t_innovate'

    Why former employees say Microsoft can't innovate

    Publié: février 10, 2010, 12:43am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    By many measures, Microsoft is simply too big. The bigness is in the gut, like a middle-aged man who drinks too much beer and eats too many classic potato chips. In computing years, Microsoft most certainly is a middle-aged company. So is Apple, which by comparison is leaner and healthier. What's up with Microsoft's gut?

    Based on communications with current and former employees, Microsoft's midriff problem is one of middling middle management. The number of middle mangers swelled over the last decade, and they also are the employees making key management decisions, which includes who gets laid off or fired and where the remaining people work. What manager will fire himself or herself? (Before continuing, let me be clear that only former Microsoft employees will be quoted, and anonymously at that. Current employees would only communicate with me on background, for concern of risking their jobs).

    One former employee, whom I'll call Boris, had this to say about how last year's layoffs affected him and his former team: "Out of a starting staff of nearly 20, four remained, all managers. I'm not sure what they manage." Who made the decisions about whom to layoff? Another former Microsoft employee whom I'll refer to as Fred said that a "dramatic increase in middle management, and the fat cutting the muscle, is right on target."

    I don't have figures on how many middle managers Microsoft now employs. But various former, and even some current, employees say that their number of "reports" -- meaning people they report to -- has increased by five to seven managers above them during 2000. Typically that works out to double or more the layers of middle management over the decade.

    "When I started at MSFT in 1996, there were six people between me and [Microsoft cofounder] Bill Gates," Boris said. "In 2009, there were 13 people between me and [Microsoft CEO] Steve Ballmer." Fred said, "the number of managers between me and the CEO went from six to 10," during the last decade. Another long-time Microsoftie, whom I'll call Barry, saw his reports go from six to 12.

    Microsoft's swelling workforce gives some hint of the midriff, middle management problem. In June 2000, at the end of fiscal 2001, Microsoft employed 39,100. At the end of fiscal 2010, even after 5,000 layoffs, Microsoft employed 93,000.

    'All Praise the Holy Reorg'

    Microsoft manages middle management by way of seemingly perennial reorganizations. Every former or existing Microsoft employee I communicated with for this post and the accompanying "Microsoft Confession" series harshly criticized the reorganizations.

    "How many reorgs have ever benefited anyone except the folks on top?" asked a former employee I'll call Jack. "The people that need to be cut at MS are the managers that don't support their teams and only support their own careers. I've watched countless super visionary managers get bogged in politics and leave."

    Another former employee, whom I'll call Amanda quipped: "All praise the holy reorg, which is an approximately annual religious festival in certain sects, I mean divisions, of Microsoft." Recent reorganizations -- those publicly disclosed or uncovered over the last 12 months -- include desktop operating system, developer tool, entertainment, mobile device, search and server organizations, among others. This year's reorg affecting Microsoft's TV products came with the departure of Enrique Rodriguez, a corporate vice president.

    Bill Veghte is one of Microsoft's highest-profile executive departures steaming from reorganization. Microsoft announced Veghte's departure on January 14, after he failed to find a new position following the summer 2009 reorg that put Steven Sinfosky in charge of the Windows & Windows Live group. Weeks later, Microsoft acknowledged the departure of Mike Nash, like Veghte a 19-plus year veteran. At the end of 2009, Microsoft also lost Chris Liddell, as chief financial officer. The point: Microsoft is shedding top-level managers all while middle-manager ranks add bulge to the organizational structure.

    The reorganizations can be looked at another way -- as reflecting ineffective management processes that Microsoft tries to resolve by changing which groups report to which groups or to whom. In theory, Microsoft's five business groups -- Business, Entertainment & Devices, Online Services, Server & Tools and Windows & Windows Live -- should be small enough to be nimbler than a company employing more than 90,000. But there are mitigating factors, such as reporting hierarchies that cut across different groups and supporting organizations, like marketing and services, that have responsibilities affecting all five Microsoft divisions. In many ways, Microsoft's organizational structure is best described as a middle schooler's messy room (also a Windows Plus! Pack for Kids theme).

    Incentives that Discourage Risk, Innovation

    Related to gut-bulging middle management: some HR review and compensation processes discourage many employees from taking the kinds of risks necessary for Microsoft to regain its competitive edge and, quite frankly, to innovate in truly meaningful ways. Microsoft's definition of innovation, for most of its product groups, is anything that preserves the status quo -- meaning extending Office and Windows and increasingly server software like SharePoint and Windows Server. Risk is a dirty word for many employees looking to advance at Microsoft.

    A former employee whom I'll call Rodriguez said of the HR review process: "Microsoft has become too 'scorecard' heavy and highly litigated to the point it kills an employee's spirit of free thinking and creativity, since everything a person does is closely judged by management." Among the former Microsofties I communicated with over the last couple of months, Rodriguez was the harshest critic of Microsoft's review process, which he observed is going on right now; fiscal year ends on June 30 and reviews occur midway.

    Several former and existing employees tried to explain Microsoft's seemingly complicated review and compensation process. People are hired at a certain level and can advance up levels, which have corresponding salary ranges. During reviews process, employees are graded with such designations as 'exceed,' 'achieved' and 'underperformed' commitment ratings. These are based on numerous criteria, which include management assessment of performance and achieving goals set during the previous review process. Other criteria include "contribution rankings." Problem: These criteria sometimes work cross-purposes to performance. Fred explained:

    Processes became more bureaucratic and individuals were less empowered to take action. In fact, oftentimes the incentive structure encouraged individual contributors not to do the right thing, but just to do what they committed to in their review the year prior. In other words, if you committed to include Feature A in Windows, and halfway through the year you realized that was a bad thing for Windows and Microsoft customers, the incentive structure actively discouraged you from trying to kill the feature, because then you wouldn't have achieved your commitments.

    Barry also made similar complaints about the "decentives" to doing a good job. "The metrics are too complex," he said. "We were evaluated also on a client's satisfaction with our work." The client could range from a reporter for Microsofties working in PR to developers for employees doing product development or for anyone to other groups within Microsoft.

    Several current and former employees wanting to do better or escape from stifling management situations would request transfers. However, many managers wanted to keep their staff in part "because it would reflect badly on them," Barry said.

    "I was put in 'performance detention' due to wanting to expand to another part of the company and ended up in the 'crapper' list," said another former employee, whom I'll call Mickey.

    What About those 5,800 Layoffs?

    Last year's layoffs surprised many Microsoft employees. There are looming questions about whether or not Microsoft dismissed the right employees. From Friday through Monday, I posted four stories from former employees laid off in 2009. Each story reveals something about the layoff process and the middling middle management problems. Posted as Microsoft Confessions:

    These four stories and others I received but didn't publish raise questions about whether Microsoft laid off the right people, whether certain groups were targeted and whether more middle managers should have been axed. Perhaps the most visible of the surprising layoffs: Don Dodge, who within two weeks of being let go was hired by Google.

    Based on former and current Microsoft employee stories, five trends can be seen in Microsoft's layoff of 5,800 employees during 2009. Laid-off employees tended to be:

    • High salaried
    • With the company eight or more years
    • Older -- many in their late 30s or early 40s
    • At a status of what Microsoft calls "long at level"
    • In positions later refilled by younger, lower-salaried people
    • In positions the former Microsoftie resumed as a non-employee contractor

    Several former employees proactively contacted me about these six similarities, but not all people used all six. Mickey said he was:

    1. Over 40

    2. Worked at MS for almost 11 years, industry almost 28

    3.  Pretty high salary

    4.   Senior guy but brought in underleveled

    Barry, who had worked as a manager, clearly understood employee evaluations and he concurred about the six similarities. I should point out that in fairness to Microsoft, I've seen this pattern elsewhere, including journalism. Older and/or higher-salaried employees are laid off and either replaced by someone younger who is paid much less or the original employee returns on a freelance basis. For Microsoft, the returnee would a contractor. Barry is someone whom Microsoft laid off and took back as contractor doing essentially the same job as before.

    Barry insinuated there was some age discrimination in the layoffs, but other former Microsoftie's disagreed. Former employee Randolph (not his real name, of course) noted that four of the people he was laid off with were ages 36 to 59, with two of them being 50 or over. "Suspicious, perhaps, but just as likely a consequence of the team demographics," he said. Two of the people remaining on the team were 48 and 51. The ages were provided with Randolph's severance package. However, "the fact that they gave me the paper in the first place suggests they are sensitive to the implication of age discrimination."

    Then there is "long at level," which refers to employees who have stayed in the same position or designated organizational and pay level for a long time. Presumably a long-and-level employee lacks ambition to outperform. But for a smaller product or services group, where an employee shows expertise, there may be nowhere to go but out. Other employees stay in organizations where moving up or out is discouraged or even penalized by the manager. I know of current Microsoft employees who change positions every few years simply to avoid being perceived as long at level.

    In conclusion, no company's organizational structure is perfect, because too many people put their personal ambitions before the company they work for. But companies can encourage mismanagement by the organizational structure, corporate culture and review and compensation processes. Based on my communications with dozens of former and current Microsoft employees over the last couple months, Microsoft needs to streamline its management processes, empower small groups to act like startups, reward risk-taking innovation and sharply reduce the number of middle managers.

    Update: Mini-Microsoft's blog and especially the comments can offer broader perspective on this post's topic. While I purposely didn't read Mini's blog when researching and writing this post (I typically avoid outside influences when writing), several of my sources sent some of the comments they had posted to the blog. Mini has an active following of current Microsoft employees. I'll resume reading now that I've finished here.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/08/Microsoft_Confessions___There_were_a_ton_of_bozos_'

    Microsoft Confessions: 'There were a ton of bozos'

    Publié: février 8, 2010, 6:15am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do middling, middle managers run Microsoft? That's the consensus among the former Microsofties who shared their work stories with me over the last couple months. The new work week starts with another Microsoft Confessional -- the fourth in four days -- from 13-year company veteran Boris, which isn't his real name, of course. Boris was smart enough to see the end coming, and he made preparations in the days before his May 2009 layoff. He learned to read middle managers the way a genuine fortune teller might read tea leaves.

    People being asked to leave are one view of Microsoft. But those leaving voluntarily are another perspective. In looking at Microsoft, I'm hugely concerned about the departures of two important and long-time Microsoft executives: Mike Nash and Bill Veghte, revealed on February 4 and January 14, respectively. Both men are 19-plus years veterans working for the Windows and Windows Live groups. Nash is headed to Amazon, and Veghte departs following last year's executive shuffle that put Steven Sinfosky in charge of the group (as one of five Microsoft presidents).

    Historically, successful shipment of a new Windows version ends with big promotions. Windows Vista was the exception, leading to demotions, sideways transfers and departures (Microsoft wouldn't call them firings). But Windows 7 is a huge success, so what gives with Nash and Veghte  leaving Microsoft?

    The departures of Nash, Veghte and also Chris Liddell, Microsoft's former chief financial officer, are canaries in the coal mine. They signal something  fundamentally wrong. Boris' story and the three before it -- "Killed over politics," "Deeply dysfunctional family" and "Poor worker bees" -- offer some insight into what is part of the problem.

    Boris' story is the longest of the quartet of confessionals; as such, I've added subheads to make it easier reading. With that introduction, Boris' story:

    My career out of college started with working as a technical writer for a few now-defunct engineering software firms. I recall my first day on the job, being assigned a massive Compaq 'portable' as my workstation, and teaching myself MS-DOS and batch file programming via the Compaq's user manual. We had a cool array of hardware around the office for porting: IBM AS/400, Silicon Graphics Iris and Indigo, some of the early Sun SPARCstations, and my favorite, a NeXT Cube.

    During the next five years I moved up from a junior writing position to managing an entire department of writers and illustrators. I was largely self-taught as a manager. We made some good hires, got the work done on time, wrote what I still think were some actually helpful manuals, and introduced a bit of publishing innovation with on-demand printing, electronic distribution of documentation on the Web (in 1995!) and CDs, highly modular content, and so on.

    In the mid-90's, on a goof, I applied for a job with Microsoft. I was convinced a friend was pulling a fast one when they called for an interview. A month later I was a full-time, blue-badge Microsoft employee.

    Through most of my career at Microsoft I worked as an editor of one sort or another, working on both developer and end-user content. In the early years, I was aligned with the Developer Evangelism team and got to work with a really amazing cross-section of smart, influential people in the software industry. Jeff Richter, Don Box, Aaron Skonnard, Charles Petzold, Mark Russinovich -- the list goes on and on.

    For a few years I was part of the user assistance team for one of the big orgs, working on UI, help, SDKs, articles, books -- whatever they threw at us. We shipped some very good products and got a lot of recognition in the form of industry awards. I worked on launching a few companywide internal tools and standards projects that made important contributions to the way we build products and communicate with customers. One is still in active use today, almost 7 years after we started. That's a long time in MSFT years. I'm very proud of that since I was a key contributor from the very beginning.

    Hamstrung by Ineffective Management

    My career trajectory slowed a bit at Microsoft, in part because I mostly worked on small teams and there simply wasn't room for advancement. Also in part because, during the first few years, I didn't understand how the MSFT review and promotion system worked. The reality is quite a bit different from many people's expectations.

    It was clear to me at a certain point that Microsoft had turned the corner. There were still a lot of smart people beavering away on various projects, but they were largely hamstrung by multiple levels of largely ineffective management. Who you knew, or how well you could influence those above you, counted more than results.

    There were a ton of bozos. Arrogant bozos. Not to suggest that I'm some sort of genius. Far from it. But the intellectual rigor demonstrated by much of the management -- and strategy -- was sadly lacking. In some ways it was funny, but mostly depressing.

    The end of the road came in early 2009. Half of my team was let go in the January layoffs. We scrambled forward with vendors for a few months until the remaining editors were canned in May (me included). Out of a starting staff of nearly 20, four remained, all managers. I'm not sure what they manage.

    The End -- a Relief

    Some of us saw the end coming. I was working on a post-Microsoft business plan, but had envisioned another 12 months of employment for planning and scraping together a bankroll. In the event, on a Thursday afternoon, a friend and I intuited -- partly from sudden, unnanounced travel status of certain managers -- that the end was much closer. Friday we brought in suitcases and took home our personal items. I used my StayFit allowance to buy a gym membership. Monday we printed out any important personal papers. Tuesday we sat down with our GM and got the news.

    In my case it was a relief. I wanted to leave many times over the years -- and in fact did once -- but the salary, the benefits and to be honest the good people, too, kept me there. Devil you know. But I walked out the door that day knowing it was for the best and, though it might take a while, I'd come out of the experience OK.

    I spent the summer with my family, relaxing, and taking a wider look around the industry. It was much needed, much appreciated time away from the Microsoft hot house. Thanks to the severance package, unemployment and some careful budgeting, we haven't yet needed to dip into our savings. In the longer term we may need to move somewhere less expensive to reduce our housing costs.

    Of my former colleagues, only two of us are now employed fulltime in the industry, though at significantly lower compensation. Another seems to have steady consulting work. Clearly the tech publishing industry (including tech writing/editing) has changed significantly, and probably permanently. I don't think the need for communication experts has vanished, but it remains to be seen how we fit into the changing landscape of the industry.

    From six to 13 Management Layers

    It's a bit hard to equate the different [Microsoft compensation] level systems over the years, but I basically started at what today would be a level 59 and finished a level 61. That's not much of a bump in a dozen or so years. Assume what you will. I know what went down. I know the value of what my team accomplished (we measured it, with business-relevant, industry-relevant metrics). I know what my contribution was to the team. I am more than satisfied that I pulled my weight and more.

    When I started at MSFT in 1996, there were six people between me and Bill Gates. In 2009, there were 13 people between me and Steve Ballmer. My inability to climb the corporate ladder cannot alone explain that away. When layoffs hit my team, only the bottom two layers of the org were affected -- the entire bottom layer of individual contributors (ICs) and two first-level managers. Who's working here?

    Ironically, I once wanted to climb up that ladder. But I'm glad it never happened. Through friends, I saw the costs: Huge amounts of additional hassle, not a lot of additional pay, effectively no training or support, unbelievable politics, etc.

    On the other hand, MSFT philosophy is up or out. Review depends more on managing perception up the chain of command than actual results. (I tested this theory and it's true. I managed a single set of metrics up the management chain, just spinning the results differently depending on who I talked to and what they cared about. The metrics were useless as the tools they came from were broken. Result = promotion.)

    There's little or no interest in sustainability. No recognition for doing a job consistently well over time. No incentive for effective cross-team work (unless you can get another team to do work you can take credit for).

    Swimming Against Reward-Driven Culture

    Interestingly, [internal] MS Poll results show that the ability to work effectively across teams has been consistently one of the lowest-scoring poll items for over a decade. (Yes, I looked it up.) I've seen managers bend over backward to bring a poll score from 75 percent to 80 percent. I've never seen anyone try to address the cross-team problem.

    There are good managers at MSFT. I've seen them. There just aren't very many, and they're swimming against an internally focused, reward-driven culture that puts the highest value on visibility.

    It can also be very, very difficult to work in a non-engineering role or organization within an engineering-dominated company. Management focus was just on completely different things than what my teams were doing. Successful or not, it was seen as a distraction. Arguably, good management should be able to multitask, look at the world through different lenses, make situation-specific decisions, strategize in a diverse and complicated world. Realistically, that's a rare set of skills.

    Long story short, there were many good and bad experiences over the years. The bad stuff made me stronger and more confident in my abilities. The good stuff is work, friendships, and experience I'm still proud of. I know, for a fact, that we helped people. So that's my story. I remain proud of what I did and [I am] hopeful for the future.

    Other stories in this series of confessionals:

    I'm still collecting stories. Please e-mail joewilcox at live dot com. Stories can be anonymous, but I will need to verify identities.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/07/Microsoft_Confessions___Poor_worker_bees_'

    Microsoft Confessions: 'Poor worker bees'

    Publié: février 7, 2010, 7:02am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's Microsoft Confession comes from a woman let go during the first round of layoffs, in January 2009. I'll call her Amanda, which, of course, isn't her real name. Amanda shared key elements of her story on deep background, but she also provided a reflective portion that she hopes will give deeper insight to anyone looking to work for Microsoft or to HR departments looking to hire former employees.

    By telling this story, Amanda wants to give some meaning to her layoff, or so I detected from what she shared for private and public consumption. Amanda's story is consistent with every other I received. She sharply criticizes Microsoft's culture of reorganization, but also emphasizes the heavy workload. I detect deep frustration in her story about Microsoft management problems that won't easily be fixed.

    Amanda's story follows two other confessionals -- "Killed over politics" and "Deeply dysfunctional family." As explained on Friday, after the last round of Microsoft layoffs, I asked former employees to tell their stories, which are presented anonymously to diminish risk of repercussions -- either to work elsewhere in the tech industry or to any Microsoft severance arrangement.

    I challenge current or former Microsoft employees to either confirm or contradict two key points from Amanda's story: That some Microsoft divisions demand overlong work weeks and that employees who can't keep pace are penalized. From my experience, long hours are standard among many software companies. Does Microsoft demand too much? Current or former employees, please answer the question in comments.  With that introduction, Amanda's story:

    A lesson and caution to the masses is found in how quickly I went from rising star with a bright future to yesterday's dishwater that couldn't be tossed out quickly enough, without changing how I approached my work! In summary, it was all due to the arrival on the scene -- all praise the holy reorg, which is an approximately annual religious festival in certain sects, I mean divisions, of Microsoft -- of a particular manager...The organizational culture in many parts of MS is such that one manager, even one with a history of their own performance problems, can spell doom for even the most diligent, accomplished, well-intentioned and politically-savvy employee.

    The opportunities? [They] can be among the most amazing for your career that you'll ever encounter. This is balanced, however, by the reality that merit isn't always the primary criteria by which opportunities are given out, and that opportunities that are given in the blink of an eye can be -- and sometimes are -- taken away in the blink of an eye for no apparent reason at all.

    The culture of the work environment? Let's talk about that, because while people need to know that the culture of working like a dog for 5 years to retire a millionaire is long gone, they also need to know that the culture of working like a dog for 5 years for your regular wages isn't, in some departments.

    My former team required 60-90+ hours a week of its employees for several years straight. The average across many weeks was 80-90 [hours], for months on end. If you were unwilling to do the hours any more, you became persona non grata. This meant the least desirable assignments, poor reviews and so on. While the conventional answer to a bad team situation in a big company is to transfer teams, it didn't work for people on that team.

    Multiple people on the team wanted to transfer off the team and away from its overtime commitment but management exercised their prerogative to retain them on the team out of urgent business need so that they could not leave. This justification was used to delay their departures 3-6 months, with the effect of causing them to miss the opportunity they'd wanted to pursue [elsewhere in Microsoft] and requring them to continue to do the excessive hours.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us poor worker bees had to listen to them complain about the situation until they were allowed to leave. It's not good for morale to be reminded every day that when you get tired of the excessive commitment required by the team, you're likely to be just as trapped, and just as unhappy about it, as your peers are.

    In some cases, overassignment of work was used to cause competent employees to appear to be failing at completing their required responsibiltiies. In other cases, people who had not been with the company long enough to be eligible to transfer to another team had to just quit to get out of the unpaid overtime without a permanent black mark in the form of a bad review on their Microsoft record.

    Pregnant women ended up on early bedrest from the stress. People slept at the office in order to use the commute time for more work. For some, there were weekly all-nighters in the schedule. A capable contributor on my former team, whose name I know, experienced the indignity of a second-level manager suggesting that they go out on disability if they couldn't handle the stress of the workload, as the manager insisted they should be able to get that workload done in a 40-hour week. Given my background as the longest-term member of the team, including management, I'd call the assertion that that was a 40-hour load shamefully ludicrous to the point of professional negligence.

    Anyone in the industry knows about crunch times right before ship. But this was three years of crunch times. After a year had elapsed, the "we don't have the luxury of time to train additional staff to help us get this done" justification for it started to smell kind of bad.

    Few teams are like this, but it only takes ending up on one to end your career as a blue badge. It's good for people who are considering Microsoft employment to know. It's also good for people who are considering ex-Microsoft employees for roles in other organizations to know, because among those cut loose are some smart, dedicated, hard workers who were simply asked to do too much, for too long to be able to succeed at it forever in the eyes of the organization -- and who'd be an asset to just about any company in the industry. I know that if I ever, in the future, receive a résumé from someone who left Microsoft during one of the layoff timeframes in 2009, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Other stories in this series of confessionals:

    I'm still collecting stories. Please e-mail joewilcox at live dot com. Stories can be anonymous, but I will need to verify identities.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/06/Microsoft_Confessions___Deeply_dysfunctional_family_'

    Microsoft Confessions: 'Deeply dysfunctional family'

    Publié: février 6, 2010, 1:38am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The next former Microsoft employee story comes from someone I'll call Fred, which, of course, is not his real name. Fred took a job right out of college and might still work at Microsoft today, if not for the elimination of his group during layoffs last year. Like the former Microsoftie from the first post in this former employee "confession" series, Fred helplessly watched as the exciting and flexible workplace he joined bogged down in increasing layers of middle management.

    When Microsoft hired Fred nine years ago, the company employed a little more than 47,000 people. When he was laid off in May 2009, the number was around 93,000. That number is for full-time employees and doesn't include contractors. According to Microsoft's fiscal 2010 10-K, the breakdown on June 30, 2009: "56,000 in the United States and 37,000 internationally. Of the total, 36,000 were in product research and development, 26,000 in sales and marketing, 17,000 in product support and consulting services, 5,000 in manufacturing and distribution, and 9,000 in general and administration."

    How many more layers of middle management did Microsoft add when more than doubling headcount during the last decade -- before more than 5,000 layoffs? Fred has an answer for that.

    As I explained yesterday, following the last round of Microsoft layoffs, I asked former employees to tell their stories. Responses came from recent departures and others long ago. No identities will be intentionally revealed, although I have verified each one. Fred understands that there is enough detail in his story for Microsoft to possibly identify him. But he is willing to take the risk (and hopefully not risk work elsewhere).

    Fred's story is the second posted in this short series running for the next couple days. His account is first-hand, but I will string some other stories together as narrative for better readability and to protect identities.

    Something is missing from Fred's story that I would like to encourage some commenters to fill in. Microsoft hiring and compensation follows a scale of levels. While I have some information about the levels and associated salaries, I would prefer some existing or former Microsoft employees pipe in with current salary information for level 63. I ask in hopes of generating discussion. If no one does, I'll later add the information to this introduction or in comments. Four years ago, WashTech News offered an excellent review of Microsoft's complicated compensation system.

    Now for Fred's story:

    I started with Microsoft in June 2001, right out of college (I received a BS in information technology from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute). I was hired as a level 59. My first role was with Microsoft Consulting Services as an IT Infrastructure Consultant based in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US. I stayed in that role for four years, traveling around the country (mostly on the East Coast, but with a few exceptions) to help large organizations design/plan/implement Microsoft technology -- mostly Windows desktops, Active Directory and Exchange. My clients included Fortune 100 companies in the retail, financial services, higher education and government sectors. Even a branch of the US military.

    In 2005, rather tired of the Monday-Friday travel schedule, I started searching for a new role. That June, I accepted a role in the MSDN & TechNet organization -- the part of the company responsible for communicating with developers and IT professionals. I was a level 61 at that point. Over the following four years, our business grew -- we were reaching millions of IT pros with high levels of customer satisfaction -- the team grew and my role grew as well. The role of the group was really one of audience marketing -- to take a post-sales approach to the dissemination of technical information, with the intent of making the job of IT professionals easier, and hopefully as a result making them more satisfied with Microsoft.

    Unfortunately, over the course of reorg after reorg, our group got buried in an IT infrastructure group. We were 15 people doing audience marketing, as part of a larger group of 450 responsible for the Microsoft.com web infrastructure. Our group had proposed a number of times to be moved into a more appropriate organization, like global marketing, that was better aligned with our mission. But our management chain, which grew deeper with every reorg, resisted the idea of giving up headcount or budget.

    At the time I was laid off in May 2009, I was a level 63. I had never received anything other than exemplary reviews (I received an "Exceeded" rating in the three consecutive review cycles leading up to the time I left.) The size of the company more than [doubled] in my eight years there. The number of managers between me and the CEO went from six to 10.

    Processes became more bureaucratic and individuals were less empowered to take action. In fact, oftentimes the incentive structure encouraged individual contributors not to do the right thing, but just to do what they committed to in their review the year prior. In other words, if you committed to include Feature A in Windows, and half-way through the year you realized that was a bad thing for Windows and Microsoft customers, the incentive structure actively discouraged you from trying to kill the feature, because then you wouldn't have achieved your commitments. That sort of behavior just got easier and more engrained as the organizations grew.

    Our entire group was laid off in two rounds. The first half were let go in January [2009]. Their roles were taken up by an outsourcing company based in India. The rest of us were let go four months later, and the remaining operation was outsourced. Four months after that, the majority of our work was dismantled. At the time I was laid off, I was given a choice of accepting a different role within the company, but it would have required my relocation, so I refused. My understanding is that I was the only member of the staff offered that chance (because of my technical background; the rest of the staff was purely marketing).

    There's a part of me that can actually understand our group being laid off. An argument could reasonably be made that non-Microsoft employees can be just as effective at fulfilling our mission and could do so at a lower cost (though that's proving to not be true in the aftermath; it was a disaster). Some of the other people I knew around the company who were let go, though, made my jaw drop to the floor. While areas like Search and Zune continued to received astounding resources, areas focused on customer satisfaction and connection, evangelism, and program management were decimated.

    One of the better examples where fat ended up cutting muscle, was someone like Steve Riley, who was a noted security expert and one of the best public faces Microsoft had to the IT Pro audience. He was the only person from his group let go. He never had anything other than stellar reviews, and [he] was one of the few people Microsoft had who could pack a ballroom and hold their attention for as long as he wanted. That one really shocked me.

    To be honest, as much as I miss many of the individuals I worked with -- and the steady paycheck and benefits, which were always great -- I'm glad to not be a part of Microsoft any more. It bares very little resemblance in my mind to the company I joined 8 years ago. It's hard to describe the atmosphere of excitement and innovation that existed when I first started. But over time, that certainly diminished, seemingly in an inverse relationship to the size of the company.

    The company as a whole seemed more and more focused on chasing competitors into any business where they might someday present a threat -- which to me always felt like ego on the part of SteveB [CEO Steve Ballmer]--  and seemed to completely lose sight of its core strengths and where it could deliver the most value to its customers (see the investment in Zune and Live Search as it correlates to Windows Vista).

    If I had to sum up my feelings about the whole experience though, it really boils down to sadness and disappointment -- not over the loss of my job, which, for the most part I enjoyed, but am happy to move past, but rather over the failed efforts, missed opportunities and wasted potential of Microsoft as a whole. I've never met so many talented, passionate individuals. But it felt like everyone was part of a deeply dysfunctional family, and in the end, that dynamic trumped what could have been astounding achievements.

    Other stories in this confessional series:

    I'm still collecting stories. Please e-mail joewilcox at live dot com. Stories can be anonymous, but I will need to verify identity.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/05/Microsoft_Confessions___Killed_over_politics_'

    Microsoft Confessions: 'Killed over politics'

    Publié: février 5, 2010, 9:47am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday's Dick Brass commentary, "Microsoft's Creative Destruction," the company's response to the op-ed and Tuesday's Don Dodge pro-Mac post have put Microsoft in the hot seat. The blogosphere is abuzz about the extent of Microsoft innovations. More former Microsofties are ready to speak out, and they will get their chance here at Betanews.

    After the last round of Microsoft layoffs, I asked former employees to tell their stories. I got plenty of responses and not just from people recently leaving the company. No identities will be revealed, although I have verified each one. Two main reasons: Either the former employees still work in the technology industry and don't want to risk their current jobs; or they're receiving severance from Microsoft and don't want to risk losing it. Some of these people have returned to working for Microsoft as contractors, which is another reason to remain anonymous.

    Over the next three days, I will present some of the stories in different ways. We start with a first-hand account, and it's more stream-of-conscious than the others I received. Please expect more first-hand accounts and some others strung together as narratives.

    What's most surprising about the stories received: Whether they left by will or layoff, most of the former Microsofties worked for the company for a long time, typically no less than eight years. This first account comes from a senior manager who willingly left Microsoft during the last decade after nearly 20 years:

    When I left, I told Steve [Ballmer] my reasons. Microsoft [had] lost its competitive edge. Too much politics, too much BS, too much 'what can I do to you today, to make myself look better tomorrow.'

    The strength of Microsoft has always been small, heavily empowered teams. Teams that could move fast, make lighting quick decisions and trust the people that made them -- and actually create real schedules, not what management wants you to tell them.

    In early 2000, and towards the end of Y2K, the corporate landscape was changing. All the small teams were being eaten up by these uber teams -- complete with politics, backstabbing and posturing. I wanted no part of it. Even today MS is mostly Windows, mobile and Office. Decisions I used to make in 10 minutes, took weeks in Office.

    I watched a revolutionary product killed over politics. The moment someone mentioned in a high level-meeting we were better than one of MS's cash cows, I told my  [general manager] we were screwed. He didn't believe until the team was disbanded and moved where? Into that cash cow. Where 90 percent of the functionality was cut.

    I've watched over the years, [as] poor managers work their way up the ladder, merely because they could play the game. They didn't want the truth, they wanted the answer they wanted to hear.

    When Bill Gates first started the 'aggressive schedule' mantra to get people to work harder, [it was] tell folks we only had 2 months left, when we knew it was six. How could I as a manager look my people in the face and seriously tell them we're two months from shipping -- work your ass off -- knowing the bug count was high, the find rate was high and undercover dev work was still being completed?

    I finally had enough when my last reorg had me put under a brand new manager, with less weeks experience than I had years doing his job, telling me I wasn't doing my job properly. I asked him how many products he shipped. A couple was the answer. Meanwhile, I had three full Lucite blocks packed with ship-it awards on my desk. At that point, I gave my notice.

    How many [Microsoft] reorgs have ever benefited anyone except the folks on top? In all my reorgs, I only ever had one that actually benefited the troops; and that was a super good manager that said if you take me, you take my team. He was one of the best I'd ever worked for -- and, of course, he is no longer at MS either. To me, that speaks volumes.

    The people that need to be cut at MS are the managers that don't support their teams and only support their own careers. I've watched countless super visionary managers get bogged in politics and leave.

    While I love Steve [Ballmer] to no end, he's too removed from what's really happening, and only gets info from the politically motivated ass kissers that just want to keep their jobs, not do the right thing.

    I'm still collecting stories. Please e-mail joewilcox at live dot com. Stories can be anonymous, but I will need to verify identities.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/03/Don_Dodge__The_new_anti_Microsoft_evangelist'

    Don Dodge: The new anti-Microsoft evangelist

    Publié: février 3, 2010, 9:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Somebody at Microsoft should be fired for laying off Don Dodge. The list of reasons why his layoff was stupid gets longer by the day. Yesterday's Dodge blog post, "From MSFT evangelist to Mac enthusiast -- the other side of the road," adds another reason. This Silicon Valley insider, who for five years evangelized Microsoft, has taken on the true tone of conversion -- a man filled with new Apple and Google religion. His conversion to the new faith is nothing short of tech evangelism disaster for Microsoft.

    In my late-December post, "10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2009," "laid off Don Dodge" ranked No. 3. What seemed bad for Microsoft then is suddenly much worse.

    "The move from Microsoft gave me the opportunity to try lots of new things," Dodge writes. "The move from Microsoft was complete. From Windows to Mac, from Outlook to Gmail, from Explorer to Google Chrome browser, from Office to Google Apps, from Windows Mobile phone to Android, from Zune to iPod." Whoa. "But this post is all about the move to Mac." The statement insinuates that Dodge will in the future share more about his other moves.

    Dodge may be the most high-profile Mac switcher ever. His previous role as Microsoft evangelist, now Google evangelist, and geek status among the tech community makes him a formidable and believable preacher. Besides, people love turncoats. Reformers. Perhaps even the converted. Dodge's status as former Microsoft true believer makes his conversion to a new faith all the more delicious reading.

    Most importantly, Dodge makes astute observations about the differences between the Microsoft religion and that of Apple or Google. All companies operate by a worldview. In December, I contrasted the Google and Microsoft worldviews. Dodge somewhat contrasts the Apple and Microsoft worldviews. He writes:

    The most obvious distinction between Microsoft and Apple is design. Apple is quite simply the best hardware/software design company in the world...My Windows machine was a Lenovo X301 with Windows Vista. It was light and small for travel, but I don't think anyone would classify it as beautiful. You see the design ethic in everything Apple does.

    Dodge concedes that Apple's design and functionality advantages derive from end-to-end control over software and hardware. As such, the Apple experience is "just easier and more elegant." He delights in the MacBook experience: "The first things I noticed about my Mac were: the touchpad, keyboard (backlit), the screen, battery life, start-up/shut down, power cord and appearance."

    Among the Mac vs Windows PC debates I often see a common trend: Mac bashers complain that Apple's offers less features for more money. But what matters is getting features that matter to the buyer. Design is one, and Dodge extols another:

    The first time I used the MacBook at night I was delighted to discover the backlit keyboard. I had no idea it was there. I guess it comes on when it detects low light conditions. The light shines through all the keys so you can type in the dark. OK, you can laugh at my backward ways, but I never had a PC with that feature. Working in low light or dark conditions is now simple. I love it.

    Dodge's conversion and anti-Microsoft evangelism hits where it hurts Microsoft the most. He also astutely observes the ongoing shift from the PC platform to cloud platform:

    Ten or 20 years ago users had to deal with the operating system to do anything on a PC. Today most people spend their time in the browser. From my perspective the underlying OS doesn't matter much. All my applications run in the browser. Web browsing, email, documents, spreadsheets, music, photos…everything is in the browser.

    "The OS doesn't matter much?" This from someone who worked for Microsoft, which business was built on Windows -- a product still fiercely important to the company? Ouch, a statement like that has got to hurt. I've been saying that the operating system doesn't much matter for years. But I was never a high-profile Microsoft employee. Statement like this hurts Microsoft more because of who Dodge is -- emotionally for his former colleagues and logistically as anti-evangelism.

    Dodge concedes that human beings are creatures of habit, that he might not have gotten this new religion if not for the layoff.  "Leaving Microsoft and joining Google gave me the perfect opportunity to change everything," he writes. Over at TechFlash, Todd Bishop rightly put this in context of Microsoft's insular culture -- that it shouldn't take going to another company to try new products. Microsofties should do that now, regularly.

    In the Biblical account of early Christian evangelism, Paul was a true believer against the followers of Jesus Christ. They were enemies that should be killed. Later, after converting to Christianity, Paul turned out to be a more earnest evangelist than the men who lived with and followed Christ. A true believer can convert many, as Paul did throughout the Roman Empire. The so-called Mac Faithful are known for their passion and obsession with all things Apple. Will Don Dodge be a great crusader among them? Or among Googlers?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/03/Five_cures_for_Microsoft_s_Internet_Explorer_6_ills'

    Five cures for Microsoft's Internet Explorer 6 ills

    Publié: février 3, 2010, 6:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft shouldn't let Google set the Internet Explorer 6-ending agenda. Google services will stop supporting the browser, starting on March 1. It's Microsoft 's browser and responsibility for putting this antiquated technology -- and all Internet users subsequently affected by malicious and criminal activity -- out of misery. Save the Web! Stop Internet Explorer 6 now!

    If security really is Microsoft's top priority -- and I say that it's not --  IE6 shouldn't be used by anyone anywhere. Microsoft bears the blame for the IE6 scourge. High IE6 usage is more than a situation of users clinging to older technology. Microsoft created this problem by:

    1) Integrating Internet Explorer into Windows.

    2) Pushing a closed and arguably flawed plug-in architecture (e.g., ActiveX).

    3) After releasing IE6, essentially ending new browser development until Mozilla released Firefox in late 2004.

    4) Blocking so-called non-genuine copies of Windows from receiving new updates, including IE version upgrades.

    Microsoft should seek out and destroy IE6 wherever it's used. The browser is too much of a security risk. Since Microsoft isn't doing enough, I suggest five ways by which the company can decisively and quite aggressively take charge of this situation. A combination of the five, but necessarily all, would be necessary to eradicate IE6.

    1. Take the lead away from Google, by disabling IE6 across Microsoft Websites -- and encourage other Web properties to do the same. According to Net Applications, IE6 usage share was just over 20 percent in January, making this antiquated browser second-most used. It's not rocket science to identify a browser version, block site access and to provide notice that IE6 is no longer supported. The notice could provide links to download IE8, and, if Microsoft is PR savvy enough, links to competing browsers, too.

    Microsoft worries too much about breaking existing applications or Websites. The majority of safe sites should already support modern Web standards. Businesses that must have legacy support can run IE6 behind the firewall. Presumably, the majority of remaining IE6-supporting Websites would be the dangerous ones hosting malware. These are exactly the sites Microsoft should want to keep its customers away from.

    2. Use a bot to identify all Websites supporting IE6, then request that site operators simply stop support. Microsoft could even offer incentives, like free software or support services, to Websites that quickly respond. For years, IE6 peculiarities compelled Website designers to put in special tags supporting Microsoft's browser. Surely they can be easily enough removed and replaced with redirects to pages explaining IE6 isn't supported and offering links to download more modern browsers.

    3. For business that simply must have IE6, aggressively promote a virtualized alternative. The idea would be to quarantine IE6. If it must run -- say, to support legacy ActiveX controls -- do so in a sandbox separate from the operating system and other applications.

    4. Forcibly upgrade non-genuine Windows users to Internet Explorer 7 or 8. This one is politically and logistically difficult, which are problems of Microsoft's creation. Microsoft long ago prohibited pirated, or presumed pirated, Windows versions from receiving critical applications and operating systems updates, such as Service Packs. Years ago, when working as analyst, I strongly and repeatedly discouraged Microsoft product managers from withholding updates. I expressed mixed feelings about withholding IE upgrades.

    From a Microsoft political perspective, the withholding approach was about getting more people to pay for Windows. Product managers would never admit this, with the party line being something about rewarding so-called genuine users. Instead, Microsoft punished non-genuine users and tangentially genuine users assaulted by malware infesting non-genuine Windows copies. I argued that from a security perspective, it made more sense to update everyone with everything important. Anything bundled with Windows is important enough. By withholding critical system updates, including bundled IE, Microsoft puts every non-genuine Windows version at risk of being infected with malware.

    Logistically, the solution is difficult because:

    • Non-genuine Windows copies wouldn't have the supporting system updates or Service Packs necessary to upgrade the browser to IE7 or IE8.
    • Malware might be in place that has disabled Windows Update or otherwise would prevent downloading Service Packs or newer IE version.
    • Even  if possible, end users might not have the bandwidth or the patience to accept the updates necessary to replace IE6 with a newer browser version.

    An alternative option would be political suicide within Microsoft's corporate culture: Disable non-genuine Windows copies that can't be upgraded to IE6 or IE7 after three attempts. I contend that Microsoft should disable non-genuine Windows copies without warning. Why should it have to, if the software is pirated? Yes, a small number of legitimate customers will be affected. But the greater security good would be served, and Microsoft could individually resolve problems with customers whose legitimate Windows copy was disabled by the action.

    5. Immediately offer a mobile Internet Explorer alternative, even if it's a competing browser. IE6 isn't just a scourge of the past, it's ready to corrupt another platform's future. IE6 is the basis for Microsoft's mobile browser. That has got to stop now. Yes, some Betanews commenters will rightly argue that based on IE6 isn't the same as IE6. My retort: Why should the mobile browser be based on IE6, when newer, presumably safer versions are available? Microsoft owes it to mobile customers -- the majority of them business users -- to provide the safest browser possible. If IE8 is so much better, which Microsoft claims, shouldn't it be the foundation for mobile Internet Explorer?

    Do you have a better or different suggestion about how Microsoft can purge the IE6 plague? Please pipe up in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/02/02/Sony_shows_how_to_lift_Windows_PCs_out_of_the_low_price_doldrums'

    Sony shows how to lift Windows PCs out of the low-price doldrums

    Publié: février 2, 2010, 9:19pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows PC vendors can effectively raise selling prices -- not that it will be easy, particularly as long as they sell netbooks. One Windows PC OEM shows the way. Today, Sony announced new E-series laptops packing Intel i3 and i5 core processors and boasting, brashy colored exteriors. The $799.99 price is about $326 more than the average selling price of laptops sold at US retail in fourth quarter, according to NPD data.

    The $500-$1,000 price brand also is where Apple doubled its US retail unit share year over year in fourth quarter. Similarly, Apple unit share for retail PCs selling in the premium price brand -- more than $1,000 -- rose from 79 percent to 90 percent. Both segments are where the margins are.

    Like Apple, Sony computer prices are typically higher than most Windows PC manufacturers. Like Apple, Sony also runs its own chain of stores, where customers can get on-site technical service and support. For these reasons and others related to sales and branding, Sony has maintained a premium status around its brand, much like Apple.

    The new E-series notebooks play into a longstanding Sony trend of differentiating Windows PCs around features like style and portability, without aggressive discounting. The one exception is the W-series netbook, which starts at $449.99. Sony's next cheapest portable -- a thin-and-light netbook alternative  from the Y-series, starts at $799.99.

    Sony E-series portables aren't by any means the first Windows notebooks shipping with i3 or i5 processors. Sony is differentiating on style, higher pricing and brand cachet. It's what other PC vendors need do to resist falling ASPs, which are bad for everyone, even customers (Say, buyers, don't you deserve something better?).

    Selling Prices in Free Fall

    US retail average selling prices fell for both Macs and Windows PCs during 2009, but for different reasons. For Windows PCs:

    • Prices naturally declined due to commodity product maturation
    • OEMs and retailers further slashed prices because of the weak economy
    • Cheap netbooks pulled down ASPs, while also sucking away valuable margins

    By comparison, Apple tightly controls Mac pricing, which largely declined because of cuts at higher pricing segments. Late last year, Apple turned the 13-inch MacBook into a "Pro" and slashed prices on costlier MacBook Pros, reducing the entry level price from $1,999 to $1,199. Apple cut prices in relation to its own existing pricing rather than lowering them to compete with Windows PCs.

    Sony E-series

    In what can only be described as a shocking trend: In fourth quarter, US retail Windows notebook ASPs fell below that of desktops, according to NPD. I have repeatedly asserted that netbooks are a menace -- and for good reason. Microsoft estimates that netbooks accounted for 11 percent of PC shipments in fourth quarter. Their wicked toll: In fourth quarter, notebook ASPs (including netbooks) declined to $473 from $604 a year earlier. Desktop ASP: $488 down from $533 year over year. Thank you, netbooks. May you burn in hell.

    By comparison, also during fourth quarter, Mac notebook ASP was $1,359 down from 1,507 a year earlier. Interesting trend: Mac laptop ASPs also fell below desktops. The desktop ASP was $1,366 down from $1,471 a year earlier.

    "Some of that [difference] is from falling notebooks prices -- aka netbooks -- and some is because Apple desktops and a smattering of others are all-in-ones, which add to the price of the desktop," said Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis.

    Cheap Prices equal Cheap Brands

    The ASP trend -- and where many Windows PC manufacturers or retailers are engaged in price wars -- is the below-$500 segment. For example, Dell portable prices start at $249 for the Mini Netbook or $399 for Inspiron notebook. Dell's mainstream portables sell for hundreds less than Sony, which I partly blame on over-agressive discounting and weak brand equity. Dell is not a premium brand like Apple or Sony.

    Sony E-SeriesBut it should be. Dell's Alienware brand has cachet. Alienware built up huge brand equity around powerful gaming systems that look cool and kick computing ass. Alienware should be the kind of brand where, with the right marketing and pricing, Dell could open up higher price brands in greater volume -- something the company has tried with the XPS series.

    How is the low-price strategy working for Dell? The US PC market grew by 24 percent year over year in fourth quarter, while Dell's growth was a slower 5.3 percent. HP grew by 45.1 percent and Toshiba by a whopping 71.5 percent. Not that HP or Toshiba is in the pricing leagues of Apple or Sony, but they should be. Toshiba netbooks start at $349 and laptops at $449. HP and Toshiba also lack the premium brand status associated with Apple or Sony.

    Companies don't just start new brands overnight, but they can subbrand. Dell bought its subbrand -- Alienware -- which, as previously asserted, could be a better volume performer if handled better. Through aggressive pricing, most Windows PC manufacturers have cheapened their brands. Do you buy a super deluxe Corolla or entry Camry for the same price? In other words, do you buy a Dell when you can have an Apple or Sony? Brand matters when people make pricing decisions, particularly when spending more for a product. Their purchasing criteria changes, too.

    Premium Really Is Premium

    Based on comments, many Betanews readers would rather build than buy because they can get more value for less money spent. That's OK for desktops but not as easy for notebooks -- with bigger sales volume and increasing install base than desktops.

    Alienware Mx11Premium brand equity is valuable for offering less for more, while differentiating around non-performance features, such as size as color and style. E-series is good example. The entry-level models come with LCD -- rather than the typical Sony LED -- displays and integrated Intel graphics. But it's that $799.99 starting price that matters.

    Sony's E-series pricing and Windows PC differentiating features aren't lost on Microsoft -- nor their importance. Today, over at the Windows Blog, Brandon LeBlanc posted about the new Sony portables. He also blogged about the Alienware Mx11 thin-and-light notebook -- well, for a gaming laptop. Graphics memory of 1GB DDR3 is something unusual in a portable with 11-inch display, for the wicked price of $799. These are premium portables selling for $300 more than US retail laptop ASPs. Hell, waaaah! I want a Mx11. Don't you?

    It's long past time that Windows PC OEMs should seek to deliver more value rather than sell for less. In Europe and the United States, most consumers are buying a second or third PC. The criteria for a replacement PC typically is much different than a new one. Style matters -- as do personal features. Brand matters, too. To Acer, Dell, HP and other Windows OEMs pushing cheap PCs, I say this: If you don't offer a premium brand with premium features at a reasonable premium price, your customers' next computer purchase will be a Mac. Get it?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/30/When_does_online_news_cost_too_much_'

    When does online news cost too much?

    Publié: janvier 30, 2010, 7:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    My answer is $155. Yesterday, when checking my bank account, I found that Dow Jones had charged  $155 for a year's Wall Street Journal online subscription. I had been expecting the same $119 charge as last year, which already was borderline too high but acceptable (I had a fulltime job 12 months ago). WSJ had gone too far with its pricing. I called customer service, cancelled the account and asked for a refund. The call wasn't easily made, because of the real and sentimental value received. I do regularly read the Journal online, and I have subscribed since 1996! No longer.

    With that introduction, and before continuing with the post, I must ask: What price is too much for you to pay for online content? How much would you pay -- haha, if anything? What about digitized content, such as ebooks? What do you consider to be a fair price for new ebook titles, or older ones? Please answer in comments.

    The issue of fair value for content isn't a new topic, but it's sure to grow as more content companies consider paywalls -- charging for some or all of their online content. Earlier this month, the New York Times announced plans to put up a paywall next year. Why the Times needs a year to warn everyone or to build the paywall infrastructure is truly baffling. The Times charged before with its now disbanded Select service.

    Actually, the Times already charges for online content. Earlier this month, after seeing five weeks of unopened Sunday Times bundles by the couch, I called to cancel yet again. Every time I call, a representative offers six more months of the Sunday Times for half price -- about 15 bucks a month. I've been a Times print subscriber -- with free online access -- since 2000. This last time, the customer service rep offered online access for the same $15 a month. Huh? Isn't it free? Well, yes, but the online service is for the Times Reader application, which otherwise would be free with a print subscription anyway. No thanks to either choice, I said.

    Circling back to the Journal, the pub is charging more and paying less to produce it. Dow Jones is in the process of outsourcing some of its customer service infrastructure (meaning more layoffs coming), and there were recent layoffs at WSJ, including editorial staff. Meanwhile, US salaries haven't kept pace with rate of inflation (e.g., editorial staff salaries haven't risen much), and many news organizations rely on freelancers or contractors, which cost less than fulltime employees. So why charge subscribers more -- loyalist like me -- if costs for producing the content isn't increasing?

    Fourteen years ago, I paid the Journal about $39 a year for online access through a downloadable application that took forever to update over a 9600 baud dial-up connection. WSJ later took the service to the Web browser, which is helluva lot more convenient.

    Something else: Given the amount of free content out there, shouldn't competition keep price for paywall content from going up? Additionally, the Journal's paywall is full of doors. For all News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch's talk about charging for all Journal content, Google search still brings up most of it for free. No fee required. I've recently posted on this topic of free versus fee online content here at Betanews:

    But there are two topics not covered in previous posts: What is reasonable amount to pay for online content and what should people pay for ebooks? I would pay $155 a year for several online publications. Better: $120 a year for three or even four. It's something publishers should really consider, banding together to offer attractive and affordable online pay bundles. Let the subscriber choose the online publications. That $30 or $40 a year per publication might not immediately appeal to news publishers, but, frak, they're competing with free content -- all easily served up via Google News or search.

    The reality: Lots of people won't pay. You're reading this post for free. Betanews doesn't charge, but I wish that it did and you would pay. Betanews editors put a priority on the "news" part of the name and the traditional journalistic standards supporting it. But good content costs to produce, and there is too much content for the amount of advertising space. I'm not the least privy to Betanews business operations -- frak, I'm just a freelancer -- so the statement is meant to broadly apply to all news sites (and even blogs). It's supply-and-demand logistics. The more supply, the less the value. The large amount of online content now available -- much of it aggregated or pirated from sites that pay real reporters to produce it -- creates two advertising problems:

    • There is too much content for the available advertising space
    • The amount of available content reduces ad space's value (what advertisers are willing to pay)

    These two problems are perhaps the top reason more sites want to charge for content. Online advertising can't pay enough to produce quality content. Still, people won't pay for it. Why should anyone, when so much is available for free?

    So what about something that's not free today, but which future price is uncertain? I'm talking ebooks. On Wednesday, Apple unveiled the overrhyped iPad, with supporting iBookstore. Meanwhile, Amazon is in a frakus with what customers should pay for ebooks. According to the New York Times, Amazon has pulled Macmillan books over an ebook pricing dispute. Apparently, Macmillan wants to charge $15 for ebooks rather than $9.99. It's big business for Amazon, which this week claimed that when the same title is available as ebook and in print, digital versions account for six out of every 10 copies sold. Amazon and even Apple may drive down the cost of ebooks, much as they have for digital music downloads. For me, 10 bucks is about right for an ebook, but really too much when there is onerous DRM.

    Once again, I ask: What price are you willing to pay for online content (and by what criteria its value) or for ebooks? I expect that for online content many readers will say nothing. I hope others can explain what they would pay for, which could help news organizations looking to charge in the future. As for ebooks, I'm super curious what Betanews readers see is fair price. Comments are open, please have at it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/29/_Apple_iPad_was_my_idea_'

    'Apple iPad was my idea'

    Publié: janvier 29, 2010, 7:02pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I've been awfully hard on Apple's iPad, criticalness that I really should consider, for a surprising reason. With iPad, Apple took the approach that I recommended nearly a year ago. Microsoft's current, catchy PC operating system marketing campaign ends with some consumer asserting: "Windows 7 was my idea." Perhaps I should claim that "Apple iPad was my idea." ;-)

    Some background: In early 2009, as the economy sucked growth from the PC market, netebook sales surged and Windows OEMs slashed prices, there were many calls by Wall Street analysts and pundits for Apple to release a netbook and to slash Mac prices. I opposed both ideas in several blog posts. I've called netbooks a menace, because they suck margins out of the PC market without offering much value to the computer manufacturer or netbook buyer. Meanwhile, Mac price cuts made no sense to me, even as more analysts called for them. Apple has established a premium brand that price cuts would jeopardize, all while reducing margins and offering little other business benefit. Apple had long priced against itself rather than against Windows PCs, which has been a successful strategy. Why change it?

    To me, the call for an Apple netbook and for lower prices made sense in a different way: Rather than move Macs and their prices down, Apple should move iPhone/iPod touch up in price and size -- that's what I recommended in several blog posts to be excerpted in a few paragraphs. The idea: For Apple to fill the middle pricing gap -- between $399 iPhone and $999 Macbook -- with an iPhone OS-based device that also provided access to App Store.

    That's what Apple is doing with iPad, which price ranges from $499 to $829. Apple now offers portable computers -- and that's how I classify iPhone, iPod touch and iPad along with Macs -- ranging from $99 to $2,499. From a pricing strategy perspective, iPad is a brilliant product, because it fills the gap between between iPhone/iPod touch and Macbook without price cuts or risk to the Mac's premium brand status. Microsoft and its Windows PC partners should be very concerned about this pricing development, but more on that topic after a few excerpts from past blog posts.

    iPhone/iPod touch as the Better Netbook

    In March 2009, at Apple Watch, I posted: "Apple, Don't Buy into Netbook Hype." I wrote:

    From branding, logistics, pricing and market differentiating perspectives, a bulked-up iPhone or iPod touch makes more sense than a Mac netbook [e.g., mini-notebok, as analysts refer to it]. That's what Apple should do, and the existing netbook market shows the way. Mini-notebooks aren't just small and cheap, they're subsidized by carriers, just like smartphones. The carrier model, with 3G data plans, is already in place. Apple should push it upmarket from iPhone and even iPod touch rather than take MacBook down market...

    Suddenly, the differences between smartphones and multitouch mini-notebooks could blur really fast. Apple will have to work harder to differentiate iPhone and iPod from carrier-subsidized touchscreen mini-notebook/smartphone hybrids running Windows 7. Apple's biggest asset is the App Store, which would be helluva enticing if made available on a mini-notebook/smartphone hybrid...

    Apple is better positioned to extend the smartphone/portable media player market upwards, rather than pull the notebook market downwards. Marketing 101, guys: People will spend more for perceived value. If you offer them more for a lower price, they'll forever resist paying more. Upsell is almost always better than downsell. So, Apple shouldn't buy into netbook hype. Apple should redefine it.

    What I suggested is exactly what Apple is doing with iPad. Not that I can really lay claim to the idea. It's cheeky for me to take credit, but product development takes awhile. Surely someone at Apple was working on something like iPad long before I blogged the above paragraphs.

    iPad front-back

    A month later, in another Apple Watch post looking at Mac retail sales, I strongly recommended against Mac price cuts analysts had recommended to better compete with netbooks:

    If I were running Apple, I would resist the temptation to cut prices. As I explained a few paragraphs ago, Apple is performing pretty well compared with Apple a year ago. The company is better off losing market share to protect fundamentals. Market share declines will have people like me wagging accusing fingers that Apple will go down. So what? It's better for Apple to sell fewer Macs for much more than a few more Macs for much less.

    In December 2009 Betanews post, "10 things Apple did right in 2009," I praised Apple's strategy of cutting prices at the high-end, while resisting lower entry prices below $999:

    While Windows PC competitors slashed computer prices -- and so their margins and profits -- Apple held above-$1,000 pricing firm for iMac, Macbook Pro and Mac Pro. The higher pricing surely didn't seem to hurt Mac sales, which were strong all year. Meanwhile, low-cost netbooks sapped Windows PC margins and profits. Apple did right by lowering prices at the high end, which simply opened up more sales over $1,000, where Apple has more than 90-percent revenue share for computers sold at U.S. retail, according to NPD.

    The Brilliance that is iPad

    My blog posts sometimes seem quite contradictory. For a month, I've been nothing less than brutally hard on Apple's tablet. Two reasons for seeming contradictions: 1) I sometimes purposely write provocative posts to incite debate. 2) I keep an open mind, looking at tech products and their supporting business strategies from different viewpoints -- meaning my opinion changes. Yesterday, I offered up "12 reasons why I won't buy an Apple iPad." On that my post, my position remains firm. But iPad means something else when examined from a different viewpoint, which is what today's post is about. I'm not the iPad's target market, and that's where lies the product's brilliance.

    During Wednesday's iPad launch keynote, Apple CEO Steve Jobs spoke about iPad fitting between smartphone and laptop. Geeks haven't reacted well to this; iPad is a compromise device, in terms of functionality overlap with the smartphone below and laptop above -- while replacing neither. But geeks aren't the target market, either (we share that in common). Jobs is first and foremost a marketer. From a marketing perspective -- looking at Apple computing products as a range of features and prices -- iPad fills a gaping hole in the Mac product line between the aforementioned $399 and $999.

    Suddenly, the cheapest, functional Mac portable is $499, or half what it was on Monday. Consumers who wanted a Mac but couldn't afford one can get one for under 500 bucks. The average consumer doesn't care about the operating system, whether iPhone OS 3.2 or Snow Leopard. Mac wannabes will care more about what the device can do for them. Apple has packed most of the basic, most appealing functions of the Mac portable -- including iWork -- into iPad. The pundits evaluating iPad as an ebook reader first should look at the device as ebook reader second or third -- or even last. The iPad is a portable Mac first, which is the real emphasis behind the device's Website (Give it a real look).

    On Wednesday, I blogged that "Apple's iPad does absolutely nothing to advance the tablet category." I was wrong. Apple instead did what I recommended about the netbook category: "Redefine it." The iPad is a netbook -- the cheapest Mac portable (discounting iPhone and iPod touch, of course) -- and it only costs $499. From that perspective, iPad is a brilliantly conceived device and one sure to eventually have mass-market appeal.

    My cranky, geek iPad sniping aside (in previous blog posts), Apple is rightly thinking about the mass market and how to offer a Mac across all price points and range of features. It's brilliant marketing that looks at the totality of what Apple should offer customers rather than to simply respond to competing products, strategies or pricing. Apple's marketing brilliance here is something I should praise, whether or not it was my idea. ;-)

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/28/Microsoft_reports__19_billion_quarter__lifted_by__1.71_billion_deferral'

    Microsoft reports $19 billion quarter, lifted by $1.71 billion deferral

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    A year after global recession sapped Microsoft sales and the company announced its first-ever massive layoffs, real signs of recovery can be seen. The holiday quarter was as good to Microsoft as could be expected, given how much sales are dependent on large businesses -- the majority of which are still tightfisted with IT spending or are renewing licenses for fewer seats because of layoffs.

    "We reported record revenue and record profits," Peter Klein, Microsoft's new CFO, asserted during a conference call this afternoon. He praised consumer sales, particularly for Windows 7 PCs. But Klein warned that "we have not seen a return of enterprise spending growth."

    The quarter's results are a bit complicated. Because of technology discount upgrade guarantees for Windows 7, Microsoft carried forward $1.71 billion from previous quarters. Still, even without the deferred revenue, Windows 7 had a great holiday sales quarter.

    For fiscal 2010 second quarter, Microsoft reported revenue of $19.02 billion, for a 14 percent year-over-year increase. Operating income: $8.51 billion, up 43 percent. Net income: $6.66 billion, or 74 cents a share. Net income rose by 60 percent and earnings per share by 57 percent year over year. However, Microsoft reported these results including the aforementioned carryover. Without it, Microsoft revenue would have been $17.31 billion or 60 cents a share.

    For about a year, Microsoft provided no guidance to Wall Street analysts, so there is none for fiscal Q2. Analysts average consensus was $17.9 billion and 59 cents earnings per share. Revenue estimates ranged from $15.91 billion to $19.18 billion.

    Q2 2010 Revenue by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $6.9 billion, up 70 percent from $4.06 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $3.8 billion, up 2 percent from $3.76 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $4.75 billion, down 3 percent from $4.88 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: $581 million, down 5 percent from $609 million a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $2.9 billion, down 11 percent from $3.26 billion a year earlier.

    Big question for this quarter: What about Windows 7? The answer is surprisingly complex. Fiscal first quarter was Microsoft's best sales period ever for Windows license sales -- the majority to OEMs stocking the channel for holiday 2009. Would Microsoft sustain the momentum in fiscal Q2? Apparently it did. In a statement, Microsoft CFO Kevin Turner, called fiscal Q2 another "record quarter for Windows units." The company claims more than 60 million Windows license shipments through end of the quarter.

    The really good news came about two weeks ago from Gartner and IDC, which reported that PC sales were much stronger than expected during fourth calendar quarter (which corresponds to Microsoft's fiscal second). Better still: Mac market share dropped dramatically, as sales for several PC manufacturers surged.

    Worldwide PC shipments rose 15.2 percent year over year, according to IDC, and 22.1 percent, according to Gartner. IDC put US PC shipments up 24 percent year over year and Gartner 26.5 percent. After years of market share gains, Apple dramatically dropped, presumably with Windows 7 sapping Mac sales momentum. Gartner put Apple's US share at 7.5 percent, down from 8.8 percent in fiscal Q4 2009 and 7.7 percent in fiscal Q1 2009. Both analyst firms ranked Apple fifth in US market share, a one-rank decline below Toshiba. While Mac shipments grew a respectable 31 percent, according to IDC, HP shipments grew by 45.1 percent and Toshiba by a stunning 71.5 percent.

    Q2 2010 Income by Division

    • Windows & Windows Live: $5.4 billion, up 99 percent from $2.7 billion a year earlier.
    • Server & Tools: $1.5 billion, up 8 percent from $1.38 billion a year earlier.
    • Business: $3.01 billion, flat with $3.02 billion a year earlier.
    • Online Services Business: Loss of $466 million, down 46 percent from $320 million loss a year earlier.
    • Entertainment & Devices: $375 million, up 188 percent from $130 million loss a year earlier.

    Segment by Segment Results

    Microsoft reports revenue and earnings results for five divisons: Windows & Windows Live, Server & Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices.

    Windows & Windows Live. Revenue rose 70 percent year over year and income by 99 percent, bolster by $1.71 billion carried over from earlier quarters, as part of Microsoft's upgrade guarantee program. The division derives about 80 percent of its revenue from license sales to PC OEMs. OEM revenue increased by $2.3 billion or 72 percent when including recognized deferred revenue. Without it, OEM revenue grow by a more modest 21 percent, or by $664 million. Microsoft estimates worldwide PC shipments grew 15 percent to 17 percent during fiscal Q2.

    Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because 50 percent of revenues comes from contractual volume-licensing agreements -- that's a decline of 5 percent from fiscal first quarter. Because of corporate layoffs, Microsoft is seeing customers renewing license contracts at lower levels. The division's revenue grew just 2 percent year over year, while operating income grew by 8 percent.

    Business. Next to Windows, Microsoft's other cash cow division reported revenue declines of 3 percent and flat income (really slightly down) year over year. Consumer revenue increased $95 million, or 12 percent, which Microsoft largely credited to increased PC sales. However, commercial Office 2007 sales declined, which isn't surprising. Microsoft is beta testing Office 2010, which launches within about six months.

    Online Services Business. The division's loss widened, with ad sales in decline -- starkly contrasting with results from Google, which reported solid earnings for the same quarter. The majority of the Online Services division's sales come from advertising, which fell 2 percent, or $11 million, year over year to $516 million.

    Entertainment & Devices. Xbox 360 and console game sales declined by $295 million, or 12 percent, year over year. Microsoft shipped 6.2 million consoles during the quarter.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/28/12_reasons_why_I_won_t_buy_an_Apple_iPad'

    12 reasons why I won't buy an Apple iPad

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I asked Betanews readers if they would buy and Apple iPad. You responded with a resounding, "No!" I won't buy one either, and I've got 12 reasons why. I couldn't limit the list to the usual 10. I've got a dozen.

    For me, there's relief in yesterday's iPad announcement. After nearly a month of insanity -- with geekdom acting like Jesus was coming on the clouds to set up his heavenly kingdom -- the aura is fading. Apple's tablet didn't live up to the hype or the lofty "it will change the world" expectations so many people attached to it. Some pundits called Apple's smartphone the Jesus phone. I don't expect that many will assign such aspirations to iPad, which isn't the slightest bit category changing.

    I agree with Samuel Axon, who writes at Mashable: "The iPad isn't going to be a phenomenon with either netbook users or power users. It's not better than existing devices at anything, and it's too expensive for most people to use it as a secondary device." My prediction: Apple's tablet will be Jack of trades and master of none.

    With that, I present my dozen reasons for not buying iPad, despite the allure of its pretty user interface. Perhaps as some Betanews readers asserted, iPad will be a version 3 success. That product is years away. Now to my reasons:

    1. The iPad isn't good enough to replace smartphone or laptop. Apple's tablet offers too much functionality that overlaps the smartphone below and laptop above. The overlap makes the $499 to $829 price hard to justify. The iPhone 3GS, many Android smartphones (like the Nexus One) and Nokia N Series handsets offer most of the important, similar capabilities, with benefit of persistent data connection. The smartphone is a device always and easily carried, while the iPad is too big for the pocket.

    A Windows laptop would offer way more functionality -- and for about the same price, or even less, than iPad. Sure, iPad costs less than a Macbook or MacBook Pro, but those laptops run a real desktop operating system, while iPad packs iPhone OS. From that perspective compared to Windows laptops, iPad costs even more for much less.

    More importantly -- and this should have been a separate point -- there's no multitasking. My smartphone and laptop allow background applications to run. From that perspective, iPad is functionally inferior to the two other devices.

    iPad slanted2. Persistant data connection costs too much. The cheapo, 16GB model sells for $499 with 802.11n wireless. For 3G, buyers must pony up between $629 and $829 plus another $30/month to AT&T for data service. Well, there's a 15-buck plan for 250MB of data. Amazon's Kindle and Barnes and Noble Nook ebook readers come with free 3G service. Sure, iPad does so much more, but the user not only pays about twice as much for the device but $15 or $30 month, instead of nothing. The bigger question: Why pay for two 3G services -- smartphone and iPad? My answer is none.

    3. Web experience is inferior to other devices in its size class: Apple's promotional Website claims that iPad is "the best way to experience the Web." But the device doesn't support Adobe Flash, for starters, and that means the experience is no better than iPhone or iPod touch and less than comparably sized PC slates or netbooks running desktop or desktop-class browsers. Hell, my smaller Nokia N900 smartphone, with 800 x 480 screen resolution, packs a full Mozilla browser that runs Flash.

    4. Screen resolution is inadequate: iPad's native screen resolution is only 1028 x 768. That's simply too little for the size and price, particularly when many PC slates, netbooks or laptops offer higher screen resolution for about the same price. Pixel density is 132 per inch. By comparison, my N900 is 267 pixels per inch -- granted with only 800 x 400 display. But iPad ships with a LED display, for which I want more ppi, not less.

    5. Aspect ratio is 4:3 in a 16:9 world. Widescreen everything is today's video consumption standard. But iPad's aspect ratio takes you back to the last decade. My smartphone not only displays video in 16:9 ratio, it shoots photos that way, too.

    6. It's nothing more -- and some things less -- than a big iPhone (without cellular voice) or iPod touch. Like its small siblings, iPad runs iPhone OS, accesses iTunes Store and built-in App Store, displays photos, plays movies and music, etc., etc., etc. OK, so there is iWork and bigger screen. I'm not pining for the differences.

    7. There's no camera. But there should be two, one pointing outwards for taking photos and supporting applications and another inward facing for video conferencing. Camera is one of the greatest utilities on most portable devices, whether cell phones, laptops or even netbooks. Camera already is important on cell phones for using third-party services like Amazon product search, barcode search and location informational services.

    iPad front-back

    8. Connectivity options are limited without paying more money. In the Apple world of giving users less they pay more to get what they need. The iPad uses the same connector as iPhone or iPod touch, and Apple ships the same USB cable as comes with the smaller devices. There's no HDMI port or any other useful one. It's either pay Apple more for the connectors -- gasp, even for a digital camera -- or make do with wireless options, which should be good enough for printing but not connecting to projectors or TVs.

    9. Accessories tell the real story -- iPad isn't good enough at any of its price points. Reiterating #8, iPad demos well as a slick tablet, but to use many of its features users will need to pay more to Apple for accessories, like the aforementioned camera connectors (there are two) and the keyboard dock. During yesterday's iPad launch event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs emphasized the ease of using the virtual keyboard like a real one. But writing for Gizmodo, John Herrman asserts: "The iPad's onscreen typing solution Isn't a solution at all." The thumbs are important for typing on smartphones, but iPad's virtual keyboard needs to be more touch-type ready. Hermann writes: "Seriously, this thing's got its own version of iWork -- you're supposed to type on it. That explains the giant hardware keyboard attachment, I guess!"

    10. The iPad requires a Mac or PC. That USB connector comes with iPad for a reason. The tablet would make more sense as a standalone device connecting to cloud services. In #1, I dinged iPad for not being a smartphone or laptop replacement. Sadly, that's by design.

    11. There's no GPS on three models -- not without 3G radio. No-3G limits the device's mapping capabilities and its ability to spatially orientate for using augmented reality applications. The accelerometer and compass are OK -- as they are on iPod touch -- but 3G makes a big difference when also orienting location. GPS is available on three 3G iPad models, but buyers will pay more for the device and for monthly data service fees.

    12. It's a closed system. Actually it's a step backwards. Apple has brought back the onerous developer non-disclosure agreement. Apple had lifted NDAs for App Store, but they're b-a-a-a-ck! At a time when Google and Nokia are pushing open-source operating systems and mobile applications stacks, Apple's approach ranks of last-century software development practices. We've been there with Microsoft. Must we trade Microsoft closed for Apple closed? Something else: Everything is tied to iTunes Store, which is as closed as Apple is secretive about new products.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/28/Betanews_readers_say__No___to_Apple_iPad'

    Betanews readers say 'No!' to Apple iPad

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Mid-afternoon today, I asked Betanews readers: "Will you buy an Apple iPad?" The responses are in, and the majority of readers say: "No!" I'm with you. Apple's iPad does absolutely nothing to advance the tablet category. The category is part of the problem. Twenty-five days ago I asserted that the "world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other." The iPad, like other tablets, suffers the middle child syndrome. The device overlaps features of smartphone below and laptop above.

    Perhaps iPad would make more sense if it could replace either smartphone or laptop -- although I expect some early adopters to try the latter. To you I say, "Good luck!" You'll need it if for no other reasons than the virtual keyboard and limited storage -- 16GB to 64GB. I don't see these reasons as limitations on a smartphone, because it's always carried and has constant data connection. The iPad is an extra carryall with overlapping functionality and either no constant connection or 3G service for extra $30 monthly cost. Sadly, iPad is exactly what I expected: Traditional tablet form factor with a prettier user interface. Yesterday I pined for more, but Apple didn't deliver it.

    With that scathing introduction, I present randomly chosen Betanews reader reaction -- much of it even harder than my reaction:

    Jeremy Reeves: "@Joe, If I understand correctly, you believe the iPad is a waste, to put it bluntly...I would agree there are more reasons to not buy one than to buy one. ;]"

    Taylor Wickens: "If you ducktape the keyboard that is shown with the iPad, you have a netbook. Woopty-doo. I'd rather have a full OS on a netbook with a non-ducktaped full keyboard than the iPhone OS that can only do one application at a time. The iPad is all iHype and will certainly be a niche market item before people realize how iStupid it is."

    Roger Kay (industry analyst): "Apple may just have sailed straight into the Sargasso Sea. Meanwhile, there's this video they should have found before naming it: [bit.ly]."

    iPad Star Trekhoozdaar: "Yes, I will buy one. I'll wait a while until the price drops $100 like Apple products always seem to do. I see people are disappointed that this device is not a laptop, I don't think it's intended to be. It is a really big itouch [iPod touch] with major improvements. I love my itouch. I kill time with it, look up info and email with it, read the news and sports, etc. Even listen to music. It is always with me...I don't read ebooks today, but that seems to be the future. Several organizations I belong to want to get rid of their magazines and newsletters. I don't want [to] carry a laptop or even a netbook around with me to read things."

    Kelson64: "Rather pricey for something that doesn't really do anything. The only reason I might have purchased this prodect is for the ebook capabilities (I am a very avid reader) -- but I already have a Kindle, and I am beyond happy with it. Don't get me wrong, the iPad looks really nice . I just don't see any practical use for it. Frankly, with all of the things it is MISSING (that others have pointed out here), it just seems like a waste of money."

    Sarah, iMensch (responding via FrendFeed): "newp."

    Sudbury: "Why would you want to buy an iTablet? So you can show to your friends that your iPod touch is bigger than theirs? :P"

    ece:

    I always save my final judgement till I get my hand on it. But based on hardware specs, it would be a no for a few reasons:
    • No USB 2.0 support
    • No SD Card Slot
    • No Verizon support

    How does one print out a document that they developed in Pages? Do I have to e-mail the document to myself so I can print stuff out? How does one efficiently upload all the photos and video I just took from my vacation? Do I upload them to my laptop and then sync them to the iPad? I can't switch off Verizon so I wouldn't get 3G. As an e-reader like for text books, how heavily discounted will these text books go? I mean 3 engineering text books cost me $300 in grad school, even more in undergrad. Will the discounts on ebooks be enough to justify the cost of this as an e-reader.

    jc_lvngstn: "I don't need a tablet, I'm immune to the hype machine, etc. And even if I DID decide I'd get a tablet, it would have to have Windows 7 on it, and support multitasking."

    Pwnd0z3r: "Apple creates a glorified Speak'n'Spell -- the Apple iMaxiPad -- the sad part is that probably a lot of people will buy it because they are brain dead from watching WWE wrestling. People who buy Apple products can't spell productivity or they wouldn't buy them in the first place."

    Kevin Baron:

    I like it and might just buy it. I would love to play iPhone games on a giant touchscreen. There are other perks. But playing Peggle or Bejeweled on the iPad will be pretty cool. Sure I can and do play both games on the computer and the iPhone. Among many other games. But I like the idea of a big touchscreen for gaming. That said, I do have things i don't like. What's the deal with no Flash? I mean will it never make it to the iPad or iPhone? I mean really this isn't rocket science. I've heard the many reasons Apple might not want it on the phone. But really this is 2010, enough already. iChat would have been way cool also. Jailbreaking will give us multitasking, but really they need to give it to us at this point. It's a toy, but one that I want.

    conan007: "I'm not clear who needs this. We already have smaller versions of iPad (i.e. iPhone), regular laptops (as light as MacBook Air), netbooks, Slate PCs (with real functioning OS), and ebooks (does iPad has e-paper screen?)."

    iPad Facebook

    OneToOne: "Apple has jumped the shark here, plain and simple. Nothing to be particularly ashamed of, it happens from time to time to those who think they are above all judgement and can do no wrong."

    macbook: "Never... It's a waste of money."

    Cool Guy:

    Can someone please confirm whether the below is correct?

    • No USB slots
    • No Memory Card slots
    • No Ethernet Port
    • No Video Out
    • No multi-tasking
    • No camera
    • Not light
    • No Mac OS X
    • No optical drive

    If the above statements are confirmed then no, I wouldn't buy one. I am a tech and I need something light and portable that I can carry with me and troubleshoot things. At the moment, I use a laptop.

    Faisal Islam: [In response to Cool Guy] "Yeah! CORRECT 100%."

    bijuishere: "It is such a disappointment mainly because of all the big hype. No camera, no media card reader, no multitasking, no phone services, no USB ports -- will wait for the 3rd gen which will do all this. Meanwhile Apple fans can have at it."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/27/Will_you_buy_an_Apple_iPad_'

    Will you buy an Apple iPad?

    Publié: janvier 27, 2010, 9:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    iPad NYT

    After months -- years, really -- of rumors, Apple has unveiled its slate computer, the iPad. Apple says that two models will be available, one within 60 days, with Wi-Fi. The other will come within about 30 days later, with Wi-Fi and 3G. Will you buy one? That's a question I ask you to offer in comments.

    Some quick details: The iPad uses an Apple 1GHz processor, packs a 9.7-inch LED display, weighs 1.5 pounds, is one-half inch thick and runs iPhone OS. Apple claims battery life up to 10 hours. The iPad will run most of the applications currently available from the App Store. The device supports iTunes store and Apple's new iBookstore for ebooks. Most of the features will be familiar to iPhone and iPod touch users, although there are numerous improvements to the user interface (changes I would like to have seen in Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" instead).

    Pricing is key. The iPad will be available in six models, based on storage capacity and connectivity. Three Wi-Fi (802.11n) iPads: 16GB ($499); 32GB ($599); 64GB ($699). Three Wi-Fi and 3G iPads: 16GB ($629); 32GB ($729); 64GB ($829). AT&T will provide 3G wireless for $30 a month with no contractual obligation.

    iPad with Kid

    The iPad is perhaps the most hyped gadget ever. The hype raised expectations right into orbit. Has Apple met them? That's a question I'll tackle in a future post, but I ask your reaction now. I've provided some quick pics of the device and here is a link to Apple's introductory iPad video.

    I'll say three things:

    • Apple was right to offer one model for under $500. It's the magic price for iPad to sell well, if it ever will. Still, for the 3G, users will fork out an additional 30 bucks a month.
    • I have no plans to buy an iPad. The user interface is cool, but I don't see the value spending so much for functionality that a good smartphone and laptop satisfies. Maybe I'll feel differently after seeing one in an Apple Store.
    • For all respective purposes, Apple today released larger versions of the iPhone (with 3G data) and iPod touch (with Wi-Fi only).

    iPad e-mail

    Now please tell everyone what you think -- in comments. I'll collect the best reader responses and put them together as a separate post.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/27/The_one_reason_why_I_would_buy_an_Apple_tablet'

    The one reason why I would buy an Apple tablet

    Publié: janvier 27, 2010, 6:35am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For a month, I've grappled with the "Why?" of an Apple tablet. Why should Apple make a tablet? Why could Apple succeed in a category where so many other companies have failed? Why would I --or anyone else -- want to buy an Applet tablet? No answer, despite all the plausible rumors about the device, could convince me "Why?" Until tonight. I thought of a "What?" that would make me interested in a portable tablet: Delivery of a unified content platform, mixing different media types and live information.

    The rumors about Apple's tablet have focused on disparate content consumption (or creation) -- videos, music, ebooks and games among others. Big deal. These capabilities are available on PCs and smartphones or single-function devices. Disparate content on a slate does not excite my gadget geek cortex.

    But what if all those functions were a single content platform, which, for example, the foundation already can be seen in AP and CNN iPhone apps, which mix together audio, text and video -- or entertainment app Tap Tap Revenge, which mixes music and gaming. Another example: iTunes LP and iTunes Extra, which mix additional content or visuals with albums or movies. Now take these concepts and serve up a live, mixed-content platform that relies on a persistent Internet connection, GPS, accelerometer and compass for spatial and location information -- what iPhone OS already offers to some extent today.

    In this context, a digital astronomy textbook could incorporate typically static content with much more. Students could subscribe to various feeds, including Mars Rover videos on YouTube or astronomical Twitter accounts. Students from the same class could connect from a single Facebook group where to study and collaborate on research -- all within context of the astronomy textbook.

    A professor could assign the "Star Trek" movie as a class project about the science of science fiction, which students could download and watch on the tablet. They could snip up to 30-second clips to annotate their research papers. At night, a student could hold up the tablet running the astronomy textbook to the night sky, where the device's camera, GPS, compass and accelerometer would orientate position for displaying a real-time constellations map.

    What about biology, which was my field of study in college? Sociology, anthropology or literature? Why should a high school student use SparkNotes as opposed to reading the Odyssey, when the teacher could make the book so much more fun using supplemental materials all delivered to the tablet?

    How about ebooks? Amazon has made a good business out of Kindle, but really how-- by taking the analog motif and making it digital. The process of reading a Kindle book really isn't that different from the physical object. Amazon failed to quantitatively improve the reading process through the digital medium. A tablet content platform could do so much more.

    For example, a person buying Stephen King novella "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" also could have option of obtaining the "Shawshank Redemption" movie and music soundtrack as a single purchase. Live feeds could connect the ebook buyer to literary reviews -- both professional and casual -- and online communities at Facebook, among other places. Instead of just reading the latest Stephen King novel, readers could get into the mind of the author through his notes and other research used during the writing. All this interaction would be good for satisfying fans and building brand loyalty around authors and publishers.

    I could go on and on. Nothing I've suggested is dramatically original thinking. Content creators have been bringing bits and pieces of these concepts together for years. But no one has put them together into a single content platform. Apple already has in iPhone OS and App Store the foundation to mix together static and live content of various types into a single software/hardware platform. Now that would be truly imaginative and potentially world changing.

    I don't know what Apple will announce during its event later today. But I do know the world doesn't need another tablet. Humanity does need a truly natural content creation and consumption platform -- something that transcends the archaic printed page and makes content a seemingly living thing that responds to human needs for social interaction, entertainment and learning.

    Now that's a product I would buy.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/26/Once_you_dig_deeper__Apple_s_record_quarter_is_not_so_impressive'

    Once you dig deeper, Apple's record quarter is not so impressive

    Publié: janvier 26, 2010, 6:53am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Not since the Soviet Union, have I seen any entity so brazenly try to rewrite history. With today's fiscal first quarter 2010 earnings announcement, Apple effectively changed its quarterly performance going back two years. In a quarter or a year from now who will remember the earnings results as they were actually reported? This blog and a few others like it may be the only record of what really happened.

    But Apple did as much to rewrite the present as the past, by how today's Q1 results were presented. The company gave no warning that it would adopt new accounting rules, which made what would have been slightly-better-than-expected results seemingly blowout. Fortunately, Apple's rewriting the past -- and its comparison to original earnings reports -- sheds some light on the current quarter's results and how Apple manipulated their delivery.

    Subtle Manipulations

    Coming into the quarter, Apple guided that revenue would be between $11.3 billion and $11.6 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $1.70 and $1.78. Wall Street consensus estimates were much higher: $12.06 billion revenue and $2.07 earnings per share. But Apple reported a staggering $15.68 billion revenue and net profit of $3.38 billion, or $3.67 a share. The huge disparity creates the perception that Apple had a helluva quarter. How could it not be when beating the Street by $3.62 billion revenue and $1.60 earnings per share? It could be because Apple changed its accounting, choosing to do so without warning.

    Apple had been reporting results as GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles, as required but separate non-GAAP results since fiscal fourth quarter 2008, too. Some analysts prepare guidance as GAAP and non-GAAP, but the GAAP numbers are used for estimating revenue, net income and earnings per share. Today's change effectively eliminates Apple's non-GAAP reporting.

    There is nothing I can see under current disclosure laws that would have prevented Apple from issuing some statement about the accounting change, as long as the information was given out to everyone. Select disclosure to some Wall Street analysts would rightly draw fire from the US Securities and Exchange Commission. By Apple announcing the reporting change before the earnings announcement, Wall Street analysts would have been able to appropriately revise their quarterly revenue and earnings estimates upwards. But Apple didn't give them that chance. Now why is that?

    As I've long asserted, in business perception is everything. Apple's unannounced accounting change has created the perception of well-earned record revenue and earnings. That's the way many blogs and news sites first reported the results and continue to do so. But an examination of actual product sales shows a strong quarter, but not a colossal one. The big boost came from the accounting change, which gave Apple another boost: Perception about its performance.

    It's the only way I can reconcile Apple's behavior. If the company had any interest in transparency, Wall Street and shareholders would have received notice of the accounting change. By withholding the information, Apple got a big perception boost and some after-hours lift on the share price.

    Questioning Record Performance

    As soon as Apple issued its earnings press release, I IMed Betanews founder Nate Mook: "Apple earnings seem too high. I'm going to hold off posting anything until [the] con call. Could be they changed reporting." The change in reporting wasn't immediately obvious from the press release.

    By waiting, many Apple blogs and news sites got up a report before me. But I didn't want my reporting to be unduly manipulated. So I waited, for which my only regret is how much misinformation is already out there. But some financial news sites are doing the story right, like story "Apple just makes target, once you look under the hood," by Therese Poletti, for MarketWatch. She writes:

    Apple's quarter was actually pretty much on target, when one looks at the unit sales of its devices. IPhones, iPods and Mac computers sold pretty much in line with analysts' forecasts for the period.

    Apple's 8.7 million iPhone shipments actually fell short of analyst consensus estimates. The 3.36 million Mac shipments were slightly above analyst consensus, while the about 300,000 sequential unit increase is inline with holiday quarter expectations based on continually consistent growth rates. According to IDC, in the United States, Mac shipments grew 31 percent year over year. Competitors did better: HP growth was 45.1 percent. Toshiba, which pushed Apple from fourth place to fifth in market share, delivered a whopping 71.5 percent growth. But iPhone and Mac shipments are receiving credit for a quarter where reporting changes matter much more.

    Changing the Present

    In fairness, there is nothing untoward in Apple's accounting change. In September, the Financial Accounting Standards Board revised GAAP to Apple's benefit. Under older rules, Apple had to defer most iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue for 24 months. Subscription accounting rules mandated that Apple had to recognize most of the revenue over time rather than in the quarter realized from sales. According to Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster, Apple reported $78 per iPhone each quarter, deferring $595 per device per quarter. Under the new rules, which must be adopted before 2011, Apple could realize most of the revenue during the quarter of sale. Apple plans to defer $25 per iPhone and $10 per Apple TV per quarter.

    Apple is following the new GAAP rules as it is required to. There is nothing wrong with Apple's new reporting method. It's what the company is supposed to do. The problem I see: How Apple took advantage of the change to boost earnings perceptions.

    During yesterday's Apple earning conference call, BMO Capital Markets analyst Keith Bachman asked Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer: "What revenue and EPS would have been under the previous accounting policy for the December quarter?" Oppenheimer responded: "Keith, actually, I did not say that. That's actually not something that we have the time to try and figure out." He dodged the question!

    But Apple's changing-the-past ways give some insight into just how much the accounting change affects the Q1's reported results. By far, iPhone contributed the most to the quarter's results as reported: $5.6 billion, or nearly 36 percent of total revenue. Assuming Apple would have otherwise deferred $595 per iPhone, for 8.7 million units that works out to $5.2 billion. Munster's numbers work. Assuming Apple defers $25 per iphone that's $648 per 8.7 million iPhones or $5.66 billion, or fairly close to reported revenue. I'll let the number stand at that, but there are dots I would connect with a bit more information.

    Changing the Past

    Apple's revision of past quarterly results offers some insight into the accounting change's impact. For example, during fiscal fourth quarter 2009, Apple reported $9.87 billion revenue and net profits of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 a share. Apple shipped 7.4 million iPhones, with reported revenue of $2.9 billion. Under Apple's revised earnings, by retroactively applying the new accounting rules, revenue jumps to $12 billion and net income to $2.52 billion, or $2.77 a share. Apple's revenue jumps by $2.13 billion with the accounting change. Meanwhile, net profits increase by $850 million and earnings per share by 95 cents.

    Another example: The year-ago quarter, when Apple reported $10.17 billion revenue and net profits of $1.23 billion, or $1.35 earnings per share. Apple shipped 4.36 million iPhones, with reported revenue of $1.25 billion. Under the revised results, Apple revenue was $11.88 billion and net profits were $2.26 billion, or $2.50 earnings per share. Apple's revenue increases by $1.71 billion, net profits by $1.03 billion and earnings per share by $1.15.

    One more: Fiscal Q4 2008, when Apple first starting reporting non-GAAP results alongside GAAP results for iPhone. Apple reported $7.9 billion and net profits of $1.14 billion, or $1.26 earnings per share. Apple shipped 6.9 million iPhones, but only reported revenue of $806 million. The revised figures raise revenue to $11.52 billion and net profit to $2.25 billion, or $2.48 earnings per share. The difference: $3.62 billion revenue, $1.11 billion net income, or $1.22 billion. But the differences between the reported and revised figures leave something out. Apple acknowledged deferring $4.6 billion from iPod 3G sales.

    Apple justifies the past revisions as making  quarterly comparisons more accurate. There's sense for one year, but two? The bigger accomplishment: Apple's past quarterly results look much better today than they did yesterday, and for a company so hellbent on perception, on marketing, on looking good, the revised results are a helluva makeover.

    Surely, some Apple fans will defend the past quarterly revisions -- the changing of financial history -- arguing that it's what the company would have made anyway. But Apple didn't report the revised results in those past quarters. You can revise the historical record, but you can't change the past or the decisions Apple investors made three months or eight quarters ago.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/26/Accounting_change_lifts_Apple_fiscal_Q1_2010_results_to_over__15.6_billion'

    Accounting change lifts Apple fiscal Q1 2010 results to over $15.6 billion

    Publié: janvier 26, 2010, 12:19am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple kicked off its 2010 fiscal year with strong first fiscal quarterly earnings -- less than two days before announcing its "latest creation" that bloggers, the news media and the tech community can't seem to stop blabbering about.

    During a conference call today, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer described the quarterly results as Apple's best ever. However, Apple instituted new reporting rules for this quarter's results. The accounting change gave Apple's results huge lift, which many news sites credited to record Mac and iPhone sales. Apple sales were inline with analyst expectations and recent growth trends. If not for the accounting changes, Apple's results would more likely have come in slightly above Wall Street's consensus estimates.

    Previously, Apple deferred a significant portion of iPhone, iPod touch and Apple TV revenue under older  subscription accounting rules. The Financial Accounting Standards Board revised the rules in September. The accounting change means that Apple can immediately recognize iPhone/iPod touch and Apple TV revenue rather than deferring much of it for 24 months.

    The new accounting method explains why Apple exceeded analyst consensus by such a huge amount -- more than $3.5 billion. Apple revised two years of results in support of the accounting change. This revision added at least another $110 million revenue previously deferred over the past 24 months. So the quarter got two lifts:

    • Previously unrecognized revenue calculated at $25 for every iPhone sold over two years, according to Oppenheimer (He didn't say how much total for Apple TV, just $10 per unit).
    • Revenue recognized in this quarter that in the past was deferred. By comparison, Apple revenue jumps dramatically, but it's more because of accounting.

    Q1 2010 by the Numbers

    For fiscal first quarter, Apple reported $15.68 billion revenue and net profits of $3.38 billion, or $3.67 a share, under the new reporting method. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $11.88 billion and $2.26 billion net quarterly profit, or $2.50 per share. Fiscal first quarter ended Dec. 26, 2009.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $11.3 billion and $11.6 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $1.70 and $1.78. Analyst estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $12.06 billion average revenue consensus and $2.07 earnings per share. Apple blew past the Street.

    For fiscal 2010 second quarter, Apple forecasts between $11 billion and $11.4 billion in revenue, with earnings per share ranging between $2.06 and $2.18.

    In a statement, Apple CEO Steve Jobs declared "if you annualize our quarterly revenue, it's surprising that Apple is now a $50+ billion company."

    Apple's gross margin was 40.9 percent, up from 37.9 percent a year earlier. International sales accounted for a stunning 58 percent of revenue. Apple ended the quarter with $39.8 billion in cash, up from $34 billion three months earlier.

    Q1 2010 Revenue by Product

    • Desktop: $1.7 billion, up 62 percent from $1 billion a year earlier.
    • Portables: $2.76 billion, up 9 percent from $2.52 billion a year earlier.
    • iPod: $3.4 billion, up 1 percent from $3.37 billion a year earlier.
    • Music: $1.16 billion, up 15 percent from $1.01 billion a year earlier.
    • iPhone: $5.6 billion, up 90 percent from $2.9 billion a year earlier.
    • Peripherals: $469 million, up 21 percent from $387 million a year earlier.
    • Software & Services: $631 million, up 4 percent from $606 million a year earlier.

    iPhone. Apple shipped -- what company executives really mean by sold -- 8.7 million iPhones worldwide during fiscal first quarter. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. A year earlier, Apple shipped 4.4 million iPhones. Wall Street analyst estimates ranged from about 8.8 million (consensus) to over 9 million units -- meaning iPhone shipments fell below expectations. However, iPhone revenue rose 90 percent year over year, giving the biggest boost to Apple's quarter. The smartphone accounted for about a quarter of total Apple revenue, with a chunk of the lift coming from the implementation of the new accounting method.

    iPhone 3gs

    Interesting aside: After more than 2.5 years of nearly continuous marketing, Apple stopped airing iPhone TV commercials coming into 2010. The marketing change could signal a new advertising campaign either related to the rumored tablet, new iPhone OS version or both.

    In a blow to Apple, today, IDC predicted that Nokia's Symbian OS would lead in global market share in 2013, while Google's Android -- and not iPhone OS -- would come in second. IDC predicted that Android shipments would reach 68 million units by 2013, up from 690,000 in 2008. Global smartphone shipments would reach 390 million units. However, IDC's data doesn't account for other devices running iPhone OS -- the iPod touch and, presumably, Apple's rumored tablet.

    Q1 2010 Unit Shipments by Product

    • Desktop: 1.2 million units, up 70 percent from 728,000 units a year earlier.
    • Portables: 2.13 million units, up 18 percent from 1.8 million units a year earlier.
    • iPod: 21 million units, down 8 percent from 22.7 million units a year earlier.
    • iPhone: 8.7 million units, up 100 percent from 4.4 million units a year earlier.

    Computers. Once again, Mac sales continued to defy the economy's downward pull -- and that of Windows 7, which Microsoft launched in late October. Apple shipped 3.36 million Macs during the quarter, up from 2.5 million units a year earlier and 3.05 million units during fiscal Q4 2009. Wall Street analyst Mac shipment projections ranged from about 2.79 million to 3.32 million shipments worldwide.

    Nearly two weeks ago, analyst firms Gartner and IDC reported strong sequential declines for US Mac market share. In the United States, Gartner said that Apple shipped 1.48 million Macs, up 23.3 percent year over year. Market share declined year over year and sequentially -- dramatically. IDC put Apple's US share at 7.5 percent, down from 8.8 percent in fiscal Q4 2009 and 7.7 percent in fiscal Q1 2009. Both analyst firms ranked Apple fifth in US market share, a one-rank decline below Toshiba. The numbers suggest that at least in the United States Windows 7 sapped some Mac sales momentum during the holiday quarter.

    LED iMac

    Q1 2010 Revenue by Geography

    • Americas: $6.09 billion, up 15 percent from $5.3 billion a year earlier.
    • Europe: $5.02 billion, up 40 percent from $3.6 billion a year earlier.
    • Japan: $783 million, up 57 percent from $498 million a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: $1.81 billion, up 142 percent from $750 million a year earlier.
    • Retail: $1.97 billion, up 13 percent from $1.7 billion a year earlier.

    iPod. Apple shipped 21 million iPods during fiscal first quarter, down from 22.7 million a quarter earlier and, unsurprisingly, up from 10.2 million in fiscal Q4 2009. Analyst consensus for Q1: 20.4 million units. While units decline, revenue rose 1 percent year over year, suggesting a higher sales mix favoring iPod touch, which sales grew 55 percent.

    Q1 2010 Unit Shipments by Geography

    • Americas: 1.9 million units, up 30 percent from 912,000 units a year earlier.
    • Europe: 1.07 million units, up 6 percent from 795,000 units a year earlier.
    • Japan: 105,000 units, up 70 percent from 99,000 units a year earlier.
    • Asia Pacific: 313,000 units, up 54 percent from 203,000 units a year earlier.
    • Retail: 689,000 units, up 34 percent from 515,000 units a year earlier.

    Retail. Revenue rose 13 percent year over year, with Apple retail stores selling 689,000 units, compared to 515,000 a year earlier. Apple opened 10 new stores in the quarter, for a total of 283 retail outlets in 10 counrties. There was an average 278 stores open in the quarter, with average revenue of $7.1 million compared to $7 million a year earlier.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/24/Microsoft_Office_is_obsolete__or_soon_will_be'

    Microsoft Office is obsolete, or soon will be

    Publié: janvier 24, 2010, 7:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This month's Office 2010 retail pricing announcement and ongoing discounts for Office 2007 Home and Student are Microsoft's tacit acknowledgment that the productivity suite isn't as valuable as it once was. Office is tracking a course of unplanned obsolescence and the inevitable end shared by oh-so many other products: Commoditization. Desktop productivity suite commoditization is inevitable, and it is a force that Microsoft can resist but not stop. Additionally, Microsoft faces a fundamental shift in what content people create and where. Commoditization and the emerging mobile device-to-cloud services applications stack are Office killers.

    I'll ask upfront: Do you really need Microsoft Office on a daily basis? Is Office vital to your work day? Do you use it at home? If you use it at work, how often? If you use it at home or for college, how often? Please respond in comments.

    My answers are easy. I don't use Office at all. The software isn't installed on my laptop. The only scenario I could envision regularly needing Office is legacy business -- where an employer had built up infrastructure around the productivity suite or had bought in Exchange, SharePoint or other Microsoft server products. These products favor the enterprise applications stack and older ways of doing business. But in a Web-connected world, Office's value diminishes. The pressing question: How low can Office's value go how soon?

    Microsoft Office Pricing Trends

    Four pricing trends show how Microsoft is finally acknowledging Office's declining value:

    • With Office 2010, the removal of retail upgrade SKUs
    • Product key card purchases for Office preloaded on new PCs
    • The enormous retail success of Office Home and Student Edition
    • Microsoft's development of Office Web Apps, which consumers get for free

    These four trends share one thing in common: Price cuts on Office. The first two trends are related. To a question about upgrade pricing, I got this response from Microsoft's PR agency:

    When it came to upgrade pricing, we looked at how people are using and buying Office and found two things: 1) Not a lot of people were buying the upgrade. 2) When people do buy a new version of Office they do it with the purchase of a new PC. Due to this, the majority of retailers did not sell Office upgrades off their shelves.

    Under the new pricing scheme, PC buyers will have the option of purchasing a license key for the pre-installed Office trial version. Office Home and Student 2010 will cost $119, instead of the $149 box retail price. Office Home and Business: $199, instead of $279. Office Professional: $349, instead of $499. PC buyers electronically purchase Office, which is unlocked using a code key. Significant pricing change: Retail copies of Office 2010 Home and Business, Professional and Professional Academic will now come with two licenses, which is a huge discount over the current one-license approach. However, digital activations for pre-installed Office will come with one license. Either way, whether digital or retail pricing, Microsoft is considerably discounting Office.

    Office Home and Student is indicative of a longstanding downward pricing trend. As Microsoft's PR e-mail response acknowledged: "We've never offered an upgrade price on Office Home and Student, which is the number one selling version of Office in the retail market." I've written that story several times over the last eight years, most recently August 2009 post: "Office Home and Student accounts for 85% of US Office retail share." Office Home and Student 2007 retails for $149.95 and packs licenses for three use on three PCs. Microsoft regularly discounts the software to around $100 at its online store. Amazon currently offers the software for $100.99. Office Home and Student 2007 was available most everywhere for around $100 on Black Friday. The result, according to a blog post by Rachel Bondi, general manager of Microsoft Office: "Office Home and Student was the number one selling PC software product -- including games! -- at retail in the U.S. during the week of Black Friday 2009."

    What then is the value of Office for most consumers or small businesses: As much as $50 per copy. It's interesting that Google Apps is free or $50 a year per user for the Premiere Edition; it's no coincidence. Speaking of Google Apps, there is Microsoft's planned release of Office Web Apps, which will offer lots of productivity applications value for free, for those users willing to put up with ads. Microsoft will charge, too. But I'll save further discussion on Office Web Apps for later in this post.

    Microsoft's Commoditization Problem

    Some Betanews readers will wonder why the heck I'm not praising Microsoft for all this massive discounting. The reason for the discounting is the answer. For years, Microsoft has kept Office pricing fairly stable, mainly because of monopoly's power. The company has long controlled an applications stack extending from Office to Windows to server software. Since Office vanquished WordPerfect in the mid-1990s, no productivity suite could compete. But competitors emerged after all -- the incorporation of of productivity suite features into other products consumers and small businesses regularly use and the emergence of a new applications stack around different content types.

    Word processing reached commodity status years ago, as more applications incorporated the basic formatting features most people use more than 90 percent of the time. No external wordprocessing program is required to blog, e-mail, instant message, tweet or post to social networks like Facebook. Be honest, how much of the writing you regularly do requires a dedicated wordprocessor?

    Word is the default editor for Outlook, but how important is the e-mail program anyway? As previously mentioned, Office Home and Student is the top-selling version of the commodity suite at U.S. retail, and it doesn't include Outlook! Sure many businesses with Exchange Servers demand Outlook, but Outlook Web Access demonstrates how little or much of the features most workers really need. Looked at differently, when blogging services like Posterous allow people to blog by e-mail -- meaning the formatting capabilities are enough -- how necessary then is the wordprocessor?

    What is Excel or any spreadsheet really necessary for? Sure, lots of business people use spreadsheets for data analysis, but what is the need for consumers or even small business owners? Many financial products or services, like Quicken or Quickbooks, put a friendly face on spreadsheets; that's a different but still relevant kind of commoditization. Most banks or investment establishments offer desktop software -- or more often cloud services -- for tracking finances and investments. My bank offers granular details in pie charts about where and on how much I spent my money. The Web service eliminates any need for managing finances with Excel.

    What about PowerPoint, then? For most consumers and small businesses, photo slide shows are presentation program enough. For many enterprises, collaboration applications are subsuming PowerPoint capabilities.

    Among mid-size businesses and enterprises, commoditization follows two different tracks: Adoption of Web services and using Office versions for longer periods. Based on combined analyst reports and my own conversations with IT professionals, enterprises typically wait four or more years between Office upgrades. Microsoft had a good run with Office 2007, which user interface exposed many features hidden to business users. In a January 2008 Microsoft Watch blog post I asked if Office 2007 would be a one-hit wonder? Reasoning: With the Ribbon interface, v2007 will be good enough for most businesses to skip next Office version or the one after.

    Microsoft has been trying to keep Office relevant to businesses by integrating more features with server software and thus extending capabilities beyond core functionality into areas like business intelligence. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Office Web Apps will be yet another effort at extending Office's utility to cloud services, but presumably for lower cost than what many businesses pay today.

    Microsoft's aforementioned pricing changes are evidence enough of Office's declining value. As a typical product commoditizes, pricing usually drops. Office is the longtime exception because of Microsoft's twin monopolies. But commoditization is finally taking its toll, along with the shifting applications stack.

    New Applications Stack Reaches Higher

    The new applications stack, which is outside of Microsoft monopolies, is mobile device to cloud service. This application stack also is more in sync with the kind of content most popularly produced outside of large corporations: Blogs, photos, videos, tweets and social network postings, among others. These content types have little or nothing to do with wordprocessing, spreadsheet or presentation applications.

    As significantly, mobile applications usurp the need for productivity applications, by extending their utility to specific needs such as Facebook sharing, entertainment, mobile finance, search or personal communications. No Office is required. The people who download applications from Apple, BlackBerry, Google, Nokia, Palm or even Microsoft mobile app stores don't need Office -- or Windows, for that matter. These applications are lightweight and many are Web connected.

    According to combined analyst reports, there are 4.6 billion cell phone subscribers worldwide, with about 1.3 billion new mobile phones shipped every year. By comparison, the entire PC install base is just over 1 billion. The mobile handset market dwarfs the PC market by 4.6 times. Granted, IDC asserts that the mobile Internet is only 450 million users, which is expected to top 1 billion by 2013. PEW Internet predicts that by the end of the decade cell phones will replace PCs as primary Internet devices.

    Then there are new devices, like Apple's over-hyped, rumored tablet or ebook readers like Amazon Kindle, Barnes and Noble Nook or Sony Reader. As the mobile Internet install base increases, natural user interfaces will further supplant productivity suite functionality. For example, Google's Android 2.1 mobile operating system has a voice-to-text feature that works remarkably well. On the Google Nexus One, I can easily dictate e-mails, text messages and even blog posts. No keyboard or wordprocessor is required.

    For me, Microsoft Office already is obsolete. The question remains: When will Office be obsolete for you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/22/Microsoft__don_t_give_up_on_Steve_Ballmer_just_yet'

    Microsoft, don't give up on Steve Ballmer just yet

    Publié: janvier 22, 2010, 9:08pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Ten years ago last week -- Jan. 14, 2000 -- Steve Ballmer took over the chief executive's position as Bill Gates stepped back to be Microsoft chairman and chief software architect. Ballmer has officially entered his second decade as Microsoft's CEO. There are fairly constant complaints about Microsoft's performance under his leadership.

    NBC is sending Conan O'Brien packing; today ends his seven-month career as "The Tonight Show" host. Should Microsoft do something similar -- remove Ballmer and replace him with someone else, even Gates in a move like Jay Leno coming back and replacing O'Brien? I expect that many commenters to this post will answer "YES!" to that question. But I wouldn't give up on Ballmer just yet.

    "Dump Ballmer" has been an ongoing theme among commenters to my blog posts -- going back a good five years. The fire Ballmer whiners often point to Microsoft's share price, which isn't much different today than when he took over the company. Microsoft shares have consistently struggled to stay above $30. The stock opened today at $29.84. In December, with 2010 prediction "Microsoft pushes out Steve Ballmer," Newsweek observed: "Microsoft stock has dropped by nearly 50 percent on his watch, lagging not just other tech companies but even the Dow Jones industrial average."

    Ballmer's performance is sure to be scrutinized during the next week. Yesterday, Google reported strong earnings. Analysts predict that Apple will report record fourth calendar quarter Mac sales when it announces earnings on Monday. Two days later, on January 27, Apple will launch a new product, presumably the over-rumored tablet. One day later, Microsoft will announce fourth calendar quarter earnings. Analyst consensus is $17.79 billion revenue, up 7 percent year over year. But the year-ago comparison is relatively weak. Q4 2008 sales disappointed, compelling Microsoft to announce in January 2009 layoffs of 5,000 employees over 18 months (The number already is higher).

    Apple's and Google's good performance will likely shine a light on Microsoft's quarterly earnings and 2010 business strategy. Apple comparisons will be about Mac and iPhone sales and expectations the company's "latest creation" sets. At least in mindshare, Apple is a winner. Meanwhile, Google continues to dominate search, has put principles before profit in China and woos more developers and handset buyers to Android. All the while, analysts and pundits will ask about Ballmer and whether he is the right man to run Microsoft.

    What strange timing -- if it is -- that Gates launched a new Website this week and started regular tweets. As of this afternoon, Gates had amassed over 300,000 Twitter followers in just a few days. Where is Ballmer's Twitter feed or personal blog? Microsoft's CEO needs both, something to make him more personal and approachable. He has a huge PR problem.

    Ballmer as the Millennial Leader

    There is no question Ballmer was the right man to take over Microsoft in 2000, and it's right to ask whether he is best choice for the 2010s. Microsoft entered the new millenium as a mature rather than a growth company. Gates' aggressive competitive style suited growth Microsoft, but not really the more mature company. Growth companies look for new customers, while mature companies seek to keep them. The marketing approach is different. Ballmer is at heart a sales guy. Among the most important customer retention business strategies enacted during his leadership:

    • Tying Microsoft employee evaluations to customer satisfaction. If customers aren't happy, Microsoft employees don't get good reviews or pay raises.
    • Software Assurance, which initially infuriated customers but locked them into two- or three-year upgrade contracts that smoothed out Microsoft's revenue stream.
    • "Get the Facts" campaign, which effectively dismissed Linux as a competitive threat -- at least on the desktop, although the open-source OS has traction on Intel-based servers.
    • "Integrated Innovation," which starting with the 2003 product release cycle tied more Office features with server software, driving upgrades of the productivity suite and pulling new server software sales.

    But the list of missteps is a long one, too -- so long I'll offer just a handful of them. In fairness, most of the worst mistakes came when Gates was at least somewhat hands on at Microsoft:

    • Obsessing about Google in search, when the real threat was in platforms, where Microsoft failed to protect its  operating system franchise.
    • After winning the browser wars with Netscape, abandoning the territory. Internet Explorer stayed at v6 until Mozilla released Firefox in 2004.
    • Chasing Research in Motion in enterprise handsets instead of innovating around features useful to everyone. Apple and Google did just that, with focus on usability.

    Only three examples are necessary, because there is consistency to Microsoft's mistakes under Ballmer's leadership: Making too many decisions based on what competitors were or were not doing. Gates was equally guilty, but the approach worked better for a growth company. Ballmer leads Microsoft well when focusing on existing customers rather than chasing competitors. His misplaced Google obsession on search, rather than platforms, is example.

    Who should lead Microsoft into the 2010s?

    However, is customer first the best strategy for Microsoft in the 2010s? Wall Street analysts and investors clearly don't see Microsoft as a growth company, as an innovator. Apple innovation is exhausting. I agree with Darby Lines (aka "The Angry Drunk") regarding the needless noise about Apple's January 27 product announcement(s): "At this point the incessant coverage of the Apple tablet is science fiction at best." Apple has dominated tech coverage through most of January without ever announcing one damn thing. As I've asserted so many times in the past, in business perception is everything. Positive perceptions fuel speculation about rumored Apple products. Apple is perceived as an innovator -- and the company's stock is soaring as a result -- while Microsoft is seen as something like the new IBM.

    Microsoft's success in the 1980s and 1990s shifted computing and informational relevance from the mainframe to the PC. IBM struggled, even as its mainframe monopoly remained solid. The company had to call in outsider Lou Gerstner to aright the listing business. IBM reinvented itself under Gerstner's leadership around services. The question: Does Microsoft need an outsider to come in to shake it up? During 2008 and 2009, Microsoft retreated to the enterprise, where its Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack dominates. Problem: There's a new applications stack -- mobile device-to-cloud service -- that is rapidly shifting computing and informational relevance away from the PC, much as the mainframe was displaced starting three decades ago. Microsoft isn't ready to compete.

    Unquestionably, Microsoft's senior leadership needs some new outside blood. A new blood transfusion could be as effective as brain transplant. I'm not ready to give up on Microsoft's CEO, who only really is coming into his own after Gates stepped into semi-retirement in June 2008. Except for Ballmer's Google search obsession, he managed Microsoft quite well over the last 18 months -- and during tough times.

    The September 2008 stock market crash still rocks world economies, even as public company shares rally (buoyed by government bailouts across the globe). Ballmer has rightly called the econolypse a "fundamental economic reset." The credit-driven, debt-creating bubble economy is gone. Businesses and consumers across mature markets are seeing recovery to a lower level than before the bubble burst. I consider Ballmer's post-economic collapse leadership to be exceptional for astutely understanding the new world order, holding onto existing customers and making Microsoft a leaner company.

    Ballmer deserves more credit than he often is given by critics and frustrated investors. In July 2009, he told financial analysts: "For the last 12 months, I've actually been running our Windows business." Well, hell, Windows 7 is pretty good, right? Perhaps Ballmer should next run Windows Mobile, before iPhones are as common on city streets as classic and nano iPods.

    Microsoft needs to take More Risks

    I don't believe that Microsoft should oust Ballmer during 2010. But I expect to hear more calls to do just that after next week's quarterly results are announced. Ballmer should stay. Microsoft needs his commitment. Microsoft needs Ballmer's charisma.

    But Microsoft needs something more from Ballmer, or else he will eventually fail as chief executive: More willingness to take risks. The focus on keeping existing customers creates risk aversion. Likewise, Microsoft fails to take risks for fear of disrupting existing revenue streams, particularly Office and Windows. It's long past time when Microsoft should be more the risk taker, as it was when launching Xbox in 2001 and committing to losing billions of dollars over several years. Microsoft also should better communicate to everyone the risks being taken with Azure and other cloud services.

    Risk-taking must replace Microsoft's culture of risk aversion. Gates' 1995 Internet Tidal Wave and 2002 security and privacy memos set Microsoft down new paths that dramatically changed its fortunes. It's long past time for Ballmer to write a memo that sets Microsoft's future agenda for employees. Mobility, cloud services and truly risk-taking innovation must be the priorities; risk-taking innovation should be Microsoft's top priority for the new decade. Ballmer should show Microsoft employees, customers, developers and investors why he is in charge. If he lays out the vision, he also should be given time to succeed executing it. A company as large as Microsoft takes time to change course.

    Microsoft is where IBM was in the late 1980s -- watching its dominant computing platform and applications stack decline. During his Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote, Ballmer spoke of the importance of taking risks, of making seemingly risky investments, during economic hard times. It's time for Ballmer to put up or shut up.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/20/5_reasons_why_or_why_not_Apple_should_Bing'

    5 reasons why or why not Apple should Bing

    Publié: janvier 20, 2010, 8:12pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It seems like everybody who is anybody, or nobody, is speculating that an Apple-Google schism is inevitable. In vogue this week: Punditry about Apple and Microsoft entering into an unholy search alliance. Overnight, Business Week reporters Peter Burrows and Cliff Edwards claimed that "Apple is in talks with Microsoft to replace Google as the default search engine on its iPhone, according to two people familiar with the matter." It's no surprise that countless blogs and news sites have spread the rumor everywhere today. Could it be true? Should it be true?

    Before answering those questions with five reasons why and also why not Apple should switch to Bing, I want to flush out some mitigating circumstances. There typically are only two circumstances when an agreement like this rumored one leaks: The deal is done and will be soon announced; talks aren't going well and one side or the other lets out information as a trial balloon or to put pressure on the other. Leaks can scuttle discussions so they rarely happen when both parties are negotiating in good faith.

    With that qualifier -- and with no information about whether or not an Apple-Microsoft search deal is imminent -- I present my reasons for and and against it, listed in no particular order of importance.

    Reasons Why Apple Should Bing

    1. Android is gaining on iPhone -- fast. The smartphone market is looking lots like the PC market did in the 1980s and 1990s: Apple on one side with a closed, end-to-end solution; everybody else aligned against Apple around a single, competing operating system. That aptly describes Android, for which there are new handset announcements almost every week. According to ChangeWave, among U.S. consumers planning to buy a smartphone in 3 months, 21 percent said an Android handset, up from 6 percent in September.

    2. Apple and Google increasingly compete in mobile cloud services, where search is a differentiator. Both companies offer excellent -- and competing -- sync, e-mail, calendar, contact and photo sharing services, among others. But Google differentiates Android handsets with tighter search and mapping integration, which likely will only increase over time. Search is the must-have mobile service, but Apple shouldn't be dependent on a major mobile competitor to get it.

    3. Apple's brand is cool, something Bing could inherit by association. Microsoft has done a surprisingly good job marketing Bing. The brand zings and the keyword counter marketing is pure bling. But Apple brand on iPhone would open up new demographics to Bing. As I so often assert, in business perception is everything. Microsoft's Bing iPhone application is already pretty good, so foundation is in place to switch out Google search and mapping.

    4. Apple doesn't want Adobe Flash on iPhone, but Silverlight would be fine. Flash would be a competing development platform to App Store, whereas Silverlight is, for now, better suited for content delivery. Microsoft already is bringing Silverlight to Bing. A search deal could grease a Silverlight-for-iPhone agreement (as long as it doesn't compete with QuickTime but still be broader than announced Silverlight HTML 5 streaming).

    5. Microsoft already is the largest third-party developer for Macintosh. Apple may brag on the number of App Store applications -- more than 110,000 at last official count -- but quality matters more than quantity. A smartly-crafted Bing search and services deal would include Bing for Macintosh and Windows Safari and Microsoft commitment to release iPhone apps supporting its enterprise server products. SharePoint? There's an app for that. Communications Server? There's an app for that? Business intelligence processes? There's an app for that, too.

    Reasons Why Apple Shouldn't Bing

    1. Microsoft's CEO and chairman both have expressed resentment about Apple's "Get a Mac" attack ads against Windows. Two days ago, I asked: "Where have all the iPhone TV commercials gone?" The next day, AdWeek observed that "Apple skipped doing ['Get a Mac'] holiday spots for the first time in four years." Could it be Apple pulled back the "Get a Mac" ads to ease any negotiations with Microsoft?

    2. Apple has enough cash to easily buy another search engine, from which it could drive share from iTunes. The idea of an Apple search engine might sound nutty, but it's what Apple needs to assure the utility of its mobile handset strategy and to level the playing field with Google in mobile search. Best of all, Apple could go out with a different business model, and one that cuts into Google's core keyword search business; Apple search could be pure utility rather than a means for selling advertising. By bundling search with iTunes -- and Lala in the cloud -- Apple could quickly drive up search share. Perhaps Apple should ask if Ask is for sale. Imagine rebranding to iAsk?

    3. Apple and Microsoft competition is increasing in gaming, music players and content delivery to the living room. Mac fans can laugh off Zune, but Microsoft has done a great job with Zune HD and Zune 4.0 software -- and the company is rapidly extending the franchise to Xbox and quite possibly mobile handsets. Meanwhile, just as Microsoft makes a big play for the living room with Xbox and Mediaroom 2.0, Apple is accelerating its own entertainment strategy -- quite possibly the rumored tablet taking a role. Then there is gaming, where iPhone and iPod touch are gaining popularity with consumers and developers.

    4. Apple and Microsoft will compete in more cloud services during 2010. Sure, the companies have long competed in cloud services like e-mail and instant messaging. But Apple and Microsoft are pursuing hosted productivity suite strategies, respectively with iWeb and Office Web Apps. Competition for sync services and application stores are among the many areas where Apple and Microsoft storm clouds will collide.

    5. A search deal could hurt Apple's brand. Apple and Google are both hot brands, particularly with NetGeners and Gen Yers, which are important demographics for technology adoption. Microsoft's brand is increasingly like IBM -- it's what older folks or businesses use. Microsoft's consumer appeal is limited to Xbox and somewhat to Bing. Microsoft's Windows Mobile/Phone brand is a marketer's worst-nightmare. Apple has to really think how much it wants to be associated with the brand responsible for Windows Vista, Windows Mobile and dry enterprise apps like Outlook.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/19/Hey__Microsoft__Internet_Explorer_security_talk_is_cheap'

    Hey, Microsoft, Internet Explorer security talk is cheap

    Publié: janvier 19, 2010, 9:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Why don't you clam up and do something already?

    On Sunday, I asked question "Should you dump Internet Explorer, NOW?" and quickly offered yes as the answer for all versions of the browser. Reaction to the post surprised me. As I write, there are more than 155 comments. Clearly, IE is a sensitive topic with readers -- and also with Microsoft, which has once again taken a "security by PR'' approach to the problem rather than to offer a real solution.

    I first started talking about Microsoft's "security by PR" strategy more than five years ago. Rather than manage the problem -- a current zero-day threat affecting Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8 -- Microsoft is trying to manage the reaction. That simply is the wrong approach to quality customer service or instilling users with confidence about using the Web browser.

    Quick recap: On January 12, Google disclosed security breaches, affecting more than 20 companies, that were traced back to China. Two days later, McAfee pegged a previously publicly unknown Internet Explorer exploit as one of the mechanisms used in the attacks, which the security software firm dubbed "Operation Aurora." On January 15, McAfee and Microsoft reported that code for the zero-day exploit was in the wild, potentially putting millions of Windows PCs at risk. Meanwhile, the French and German governments recommended that their citizens switch -- at least temporarily -- to another browser.

    Microsoft's security by PR reaction to the exploit is the problem. Quickly summarized before I more throughly explain:

    • Microsoft used the Aurora exploit as a marketing tactic, recommending that customers switch from IE6 and Windows XP; what timing with IE8 and Windows 7 as newer available products.
    • Early, cleverly-word blogs or statements made it seem like only IE6 is vulnerable to the Aurora exploit, when newer Microsoft browsers are exploitable, too.
    • Microsoft tried to diminish the risk by asserting that the Aurora exploit had only affected businesses, which is absurd considering how much more they have to lose than consumers.
    • Over the U.S. holiday weekend, Microsoft posted new blogs and videos that offered "duck and cover" fixes. Meanwhile some executives defended IE by blaming other Web browsers.

    Security by PR

    Marketing Tactic. In a January 15 post warning about Aurora becoming a real zero-day exploit, Microsoft "recommend users of IE6 on Windows XP upgrade to a new version of Internet Explorer and/or enable DEP [Data Execution Protection]. Users of other platforms are at reduced risk. We also recommend users of Windows XP upgrade to newer versions of Windows." The post also recommended that IE users disable JavaScript.

    In comments to my "Dump IE?" post, AnthonySPT defended Microsoft: "How many more years should Microsoft support IE6, when they have released several new replacement versions?" That's a good question. According to Net Applications, IE6 usage share was 20.99 percent in December -- or about the same as IE8 (20.88 percent).

    Commenter bourgeoisdude responded: "As they will support Windows XP through 2014 (extended support), and XP came with IE6 installed, they will have to support it that long, unfortunately. Yeah, it sucks."

    I, too, find it strange that so many businesses continue using IE6. Based on my conservations with IT staff at companies doing so, legacy dependency, most often some ActiveX controls, is usually the reason. How's that for irony, given how much ActiveX has been an attack vector for IE exploits and how much Microsoft tried to diminish the plug-in architecture's usage in versions 7 and 8. Microsoft and its customers still pay for past security sins.

    Blaming IE6. Microsoft could possibly justify blame IE6 if that browser only was vulnerable. The wording of blog posts, different versions of security advisory 979352 and videos about the exploit sure seem to lay all the blame on IE6. From a January 14 blog post: "Microsoft has not seen widespread customer impact, rather only targeted and limited attacks exploiting IE 6 at this time." Restated in yet another Microsoft security blog post, yesterday: "As we've previously reported, attacks remain targeted to a very limited number of corporations and are only effective against Internet Explorer 6."

    But the 979352 security bulletin lists in section "affected software" IE7 and IE8 running on Windows XP, Vista, 7, Windows Server 2003 and 2008. Meanwhile, over the weekend, security researchers reported the Aurora exploit running in IE7 on Windows Vista. Microsoft's response: Hunker down behind IE8. From yesterday's blog post:

    We have not seen successful attacks on Internet Explorer 8. We continue to recommend customers upgrade to Internet Explorer 8 to benefit from the improved security protection it offers. Additionally at this time, we have not seen any successful attacks against Internet Explorer 7. However, earlier today, we were made aware of reports that researchers have developed Proof-of-Concept (PoC) code that exploits this vulnerability on Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP and Windows Vista. We are actively investigating, but cannot confirm, these claims.

    Only businesses affected. In one of the two videos accompanying the aforementioned blog post from yesterday, Jerry Bryant, Microsoft's senior security communications manager, says: "These attacks are not widespread. We have not seen any focused on consumers. In fact, it's only been a very limited number of corporations that have been targeted."

    He downplays the Aurora exploit's severity by saying only a small number of corporations are affected. At first glance, this seemingly smart PR spin is anything but. The majority of Microsoft customers are businesses, which have much more to lose if exploited than consumers. If, for example, criminals steal 1 million social security numbers from a single company, the damage is more far-reaching than exploitation of  even a few thousand consumer PCs. How would Microsoft executives react if someone stole the source code to Windows 7 or the designs for Natal?

    Duck and cover. Besides emphasizing IE6 blame and diminishing IE7 and IE8 risk, Microsoft retreated to its security technology of greatest strength: DEP. The company was right to tell IE7 users to turn on DEP, which is on by default in IE8 (In most, but not all, circumstances). In comments to my earlier post, there has been fierce debate about the effectiveness of DEP, as a security deterrent.

    Yesterday, security researcher Dai Zovi generated buzz with tweet: "And now my Aurora exploit works on IE7 on Vista as well as IE6, IE7 on XP. Remember kids, DEP is useless if the app doesn't opt in." In a very good blog explaining the effectiveness and limitations of DEP, Larry Seltzer writes about the tweet: "Dai Zovi is not a black hat and hasn't released his exploit, so don't expect this work to end up hacking innocents any time soon. But this does prove that the IE7 port isn't all that hard. The bad guy versions may be done already."

    According to Net Applications, IE 7 usage share is only 15.53 percent, even less than Internet Explorer 6. The question: What about IE8? According to a Security Dark Reading post by Kelly Jackson Higgins early this afternoon: "Chaouki Bekrar, CETO of VUPEN Security, says his team was able to bypass DEP on IE8 and execute arbitrary code."

    I will praise Microsoft for telling customers to turn on DEP, but the larger PR maneuverings diminish the guidance. Microsoft should have stepped up sooner with promise to fix the problem. By the way, whether or not that fix is made available for IE8 and Windows 7 will demonstrate whether there was more risk than Microsoft's talk.

    Microsoft finally responds

    While I was writing this post, Microsoft acknowledged in another blog post that an out-of-band security patch would be coming for the Aurora exploit.

    But the reasons are bad and themselves reveal how much Microsoft is stepping up because of public relations. George Stathakopoulos, GM of Microsoft Trustworthy Computing Security, writes: "Given the significant level of attention this issue has generated, confusion about what customers can do to protect themselves and the escalating threat environment Microsoft will release a security update out-of-band for this vulnerability."

    Translation:

    • "The significant level of attention this issue has generated" (Microsoft is trying to fix a huge public relations problem).
    • "Confusion about what customers can do to protect themselves" (Microsoft cannot control the PR information).
    • "The escalating threat environment" (Microsoft has stopped denying -- at least to itself -- that there is a real problem that will get worse).

    Microsoft also didn't give a timeframe for releasing the fix, but presumably it would come before the next Security Tuesday in February.

    Wrapping up, two clarifications are in order. I am not asserting in this post that Internet Explorer is any more or less secure than any other browser. My purpose here is only to assess Microsoft's mishandling the messaging by making security by PR the priority. Additionally, my January 17 "Dump IE?" post was written to stir up discussion about the exploit, particularly assertions by Microsoft and some bloggers that Internet Explorer users upgrade from IE6. I took the more extreme position to generate debate, because I see it as a highly effective tool for resolving problems. Likewise, this post is intended to stir up debate about IE security and how Microsoft publicly handles it.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/18/Where_have_all_the_iPhone_TV_commercials_gone_'

    Where have all the iPhone TV commercials gone?

    Publié: janvier 18, 2010, 8:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    After several years of nearly continuous iPhone TV advertising, commercials have seemingly vanished from U.S. primetime TV -- I can't find them. Have you seen any lately?

    I'm not a big TV watcher, but my fav shows typically are chock full of iPhone -- "There's an app for that" -- commercials. While I DVR every show, I still pay close attention to the advertising. What can I say? I'm a sucker for clever marketing. In watching primetime programming over the last 10 days, I started noticing iPhone commercials for their sudden absence.

    This morning, as a check against my memory, I scanned through Tuesday's two-hour "American Idol" premiere and the audition follow-up the following night; last week's "Heroes"; last night's "Human Target" series premiere; and the two-hour season debut of "24." There's not an iPhone commercial -- or for any other Apple product -- in any of the TV shows. Apple has heavily advertised in these shows before. Suddenly, why not now?

    One answer isn't rocket science: Apple's January 27 "Come see our latest creation" event, for which invites went out this morning. I didn't get an invite, but one of my peers received one and forwarded it. Could Apple be clearing way for a new advertising campaign, possibly supporting whatever is announced in 9 days?

    Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, isn't so sure. "I don't know if I would read anything into the advertising thing," he told me this afternoon. "January is not a great time to be advertising electronics."

    I told Baker that in scanning for ads, I saw plenty for AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, BlackBerry, Motorola Droid and Palm Pre. All the shows had "Windows 7 was my idea" commercials, too.

    "They've got something to sell," he rebutted. "January is kind of a funny month. There are a lot of good advertising vehicles -- American Idol, football playoffs and such. But it's kind of a funky sales opportunity." By comparison, it's presumed that if Apple launched a tablet on January 27 it won't ship for several weeks or months. "They aren't going to be spending a lot of money advertising this thing if comes out in May or June," he said.

    Baker speculated that Apple could be saving up some ad spending for the Winter Olympics, which opens on February 12. But he did observe that "for phones you kind of advertise all the time because there isn't as much seasonality as other categories, because of the contract thing."

    So what does it mean that everyone but Apple is advertising phones or wireless services. I've got a few ideas -- in attention to what Baker offered -- and not all have to do with whatever will be Apple's "latest creation":

    • Apple is in a natural marketing break, preparing to launch a new iPhone advertising campaign ahead of Mobile World Congress, which commences February 15 and where will be competitor announcements.
    • Apple pulled back iPhone advertisements to avoid getting caught in the mud slinging marketing battle between AT&T and Verizon over 3G coverage and 3G reliability.
    • Rumors are true that iPhone OS 4.0 release is imminent. Apple is strategically pulling back advertising to promote the new thing, assuming there are compelling to new features.
    • Most all the rumors are wrong about Apple's "latest creation" -- that it is as much mass-market telephony device as tablet, or something else -- and it's ready to launch soon.
    • Related: Unexpectedly, iPhone 3GS' successor is ready to announce, if not release, so Apple temporarily pulled back marketing to later promote the new smartphone.

    Please feel free to throw in your speculation in comments about the reasons for why iPhone advertising has entered a lull. With so many ridiculous rumors out there about Apple's new product, maybe Betanews readers can come up with something sensible, too.

    Print advertising continues, by the way. The Jan. 16th-22nd, 2010, The Economist features a full-backpage advertisement for iPhone 3GS and the App Store. Page 28 of yesterday's Sunday The New York Times features the identical advertisement. Companies typically negotiate deals for ads print months in advance, purchasing them in bulk.

    I instant messaged Apple PR asking for confirmation and comment about iPhone advertising pullback. I'll update the post when and if it comes.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/17/Should_you_dump_Internet_Explorer__NOW_'

    Should you dump Internet Explorer, NOW?

    Publié: janvier 17, 2010, 7:17pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    D`oh, now there's a redundant question.

    Yesterday, ZDNET blogger Ed Bott asserted that "it's time to stop using IE6." I s-o-o-o-o disagree. For many organizations and all consumers, it's time to stop using any version of Microsoft's browser -- IE6, IE7, IE8 and forget someday releasing IE9. Less than a week ago, the German government told its citizens to switch from Internet Explorer. This is good advice for you, too.

    On Thursday (Jan 14), McAfee pegged a previously publicly unknown Internet Explorer exploit as one of the mechanisms used to invade computers or networks among more than 20 U.S. companies. On Tuesday (Jan. 12), Google disclosed the security breaches, which were traced back to China. McAfee dubbed the attacks "Operation Aurora." On Friday (Jan. 15), McAfee and Microsoft reported that code for the zero-day exploit was in the wild, potentially putting millions of Windows PCs at risk.

    Bott singled out IE6, presumably because of Microsoft's cleverly worded Thursday blog post, security bulletin and statements to the press. From Thursday's blog post: "Microsoft has not seen widespread customer impact, rather only targeted and limited attacks exploiting IE 6 at this time." Bott writes: The entry point? According to Microsoft, it's IE6."

    I found the IE6-only assertion puzzling since the early version of McAfee's blog post, credited to CTO George Kurtz, explains: "Our investigation has shown that Internet Explorer is vulnerable on all of Microsoft's most recent operating system releases, including Windows 7." McAfee later updated the post to say that to date the attacks targeted IE6. Nowhere did Kurtz say that only IE6 was vulnerable to the exploit.

    Betanews' Scott Fulton made the right observations early Thursday evening: "One may reasonably ask, just who at Google -- the maker of Chrome, its own Web browser -- would be a potential target who also would happen to be running IE6 on Windows 7 -- a system which, by default, installs IE8?"

    Yes, who at Google would run IE6 on Windows 7? Easy answer: A developer looking to ensure IE6 compatibility with new Google services. But even that's a stretch. More likely: IE7 and IE8 are vulnerable to to exploit. On Friday, Microsoft acknowledged this circumsatnce in yet another blog post, and Bott responsibly noted this in his ZDNet post. According to Microsoft: "Newer versions of Internet Explorer are affected by this vulnerability." Updated Microsoft Security Advisory 979352 qualifies the extent of vulnerability in IE7 and IE8 under "mitigating factors." Not everyone is safe, regardless of Internet Explorer version.

    The Problem with Mitigating Factors

    I've long accused Microsoft of conducting "security by PR" campaigns instead of clearly disclosing security risks. Security by PR seeks to minimize the real risk while disclosing information about a vulnerability. With respect to the Aurora exploit, Microsoft was quick to warn of the risk -- after there had been some disclosure by Google and later McAfee's release of the attack vector's schematics. Initially, Microsoft singled out IE6. In the second blog post and updated 979352 bulletin -- released after it was widely reported that other browser versions are vulnerable -- did Microsoft really come clean; that is creditworthy.

    Bott is a responsible journalist, who also knows his way under the hood of Microsoft operating systems. But he also is sometimes too much the Microsoft cheerleader (Whereas I am accused of being a Microsoft critic). In my reading of the updated bulletin, he overlooks like the broader IE risks. Bott writes: "Under the 'Mitigating Factors' heading, the Microsoft Security Response Center specifically notes that the exploit used in this case does not run under IE7 and IE8 in Windows Vista or Windows 7." Perhaps Bott didn't see the v1.1 of the 979352 bulletin before posting.

    In the "affected software" section, Microsoft lists IE7 and IE8 running on Windows XP, Vista, 7, Windows Server 2003 and 2008. The "mitigating factors" is downright scary reading, so let's have a Sunday scare and go through them:

    1. The MSRC bulletin observes that DEP, Data Execution Protection, is enabled on IE8 running on Windows Vista, XP and 7. Fine, but what about IE7? For December, according to Net Applications, IE 7 browser usage share was a seemingly meager 15.53 percent. IE6 and IE8 were neck and neck with usage share of 20.99 percent and 20.88 percent, respectively. IE usage share for all versions was 62.69 percent in December, meaning that the majority of people weren't automatically protected by DEP. The feature can be manually enabled in IE 7, but how many people will realistically do this? It's on by default in IE8 for a reason.

    2. "Protected Mode in Internet Explorer on Windows Vista and later Windows operating systems limits the impact of the vulnerability." Key word is "limits." Protected mode doesn't protect against the attack but only limits it.

    3. "An attacker could host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. In addition, compromised Web sites and Web sites that accept or host user-provided content or advertisements could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability." That's pretty damn self explanatory.

    4. "An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user." The bulletin rightly observes that "users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less affected than users who operate with administrative user rights." Right, and with the majority of PC users running Windows XP, which default privilege is administrator, how many are likely running as something less? Many larger businesses will limit rights, but most consumers and small businesses won't know the difference. There's a reason why Microsoft lowered default privileges in Windows Vista and 7.

    5. According to the MSRP bulletin, the default security setting for IE running on Windows Server 2003 and 2008 is "high." As it should be. But the better security measure is obvious: Never use a Web browser on a server behind the corporate firewall.

    6. "By default, all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Outlook Express, and Windows Mail open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone." It's a good feature and one that would greatly minimize risks posed by mitigating factor #3. Problem: People will stupidly change this setting because they want to see pretty e-mail and run scripts or ActiveX controls. Microsoft put in the right mechanism, it's too bad some users will create security risk by flipping the switch that allows remote images and scripts to load.

    Update: In a blog posted about eight-and-a-half hours after this one, George Stathakopoulos, Microsoft's GM of Trustworthy Computing Security, writes: "The attacks that we have seen to date, including public proof-of-concept exploit code, are only effective against Internet Explorer 6. Based on a rigorous analysis of multiple sources, we are not aware of any successful attacks against IE7 and IE8 at this time."

    Interesting, because McAfee has been quite deliberate in its general identification of Internet Explorer, which fits with the MSRC bulletin's identifying IE7 and IE8 as also being vulnerable. Yesterday, Kurtz blogged: "This attack is especially deadly on older systems that are running XP and Internet Explorer 6." He didn't write only affects IE6 or even insinuate it. In a follow-up post today, he writes: "Internet Explorer users currently face a real and present danger due to the public disclosure of the vulnerability and release of attack code, increasing the possibility of widespread attacks."

    Is Microsoft unleashing another security by PR tactic to diminish the negative public relations effect? Or perhaps is McAfee over-emphasizing the threat to sell more security software? Those are questions best answered in a follow-up to this post. But if you've got an opinion, please share it in comments.

    Choose Your Browser Wisely

    Some Betanews readers will ask why the Aurora exploit should be reason to dump Internet Explorer? After all, there have been plenty of other exploits. Why now? Answer: The large number of exploits. The newest zero day exploit is yet just another reason to dump Microsoft's browser. Based on declining IE usage share, many Internet users clearly see IE as an anachronism, a browser which belongs to an aging PC-centric business model. According to Net Applications, IE usage share dropped from 69.23 percent to 62.69 percent between February and December. During the same time period, Firefox continued its steady climb, going from 22.58 percent to 24.61 percent. Meanwhile, Chrome soared from 1.54 percent to 4.63 percent usage share -- little more than a year after being released in beta.

    There has been plenty of punditry about why Google developed its own browser. It's not rocket science: Internet Explorer. The company's business is all about the Web, where a modern, standards-based browser would be the better way to consume Google products or services. Something else: Internet Explorer 7 and 8 are too complex, offering all kinds of prompts and warnings -- the majority of which deal with privacy or security. By comparison, Chrome and Firefox use simpler, less-prompted approaches that hide security complexity from users. Generally, there only prompts when there is real risk, like trying to navigate to known malicious sites.

    Some of that complexity makes IE7 and IE8 dangerous browsers to use. The complexity creates two flipside-of-coin problems:

    1. Users become dumb to the prompts and develop click-thru behavior. Who really reads those security prompts or browser bar warnings? It's easy enough to click thru the security warning popup or browser bar prompt blocking some script, ActiveX control or file download. When end users develop the habit of clicking through, they can mindlessly click thru nefarious popups, thus downloading unwanted malware.

    In fairness, IE7 and IE8 pack some nifty safety tricks, like "Protected Mode." But couldn't these work silently without other security features teaching users bad habits? The better approach would be to prompt only when there is high risk, so that people pay attention. Google and Mozilla take this more sensible approach.

    2. IE7 and IE8 complexity lead to false senses of security. If there's no prompt or warning, then users can feel the Website is safe. The Aurora exploit demonstrates attack is still possible without warning. Users aren't safe. This is the flipside of Microsoft's problem of offering IE users too many prompts.

    The point: Ed Bott is right to assert that "any IT professional who is still allowing IE6 to be used in a corporate setting is guilty of malpractice." But should anyone run IE7 or IE8? I say absolutely not. Microsoft has hoisted big usability and ongoing security problems onto Internet Explorer users. Two reasons why:

    • Backwards compatibility is one of Microsoft's top design priorities
    • Microsoft has too much invested in legacy Internet Explorer to start over

    But start over, with a WebKit based browser, is what I recommended in September. It's particularly sensible in the mobile device market, where between November and December, Web surfing from Android handsets rose 54 percent, according to Net Applications. Windows Mobile didn't even make the Top 5, which included Java ME.

    I often have wondered why Microsoft hasn't produced a decent mobile browser, and plenty of other technophiles have voiced confusion about this matter, too. What if security is a major reason -- that Microsoft is finding it hard to release a decent mobile browser without all the desktop baggage? Surely, Microsoft's mobile leadership can't be that incompetent not to realize how important the mobile browsing market is becoming. There must be another reason why Microsoft can't release a decent mobile browser.

    This long post ends with two simple questions: What is your primary Web browser? If the answer is some version of Internet Explorer, why? I switched to Chrome, after so expectantly hoping Microsoft would fix in IE8 the usability problems pervasive in IE7.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/14/Google_Nexus_One_owners_share_their_likes_and_gripes'

    Google Nexus One owners share their likes and gripes

    Publié: janvier 14, 2010, 11:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier this week, I asked Betanews readers who had purchased Google's so-called "superphone" to offer up early impressions. You responded in comments and by e-mail. Thank-you. I apologize for taking so long getting your responses posted. For anyone with a Nexus One, in most states the return policy is 14 days (30 days here in California). Others' opinions could weigh heavily in your decision to keep the device. Then there are those of you considering plunking down a budget-busting $529 for the unlocked device. Ouch! I did!

    I am generally satisfied with the Nexus One -- in part because of how Google has extended Android 2.1 to cloud services. While I find value in the hardware, software and services are where I find the greater reward, and it's why I have switched from the Nokia N900, which also runs on T-Mobile's 3G network.

    But not every Nexus One owner is as satisfied as I am, particularly people experiencing 3G connectivity issues (Google officially acknowledged the problem about three hours ago). The Google phone is a data-centric device; the 3G connectivity problems -- even just ongoing reports about them -- will be a deal breaker for many potential buyers. Other folks balk at the price, which is reasonable for an unlocked phone, but many Westerners are used to paying less for subsidized, locked phones. There is a $179 subsidized option in the United States, but it only officially applies to new T-Mobile accounts.

    Price initially was a problem for Tony Abad, of Southbury, Conn., who describes himself as a "100 percent Google user -- of email, calendar, tasks, etc." He migrated from the T-Mobile myTouch, which runs Android 1.6:

    When I initially got the N1 I toyed with the idea of returning it because it did not seem to be worth the $529 upgrade from the myTouch...However, as I have learned slowly what it can do for me, I think it is worth it. Why? Just the gallery feature alone pays for it. If you are an avid user of Picassa, this thing brings all the pictures you stored in Picassa to your N1 [Nexus One] -- automatically. Wow! The emails -- I do not need to go to the computer, it gets updated on the phone (Hotmail and Gmail). God, you get pampered using this phone!

    Bill Menafra, a self-employed consultant living in California's Monterey Bay area, migrated from the T-Mobile DASH to the Nexus One. "This is first and foremost a 'phone' and as such it is the best phone I have ever had, and I have had a few," he says. "This phone has quite simply the best call quality I have had. The people I have phoned have also stated that the sound quality is perfect on their end." Menafra says that there is "poor phone-signal reception area" where he lives "for all carriers. My DASH would only get 1-to-2 bars while the N1 gets 2 to 3."

    Las Vegas-based Todd Meyers shares Menafra's enthusiasm:

    I fell in love with the phone as soon as I opened the box. I bought it unlocked and chose to use T-Mobile for service. I'm used to using a slow BlackBerry from Sprint as my work phone. The Nexus One is my personal phone. I haven't had any problems with it. I average 10-12 hours of run time with WiFi constantly on...My girlfried has a myTouch 3G, and this runs circles around it. The Nexus [One] is great at multitasking. I just learned how to use the long hold on the home button to jump between applications for when I'm multitasking.

    I asked Meyers if he would give up the BlackBerry. "I would love to replace the BlackBerry with the Nexus One, but I need to keep the BlackBerry because of the DirectConnect feature I use for work."

    Plenty of Complaints

    No smartphone is perfect. Even these N1 enthusiasts have gripes. "I have found the trackball almost useless," says Meyers. "My only complaint is the lack of full integration with google docs," Abad says. I have a spreadsheet -- I can only browse (not edit) a max of 250 rows -- s**t! Maybe an upgrade to Android 2.xx will cure it."

    Maybe a browser upgrade would do more for Abad. The delightful N900 has a full Mozilla browser capable of running Google Apps and Adobe Flash (Now why did I give up that Nokia phone).

    Abad actually has more complaints. He describes as "irritating, very irritating" switching apps with no obvious way to see if they're closed or still running. He makes an important observation about handsets that allow background applications to run. If not properly closed, they can run wild, sucking down battery life. By comparison, the N900's Maemo 5 operating system makes clear what's running, and apps can be closed by clicking the X in open windows.

    Menafra's largest gripe is customer service:

    The big problem is the lack of addressing customer concerns by Google. I know the phone is made by HTC and the service (for most people in the USA) is through T-Mobile, but you buy the phone from Google. They designed it, it runs their OS, it interweaves their apps, and it has their name on it etc. I understand they want us to use their forums, but there needs to be some interaction.

    No question, Google has had difficulties handling complaints about 3G connection problems on some N1 handsets.

    Menafra is among those Google phone owners affected by the problem: "The N1 is a Web-centric device, and this is where the problem is -- at least right now. As all are aware, there are reports of 3G signal issues. I, too, am having these issues, but I believe they will be addressed any time now."

    A first-time Betanews commenter simply identified as ATECHUSA expresses the typical problem experienced by some N1 owners: "If I force 3G in the phone settings my 3G is strong and working great. If I use the preferred setting I go back and forth from 3G to EDGE and really notice the slowdown."

    Another first-time commenter, Baxter01, is dissatisfied with Nexus One. He posted his comment from the smartphone, which I have left unedited to emphasize some of the problems he experienced:

    I have already requested a rma for the n1. Personally I hAte this phone. I am pulling my hair out tryingto type this. This phone is random sometimes the keystrokes accept the space bar, most times it is run on words. That really isn't the issue. The phone is FAST. BUT lags at the most random times.. the screen is beautiful, best thing about the phone. What I am disliking is the absolutely poor integration of os, ui and os. It is terrible. Each appli ation is adhoc (I ga e up onack spaaci g and correcting). N1 is awful.... ok keyboard sensitivity is terrible....... off rant andback

    Other commenters had much better experiences. Yet another first-time Betanews commenter, Fletch31, writes:

    I absolutely love this device, and anyone who I've shown it to has been impressed by its speed and capabilities. I sold iPhones for AT&T for two years, and they are great phones. The were very trendsetting and inovative, but I love competition in the marketplace and more important for me, I love the Android OS both for what it does and for what its future holds. Pair that with superior hardware -- processor speed, removable battery, expandable memory etc. -- and the Nexus One is the phone for me for the next few years.

    So he says now. The next-best thing is usually just days away, and what gadget geek can resist?

    Just as Much Praise

    Overall, Abad, Menafra and Meyers offer consistent praise about similar features. All described the N1 as "fast." They all also praised the photo and video capabilities, which, as a journalist, I must say were important to me, too. The Nexus One has a 5-megapixel camera with single LED flash and capability to shoot videos in 720 x 480 pixels at 20 or more frames per second.

    "The camera's picture quality is excellent, as is the video," says Menafra. "The camera and video are great for a phone," says Meyers, with a little less enthusiasm. For Abad, some of the camera's capabilities are important because of GPS:

    The camera is decent and it has a built-in GPS recording placed on the pictures. Garmin sells a GPS camera for $499 and [with] less megapixels. I have a special need for it. Next month, I am going to the Philippines, and I need to measure a plot of land. I figure this is the quickest way to measure it -- I go take a picture with my N1 on each corner of the property and compute the area using the GPS lattitude/longtitude points.

    Google Voice and voice dictation features also receive great praise. Android 2.1 supports voice dictation into any text field. Menafra says N1's voice-recognition feature "works almost flawlessly." He adds: "I also truly enjoy the integration of my existing Google Voice account and my Gmail account." Meyers concurs. "I've dictated an entire e-mail faster than I would've been able to type it in. [Voice dictation] works great for quick texting conversations."

    Menafra predicts: "Nexus One is probably one of the best phones ever made. Once the 'kinks' are worked out and Google decides to get involved with the users, I'm sure that its popularity will explode." Will he be right?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/13/Is_Google_Nexus_One_a_bomb__or_the_bomb_'

    Is Google Nexus One a bomb, or the bomb?

    Publié: janvier 13, 2010, 8:06pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Silicon Alley Insider claims that Google's so-called "superphone" is a bomb, based on the first week of sales; Nexus One has no superpowers, whatsoever. I totally disagree. Nexus is the bomb. It's simply better than iPhone 3Gs or Nokia's flagship N900. Nexus One is smokin'. First week sales figures are to be expected, and Google showed real finesse by wisely taking a low-key approach to the device's launch.

    Jay Yarow's headline seemingly says it all: "The Nexus One Bombs: Only 20,000 Sold In First Week." But there's more. He writes in the text that "these estimates are bad for Google. The company had plenty of hype gearing up for the launch of the phone. It put an ad on its homepage, and it sprayed its ads all over the web. Given all the hype, these sales numbers are pathetic."

    Pathetic? The numbers are surprisingly good. Yarow cites sales figures released today by mobile applications tools developer Flurry, which also provides analytics data based on usage of more than 10,000 applications for Android and iPhone OS. Flurry's Peter Farago goes to great lengths explaining why Google only sold 20,000 Nexus Ones, although he does assert that Nexus One fell "short on sales expectations." By whose measurement?

    Google is selling its phone direct, which is a new channel for the company. The current model only runs on one carrier, T-Mobile USA, which is the country's fourth-largest carrier. Most existing T-Mobile subscribers will buy the unlocked device, which sells for $529, unsubsidized and unlocked. New subscribers can buy a subsidized Nexus One for $179. Considering the high price, 20,000 units really isn't that surprising a number.

    But there is more reasons to consider, which Flurry's Farago does:

    • "For its release, Google executed an online 'soft launch' of the Nexus One, a very different go-to-market strategy compared to Verizon's launch of Droid, on which it spent a record-breaking $100 million on marketing, including aggressive TV advertising spends."
    • "T-Mobile, Google's carrier partner for Nexus One, did not provide the same carrier co-marketing support as it did for the myTouch 3G launch."
    • "Cannibalization may also be playing a role as the Nexus One competes against the myTouch 3G for any new T-Mobile customer. In effect, sales are now split between the two handsets."
    • "Google, in an effort to avoid channel conflict with T-Mobile, appears to have set the direct-to-consumer price for the handset at over $500 dollars."
    • "Google chose to launch its Nexus One after the holiday season."

    Flurry on Nexus One First Week Sales

    MyTouch first week sales were three times Nexus One, according to Flurry. They came with T-Mobile distribution, price subsidies and massive marketing. One-third MyTouch first-week sales is good showing for Nexus One, considering limited distribution and marketing.

    Farago attributes these factors to Google's lack of retail experience and failure to invest in real marketing. He writes:

    Google did not take the steps to maximize first week sales. This is especially evident when one considers that among the most expensive costs associated with the launch -- marketing -- has not been incurred, and could have been applied to lowering the direct-to-consumer price point.

    I don't agree. Google has demonstrated real finesse, by minimizing channel conflict and holding back more aggressive "hard" marketing until more carriers are in place. Additionally, Google allowed time to beta test its direct customer support services, which arguably had difficulties handling complaints about 3G connection problems on some handsets. Timing of the device's release is yet another indicator Google wasn't planning on huge sales numbers right away.

    As for the device, early reviews are quite good, and even Farago asserts that "the Nexus One boasts the most advanced Android OS to date as well as unique features." I'll be posting my own review sometime during the next couple of days. While initially put off by Nexus One, I've come to truly love the so-called superphone, and I would encourage anyone considering iPhone to reconsider. That is for anyone who can afford Nexus One -- and I'll be bag lunching it for months now. The Google phone isn't a bomb, it's the bomb.

    But that's just one opinion. I'm still collecting Nexus One user reviews. If you've got the device and like it or not, please fess up in comments or send me e-mail. Your experience will be valuable helping other gadget geeks decide whether or not to buy Nexus One. After all, they can't go to a T-Mobile store to try one out. Your opinion can help other Betanews readers to decide whether to spend, gulp, over 500 bucks or to choose a different device. I've made my decision to keep the Nexus One and to sell the Nokia N900. The N900's next stop will be Craigslist.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/13/Google_does_the_right_thing_in_China__but_is_it_for_the_right_reasons_'

    Google does the right thing in China, but is it for the right reasons?

    Publié: janvier 13, 2010, 7:07am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Four years ago this month, Google controversially started censoring search queries in China at the local government's request. Microsoft and Yahoo soon followed. Today, in a stunning blog post, Google Chief Legal Officer David Drummond writes: "We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China."

    Google's seemingly altruistic gesture is as much about business priorities as was the original decision to censor search results in China. Otherwise Google wouldn't have given in to Chinese government demands four years ago.

    Sometime in Spring 2006, I was asked to offer analysis of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo censorship of Chinese search results for a program that aired on the National Public Radio station in Washington, D.C. I don't recall which program (If someone else knows which program and when it aired, could you please put it in comments). But I do recall how I answered very pointed questions about the ethics -- the morality -- of the three search providers' Chinese censorship actions.

    The first question to ask: What is moral? The answer is ugly by my standards, and that of many other Americans: There is no moral high ground in business. The high ground is quagmire, because all public companies share a single, moral objective -- to make profits for stockholders. Any action that undermines making money for shareholders is immoral. From the measure of shareholder morality, Google had to do whatever was necessary to expand its search business in China, including cowing to censorship demands.

    It's the great contradiction: U.S. law treats businesses like people, but the organizations don't share the same moral objectives as the human beings they represent. The "good of all" is the shareholder, not humankind. This moral difference is one of the major reasons some businesses egregiously act against the common good of all people.

    By my measure of morality, which puts all people above the individual or the business, Google acted wrongly by censoring search data in China. But by shareholder morality, Google acted properly. Yesterday's blog post indicates that Google's actions may soon align with broader American morals -- that freedom of speech is an undeniable right, and, therefore, mass censorship is wrong.

    "Google Rights" Violations

    That said, I sense Google's changing China policy is as much, if not more, about its moral obligations to shareholders than some broader altruism directed at Chinese citizens. The context Drummond sets in his blog post is the reason for my assertion. He frames Google's coming changes in China to attempted breaches against "at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses -- including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors." Google is among them. Drummond explains:

    We have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists...As part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users' computers.

    Google's core business takes place in the cloud, where about 99 percent of revenues derive from search, which is all about information. Anything that could jeopardize Google's core business is bad for shareholders. The risks posed by these stealth attacks cannot be ignored, nor Google's position as an American company allegedly under attack from intruders in China. It's no surprise Google is re-evaluating its business role in China.

    From one perspective, yes, Google is making a stand for human rights. But Google also is making a stand for its shareholders and their right to make money from the public company they have invested in. The question: Would a Google pullout of China do investors more harm than good? Had Google made a stand against censorship four years ago, the answer would likely be yes.

    But in hindsight, maybe that answer should have been no. Four years later, Google's search share in China is among its lowest anywhere in the world. Preceding Google's censorship decision, search share was declining fast, from about 33 percent in 2005 to around 25 percent in 2006, according to China IntelliConsulting. In the four years since agreeing to censor search data in China, Google' search share continued to erode. It's now less than 20 percent, while Chinese search rival Baidu has more than 75 percent share. Google's search business in China is no better off for censoring information, so the company risks little by taking a stand -- even if it means pulling out of China.

    A stand against censorship -- and seemingly for human rights -- is timely following last month's Chinese capital punishment against a British citizen and several, recent profile dissent court cases and convictions. Google's stand against censorship establishes a clear policy for doing business in China. Four years ago, the company permitted a "Google rights" violation -- and one somebody in China extended through security attacks seeking information about dissidents. Google is acting to censor information to the Chinese government, rather than to the people of China. It's a surprising turnabout

    Still, as previously stated, behind Google's seeming altruism is the moral mandate of shareholders. In America, human rights is good business. While risking little in China, Google can raise its prestige as a crusader for human rights in markets where search share is stronger but there's more growth ahead. What's good for Google's business is good for shareholders. Can Google seize the moral higher ground, while ceding the lower areas -- meaning its business in China? First answer will be China's response to Google's plans and whether or not the company can officially continue conducting business in the country. The answers that follow will determine, as measured by broader American cultural mores or the shareholder mandate, whether Google's stand against China censorship is moral.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/12/iTunes_pricing_is_out_of_control'

    iTunes pricing is out of control

    Publié: janvier 12, 2010, 9:35pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Succinctly stated: You pay more.

    Apple has a reputation for charging more for most everything, while often delivering less than competitors. Any Windows PC-to-Mac laptop pricing comparison is example enough. The Windows computer typically comes with higher-resolution display, more system memory and beefier storage than comparatively-priced Mac portable.

    However, iTunes store has long been the exception to Apple higher pricing. Right from its Spring 2003 opening, iTunes store offered affordable singles and albums -- hey, who could complain about 99 cents or $9.99, respectively? But recently, iTunes pricing has gotten wicked crazy, following last year's institution of variable pricing. I got to taste the insanity early this afternoon, when finding a new album selling for about 8 bucks more for the iTunes digital download than the CD sold by Amazon.

    What the frak?

    Is It Rain or Shine?

    It's New Music Tuesday, when I rush online to survey the releases. O.A.R. has a new live album, "Rain or Shine," which immediately caught my attention. But my enthusiasm skidded to a halt when looking at the iTunes price: $24.99. Yeah, there are 38 tracks, but 25 bucks -- or $1.29 per track? At the per-track price, the album would cost more than $49. For the full album, per-track price savings, someone else might bow before the great Apple god in gratitude. I'm an ingrate. I looked to AmazonMP3 for a better price -- and couldn't find it. Amazon's digital download store doesn't list the album. But the retailer carries the CD, with all 38 songs for $16.99. That's 5 bucks off the list price, which is still less than what iTunes charges.

    Apple isn't just charging more, it's doing so for a comparatively inferior product. Music fans can argue the merits of AmazonMP3's 256kbps MP3 encoding compared to Apple's 256kbps AAC. But there's no argument about lossless, uncompressed Compact Disc Digital Audio format and its 1,411kbps bitrate.

    I've known for sometime that iTunes charges more than AmazonMP3 for many albums or singles, but this was my first encounter with pricing substantially above a CD. In April 2009, when Apple instituted variable pricing, I blogged: "What Apple Variable Pricing Means to You." I did numerous pay-more comparisons between AmazonMP3 and iTunes stores. Apple pay-more pricing was already in effect for most newer or popular tracks.

    I wondered if perhaps "Rain or Shine" is a fluke, which is how I came to write this post. The first question: Does Amazon offer the album for substantially less than other retailers? Answer: No. F.Y.E. lists "Rain or Shine" for $14.99, but store club members only pay $13.49. Holy Heck, Batman, not only does the music retailer charge $2 to $3.50 less than Amazon, but $10 to $11.50 less than iTunes!

    Apple's Pay-More Pricing

    What about other albums? Black Eyed Peas' "The E.N.D." is $10.99 from iTunes. Amazon sells the CD for $9.49. However, CD buyers get a $3 AmazonMP3 store song credit, effectively lowering the price to $6.49. Whoa, Amazon's digital download version of "The E.N.D." is only $5.99, or four bucks less than iTunes. Apple charges $1.29 for each individual track, compared to 99 cents each from AmazonMP3.

    O.A.R. "Rain or Shine"

    Deluxe version of Lady GaGa's "The Fame Monster" costs $13.99 at iTunes for 24 tracks. Amazon charges $14.99 for the 22-track CD or $11.99 for the digital download album. So iTunes is the sweeter deal, right? Maybe not. People buying the CD get a $3 credit for AmazonMP3 store, effectively reducing cost of "Fame Monster" to $11.99 -- two bucks and two tracks less than iTunes. Another cost difference: iTunes again charges $1.29 for each individually purchased track from "Fame Monster," and the two additional tracks are only available with the album purchase. By comparison, AmazonMP3 charges 99 cents a track.

    Owl City album "Ocean Eyes" is $9.99 from iTunes with two additional tracks available only with the album version. Amazon charges the same price for the 12-track CD, but the $3 AmazonMP3 store credit effectively reduces the price to $6.99. However, AmazonMP3 charges even less, only 6 bucks for digital download version of "Ocean Eyes." Once again, Apple charges a buck twenty-nine for individual tracks compared to AmazonMP3's more appealing 99 cents.

    Apple's music pricing isn't all bad. Ke$ha's "Animal" is $6.99 from iTunes or AmazonMP3, and both digital download stores charge $1.29 for each individual track. Amazon sells the CD for $7.99. However, Amazon offers $3 digital download credit for "Animal," effectively lowering the price to $4.99.

    Pay More, Pay Less

    Black Eyed Peas "The E.N.D."I've long observed that Apple justifies charging more by offering a little more -- and sometimes less than competing stores. It's Marketing 101 stuff. For example, OneRepublic's "Waking Up (Deluxe Version)" is $12.99 from iTunes for 15 tracks (the standard album has 11 songs). Amazon and F.Y.E. don't offer this version of the CD, which Amazon partners sell for $17.99 or more. So, iTunes is the cheaper option. However, Amazon sells the "Waking Up" non-deluxe CD for $7.99, or $2 less than iTunes. Once again, Amazon's $3 song credit applies, effectively reducing the album's cost to $4.99. Amazon's digital download version costs $5, with 12th track "Mercy," which isn't available from iTunes. Once again, Apple charges $1.29 for each individual track and Amazon just 99 cents. So the standard album or singles cost more from iTunes.

    In comments, someone is sure to assert that Amazon tax and shipping raises CD-to-digital download pricing in Apple's favor. Amazon doesn't charge tax in most states and offers a free 3-to-5 day shipping option. However, Amazon's Prime service, which costs $79 a year, provides free two-day shipping or one-day shipping for an extra $3.99 per item. Prime can be shared with four separate accounts, so if you've got roomies or family members the annual fee is effectively less. I love Prime.

    There's no point paying Apple more when there are cheaper alternatives. I regularly buy songs from iTunes store, but typically find better prices -- and more aggressive daily deals -- from AmazonMP3. But following today's surprising cost comparison for "Rain or Shine," I'll consider more CDs compared to digital albums, particularly those sold by iTunes. I ordered the new O.A.R. CD from Amazon while writing this post but before checking F.Y.E. pricing. Even $16.99 was too much to pay, although that $3 credit helps soften the extra paid to Amazon over F.Y.E.

    Should you pay more?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/11/Please_tell_us_your_Google_Nexus_One_story'

    Please tell us your Google Nexus One story

    Publié: janvier 11, 2010, 5:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last week, Betanews founder Nate Mook and I both purchased Google Nexus One phones. Nate is coming from iPhone, and I have been using the Nokia N900. We haven't yet coordinated our reviews, or how we'll write them (separately or together), but they're coming sometime this week. Why should Nate and I have all the fun when you could join in, too? So this is a call for Betanews readers with Nexus Ones to share your experiences, either in comments below or by sending me e-mail.

    To start the discussion, I'll offer a few first impressions. I ordered the Nexus One during Google's event last week, before the invited attendees got their free review units. Google shipped the phone by free FedEx overnight, so I began using the so-called "superphone" on Wednesday (January 6). Google impressed with the simple ordering process and prompt delivery.

    I would recommend the Nexus One over iPhone to most anyone. While I'm no fan of Nexus One's industrial design, the phone satisfies in most of the important ways: Call quality, user interface responsiveness, overall speed of the device, 3G telephony and data reception, ease of typing on touchscreen and applications availability. Google and HTC have put together a simply satisfying smartphone.

    However, as a journalist, I have unique needs. I plan on doing much more with digital content over the coming months. Having a phone that takes adequate photos, shoots quality videos and captures Web-quality audio (if not better) is important to me. For those functions, the Nokia N97 satisfied, but the broader phone experience frustrated. I replaced the N97 with the N900, which is fun and fast to use, but I'm not as satisfied with photo or video-capture capabilities compared to other Nokia devices.

    By the specs, both the Nexus One and N900 offer more digital content capture capabilities than iPhone 3G or 3GS: 5-megapixel camera with LED flash and HD-quality video. Google's Android 2.1 and Nokia's Maemo 5 operating systems both allow background applications and provide multiple widgetized desktops, features not available on iPhone 3G or 3GS. Both devices support T-Mobile's 3G network, which real speed is faster than AT&T's 3G network. I'll either return the Nexus One for refund or sell the N900.

    Betanews has posted plenty of commentaries and stories about Nexus One over the last week. Here are links for posts offering additional information; newest first:

    Again, Nexus One users, please share your user stories. I encourage other Android phone users to share their stories, too. If you've switched from another platform to Android, tell us all way. Comments section awaits your responses.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/10/Google_lacks_Humanity'

    Google lacks Humanity

    Publié: janvier 10, 2010, 6:56pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    One classic Star Trek episode asks: "Is there in truth no beauty?" For most people, the answer is no, and that's something Google had better come to understand as it releases more consumer products. Successful brands and products are all about humanity, about assigning human attributes to them, about making people feel good. Most people make purchase decisions -- even seemingly intellectual ones -- for emotional reasons.

    Since Wednesday, I've been using Google's Nexus One, which could replace the Nokia N900. Nexus One is simply the best smartphone I have ever used, yet I struggle to want to keep it. There is something missing about the device. My initial excitement about Nexus One ended with the unboxing. I looked at the device and went, "Huh?" Nexus One looks so drab, so utilitarian. I searched the box for a "Designed by Dell" logo. For years, drab defined Dell industrial design, and that's exactly how I felt when first looking at the Google phone: Designed by Dell. That's no compliment.

    I like what Nexus One does for me, but I don't love the device. In June 2007, I described the original iPhone as "life changing." The way iPhone responded to touch, to movement made it highly personal. There was something magical about how iPhone's screen responded to facial proximity. The device knew when not to get in the way and cause unwanted touchscreen actions or phone calls. Nexus One has many of the same features, but there's something human missing behind them.

    Yesterday's Boy Genius Report blog post "Google Android Personal Thoughts" crystalized what are my problems with Nexus One:

    Part of my main issue with Android, and this applies slightly less to HTC Sense UI handsets, is that there's practically no human emotion with Google when it comes to technology. Everything is statistical and analytical. While you could argue that being this way is way superior to 'feeling' and 'emotion' -- it might be 95 percent of the time -- you still will almost always lose that charm and that amazing feeling of connecting to something. People would die for their iPhones, people would die for their BlackBerries -- and they feel like their lives are in there.

    People feel connected to their BlackBerries. Some sleep with them next to their pillow. No one gives a crap about their Android phone, there's zero emotional attachment. The closest example would be Palm's WebOS. A great concept, besides Apple's iPhone OS, it's the most polished, the most friendly, and the most human. Do you see that?

    As I write, that one BGR post has more than 1,000 comments. Now how human is that? But how inhuman is Google? The drab Google search page is example enough. It's like a potentially beautiful home beret of decorations or furniture. The home is sterile, lifeless, inhuman.

    Perhaps because of its origins Google's inhumanity was unavoidable for the past but it can't be for the future -- not if the information company aspires to be more than a utility. For Google, search is about math, but the utility wasn't always that way. Yahoo's search business started in the late 1990s with people. Yahoo used people to make decisions about search and what to prioritize. They may not have all been right decisions, but at least there was humanity behind them.

    The Problem starts with Search

    Like Google search, there is no humanity in electricity. But there is personality to the devices connecting to electrical current. People assign human attributes to inanimate objects all the time (see IKEA video). No device is more personal than the cell phone. BBC's March 2006 story "Handsets get taken to the grave" explains just how personal:

    More people than ever are asking to be buried or cremated with their mobile phones when they die, say researchers. The trend, which began in South Africa, has now spread to a number of countries, including Ireland, Australia, Ghana, and the US...one service in South Africa will put a number of batteries in the coffin just in case the dead person wakes up much later and finds their own battery has run out.

    I say: If grandma calls from the afterlife, don't answer!

    People want to feel good about their cell phones, to add humanity to them. One feature I like about Android 2.1 -- and it's now available for iPhone 3.x: Syncing of Facebook friends to the phone's address book. But the feature is impersonal in a really rude way. There is no option (at least I can find) to sync the data back to Google Contacts. Such syncing would be personal and useful. Apple's pushing of apps in iPhone marketing is as much about humanity as selling more smartphones. The applications allow people to personalize the phones, for which they feel more attached to them.

    Google corporate culture needs more Booth and less Bones. Fox TV series "Bones" works because of the interaction between the emotional, human qualities of FBI agent Seeley Booth and the dryly intellectual, emotionless qualities of Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan. The same could be said about classic Trek, and interaction between Captain James T. Kirk and vulcan science officer Spock.

    More Personality Required

    Attention to detail is one way Apple makes products endearing, adds personality to them. For example, the pivot-arm iMac G4 had under the base a round metal plate to access memory. Rather than the typical tiny screws, Apple used spring-loaded, attached screws that stayed on the plate when removed. This kind of attention to detail matters to people and makes them feel good about the product, which is what adding personality is all about. By the way, Apple marketing humanized iMac G4, too (see second video).

    Google doesn't have to reinvent its products to make them more human, to generate good feeling about them. Long ago, IBM added a touch of humanity to its ThinkPad notebook line with dashes of red against the black/gray casing and the tri-color company logo. If Google wants to gain more customers in the increasingly crowded space of connected consumer products, it's going to need more heart than head.

    As one customer, I'm undecided about whether to keep to the Nexus One or the Nokia N900. Functionally, Nexus One is the superior device. By the specs, Google's so-called "superphone" is a geek dream machine. Plus, there are more than 10,000 Android applications, while startling few for the N900's Maemo 5 operating system. But N900 is more endearing to me, more personal somehow in a subliminal way because Nokia's marketing is so personal. It's human.

    Google's lacking humanity is perhaps best epitomized by the impersonal customer support for Nexus One -- and the complaints about it. People feel good about going to Apple Store or any wireless carrier outlet and interacting with human beings. They feel angry when dealing with impersonal support forums. Which device do you think is more likely to be returned? The one with impersonal support or the one where there are real people?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/08/Three_post_CES_goals_for_Microsoft'

    Three post-CES goals for Microsoft

    Publié: janvier 8, 2010, 9:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This weekend, following the Consumer Electronics Show 2010, is when Microsoft executives should reassess the company's New Year's resolutions and reevaluate marketing and product development strategies. CES hasn't been particularly great for Microsoft, although it wasn't terrible either. Windows 7 Mobile was, once again, largely a no show. CEO Steve Ballmer's keynote failed to dazzle with exciting new products. Still, Bill Buxton, Principal Researcher for Microsoft Research, offered real vision discussing natural user interfaces. NUI is a great marketing concept, too.

    I suggest three goals Microsoft should set for the next six months, until the end of fiscal 2010 on June 30 (I originally planned five but decided the post would be too long). They are presented in no order of importance.

    1. Set shorter marketing and product development goals. Microsoft isn't keeping pace with Internet time. Meanwhile, Google sets a rapid pace -- in little more than a year going from nowhere to somewhere with Android (21 percent of U.S. consumers plan to buy an Android phone within three months, according to ChangeWave) and Chrome (three Windows versions released in about a year and v4 in beta). Both products launched in autumn 2008.

    A longstanding Microsoft strength is executing on long-term plans, whereas many public company competitors set quarterly goals that change too often. The Microsoft that released three versions of Internet Explorer in about 18 months during the late 1990s executed tactically while keeping long-term plans in place.

    What Microsoft really needs to gain from short-term goals is increasing mindshare -- that the company truly is innovating. Innovation sells, imitation smells. The company should seek to field from its various "labs" or Microsoft Research one truly aspirational product each quarter. Work-in-progress is OK, as long it generates chatter. Nokia Labs is a good model to follow. However, any buzz that stops at Channel 9 is a failure. Microsoft must reach more mainstream users.

    But mindshare gains are only a starting point. Microsoft has to keep pace, or partners will leave it behind. Ballmer showed off the HP Slate prototype during his Wednesday keynote, but, whoops, there will be an Android model, too. Yesterday, long-time Microsoft partner Intel made a strong pitch for smaller, faster devices -- and not necessarily running Windows. Today, Scott Fulton writes: "If you're a 2.0 GHz quad-core notebook PC running Windows 7, the place you do not want to be showing yourself right now is the Consumer Electronics Show."

    Two Decembers ago, I publicly encouraged Microsoft to launch an applications store, something I had privately encouraged the company to do years earlier when working as a JupiterResearch analyst. Intel isn't waiting around for Microsoft, and its new app store is case in point. Microsoft must pick up the pace, or partners will leave it behind.

    2. Keep asserting that Google can do evil. Yesterday, Bloomberg reported Robbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices division, as saying it would be "very, very difficult" for Google to sell a phone that competes with partners. "Over time you have to decide whether your approach is with the partners or more like an Apple approach that is more about Apple. Google's is an interesting step. We'll see how people react."

    Bach raises a very good point, at least from a creating FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt -- perspective. Android has enough momentum that Nexus One probably won't turn off too many hardware manufacturers. But the FUD is great countermarketing, particularly with Android stealing partners and customers from Windows Mobile/Phone, which is stuck in the mud. Anything bad about Google's phone strategy is good for Microsoft while it struggles to get Windows Mobile/Phone back on the road.

    The FUD isn't without merit. Two days ago, I went looking for a phone case at the local T-Mobile store. The sales associate recognized the Nexus One right away. I asked if T-Mobile would be selling the Nexus One. No. Nor will T-Mobile be able to support the device, even though it runs on the carrier's network. The sales associate seemed concerned about customer service, which Google will provide.

    Google competition with partners is inevitable, as the company grows -- as it was for Microsoft in the 1980s and 1990s. For today's Register, in post "Google to mobile industry: 'F*ck you very much!' -- Winners and losers from the great Nexus shafting" Andrew Orlowski writes:

    If networks are surprised that Google can turn around and shaft them ??"- then they can't have been paying close attention to company strategy in recent times...The evidence was already abundant that Google envisaged a value chain without operators or ISPs. In Google's vision of the future, there are no $80bn-a-year turnover giants like Vodafone. Instead, masts are merely a dumb transmission network, most likely operated by a monopoly incumbent (such as Arquiva for UK TV and radio), which must be regulated (out of necessity) by an equally dumb transmission network regulator.

    I've been beating this partner competition drum for some time. In September 2008 post "Google Eats Its Young," I asked: "Who says Google can't do evil? Chrome is it." Suddenly, the company would compete with developers like Apple and Mozilla, which default search had benefitted Google so much. In November 2009, I asked: "How would you write Google's '10 Things' -- with "You can make money without doing evil" perhaps being most well known.

    No company partners like Microsoft. Timing is right for Microsoft to remind everyone how well it partners and how much Google increasingly competes with its partner.

    3. Hold smaller, more-intimate product events. Other than perhaps Lady Gaga's appointment as Polaroid creative director, this week's most interesting news came outside CES. For starters, there are the persistent rumors about Apple's rumored tablet, which may or may not be announced during a January 27 event. Today, The Loop's Jim Dalrymple predicts there will not one but two Apple tablets. Speculation about the rumored product stole much buzz from CES announcements.

    Then there was Google, which preempted CES with launch of the Nexus One handset -- the so-called Superphone. But Google didn't stop the CES buzz killing there. Yesterday's "Near me now" announcement supercharges local search. The feature makes Google's U.S. mobile search page location aware on smartphones running Android 2.0.1 or later or iPhone OS 3.x. Google's John Eric Hoffman and Jussi Myllymaki explain in a blog post:

    For example, you may want to know what other customers think about a restaurant before you go inside...or what they have been raving about on the menu before you order. By selecting the 'Explore right here' option, you can find out more about a place 'right here' with just a few clicks... Imagine that you emerge from the subway station and you want to grab a coffee, but you don't see a coffee shop around you. You can simply search for all nearby coffee shops by using 'Near me now.'

    Microsoft should learn from Apple and Google about maximizing buzz without investing in big events. Sure, Microsoft makes ongoing product announcements outside of tradeshows, but most of the events it participates in or holds are big. Microsoft should hold more intimate events for bloggers, customers, enthusiasts, news media or partners. I'm not talking about the ongoing marketing and sales roadshows Microsoft already does, but invitation-only gatherings. They will generate buzz, particularly if the target audience doesn't officially include bloggers or journalists (but they can get in with a little prodding).

    Intimacy is hugely important to any relationship. It's easy for anyone with a keyboard to write bad things about an amorphous, distant corporation. It's something else when those same people meet and interact with real executives and product managers. Personal contact changes everything. Walmart is a good example. Those greeters at the door aren't just there to be friendly. Walmart has learned that people who identify the store with a real person, the greeter, are less likely to steal.

    Before some commenter balks that Microsoft does hold some intimate blogger meetings, I'll acknowledge knowing that. Microsoft should hold more intimate gatherings of at least two kinds:

    • What Apple does for some new product announcements -- there the goal being to generate buzz and even excitement.
    • Invitation-only events with evangelism through more intimate relationship with executives or products being the primary objective.

    Microsoft's January 2009 Retail Experience Center launch or annual look inside its Research labs are examples of good smaller events. But they would be better shrouded in more mystery. The quest for pageviews has every tech blog or news site reporting on every conceivable rumor. Let them chatter by saying less.

    Microsoft should make being more mysterious and more intimate among its top marketing goals for the decade.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/07/Why_Steve_Ballmer_s_CES_keynote_was_boring__Microsoft_is_looking_back__not_forward'

    Why Steve Ballmer's CES keynote was boring: Microsoft is looking back, not forward

    Publié: janvier 7, 2010, 7:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Three things were missing from Microsoft's Consumer Electronics Show 2010 opening keynote: Vision. Vision. Vision. OK, that's one thing times three, but o-o-oh was it missing. What wasn't missing: Microsoft's investment in the past.

    The keynote, featuring CEO Steve Ballmer and accompanied by Entertainment & Devices president Robbie Bach, trumpeted what Microsoft long ago called "better together" -- a term that may be as much relic at the company as the strategy should be. Who knows what term Microsoft now uses for the strategy, which is about making Product A better by connecting it to Product B, or C. Better together is a sensible marketing strategy, but from a product development perspective worked -- ah, better -- for Microsoft when it was a growth company.

    Today's mature Microsoft, lumbering up the Information Superhighway in its 18-wheeler, can't move as fast as young Web companies. It's long past time Microsoft lightened the load. Better together is a good strategy for growth companies, which tend to move new products to market faster and can pick up new customers through integration of features among existing products. Mature companies can hold back innovation by tying too much new product development to existing, successful products. For Microsoft, better together is a burden.

    The Mediaroom 2.0 Metaphor

    Microsoft's keynote got off to a bad start because of a power failure. It was bad luck or perhaps jab or joke from the universe or deity -- that the keynote would lack power. Ballmer finally took the keynote stage more than a half-hour late, wearing a red sweater, which I liked, by the way. The sweater suits Ballmer. But the sweater was the only thing loud coming from the the Big B last night. In this case, B also meant boring in a keynote that just never hit its stride.

    By far, Mediaroom 2.0 was the best Microsoft CES keynote announcement, and it's not even a direct consumer product. Mediaroom also is metaphor for the kind of sluggish product development that drives better together all too slowly.

    Mediaroom 2.0Mediaroom 2.0 lets IPTV providers deliver programming to Windows Media Center.

    Mediaroom 2.0 is a vital better together component for Microsoft's living room strategy, providing IPTV providers like AT&T capability to deliver programming directly to Xbox 360 or Windows 7 Media Center. The unifying approach was truly innovative back in 2003, when I first heard about it. Microsoft hadn't yet released Mediaroom, but offered predecessor TV Foundation for cable operators. Ed Graczyk, then marketing director for Microsoft TV, and I spoke about the company's living room strategy, which I wrote about for JupiterResearch's now defunct Microsoft Monitor blog in a post simply titled: "Microsoft's 'Better Together' Strategy." Excerpt:

    There's also a big win for Microsoft, and one that is part of the company's long-term vision for unifying PCs in the den with televisions and consumer electronics devices in the living room. I asked Mr. Graczyk about how Microsoft TV Foundation might benefit users of other Microsoft products. After all, Windows XP Media Center also serves up a program guide.

    He then went on to describe Microsoft's 'better together' strategy, where the company does plan some synergy around cable content, Microsoft TV Foundation and products like Windows Media Center or the Xbox game console. So in one scenario, a Windows Media Center PC might use the cable box's program guide to schedule shows for digital video recording. In another, games could be delivered by the cable operator through the digital box to Microsoft's game console.

    That kind of distribution potentially would open up new revenue opportunities for games publishers, cable operators and Microsoft, whether games run permanently on Xbox or for a limited time in a games-on-demand type service. Mr. Graczyk also discussed other content delivery or sharing options, at least in networked homes, on handhelds and other devices running Microsoft software.

    Future Past isn't a Good Strategy

    For anyone watching last night's CES opening keynote, Microsoft promises to deliver in Mediaroom 2.0 much of what Graczyk spoke about six-and-a-half years ago. However, there are several problems:

    • Entertainment and video consumption is shifting to Internet services, such as Hulu and YouTube. Visionary in 2003 isn't visionary for the 2010s.
    • New Mediaroom capabilities require people to have a Windows PC or Xbox 360 console; media consumption is shifting to browser and phone.
    • In the United States, only AT&T's U-verse service, which is available in 22 states, can really utilize Mediaroom 2.0's full capabilities.

    Mediaroom 2.0 VoDMediaroom 2.0 delivers video-on-demand services to a Web browser.

    Video consumption is no longer just about television sets or being bound to the living room. Consumers increasingly want to get their video content anytime, anywhere and on anything. Big screens are big, but the living room is but one context for consuming video. According to ComScore, U.S. Internet users watched a record 30.9 billion videos online in November, 12.2 billion at Google sites, with YouTube accounting for 99 percent. U.S. Internet users watched 924 million videos at second-ranked Hulu, or average 21.1 videos -- that's 2.1 hours average per person. Nearly 85 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience watched videos online in November, or 12.2 hours average.

    By the way, I am a U-verse customer (since February 2008) who simply loves the service. AT&T and Microsoft have done great work. The program guide is simple and usable. U-verse can record up to four TV shows simultaneously -- two in HD. No other TV service I've used -- Cox, Verizon or Warner -- compares. My buddies using satellite services coo when they see U-verse in my home and one by one switch when it becomes available in their areas. Mediaroom actually is a visionary product -- one of the best things to come out of Microsoft in years. But it's too slowly advancing -- and for that cable and telco operators bear some of the blame. That said, video consumption is changing, and Microsoft isn't keeping pace. The vision Microsoft articulated in 2003 is the one largely executed on in Mediaroom 2.0. The market changed, but not Microsoft's strategy.

    Like many other consumers, as a U-verse customer, I'm more interested in content on the go rather than content plopping me on the couch. U-verse for my smartphone -- and not just one running Windows Mobile -- would be exciting. How Microsoft's Mediaroom 2.0 cloud services meet mobile needs could be visionary. For example, Mediaroom 2.0's in-Web browser video-on-demand services look really promising and could help cable operators and telcos better compete with services like Hulu. It's innovation, but not if it takes another 7 years to come to market. That said, Amazon and Netflix, among other services providers, offer VoD in a browser today. Microsoft still chases the future.

    Microsoft is moving too slowly. Better together is a major reason. It's long past time that Microsoft developed new and exciting consumer products free of Office's or Windows' weight -- or that of its other products or services. Microsoft should innovate new products for which Office and Windows must connect, not the other way around. Better together should be about the innovative future pulling the innovative past.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/06/Google_soars_past_Apple_and_Microsoft_with_Nexus_One_superphone'

    Google soars past Apple and Microsoft with Nexus One superphone

    Publié: janvier 6, 2010, 12:00am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's Google Nexus One launch is as game changing as Apple's June 2007 release of the iPhone. Perhaps, Nexus One is more important, although judging from blogs and tweets, geekdom doesn't yet get it. Apple supercharged the smartphone category with a more natural user interface. Suddenly, there was a new way to interact with a mobile phone that was seemingly magical. Today, Google turned on the superpowers, by finally starting to integrate cloud services into its mobile platform in a hugely useful way. Additionally, Google is transcending the limitations of one natural user interface by extending the capabilities of another.

    With Nexus One and Android 2.1, Google is doing what Microsoft failed to with its March 2007 Tellme acquisition: Offer a more natural mobile phone user interface. Voice should have been it, but Microsoft failed to bring the technology to Windows Mobile in a big way. By comparison, Google has been hot on voice search, which promises to be much better on Nexus One and other handsets running Android 2.1. Google is extending voice search to other services, which just last week I blogged the information giant should be doing.

    For example, Jack Consumer can speak "Pizza Hut" and the phone will use GPS to find the nearest restaurant and then offer turn-by-turn vocal navigation on how to get there. Better still, Google has enabled voice capabilities for all text fields in Android 2.1. Who needs a keyboard when he or she can speak to text or twitter? Apple made iPhone something magical by the way it responds to touch. Google is taking the input and interaction hands free, which is even better. Microsoft offers some limited voice-to-search capability as part of Bing for iPhone or Windows Mobile, but Google is making voice capabilities more a part of the mobile platform.

    User interfaces are tough to do right, but Google had a head start. The search box is the user interface for the Web and one of the best meeting my six tenants of good technology design. A successful product should:

    • Build on the familiar
    • Emphasize simplicity
    • Hide complexity
    • Let people do something new they wished they could do
    • Do what it's supposed to do really well
    • When displacing something else, offer a significantly better experience

    As I explained in my March 2007 blog post on Microsoft's Tellme acquisition:

    Google search is one of the best examples of the six criteria in practical use. Search builds on keyword concepts people use everyday without necessarily thinking about them, and the writing or typing of text is very familiar. Search emphasizes simplicity by presenting a single text box and hides complexity by using algorithms to generate meaningful results. Search lets people find things they might otherwise have to manually search for (Web is too big for that). Search works pretty well, although natural language would be better. For anyone using the Internet today, modern Web search is a whole lot better than what was (and was not) available before.

    As good as that text search box is for the PC, it's more limited on a phone. Voice is a very natural and familiar user interface. It's standard apparatus on most human beings and familiar way of interacting with the phone. By extending voice capabilities to search and related services, Google allows people to do something they wish they could do, while building on the familiar, hiding more complexity and better emphasizing simplicity. Of course, this all assumes the technology works as well or better than Google's demos. To be clear: Google already offered voice search in Android; version 2.1 promises to make it much better.

    For example, Android phone users could speak to text message, which would be a public service. People that text and drive are a menace. Last year, some guy on a motorcycle crossed from the right across my middle lane as we approached a stoplight. I braked to afford hitting him. I looked over to left as we pulled up to the light. He was texting while riding a motorcycle. How fraking stupid is that!

    Superphone meets Clark Kent

    Google is doing much more than improving the natural user interface and tying it to cloud services. Tim Conneally nails it: Today's launch of the Nexus One is not so much about the device...it's about turning Google users into Android users." With Nexus One and Android 2.1, Google is aiming for the mass market, and its timing is impeccable.

    This week, ChangeWave released results from a December 9-14 survey of 4,068 U.S. consumers. Among those planing to buy a smartphone within 3 months, 21 percent said it would be an Android phone, up from 6 percent in September. Between the same two surveys, the number planning to buy an iPhone dropped from 32 percent to 28 percent.

    ChangeWave 12-09 Mobile Survey

    Google has a huge user base. Other than perhaps Microsoft employees, who doesn't use Google search? Smartphones are about as much about data as voice. Now Google promises to use voice to make data services -- search being one of the most important -- a whole lot better.

    Google's approach, obviously leveraging off its strengths, pits its informational and cloud services platform against Apple's mobile applications platform. Do you want the apps or the information? (Please answer the question in comments.) The answer won't be the same for everyone. There's a presumption among vocal Mac-loving bloggers that everybody wants mobile applications. But there is something appealing about the simplicity of using one service or facility to get needed information. Some people want the apps, others won't care as much as long as they can easily get what they need on the go.

    Apple has a weakness, even as it today touts 3 billion downloads from the App Store. Google and its developers can always add more applications to the Android Marketplace. Where is Apple going to get search and supporting services like mapping? Google can much more easily encroach on Apple's mobile applications platform than Apple could challenge Google's informational and other cloud services platforms.

    Perhaps this coming platform competition justifies Google dumping the smartphone designation. Today, the information giant called the Nexus One the first in a category of superphones. There's nothing exceptionally different about Nexus One that warrants calling superphone what is typically categorized as a smartphone. But the name change puts Google's ownership on a new mobile category, even if only from a marketing perspective. It's simply brilliant and very Applesque.

    Google's superphone is both superman and alter-ego Clark Kent. It's the humble, glasses-wearing handset that simply makes phone calls. But voice search and voice-to-text superpowers -- leveraged off those Google cloud services -- make the Android 2.1 handset so much more. Those superpowers are easily spread by upgrading existing handsets to Android 2.1.

    I ordered my Nexus One soon after Google put up the superphone's Website. I've long wanted to dump the keyboard for voice notes that would be searchable in audio or text form. Google's Android 2.1 handset might not go that far yet, but it promises to leap a tall building in a single bound. I'm too creative. All the great ideas come when I'm out and about. Voice to everything, dictation, twitter, etc. is what I need most. The voice-to-search services tied to GPS only make the capabilities sweeter.

    What about you? What do you want from your next phone?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/05/Can_big_trade_shows_survive_Apple_and_Google_'

    Can big trade shows survive Apple and Google?

    Publié: janvier 5, 2010, 5:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    How strange is it that perhaps the two biggest product announcements this month will come right before major trade shows, rather than during them? In less than two hours, Google is expected to officially launch the Nexus One smartphone at an event in Northern California. The Consumer Electronics Show kicks off with tomorrow night's Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer keynote. Apple is expected to unveil some new product, presumably a tablet PC, during another Northern California event on January 27. Macworld Expo opens about two weeks later.

    The separate event strategy is about managing the message -- controlling mindshare -- being the one and only voice instead of one of many. The problem with big trade shows is the size. There are so many new product announcements, many good ones get lost in the noise. By holding separate big events, Apple and Google can capture the most publicity for the buck -- as in what they spend to host their own events and what they don't spend to attend the trade show or for additional marketing. It's a strange turnaround. Tech companies are supposed to ride the tradeshow's coattails by attending the event.

    Both Apple and Google are being quite audacious in their upstaging efforts. The timing of Google's event and location, Mountain View and not Las Vegas, means some bloggers and journalists must make either/or decisions about which event to attend. Travel budgets are tight. Others will have do some last-minute plane hopping to cover both events. More typically, when not attending an event but making an announcement around it, a high-tech vendor books a hotel in the venue city. There's something oh-so middle finger about Google's timing and location.

    Apple is being even more audacious. After weeks of rumors, news broke yesterday -- the day before Google's event -- that Apple would make some new product announcement on January 27 in Cupertino. I'm an old school thinker -- if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. The timing isn't coincidental, it's deliberate. News of Apple's late-January event is meant to upstage Google's event and to steal some of its marketing and mindshare building thunder. A round end-of-2009, looking-ahead blog and news commentaries speculated about increasing competition between Apple and Google, which partnership fades as the two companies push harder into competing markets, such as mobile devices and Web browsers. The two January events kick off mindshare competition between Apple and Google and their next-generation mobile platforms.

    Google isn't Apple's only game. The Cupertino, Calif.-based company also is gunning for Macworld Expo, and there are real questions about killing the beast. The Consumer Electronics Show can survive Google. Macworld won't survive Apple. In December 2008, Apple revealed that Macworld Expo 2009 would be its last attendance. Apple is doing more than just not attending in 2010, it's hosting an event that's news likely will upstage every other at the expo.

    Yesterday, Jim Dalrymple took "a quick look at the history. Apple pulled out of Macworld Expo Boston/New York -- it failed; Apple pulled out of Macworld Expo Tokyo -- it failed; Apple pulled out of Apple Expo Paris -- it failed...I've talked to many people in the media that are already writing the Macworld Expo eulogy. That's not a good sign."

    The real question to be answered is something bigger than whether big trade shows can survive separate, major announcements by tech's heavy hitters -- or in the case of Apple and Macworld Expo the heavy clubbers. How effectively are these same companies using leaks to manipulate bloggers and journalists, particularly at a time when readership -- as measured in pageviews -- means so much more than subscribers did during the news print era?

    Leaks are nothing new. In Washington, D.C., during the late 1960s and 1970s, the Nixon administration crafted leaks into a state of art. It's a wonder that Washington Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward uncovered the Watergate scandal with so many journalists chasing Nixon White House leaks for the next big scoop.

    In the 2000s, more tech companies are using leaks and special events to grab free marketing and to boost perceptions about their products and even their share price. Apple has effectively used this kind of guerilla marketing for years. But there was a qualitative change in 2008 and more so in 2009, particularly in managing news about CEO Steve Jobs' medical leave and liver transplant surgery. Apple's effective media manipulation -- and bloggers and journalists seem all too willing to be manipulated -- makes anything not officially announced suspect.

    Here's an example: Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple's rumored tablet would sell for around $1,000. That's a simply outrageous price, considering the closeness in price to the white MacBook or to much lower-cost Windows 7 multitouch, touchscreen laptops. Suppose the $1,000 price was a deliberate leak, which I strongly suspect. In late December, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster put a $600 price on the device. The $1,000 leaked price will make anything less seem less rather than more. With expectations set at $1,000, a $700 or $800 device would seem to be more reasonable, when in fact it probably is still too high for mass-market adoption -- not that Apple cares. Gadget geeks and Mac fans will pay more. The price for the rest of us can come later on. Meanwhile, geekdom could exhale a collective sigh of relief about the perceived lower pricing.

    Macworld won't survive Apple. Jim Dalrymple is right. CES will survive Google. Meanwhile, gossip and rumor will continue to define the tone of technology news coverage. Will any of us survive that? I pose that question to you.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2010

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/04/5_things_I_know_to_be_true_about_the_Apple_tablet'

    5 things I know to be true about the Apple tablet

    Publié: janvier 4, 2010, 9:20pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    If you're looking for leaked Apple tablet product specs and photos, this post isn't for you. But if you're interested in a hearty (and discussion disrupting) list describing what the product's impact already is (and will be, if released), please read on.

    1. It's mythical. Like the sasquatch, unicorns or alien invaders (yeah, yeah, the truth is out there), the Apple tablet doesn't exist until someone finds one. Sure there are rumors and unconfirmed sightings. But no one outside Apple or its NDA-bound partners/developers really knows what it is, or if it really exists. The government may have successfully guarded its Area 51 secrets (downed alien aircraft or U.S. test plane?), but the G-Men are in many respects no match for Apple. No one protects super secret projects like Apple. Much of the information out there is likely false.

    Some of the leaks and rumors also are likely misdirection, so that people look in the wrong direction. Apple CEO Steve Jobs is magician and master of the sleight of hand. As a product presenter, he cooly emphasizes benefits that make products seem larger than they are. As a protector of secrets, he lets rumors (and quite possibly leaks) lead expectations down blind alleys. Apple has every reason to let the rumors run wild. They're worth millions in free marketing. Whenever the sasquatch, unicorn or alien invader is revealed, people will be surprised how wrong were their expectations.

    2. It's not ready. Assuming there is an Apple tablet (he, he, Applet) somewhere in hiding, it's not ready to ship. For all Apple's super secretiveness, there are too many rumors to dismiss. As production ramps up for the product, the more people that know about it will increase seemingly exponentially. According to early and late December rumors coming out of Asia, Apple has placed orders for touchscreens large enough for the rumored tablet. The secret will have to get out, if manufacturing ramps out.

    More likely, Apple will do with the rumored tablet what it did with iPhone: Announce way ahead of manufacturing -- to keep the secret from getting out and to allow for FCC approval, should any be necessary. Additionally, Apple needs time to finalize content deals, which negotiations would be another source of leaks. That puts first product delivery a minimum four to eight weeks from the announcement. Apple will announce and ship later.

    3. It's disruptive. Without there ever officially being a product, Apple's mythical tablet is hugely disruptive. For starters, look how much geeks are writing about something that doesn't exist -- at least not officially yet. On Saturday, I wrote "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other," trying to bring some sanity to the runaway speculation and rumors. That post stirred up geek emotions like nothing I've seen in years, and I thought geeks were supposed to be intellectuals. Marc Flores, Scott Fulton, Robert Scoble and MG Siegler were among the bloggers responding to my post.

    I howled when reading the lead sentence to Siegler's rebuttal post: "If Joe Wilcox ran the computer industry, we'd still be using typewriters." For the record, in an era before PCs, I started using a typewriter for all written work at age 14. Today, I'd gladly dump the keyboard for voice notes that are automatically and correctly transcribed and would be searchable in audio or text form. Sign me up, baby. The keyboard is too slow for my creative brain. I'd take voice editing over keyboard writing any day.

    But there is more disruption to come, assuming that the tablet -- I'll call it iSlab, for fun -- really exists in some super secret enclave. Apple has a long history of releasing disruptive products, starting with its first PCs and, of course, the graphical user interface Macintosh in 1984. Some others:

    • It was disruptive (and controversial) when in 1998 Apple shipped iMac with FireWire and USB ports as replacements for legacy ones.
    • Apple shipped DVD players as standard equipment on computers well ahead of Windows PC OEMs. I signed up for Netflix in February 1999 and watched the first movie on a PowerBook G3.
    • The iPod has been a series of disruptions, starting with the original 5GB hard drive model. The iPod nano was hugely disruptive, with Apple retiring predecessor iPod mini at the height of popularity and just as competitors brought copycats to market. It was simply brilliant.
    • The iTunes Music Store's opening in April 2003 disrupted other digital download stores, CD albums and even illegal file trading.
    • The iPhone is best, recent example of Apple disruption -- the device, applications store and online sync service. Smartphone isn't a new category, by any means. But iPhone redefined the category and brought magic and fun to using mobile handsets.

    Whatever beast the iSlab turns out to be, it will be disruptive. Apple's corporate character won't suddenly change for iSlab. The product will be decisively disruptive. If not, about 1,000 geeks will have catastrophic heart failure they're so over-emotional and hyped up about iSlab. Say, there should be a medical disorder for that. Can you suggest a name in comments?

    4. It's extensible. The iSlab will extend "the Mac as digital lifestyle hub concept" that Jobs introduced a decade ago, and it will extend the mobile lifestyle platform introduced with App Store in summer 2008. I can comfortably assert to know this because of Apple's consistent behavior developing and releasing new products. By the way, I first blogged about Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform potential in July 2008 and February 2009.

    The mythical iSlab will be about media creation and consumption, building off existing Apple products. This isn't exactly rocket science to figure out, so, please, could commenters refrain from sarcasm asserting so. Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, iTunes and, to lesser extent, MobileMe can share the same kind of content.

    Here's where I want to speculate about modularization, such as extending iSlab with Bluetooth keyboard or mouse. But I'll refrain, since like most everyone else I don't know what the device really is (It might not be a tablet, folks). What I do know comes from seeing the shadows cast by the mythical device and the company rumored to be developing it.

    5. It meets the six tenants of good design. In 2004, I put together four criteria for technology product design that I later extended to six. A well-designed technology product should:

    • Build on the familiar
    • Emphasize simplicity
    • Hide complexity
    • Let people do something new they wished they could do
    • Do what it's supposed to do really well
    • When displacing something else, offer a significantly better experience

    I fully expect a successful iSlab to embody these principles, as have many other Apple products. The "when displacing something else, offer a significantly better experience" will be crucial if one of Apple's goals is to displace netbooks and even laptops. The iSlab's natural user interface must make the keyboard and mouse look completely antiquated by comparison.

    I have blogged quite a bit about hands and touch as being the obvious user interface for any technology product, but particularly mobile devices. Human beings are tactile creatures. Here is an excerpt from one of my posts on the subject, from January 2008:

    Anthropologically, the mouse and keyboard are, used together, an unnatural user interface. Human beings are tool users that experience and manipulate the world through five senses. There is little in human biological or cultural experience that equates to either device. Most tools are really extensions of the hands; the mouse and keyboard UI is neither. The keyboard is a particularly unnatural construct, by the way fingers are used or by keys' alphabetical organization, which is based on the number of times letters are likely to be used.

    Multitouch is a more natural UI than mouse and keyboard as are other user interfaces that capitalize on any of the five senses. If iSlab displaces the mouse and keyboard, extending what Apple has done with iPhone, it could lead to a paradigm shift in computing -- away from the PC. But Apple is by no means alone working this area. Windows 7 has multitouch capabilities, too, and touch is standard on most recent smartphones.

    6. One more thing. [Editor's warning: Some readers will be offended by the next three pargraphs.] In wrapping up, I want to express my disappointment about the blogosphere's reaction to Saturday's "world doesn't need an Apple tablet" post. I don't mind the vilifying blogs or comments -- I rather enjoy them; argument is a productive enterprise. Like most of my recent commentaries, the post was supposed to be disruptive. Geek hyperventilation about the mythical Apple tablet and its lift to Apple's stock price have simply gone too far. I hoped to generate some real discussion, by being intentionally disruptive. An Apple tablet with too many overlapping features with smartphones below and laptops above is one possible scenario, and it's recipe for modest success. But no one outside Apple's privileged few -- again, assuming iSlab is for real -- knows what the product is. All this hyperventilation and discussion is wasted time.

    While I relish the pageviews, I consider Saturday's post to be a failure because it generated the wrong kind of discussion. This newer post is yet another attempt to be disruptive and to get people thinking more rationally about iSlab-- and, yes, the blog title is purposely provocative. I really don't take all this tablet talk all that seriously. But I can now see from the reaction to my Saturday post how much that geekdom has turned freekdom over Apple's rumored product. Some people have called Apple's iPhone the Jesus phone. There's something hopefully and unrealistically messianic -- that iSlab will save everyone from their ills -- about geek reactions to Apple's rumored tablet. Hallelujah, Jesus Jobs is coming on the clouds to save us all.

    There's a sixth thing I know about Apple's tablet: The world is much larger than geekdom. In the real world, where people are impoverished and oppressed, handsets running Android and Symbian OS are more likely to improve lives than Apple's mythical tablet. The enormous positive impact of mobile devices on people living in emerging markets is something to talk about. That impact is real, not some geek fantasy. What do I really know about Apple's tablet? I know enough to see that there are more important things in life -- at least until the truth be told.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/04/What_you_want_from_an_Apple_tablet'

    What you want from an Apple tablet

    Publié: janvier 4, 2010, 2:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday's request for Betanews readers to answer "What would you use an Apple tablet, or any other, for?" has brought plenty of answers, perhaps because the post -- "The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other" -- was so provocative. I wrote that post to bring some sanity to the outrageously loud Apple tablet hype. Instead, the post stirred up geek emotions and several, pointed rebuttal blogs (Marc Flores, Robert Scoble and MG Siegler, among others). I won't defend yesterday's post here. It stands or falls on its merits.

    But I do want to call out some readers' responses about what they would do with an Apple tablet. As I write, there are 119 comments, which is enough for some of the best ones to get lost. I want to thank you all for sharing your enthusiasm about the mythical Apple tablet and what you would do with it. Some of the best comments were simply too long to present here; my apologies for omitting them. They could have been separate posts, and maybe they should be. The comments collected here are presented randomly.

    JGowan: "Your questions to us...'What would you use an Apple tablet, or any other, for?' The answer I think that best fits here is 'What WON'T I use an Apple tablet for?' If you look at the dedicated tablet devices on the market currently from Amazon, Sony and Barnes & Noble, you see that, while they might do a few things other than reading, Reading is really their trick. They represent the famous 1-Trick pony. I think the iSlate will become the 100,000-Trick Pony. Just as the iPhone is benefitting greatly from the ever-growing App Store, this device will also have an App Store that position the iSlate as the Can-Do-Anything device...As for me, while I'll use it for a myriad of things, the thing that I really can't wait is for magazine subscriptions."

    chasuk-2010: "I've been hoping for this product for a long time, and I'll buy it immediately. The Kindle was almost there, and the nook was closer, but neither product offered enough to induce me to me stop reading ebooks on my Touch."

    Drewski4747: "I'm about to be going to college, and I imagine that a apple tablet would be a cool easy to use touchscreen-netbook. If Apple does release a tablet computer I can definitely see myself buying one to use in college. I imagine that many other people who don't already have an iphone or itouch who need to get a laptop of some sort would see an Apple tablet computer as a very good option, just as I do."

    jim4kos: "Apart from the notepad part of it that students from the age of 14 to 25-26, all people working and needing a notepad and books (including tech companies and journalists especially), which for sure will find it very convenient, its e-magazine/e-book/e-newspaper part of it along with all the movies, browsing and music, as well as all the applications that will come along with it over time, make it useful to such a large number of people that it cannot be considered a niche market."

    kanister:

    I would use tablet for the following things I currently do on other devices:
    • Games - better screen than Ipod touch, touch screen and movement sensing way better than laptop which I have never played game on, better graphics than Nin DS, great games at app store, more on the way).
    • Ereading - I wanted a Kindle this year (almost $400) but decided to wait to see what Apple tablet may have to offer, if it is $600 abd has good ereading system, I'd pay the extra for a more pleasant Apple experience. GPS - If tablet is portable like say a netbook, Mac Air, and has mobile phone data connection, I would keep it in car.
    • Phone - might even work for this if I could use dumb phone connection when I'm away from tablet, and blue tooth when I have it with me, I'd pay for a simple phone for times I need most portable. I know this is a stretch, but kid can hope.

    pwb: "I could see these tablets replacing the whole consumer notebook market. Fact is, most consumers don't need notebooks and notebooks are too complicated for most consumers. You'll be able to stand it up and connect a bluetooth keyboard to it to get a more traditional desk top experience. It will be interesting to see if Apple can get it below $500 or $600."

    Jack_k1@hotmail.com: "What I want is a tablet that acts as my mobile computing hub. Give me the following in my tablet: GPS, notebook sized touch screen, 3G, and Bluetooth. That's it."

    martinadamek:

    I use both, an iPhone and MacBook Pro. I still really want a tablet (not necessarily Apple one) for:

    a) Kindle reader. I use iPhone for that, but bigger screen would help. MacBook is useless here, I need to hold it sitting, standing or lying

    b) Twitter, RSS, News, Facebook reader. Consuming the content is for me the main activity comparing to creating one. I want to sit on the sofa in the evening, drink wine and read. iPhone too small, MacBook has to be in one position and has no touch screen (which I think is great for navigation)

    c) MacBook (or any other notebook) is just not comfortable enough for evening reading. I want to hold that thing in one hand (in bed, kitchen or sofa) and browse the web. iPhone is great, but not for home, it's too limited because of the screen size.

    Paul A. Chapel: "I only need a couple real reasons to have an Apple Tablet. One, I read a lot on my iPod Touch and it hurts my eyes after several minutes. I would like a big size iPhone just so my eyes won't hurt while reading. And also, I like to listen to classical music while reading. If I can do those two things, I'm good to go."

    Azure Feast:

    I see three compelling applications for an Apple tablet:
    • I want a touchscreen version of Novation's Automap to control my music. It will soon exist on the iPhone or iPod Touch, but this is a good example of an application that begs for a bigger touchscreen.
    • I want a portable device to look at photos. The iPhone is too small to make any justice to good photos.. the larger the screen the better. But I don't want to drag my friends in front of a computer either. By the same token it could make a good digital photo frame.
    • I spend much time surfing on sites like this one.This kind of navigation requires minimal keyboard interaction... but I want two things: a screen that is comfortable enough for my eyes and a connection to my home wireless LAN.

    solarexec: "The iSlate is Apple's next step into HOME AUTOMATION - a huge emerging market currently underserved by the likes of companies like Control4. It gives Apple an opportunity to integrate the iTunes / Apple TV home multimedia expertise along with the iphone/app store ecosystem into an entirely new and emerging market. The iSlate -- used as a home automation control center along with its other natural functionality -- suddenly gives it a reason to exist (it attaches to the home dock and controls eerything from lights to thermostats to music and TV while allowing you to browse the web etc when you are on your couch)."

    Technofobe: "I can say right away what the Apple tablet will do for the average person. They will be able to surf the web, view media, read e-books in a very convenient format (That's what the average user wants the most with technology). Let's face it, lugging around a laptop is just not cool anymore. Laptops are cumbersome, but the iphone screen is too small. By finding a happy medium between the two, I think Apple is set for another hit."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2010/01/02/The_world_doesn_t_need_an_Apple_tablet__or_any_other'

    The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, or any other

    Publié: janvier 2, 2010, 7:34pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's rumored tablet computer cannot live up to the hype, which has reached almost ridiculous levels of rumor, speculation and anticipation. The rumored tablet will fall short of expectations, because they are simply too unrealistic. What surprises me most about the excitement and early analyst sales projections: No one is talking about addressable market.

    So I'll assert what should be obvious to anyone thinking rationally and not emotionally: Tablet is a nowhere category. For all the hype about an Apple tablet , it is at best a niche product. The world doesn't need an Apple tablet, no matter what the hype about rumored features or regardless of what actually releases (if anything).

    As I will explain in this commentary, an Apple tablet -- no matter how innovative -- faces three distinctive market challenges: The greater desirability of smaller devices; overlapping functionality with devices above and below it; and functionality too limited without a physical keyboard. The question everyone should ask: What would you use an Apple tablet, or any other, for? Follow-up: What in the answer to that question is something you can't do on an iPhone (or other smartphone) or laptop? I encourage Betanews readers to answer these questions in comments.

    The Middle Product Syndrome

    Late yesterday, I asked my good friend and long-time Mac journalist Jim Dalrymple what he would use an Apple tablet for? He didn't immediately answer the question, which was unusual for either him or his famous beard. Eventually, Dalrymple told me that he would carry a tablet on his next trip rather than a MacBook. "You're going to write stories on a touchscreen keyboard?" I asked. Yes -- and he has written stories on iPhone. I internally chuckled, because that answer is one of the fundamental concerns about an Apple tablet.

    Dalrymple couldn't give me any good functions that can't be done with iPhone. He can surf the Web, run applications, send e-mail, share digital content, consume digital content and more using iPhone. Apple's rumored tablet -- if there really is one -- can't functionally be all that different from iPhone, which also is a tablet. The UI may function differently, but cool doesn't make a product practical. I don't see how an Apple tablet, or any other, can be practically better than having a smartphone. Just the opposite: The smartphone is practically better because of its portability.

    Apple is part of the reason why tablets cannot succeed in the current market. The iPhone already is a tablet, with touchscreen keyboard, always-connected Internet and pocketable size for an affordable price ($99 for the 3G model, subsidized). Sure, an Apple tablet could be much larger -- say, 7-inch or 10-inch screen -- but it wouldn't be easily carried everywhere and likely wouldn't have a constant Internet connection. How many people are really going to spend for two 3G data plans, just so they can carry a smartphone and a tablet? Others could carry a dumbphone and tablet, but they would still pay for extra wireless service. If there is no 3G, why should most anyone carry the device at all when the smartphone provides connected applications and a Web browser?

    A tablet functionally lies somewhere between a smartphone and small laptop -- even a netbook. There is too much overlapping functionality between the smartphone and laptop. I call it the middle product (like middle child) syndrome. The overlap won't justify the price, which for the rumored Apple tablet Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster audaciously predicts will be $600. What? Are most users going to buy a touchscreen and tablet or tablet and laptop (and no cell phone) -- or perhaps all three? The answer is no, no and no. If you disagree, comments are there for a reason. Use them.

    Right now, Apple already sells in iPhone a sensible tablet useful for 90 percent (at least) of what most people might need from a larger tablet. Apple's priority shouldn't be a 7-inch or 10-inch tablet but a slightly larger iPhone with higher-resolution screen, faster processor, more memory and the ability to run background applications. Those improvements describe features available on some newer smartphones, including the HTC HD2 or Nokia N900.

    Tablet is a Niche Product, Period

    I haven't read any online analysis or commentary seriously asking what an Apple tablet would be used for or what is the addressable market. In our conversation yesterday, Dalrymple asserted that there doesn't need to be one. Apple will create it. I disagreed, using iPod and iPhone as examples, asserting that the company's most successful products pushed into established markets, even if marginally created.

    For example, when Apple got into the portable music player market, Sony had been there with Walkman (granted, analog tapes) for about two decades and portable CD players (granted, not all that portable) had been available for about half as long. MP3 players had been around in some form for at least four years before iPod debuted. A category existed that Apple extended, capitalizing on content people already owned (from CDs) or had stolen (from file trading sites).

    The cell phone market already had an install base of several billion users when Apple released iPhone in June 2007. HTC, Nokia, Palm and Research in Motion had shipped more media-centric sophisticated handsets for years. Apple slapped a better user interface and user experience (UX) on the smartphone, but the category existed. Sure, Apple did in some ways redefine the category, but handsets sold well without iPhone.

    The tablet market is different. While established at least as well as MP3 players when iPod debuted in October 2001, tablets are a niche category -- and for good reasons. There is little mass-market use for the category; the middle product syndrome is one reason. I'd argue the market for tablets is even smaller today than 2007 because of iPhone and the dramatic increase in number of competing smartphones released in the past two-and-a-half years. A keyboard could extend the market, but whoops other smartphones and netbooks have got those already.

    Microsoft has taken three shots at tablets, without much success:

    • Tablet PC, as announced by Chairman Bill Gates during Comdex 2001
    • Origami -- officially known as Ultra-Mobile PC-- unveiled in Spring 2006
    • Windows 7 multitouch, supported by new tablet PCs shipping from October 2009

    Microsoft also is rumored to be working on a new tablet concept called Courier. Plenty of other companies -- Nokia and Sony, among them -- have released different types of tablet, each failing to achieve mass-market success. The tablet started out as a niche device and, for the foreseeable future, it will remain a niche device, no matter how innovative is Apple's design or user interface.

    Some Apple tablet defenders will write in comments about the publishing possibilities, such as ebook functionality to compete with Amazon's Kindle, Barnes & Noble's Nook or the Sony Reader. Amazon had a great holiday season selling Kindle, which would seem to validate the idea that an Apple tablet supporting ebooks could sell as well or better. But most everyone is looking at Kindle the wrong way. The question shouldn't be "How many Kindles did Amazon sell?" but "How many more Kindles could Amazon have sold if its ebook reader software wasn't available for iPhone?" For many users, iPhone is good-enough ebook reader.

    Will Apple Tablet be another Cube?

    There is something about the rumored Apple tablet and its timing that is eerily familiar. History tends to repeat, which for companies is their repeating past mistakes. In summer 2000, Apple released the ill-fated Power Mac G4 Cube. I bought one. It was a work of beauty. But Cube was a niche PC suffering from the middle product syndrome. It functionally wasn't superior to lower-cost iMacs but cost much more and also couldn't easily be upgraded, unlike Power Mac towers. Apple overproduced Cube, expecting big sales. They never came, but a recession did, forcing Apple to issue a profit warning in autumn 2000.

    Like today, Apple's share price was soaring to record levels before Cube came along. In April 2000, the company's stock closed at $121.75, after Apple announced a two-for-one split and strong quarterly earnings results. The day after Apple's Sept. 28, 2000, profit warning, shares plummeted by nearly 50 percent, to around $28 from $53.50 in early trading. On Dec. 6, 2000, Apple issued yet another warning, about sitting on 11 weeks of inventory, instead of the typical three or four. Apple shares slid another 16 percent to $14.31, marking their lowest closing since June 1998, about two months before Jobs introduced the original iMac. On Feb. 9, 2001, following another profit warning, Apple shares plunged another 14 percent.

    The point: Apple's stock has once again reached record levels, buoyed on the hype surrounding a product that may not even exist. If there is an Apple tablet, and the announcement is imminent as rumored, questions about market viability must be asked and answered. I also caution everyone that Apple's high-flying stock today ahead of the rumored tablet's rumored announcement remind too much of share price highs nearly a decade ago before Cube debuted. If the tablet can't meet the hype, or turns out to fill a niche market, what happens to the price of Apple shares?

    That brings me back to my assertion that iPhone is functional enough, more portable and better connected than could be any 7-inch or 10-inch tablet. Would you buy an iPhone and iPod touch? I expect that for most people the answer will be "No." There is too much overlap in features and functionality and few additional benefits. If Apple's rumored tablet runs iPhone OS (or something close to it) and offers App Store applications, what will really distinguish it from iPhone -- other than better hardware, larger size and perhaps flashier UI? Are these features real benefits that would justify buying an iPhone (or other smartphone) and a tablet? You know my answer. Please offer yours in comments.

    Update: After posting, I saw in my RSS feeds that John Gruber rightly asked: "If you already have an iPhone and a MacBook; why would you want this?" He concludes that Apple is "swinging big -- redefining the experience of personal computing...The Tablet, I say, is going to be Apple's new answer to what you use for personal portable general computing." Gruber probably is right about Apple's intentions, but I still say that the "new answer" is already here: The smartphone, a category where iPhone already redefines "the experience of personal computing." The smartphone is good enough and it's affordably priced. In most mass-market product categories, particularly technology, good enough defines success.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/31/Ten_resolutions_Microsoft_should_make_for_2010'

    Ten resolutions Microsoft should make for 2010

    Publié: décembre 31, 2009, 8:14am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Each year, I offer a list of things Microsoft should do in the coming year, in lieu of making predictions. It's a bit arrogant to tell Microsoft what to do, but I've got a good track record of giving advice that is right. The year ahead will be challenging for Microsoft, as the company struggles against weak global economies and to successfully launch cloud services.

    Ten resolutions aren't enough. I had to ignore so many others, such as keeping CEO Steve Ballmer (don't fire him!) or uniting Xbox and Zune (something already underway). The list is in order of importance, from least to most, from 10 to 1.

    10. Resume giving financial guidance to Wall Street. In January, a year will have passed since you stopped giving guidance for future earnings. The time has long passed to get with it and give it up, Microsoft. On Tuesday, Microsoft's stock hit a 52-week high of $31.50 a share. Sure there is some risk that weak projections will hurt the stock. But by withholding guidance, you let uncertainty and gossip determine perceptions about sales and earnings performance. Microsoft, take charge of perceptions by giving information, rather than withholding it.

    9. Spend even more on advertising. From February, you hit a series of marketing home runs, each stronger than the last, Microsoft. "I'm a PC," "Bing" and "Windows 7 was my idea" marketing campaigns were exceptionally good. Don't stop, Microsoft. You're on a roll, and there is no better time to advertise than during a recession. If businesses and consumers are spending less during the recession, make sure it's on your products.

    8. Engage enthusiasts. OMG, what happened to you 2009, Microsoft? After years of largely ignoring enthusiasts, you reached out to them through blogs, Connect beta programs, forums, social networking services, YouTube and your highly-trafficked Websites. Enthusiasts are any company's best marketers, and they came through for you this year, particularly for Windows 7. Launching an ongoing Security Essentials beta program and releasing such a broad Office 2010 preview are working for the future. Keep up the enthusiast engagement and extend it with more freebees and contests during 2010.

    7. Release an iLife-like suite for Windows. Sorry, Windows Live Essentials is nothing close to iLife. Apple's digital content creation suite is simply superb, but much less so in version `09 than `06. Apple has introduced too much complexity without increasing the flexibility. A Windows iLife alternative with the simple, straightforward user interface of Zune 4.0 would be phenomenal. Windows Live Movie Maker is a surprisingly good start towards the kind of simplicity and usability (including lower memory footprint) a Microsoft digital content suite should have.

    6. Develop a WebKit browser. Internet Explorer 9 is a waste of development dollars, Microsoft. Your customers and developers need a fast, flexible browser for mobile and the desktop. Internet Explorer is bleeding users on the desktop and picking up nearly nothing on mobile devices. Apple, Google and Palm all offer good mobile WebKit browsers. Microsoft, you should develop one, too, and quickly. IE's future value should be providing legacy support. It's time to admit that commercial open-source is a viable business for you.

    5. Choose a Frontman. Microsoft, you need a visionary leader/speaker, someone with stature. Apple has Steve Jobs. You need someone, too. There aren't many candidates within the company. But two men have potential to assume the role, granted without Jobs' stature but they're still good enough: Bill Buxton, chief researcher for Microsoft Research, and Yusuf Mehdi, senior vice president of the Online Audience Business. Buxton is charismatic with a capital "C," and he smartly creates historical context and tells exciting stories when discussing the seemingly boring topic of natural user interfaces. Buxton is brilliant, engaging and likable.

    Mehdi is simply believable. He's not flashy and sometimes speaks uncertainly. But his intelligence and honesty (whether or not real) shines through. Mehdi also occupies a key leadership position in an area where Microsoft needs to demonstrate vision. He would grow into the frontman role, and people would grow along with him.

    If not these men, choose somebody, Microsoft. But not Craig Mundie. He may be chief researcher and strategy officer and so a seemingly good candidate for the job. Mundie is a boring speaker. Linux and Mac users would switch to Windows if he pitched their products. Mundie is a visionary leader and asset in that role. But he's not a visionary speaker.

    4. Open 50 more stores or cafés. In my past two years of resolutions for you, opening retail stores ranked near the top of the lists. The two stores opened in late 2009 are a good start, Microsoft, but they're not nearly enough. Don't be afraid of losing money on the stores, at least early years. They are marketing investments for better building your brand and for selling the Microsoft lifestyle.

    Recession is good timing because commercial real estate will be cheaper. Take advantage while you can. In the United States cover major metropolitan areas -- and don't choose them solely based on there being an Apple Store. Among the metro areas: Austin, Boston, Chicago, Chapel Hill-Raleigh-Durham Triangle, Columbus, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Make cities with high student populations a priority.

    Internationally, open stores in Beijing, Berlin, London, Mexico City, Moscow, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Seoul and Tokyo. Make cities with large numbers of tourists a priority. Localize the stores -- don't make them all the same like Apple does. Also use them to educate people about the benefits of buying software over pirating it.

    3. Buy Facebook -- and not Twitter. So what, if Facebook might not be for sale. Microsoft, make an offer that can't be refused. In a September 2007 blog post, I called Facebook an operating system in the clouds: "Facebook is like Microsoft, only the social networking company's platform is built on the Internet...The operating system in the cloud concept has potential, and Microsoft has the know-how and experience to make the platform successful."

    Facebook's cloud OS, with zillions of applications and more than 350 million subscribers is now a vortex sucking in seemingly all Internet traffic. Many people who posted to blogs and photo sharing sites are moving their personal information and content to Facebook -- like they did Windows a computing generation ago. Facebook has huge customer lock-in potential, because the data is so much more personal than that put into Office and Windows a decade ago. The two platforms, Facebook and Windows, united would put Microsoft in a stronger competitive position against Google, for starters.

    2. Make incubation projects your top development priority. You really pissed off this journalist when gutting Windows Live Labs in April and later whacking other valuable incubation projects as part of cutbacks. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid. Some of the best, recent Microsoft products or services came from incubation projects.

    These incubation groups should operate like mini-startups, free to develop unfettered by any requirement to connect any of their work to any other Microsoft product, particularly Office or Windows. Let them run free, run wild, wildly innovate. Google's Gmail Labs has turned Gmail into a modularized e-mail client that raises the question: "Who really needs Outlook?" Make modularity a design priority for incubation groups, which should be compensated for their brilliant work.

    1. Create a mobile Manhattan Project. You are so fraked in the mobile device market you don't seem to understand how bad off is the situation. Get with it, Microsoft -- goddamn it! You challenged Netscape in the late 1990s by releasing three Internet Explorer versions -- all greatly improving on the other -- in about 18 months. Your mobile strategy requires an even greater investment in shorter time. Apple and Google are stealing customers, developers and market mindshare. You will lose mobile -- with cloud services the next-generation computing platform -- without taking drastic actions.

    On Tuesday, I encouraged you to buy Palm, because nothing short of starting over may be enough to fix your problems fast enough. Apple's secret weapon is multitouch, a beautiful user interface and beaucoop applications (among them, games galore). Google has got search and sync. Research in Motion has push e-mail. You've got what? I've made specific suggestions in the past and will make many more in future post(s). I first made the Manhattan Project recommendation in June 2008. Can you finally listen and get with it?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/30/2000_2009__Microsoft_s_decade_of_shattered_dreams'

    2000-2009: Microsoft's decade of shattered dreams

    Publié: décembre 30, 2009, 10:36pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This will be the toughest commentary I likely will ever write about Microsoft. It is toughest for me to compose because I see what Microsoft could have been in 2009 from where it started in 2000. It is toughest on Microsoft, more than anything I may ever write again about the company.

    I dedicate this seemingly harsh post to all the Microsoft employees that privately have complained about management problems -- not because they were mad or resentful but because they desperately wanted to fix the problems. They spoke to me in confidence out of their love for Microsoft. I apologize for not speaking up for them before. I do so today, as reflection on the past to shed light on future actions. The decade 2010 could be better if Microsoft learns from its mistakes.

    Long on Vision, Short on Execution

    Microsoft executives and product managers -- Chairman Bill Gates, above all of them -- showed great technology vision for the new millennium. The company was right about so many trends to come but, sadly, executed poorly in bringing too many of them to market. Microsoft's stiffness, perhaps a sign of its aging leadership, consistently proved its foible. Then there is arcane organizational structure, which has swelled with needless middle managers, and the system of group competition -- and in the new century compensation -- that worked well for a growth company but not one trying to manage mature markets.

    Some of the many, many examples of good Microsoft vision gone bad:

    Ebooks -- Microsoft released its ebook reader software in early 2000, but didn't stick with the strategy. So it would be Amazon and not Microsoft that would fulfill the ebook vision.

    HailStorm -- Microsoft had the right idea about consumer Web services, announced in early 2001 and killed about a year later. Today the Web is all about consumer Web services with Facebook leading the way.

    Digital music -- Microsoft saw the potential for digital content, starting with music, long before Apple. But Microsoft chose to drive usage through digital rights management tied to Windows when the focus should have been digitizing the content consumers already owned on CDs. Apple got it right.

    NTFS -- The new data store extended the Cairo vision abandoned in the mid 1990s. Microsoft was right about storage's importance but gave up on a vision that would have made Windows and Windows Server the center. Instead, Amazon took storage to the cloud, and Microsoft is still playing catch up with Azure, which goes live later this week.

    Origami -- Microsoft was right that consumers and business users would want a small, low-cost tablet computer. The company understood the right price, under $500, which its partners couldn't deliver. But Apple delivered the right kind of touchscreen device, with iPhone in June 2007.

    I could easily rattle off twenty 2000-2009 visionary projects that Microsoft started, only to later cancel or fumble. It's a maddening reflection, because there is so much promise gone bad.

    Microsoft Should Have Fired all the MBAs

    The new millennium's first 10 years is really Microsoft's lost decade. It is a decade of shattered dreams. Microsoft 2000-2009 is a casebook study why no company should allow its ranks of MBAs to swell too large. The company's 5,000-plus layoffs should have sacked 95 percent of the MBAs rather than the many good, hard-working employees sent packing. I repeatedly hear Microsoft employees privately complain about there seemingly being one MBA -- or lawyer -- on campus for every other employee.

    I'm so hard on the MBAs (and lawyers), because Microsoft's problem during 2000-2009 wasn't lack of the aforementioned vision but of execution. Somebody had a good idea, Microsoft started to bring it to market and the project was cut clearly for some business or legal reason. A close examination shows a common trend: Repeated starts, stops, realignments, more starts and major directional changes or closure of many good projects. It's like some business dude spent too much time plowing through spreadsheets when he or she needed to get out into the real world.

    Bill Gates and UMPCMicrosoft Chairman Bill Gates shows off Origami devices

    That's another problem -- and I've heard about it so many, many times from Microsoft employees: Most every technology decision must be justified by some data point. No company spends on research like Microsoft -- third-party analyst studies, Microsoft collected data and seemingly bazillions of focus groups. During this decade, justification by data hasn't worked well for Microsoft visions becoming reality.

    Microsoft's two failed acquisitions -- Yahoo and YouTube -- show how MBA thinking and over-reliance on data analysis proved fatal. About six months before Google paid $1.6 billion to buy YouTube, Microsoft passed on about a $500 million acquisition opportunity. Ballmer later said that Microsoft conducted a buy-versus-build analysis and decided it would be more cost-effective to create a video streaming service. Microsoft launched MSN Soapbox, which flopped and later failed. YouTube became one of the hottest properties on the Web and huge driver of Google search traffic. Just for search alone, YouTube would have been an invaluable service for Microsoft.

    The failed nearly $45 billion Yahoo acquisition is another example of MBA-thinking and over-emphasis on data analysis gone wrong. Microsoft wrongly assumed that combined with Yahoo its search share would reach 30 percent in the United States and higher in some other markets. The same reasoning applied to the search deal Microsoft eventually cut with Yahoo --- and more: Search scale would allow Microsoft to improve search accuracy. The reasoning is fundamentally flawed, as recent ComScore search share numbers indicate: Microsoft will cannibalize rather than combine with Yahoo search share. Meanwhile, Google will continue its search gains and extend them to mobile devices.

    Overfeeding the Cash Cows

    By the same kind of MBA logic, Microsoft should do nothing really new. All future innovation should be tied to the cash cow products -- Office and Windows. Where Microsoft did extend, in server software, it tied countless features to Office, most aggressively starting with the 2003 release cycle. What would SharePoint have been if not for Office, or visa versa, after v2003?

    Related: Focus on competitors rather than innovation really defined Microsoft 2000-2009 business and technology practices. It's one reason why Microsoft got blindsided by Apple and Google in the handset market. Microsoft relied too much on data supporting its enterprise handset strategy, meanwhile working to match BlackBerry e-mail features; no coincidence, features that would benefit Outlook and Exchange Server. Microsoft took Windows Mobile development down the wrong path and now struggles to return to the fork in the road.

    Gates and BallmerMicrosoft's CEO and Chairman discuss Bill Gates' impending semi-retirement

    Innovators focus on the customer and creating something that people didn't know they needed. Apple has done this repeatedly over the years. Creating something people didn't know they needed is an axiom of good design and not easily achievable when the focus is on responding to competitors, which are a distraction. Google is Microsoft's biggest distraction. Microsoft leadership recognized Google to be a competitor long before it ever was. But Microsoft followed Google rather than leading with innovation. It's a stupid, sorry mess.

    Where Microsoft defied the data or business school common sense, success followed. Xbox is the textbook example, and it should be the model for other Microsoft projects. Microsoft set out in the game console market with the expectation of losing money for many years. That investment, coupled with good management decisions and vision, paid off for Microsoft. Who would have really thought in 2001 that in just a few years Microsoft would dethrone Sony in the game console market? Similarly, Azure's potential is Microsoft's investment in it for long-term gain. The approach defies typical business school logic, which for public companies too often emphasizes short-term, quarterly goals.

    Short-Term Goals are a Long-Term Problem

    Short-term goals are Microsoft counterculture. Gates built the business by making fast, short-term tactical decisions without sacrificing longer-term visions five to 10 years out. Long-term technology planning has long been a core Microsoft strength. This mix of tactical and long-term business operations made Microsoft one of the most successful companies of the 1980s and 1990s. But in the early 2000s, while long-term vision remained, MBA assessments and legal considerations ruled too many short-term decisions -- and they killed some visionary stuff, too.

    In looking at the decade, the technology leadership made one major frak-up -- and it was huge: Windows Vista. Jim Allchin and his team fraked it up, totally. Windows Longhorn (e.g., Vista), and all those features promised during PDC 2003 and later dumped in 2004 and 2005, is a textbook case of product management gone awry. The problem was one of too much vision and not enough short-term execution.

    Longhorn truly would have been a transformative operating system. If released in 2005 as envisioned, Longhorn would have shaped the technology landscape towards a different direction than it has gone today. Almost certainly, Microsoft would have assured Windows' computational and informational relevance for much longer, reigned in developers who left for the Web, held down Mac market share to a couple percent and slowed down Google's advances. As I've repeated so many times, nearly all the social media changes now underway and Google's rapidly gaining Web dominance started in 2006.

    Something else did happen in 2005. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer reorganized the company, placing business and marketing people in key leadership positions, including the three newly created presidents. For a company of technology geeks, marketing leaders were something close to freaks -- or so I've heard from a number of Microsoft employees.

    Is that the end then, for Microsoft? Hardly, despite the econolypse sapping sales. In 2009, Microsoft promoted two technologists, Bob Muglia and Steven Sinfosky, to be presidents over Server & Tools and Windows & Windows Live divisions, respectively. Outsider and technologist Stephen Elop has competently run the Business division since assuming the president's role in early 2008.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft product managers started using blogs and social media tools to get more in touch with customers and enthusiasts and to better incorporate their feedback into the product development process. The quality of this effort dramatically improved in 2009.

    But "the road ahead," using the title of Gates' 1995 book, is full of potholes. Microsoft needs to cut the middle management (five layers of managers is five layers too many), layoff or demote many of its MBAs, put more geeks in charge of major projects and focus more on long-term innovation rather than short-term goals or reaction to competitors. Microsoft isn't a lost cause. It's simply a company that lost its way.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/29/10_reasons_why_Microsoft_must_buy_Palm__NOW'

    10 reasons why Microsoft must buy Palm, NOW

    Publié: décembre 29, 2009, 11:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The new year is time for reflection and planning. I've got a New Year's resolution for Microsoft: Buy Palm and use the hardware and software to jumpstart your mobile strategy. Palm the company is struggling and may not survive past 2010. But its technology is worthwhile. WebOS is a modern, mobile operating system. So what if it's based on Linux? What operating system did Hotmail run when Microsoft bought it more than a decade ago? You know the answer. Linux is better than nothing.

    My list is in no order of importance, because all the reasons are important and they are interrelated.

    1. Palm would be cheap and a much more sensible purchase than Research in Motion. Today, Palm stock closed around 10 bucks a share. The company's market capitalization is around $1.7 billion. Other commentators have suggested Microsoft should buy RIM, but the Canadian company would cost more and bring along lots of legacy technology, carrier relationships and manufacturing and hardware infrastructure. Then there is the problem of overlap -- for business customers, developers and hardware manufacturers -- with Windows Mobile/Phone. Even if Microsoft paid more than market valuation, Palm would be a bargain for the technology and market jumping position.

    2. WebOS is a modern, mobile operating system. Palm's OS is attractive, user friendly and built for cloud service synchronization. From UI to kernel, WebOS is everything Windows Mobile isn't. Microsoft doesn't get enough credit for Windows Mobile's kernel or the multitasking plumbing for good reason: The user interface is tired, bringing the desktop Windows motif where it doesn't belong. WebOS is fit and finish along the entire operating system stack. Palm has developer resources in place, but Microsoft has stronger developer channel to maximize them.

    WebOS Contacts3. Palm got sync right. Yesterday, I explained why sync is the killer application for the connected world. WebOS syncs to various cloud services -- and, yes, it supports Microsoft Exchange -- with capability of combing information from different sources into a single contact or calendar entries.

    4. WebOS ships with a decent browser. Microsoft's mobile browser sucks. It's an embarrassment. Palm's mobile browser, like Apple's and Google's, is based on WebKit. In September, I strongly recommended that Microsoft develop a WebKit browser. Hey, Palm has got a good one. Microsoft should use it. Smartphones are all about the Web. They're no longer just about e-mail or mobile access to productivity suite data. A good browser is table stakes, particularly with connected, mobile applications as alternatives. Microsoft needs a good mobile browser last year.

    5. Google plans an event next week where the Nexus One may be launched. Time magazine named the Motorola Droid gadget of the year. Barnes & Noble's Nook ebook reader also runs Android. The point: Google is rapidly building momentum around Android, particularly positive perceptions the company has the new, next big thing. Nexus One will be poster smartphone, so to speak. Next week's Google event is sure to raise positive perceptions.

    6. Palm technology would generate excitement about Microsoft's mobile strategy. In business perception is everything. Microsoft is a mobile device also-ran even as key categories explode. Microsoft was an early, ebook software leader a decade ago. Now it's Amazon leading the ebook market. Microsoft was an early PDA operating system innovator, and one successful enough to push aside Palm (which, granted, made plenty of mistakes). But Apple, Google and RIM successes pushed aside Microsoft's early mobile handset successes. Palm would change perceptions -- and if Microsoft smartly handled the acquisition -- likely would reverse both companies' declining mobile fortunes. Microsoft could take two also-rans and turn them into a runner.

    WebOS Contacts7. Microsoft can immediately sell a branded phone without directly competing with hardware partners. Microsoft needs to sell its own phone but also needs to license an operating system to hardware manufacturers. For a time, Microsoft could offer WebOS handsets as end-to-end solutions, while licensing Windows Mobile to handset manufacturers.

    8. WebOS would be a compelling alternative to Android. Microsoft should make WebOS available to hardware manufacturers, too. With Microsoft's marketing, developer tools and developer channel might, WebOS could gain the fierce third-party support it has so far lacked. Palm has a great product, but doesn't command the confidence of enough partners -- or even customers. Handset manufacturers abandoning Windows Mobile for Android would have a good reason to stick with Microsoft for awhile longer.

    9. Microsoft should offer an open-source mobile operating system -- and WebOS would be it. A proprietary OS is less appealing when a good open-source alternative (Android) is available. Microsoft has too much valuable intellectual property tied into Windows Mobile for an open-source effort. But WebOS would be an easy open-source project. Microsoft could continue developing Windows Mobile as a closed, legacy mobile OS, while working with developers on open-source WebOS, which would be available to handset manufacturers and for Microsoft's own end-to-end hardware/software/services solutions.

    10. There's not enough time to fix the Windows Mobile/Phone problem. When explaining why Microsoft passed on YouTube for about a half billion bucks six months before Google smartly paid $1.6 billion, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said the company does cost-versus-buy analyses of acquisitions. Microsoft chose wrongly with YouTube. Right now the cost in getting the mobile strategy working is time that Microsoft can't afford. Buying Palm, for whatever it costs, would be the quickest way to more level the competing field with Apple, Google and even RIM.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/29/10_reasons_why_Microsoft_must_buy_Palm_now'

    10 reasons why Microsoft must buy Palm now

    Publié: décembre 29, 2009, 11:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The new year is time for reflection and planning. I've got a New Year's resolution for Microsoft: Buy Palm and use the hardware and software to jumpstart your mobile strategy. Palm the company is struggling and may not survive past 2010. But its technology is worthwhile. WebOS is a modern, mobile operating system. So what if it's based on Linux? What operating system did Hotmail run when Microsoft bought it more than a decade ago? You know the answer. Linux is better than nothing.

    My list is in no order of importance, because all the reasons are important and they are interrelated.

    1. Palm would be cheap and a much more sensible purchase than Research in Motion. Today, Palm stock closed around 10 bucks a share. The company's market capitalization is around $1.7 billion. Other commentators have suggested Microsoft should buy RIM, but the Canadian company would cost more and bring along lots of legacy technology, carrier relationships and manufacturing and hardware infrastructure. Then there is the problem of overlap -- for business customers, developers and hardware manufacturers -- with Windows Mobile/Phone. Even if Microsoft paid more than market valuation, Palm would be a bargain for the technology and market jumping position.

    2. WebOS is a modern, mobile operating system. Palm's OS is attractive, user friendly and built for cloud service synchronization. From UI to kernel, WebOS is everything Windows Mobile isn't. Microsoft doesn't get enough credit for Windows Mobile's kernel or the multitasking plumbing for good reason: The user interface is tired, bringing the desktop Windows motif where it doesn't belong. WebOS is fit and finish along the entire operating system stack. Palm has developer resources in place, but Microsoft has stronger developer channel to maximize them.

    WebOS Contacts3. Palm got sync right. Yesterday, I explained why sync is the killer application for the connected world. WebOS syncs to various cloud services -- and, yes, it supports Microsoft Exchange -- with capability of combing information from different sources into a single contact or calendar entries.

    4. WebOS ships with a decent browser. Microsoft's mobile browser sucks. It's an embarrassment. Palm's mobile browser, like Apple's and Google's, is based on WebKit. In September, I strongly recommended that Microsoft develop a WebKit browser. Hey, Palm has got a good one. Microsoft should use it. Smartphones are all about the Web. They're no longer just about e-mail or mobile access to productivity suite data. A good browser is table stakes, particularly with connected, mobile applications as alternatives. Microsoft needs a good mobile browser last year.

    5. Google plans an event next week where the Nexus One may be launched. Time magazine named the Motorola Droid gadget of the year. Barnes & Noble's Nook ebook reader also runs Android. The point: Google is rapidly building momentum around Android, particularly positive perceptions the company has the new, next big thing. Nexus One will be poster smartphone, so to speak. Next week's Google event is sure to raise positive perceptions.

    6. Palm technology would generate excitement about Microsoft's mobile strategy. In business perception is everything. Microsoft is a mobile device also-ran even as key categories explode. Microsoft was an early, ebook software leader a decade ago. Now it's Amazon leading the ebook market. Microsoft was an early PDA operating system innovator, and one successful enough to push aside Palm (which, granted, made plenty of mistakes). But Apple, Google and RIM successes pushed aside Microsoft's early mobile handset successes. Palm would change perceptions -- and if Microsoft smartly handled the acquisition -- likely would reverse both companies' declining mobile fortunes. Microsoft could take two also-rans and turn them into a runner.

    WebOS Contacts7. Microsoft can immediately sell a branded phone without directly competing with hardware partners. Microsoft needs to sell its own phone but also needs to license an operating system to hardware manufacturers. For a time, Microsoft could offer WebOS handsets as end-to-end solutions, while licensing Windows Mobile to handset manufacturers.

    8. WebOS would be a compelling alternative to Android. Microsoft should make WebOS available to hardware manufacturers, too. With Microsoft's marketing, developer tools and developer channel might, WebOS could gain the fierce third-party support it has so far lacked. Palm has a great product, but doesn't command the confidence of enough partners -- or even customers. Handset manufacturers abandoning Windows Mobile for Android would have a good reason to stick with Microsoft for awhile longer.

    9. Microsoft should offer an open-source mobile operating system -- and WebOS would be it. A proprietary OS is less appealing when a good open-source alternative (Android) is available. Microsoft has too much valuable intellectual property tied into Windows Mobile for an open-source effort. But WebOS would be an easy open-source project. Microsoft could continue developing Windows Mobile as a closed, legacy mobile OS, while working with developers on open-source WebOS, which would be available to handset manufacturers and for Microsoft's own end-to-end hardware/software/services solutions.

    10. There's not enough time to fix the Windows Mobile/Phone problem. When explaining why Microsoft passed on YouTube for about a half billion bucks six months before Google smartly paid $1.6 billion, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said the company does cost-versus-buy analyses of acquisitions. Microsoft chose wrongly with YouTube. Right now the cost in getting the mobile strategy working is time that Microsoft can't afford. Buying Palm, for whatever it costs, would be the quickest way to more level the competing field with Apple, Google and even RIM.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/29/If_mobile_to_cloud_sync_is_big_in_2010__it_s_game_over_for_Microsoft'

    If mobile-to-cloud sync is big in 2010, it's game over for Microsoft

    Publié: décembre 29, 2009, 3:50am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sync will define connected tech products released or updated in 2010 and the few years that follow. Tech companies that get sync right will set the agenda for the delivery of content and services. Right now, Amazon, Apple and Google are sync leaders. Microsoft is a player but competing in the wrong game.

    In a March 2008 blog post, I asserted that "synchronization is the natural killer application for the connected world." I also warned that "should Google get synchronization right before Microsoft, it would be game over. Google would be able to extend the relevancy of the Web platform back to the desktop on its terms -- think invading army -- and across many devices or services." It's game over now, and Microsoft has lent Google a helping hand in self-destruction.

    Google gets Sync Right

    In last week's post, "10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2010," I faulted the company for licensing ActiveSync to Google -- in February. Immediately, Google used ActiveSync for e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization from its cloud services to iPhone and Windows Mobile handsets. Google also used the technology to provide Exchange Server sync with Google Apps, so that businesses could use the hosted service instead of Outlook.

    Sync is quickly defining Google's mobile handset and mobile cloud strategies. In using Android-based handsets, I've found Google push sync to be exceptionally fast and functional -- and extensible. For example, Facebook sync and notifications are a marvel on the T-Mobile MyTouch compared to Apple iPhone. Google is quickly rolling out real-time notifications and sync to all its services and providing in Android and Chrome means for developers to easily tap into these functionalities.

    It's not a question of if but when Google will use sync services in conjunction with mobile phone location services to provide better real-time search, such as sale prices at nearby stores or barcode scannable coupons. The pieces already are in place. Last month, my daughter forgot to bring a $20-off coupon to Sephora. But she had it in Gmail on her Android-based Motorola CLIQ. The store simply scanned the barcode from the phone screen. But what if she had been able to subscribe to an Android phone location-based Sephora service that sent a notification and barcode coupon when in proximity to the store? Sync is more than just about moving calendars, contacts and e-mail between mobile devices, clouds services and computers.

    Sync is the elixir for ebooks, too. It's the magic behind Amazon's Whispernet and Whispersync services that delivers ebooks to iPhone, Kindle or PC -- and marks where the reading last stopped. Amazon and Google sync services share something fundamentally important in common: Device to cloud; no PC required. Barnes & Nobles' Nook ebook reader is the same, and it runs Google's Android.

    Longhorn short on Sync

    For Microsoft, the most natural place for sync is the operating system. During Professional Developers Conference 2003, Microsoft product managers touted a new synchronization layer coming with Windows Longhorn. But Microsoft dumped sync with many other features during 2004 and 2005. OS synchronization could have nipped the Google and cloud services problems in the bud. Sync should have been the feature pulling computational and informational relevance back to the PC operating system. Instead, sync will shift computational and informational relevance to mobile devices and cloud-based services.

    Sure, Microsoft has several different sync services and strategies, and some of the technologies, like Zune 4.0 and Zune HD, work well. Windows Live SkyDrive and Windows Live Sync are promising sync services, but they're too PC-centric too late. Amazon and Google have got better device sync, and Google is a looming Microsoft competitor.

    Then there is Apple, which offered sync as part of Mac OS years ago but perfected the mechanism through iTunes. Apple's media software is a strange sync engine, for all the well it works. What business would want to use iTunes as sync engine for calendars or contacts? But iTunes sync works exceptionally well, such that it recalls where the user stopped watching that movie on Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, Mac or Windows PC and resumes at the right place. Apple's sync consistency and quality are exceptional.

    MobileMe takes Apple sync to the device and cloud, where it belongs. Push address book, calendar and e-mail sync works surprisingly well. I've never had a problem with it on any iPhone. Apple's push notification service is a sync workaround that is acceptable, even if deficient. Better: The more real-time sync available with widgets residing on some handsets' homescreens. My daughter has this with her CLIQ, as I have with some Nokia touchscreen handsets, such as the N97.

    What If

    Sync is the glue binding together cloud services and mobile devices -- and it will reach mature delivery in 2010. Amazon gets it. Apple gets it. Barnes & Noble gets it. Google gets it. Microsoft is getting it, but not fast enough. Amazon had a terrific holiday selling Kindle ebook readers, which could only be spoiled by the rumored Apple tablet. Sync will enable delivery of newspaper and magazine subscriptions in 2010, more real-time than what Amazon does today with Kindle.

    • If Google turns search and location-based GPS into a sync service...
    • If Apple offers TV subscriptions via iTunes for portable devices and Apple TV...
    • If Amazon can support more devices -- and include more content such as music and videos...
    • If Apple releases a versatile tablet with combined audio book, ebook, enews, music, podcast and video store...
    • If Android becomes the most widely deployed mobile operating system (by number of supporting hardware manufacturers)...
    • If Digital Newsstand partners Conde Nast, Hearst Corp., Meredith Corp., News Corp. and Time produce an ebook reader or cut content deals for other devices...

    ...Sync will be 2010's defining technology, even if not heralded by tech pundits.

    Where is Microsoft's sync strategy? In too many ways, it's stalled. Microsoft sync is scattered across consumer products, although it's more vertically defined in the enterprise. But even enterprise advantages can't make up for what's missing: A cohesive mobile operating system, sync service and device strategy. Microsoft has mobile pieces in place, but it's a puzzle apart. Other companies are innovating in sync -- and delivering real and useful products now -- whereas Microsoft makes promises of something better to come.

    The company to watch most closely is Google, which during the 2008-09 recession made strategic research investments and released new products or services that are defining. Apple is a sync leader, too. Microsoft helped Google -- and also Apple -- along by licensing ActiveSync. How strange is that?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/28/Will_2010_be_another_year_of_Apple_iteration__not_innovation_'

    Will 2010 be another year of Apple iteration, not innovation?

    Publié: décembre 28, 2009, 9:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple is ending 2009 with a seemingly big bang. The stock is soaring higher than ever, lifted by scathes of rumors about an impeding tablet announcement. But tablets are oh-so 2001, when Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates showed off the Tablet PC. Apple tablet rumors show how much hype -- and not might -- is lifting Apple's share price. Hype has a way of turning on companies. Just ask Microsoft, which hype meter measured off the scale in 1995, but barely registers a decibel today.

    Few companies reach Apple's success level in a day, a week, a year or even five years. Successful companies make strategic investments over time and many still fail to reach the stratosphere, or, for that matter, escape velocity. Apple made some wise strategic investments after the turn of the century, benefitted from good luck and rebuilt the brand image through its retail stores and smart marketing efforts.

    But Apple's end-of-decade successes come from past innovations. As I explained in mid-September post "2001: An Apple Odyssey," strategic investments made during the last recession were the foundation of all the company's current successes. In 2001, Apple released iTunes, launched Mac OS X (and issued the 10.1 release), opened retail stores and introduced iPod. I'll once again assert that next to 1984, 2001 was the most important year in Apple's history. It most certainly is not 2009, which successes can be chocked up to past innovations.

    For the long haul, I predict that 2009 will turn out to be the year Apple stumbled -- as companies often do at the height of success. I do not share the optimism of those people warming in the glow of tablet hype or rising Apple shares. Nineteen days ago I blogged "Why Apple succeeds, and always will," knowing the title would draw in readers. But that always is qualified by Apple continuing to use "David Thinking," which challenges the status quo rather than tries to preserve it. I warned: "The challenge ahead: Resisting the temptation to protect the status quo -- to truly be Goliath." In preparing last week's twin posts "10 things Apple did right in 2009" and "10 things Apple did wrong in 2009," I am disturbed to conclude that the year was almost all about preserving the status quo through iteration, rather than delivering innovation that has defined the company.

    The principal reason isn't rocket science. Apple's legendary cofounder and CEO, Steve Jobs, took six-month medical leave in January. That effectively put COO Tim Cook in charge of Apple. Cook proved to be a competent manager, but not a visionary one. He kept the good ship Apple on course, but never ventured into dangerous waters. With so much perception about Apple's success tied to Jobs' persona, Cook had few options but to stay the course -- for concern about toppling Apple shares already pushed down by the September 2008 stock market crash. Cook steered Apple competently, but in process gave up -- perhaps because of circumstance, personal character or both -- making important strategic investments during the current recession that will be important to Apple in just three years.

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is right. During the Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote, he asserted: "I believe that companies and industries that continue to pursue innovation during tough economic times will achieve a significant competitive advantage positioning themselves for growth far more effectively than companies that hold back." Apple is example (not that Ballmer used it), based on risks taken during the last recession.

    2009: Apple's Year of Iteration

    Iteration defines Apple 2009. What major Apple product greatly improved during this recessionary year? The iMac and iPhone got hardware refreshes, but no new designs or splashy features. OK, iPod nano has a camera, but what's really innovative about that? So Apple upgraded the hardware on its major products, but it is innovation in software that made for truly compelling products. Where was the software innovation in 2009? No question, iPhone UI improved -- and in many good ways -- but by iteration. New App Store features aren't that different from older ones. The iTunes makeover added clutter, even as Microsoft cleaned up rival Zune 4.0.

    Cook's competence shown brightly through pricing and resisting the temptation to slash Mac selling prices south of $1,000. Another smart decision: Lowering 8GB iPhone 3G to $99. Competent management certainly is a good attribute. But Apple missed opportunity to innovate the way it did during the 2000-01 recession -- and it was risky, too. Apple's stock price collapsed in late 2000, following a profit warning, and remained in the dredges even into 2003. The last recession's innovations and investments were taken with great risk. In a way, Apple bet its future on risks taken in 2001 and early 2002.

    Where is the risk taken in 2009? In surveying the year, I see only one major Apple investment in the future -- and it's one the hype makers and share price chasers completely overlook: Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard). I've criticized Snow Leopard's tired user interface -- another place where Apple failed to innovate in 2009 -- but under the hood, 10.6 improvements are substantial. I'll repeat my previous assertion that Snow Leopard is the most important Mac OS X version since the original March 2001 release (and its September 2001 10.1 upgrade). The $29 pricing was a brilliant (and competent) strategy, allowing Apple to quickly move the install base to 64-bit architecture.

    Apple's year of iteration closes strong not on past performance but promise of the future: The long-rumored tablet. What happens if the hype proves false -- that Apple doesn't announce a tablet in about a month, as widely rumored? What happens if the tablet is announced but not released for many more months? What if the tablet is innovative but not ready for the mass market?

    The real 2008-2009 risk taker was Google, which through Android, Chrome, Chrome OS and Wave, among other products, has invested in the future. Google, and not Apple or even Microsoft, is the company to watch in the next decade. The information giant innovated and took risks doing so.

    Surely some commenters will wrongly assume I predict the ruin of Apple. That's absolutely not the point of this post. Apple is hugely successful and will continue to be -- but largely from iterations of past innovations. The 2008-2009 recession was opportunity for Apple to truly innovate and make investments that would pay off in another three to seven years. Apple missed this huge opportunity. Plain, pure and simple.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/27/Are_Apple_Stock_Price_Gains_the_Reason_for_Recent_Tablet_Rumors_'

    Are Apple Stock Price Gains the Reason for Recent Tablet Rumors?

    Publié: décembre 27, 2009, 7:45am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There is so much buzz about Apple's rumored tablet, Santa Claus landed back in Cupertino (the Mac maker's Calif. headquarters) instead of the North Pole. Not that he found anything more than a lump of rumors packaged like a real present. Poor Santa. He's not the only person being fooled. The Apple tablet buzz stinks of blog and news media manipulation and quite possibly stock manipulation -- not that the latter is new for the goings on around Apple. Sadly, bloggers and journalists are too willing to be manipulated by people leaking information.

    The state of the news media, fueled in part by SEO -- search engine obsession, ah, optimization --- where the story or post first and flawed is better than second and straight-up, favors gossip and rumors to drive pageviews. Nothing has to be true, as long as the post makes the top of Google News. Unnamed sourced stories and ancient domain registrations are the new news. So it is with Apple's iSlab -- surely not its name but good enough for this bitchy commentary.

    When Rumors Run Wild

    How strange is the coincidence -- the number of Apple tablet news stories and blog posts coming this week, the juiciest ones popping on December 23 and lifting Apple's share price to new heights. Dan Frommer blogged at Silicon Alley Insider: "Apple is preparing to show off a new, larger mobile device with a higher resolution display in January -- probably a version of the Apple tablet we've been hearing about for months -- according to a plugged-in source in the mobile industry."

    Who wouldn't believe the unnamed "plugged-in source," eh? In a separate post, just 80 minutes later, SAI's Jay Yarow further treated rumor as fact: "Apple's tablet, which is expected to be unveiled in January, won't be a huge growth driver for the company next year." He referred to yet more news from Apple bizarroland. In a research note, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster predicted Apple would sell 1.4 million tablets in 2010. Excuse me, but what tablet? Apple hasn't announced squat. Oh, yeah, that number is based on $600 pricing, something else Apple hasn't announced.

    Same day, the Financial Times Tech Blog pulled off some seemingly sleuth reporting (or was it leaked?). David Gelles wrote about Apple renting the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, which is in San Francisco, near the end of January. Gelles cited unnamed sources about the renting and a "major product announcement on Tuesday, January 26th."

    Apple Shares 12-09

    Scathes of blogs connected the rumored event with the rumored tablet -- that the two must intertwine. Apple must be announcing its tablet on January 26. More supposition and conjecture suddenly became fact.

    Same day, again, those pesky unnamed sources popped up elsewhere; Nick Bilton posted to the New York Times Bits blog:

    When one of my colleagues here asked if the rumors of the Apple tablet were true, and when we could expect such a device, the response from his source was, 'I can't really say anything, but, let's just say Steve is extremely happy with the new tablet.' Yet another recently departed Apple employee tipped me: 'You will be very surprised how you interact with the new tablet.'

    Interesting reporting, the second-hand sourcing: My friend's acquaintance said "Blah, blah, blah," so it must be true. On the basis of this sourcing -- and a few other "signs," Bilton asserted: "I have no doubt that Apple will release a tabletlike device in 2010."

    On Christmas Eve, bloggers figuratively fell over one another to feed the rumors for more pageviews. Late on Christmas Eve, Arnold Kim proclaimed that "MacRumors has found evidence that Apple acquired the domain name iSlate.com presumably in preparation for the new device." Kim and MacRumors (with help from "Mark Gurman from AppleRejectedMe.com") did some arguably good sleuthing, but that "in preparation for the new device" is quite the leap. MacRumors reported that Apple acquired the iSlate.com domain in 2007. But somehow, "given this evidence 'iSlate' seems a likely candidate for the device's name." Really now?

    The voice of reason came December 20 and three days before the FT, SAI and Times blog posts. Journalist Ian Betteridge astutely quoted from another blog: "I have no less than 5 sources saying an Apple tablet announcement is due soon." Betteridge observed the post was from 2005! "What it goes to prove is simply that Apple Tablet rumours have been around a very, very long time," he wrote. "Nothing came of the ones from 2005, and it's perfectly possible that nothing will come of all the current round of rumours as well."

    Did Someone Manipulate Apple Shares?

    But something has come from the rumors: More buoyancy to Apple's share price, which reached a new high on Christmas Eve, closing at $209.04. Christmas brought a slate of iSlate presents -- ah, blog posts -- to the InterWeb and perhaps to Apple's share price come Monday when stock markets reopen.

    At this point in writing this post, I stopped to search my RSS feeds for "iSlate.com," and found Engadget also had posted (yesterday) about Apple's soaring share price. Ross Miller blogged:

    It seems everyone decided to spend their holiday bonuses on some Apple shares. Now, we're not claiming to be professionals here by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems a lot of the activity here can be attributed to the recent flux of rumors.

    From November 23, Apple shares started a steady decline from about $206 to around $189 on December 7. On December 17, after a brief rise, Apple shares reached their second bottom for the month, around $192. A series of spikes followed, perhaps not surprisingly tracking with news about Mac and iPhone sales projections and Apple tablet rumors. From December 17, the share price rose sharply as tablet rumors increased, such as leaks about possible content deals and private developer briefings. These rumors lifted Apple shares over the next six days from $191.88 to $202.10 on December 23. On Christmas Eve, the shares spiked about $7 more, to the aforementioned $209.04 close.

    Please forgive my eggnog-induced, conspiracy-theory thinking, but don't ignore it. A number of unnamed source(s) leaked to SEO-obsessed blogs about an Apple event and possible tablet all around the same time -- and during the holidays, when there is less business or tech news to report and senior staff might be vacationing. Perhaps it's no coincidence that financial analysts or blogs sourced these unnamed people. Gasp -- did someone try to lift Apple's share price higher? Or maybe it's all a great coincidence, or the most amazing feat of simultaneously good reporting?

    I'm not asserting that Apple won't soon announce a tablet. I am claiming not to know, and that most of the rumors are coming from people who also don't know. They're guessing, and their guesses aren't facts. With that I have to ask: What do you think of these rumors and, in context, Apple's rising share price? What about the rumored Apple tablet? Should Apple release one at all?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/27/Are_Apple_stock_price_gains_the_reason_for_recent_tablet_rumors_'

    Are Apple stock price gains the reason for recent tablet rumors?

    Publié: décembre 27, 2009, 7:45am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There is so much buzz about Apple's rumored tablet, Santa Claus landed back in Cupertino (the Mac maker's Calif. headquarters) instead of the North Pole. Not that he found anything more than a lump of rumors packaged like a real present. Poor Santa. He's not the only person being fooled. The Apple tablet buzz stinks of blog and news media manipulation and quite possibly stock manipulation -- not that the latter is new for the goings on around Apple. Sadly, bloggers and journalists are too willing to be manipulated by people leaking information.

    The state of the news media, fueled in part by SEO -- search engine obsession, ah, optimization --- where the story or post first and flawed is better than second and straight-up, favors gossip and rumors to drive pageviews. Nothing has to be true, as long as the post makes the top of Google News. Unnamed sourced stories and ancient domain registrations are the new news. So it is with Apple's iSlab -- surely not its name but good enough for this bitchy commentary.

    When Rumors Run Wild

    How strange is the coincidence -- the number of Apple tablet news stories and blog posts coming this past week, the juiciest ones popping on December 23 and lifting Apple's share price to new heights. Dan Frommer blogged at Silicon Alley Insider: "Apple is preparing to show off a new, larger mobile device with a higher resolution display in January -- probably a version of the Apple tablet we've been hearing about for months -- according to a plugged-in source in the mobile industry."

    Who wouldn't believe the unnamed "plugged-in source," eh? In a separate post, just 80 minutes later, SAI's Jay Yarow further treated rumor as fact: "Apple's tablet, which is expected to be unveiled in January, won't be a huge growth driver for the company next year." He referred to yet more news from Apple bizarroland. In a research note, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster predicted Apple would sell 1.4 million tablets in 2010. Excuse me, but what tablet? Apple hasn't announced squat. Oh, yeah, that number is based on $600 pricing, something else Apple hasn't announced.

    Same day, the Financial Times Tech Blog pulled off some seemingly sleuth reporting (or was it leaked?). David Gelles wrote about Apple renting the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, which is in San Francisco, near the end of January. Gelles cited unnamed sources about the renting and a "major product announcement on Tuesday, January 26th."

    Apple Shares 12-09

    Scathes of blogs connected the rumored event with the rumored tablet -- that the two must intertwine. Apple must be announcing its tablet on January 26. More supposition and conjecture suddenly became fact.

    Same day, again, those pesky unnamed sources popped up elsewhere; Nick Bilton posted to the New York Times Bits blog:

    When one of my colleagues here asked if the rumors of the Apple tablet were true, and when we could expect such a device, the response from his source was, 'I can't really say anything, but, let's just say Steve is extremely happy with the new tablet.' Yet another recently departed Apple employee tipped me: 'You will be very surprised how you interact with the new tablet.'

    Interesting reporting, the second-hand sourcing: My friend's acquaintance said "Blah, blah, blah," so it must be true. On the basis of this sourcing -- and a few other "signs," Bilton asserted: "I have no doubt that Apple will release a tabletlike device in 2010."

    On Christmas Eve, bloggers figuratively fell over one another to feed the rumors for more pageviews. Late on Christmas Eve, Arnold Kim proclaimed that "MacRumors has found evidence that Apple acquired the domain name iSlate.com presumably in preparation for the new device." Kim and MacRumors (with help from "Mark Gurman from AppleRejectedMe.com") did some arguably good sleuthing, but that "in preparation for the new device" is quite the leap. MacRumors reported that Apple acquired the iSlate.com domain in 2007. But somehow, "given this evidence 'iSlate' seems a likely candidate for the device's name." Really now?

    The voice of reason came December 20 and three days before the FT, SAI and Times blog posts. Journalist Ian Betteridge astutely quoted from another blog: "I have no less than 5 sources saying an Apple tablet announcement is due soon." Betteridge observed the post was from 2005! "What it goes to prove is simply that Apple tablet rumours have been around a very, very long time," he wrote. "Nothing came of the ones from 2005, and it's perfectly possible that nothing will come of all the current round of rumours as well."

    Did Someone Manipulate Apple Shares?

    But something has come from the rumors: More buoyancy to Apple's share price, which reached a new high on Christmas Eve, closing at $209.04. Christmas brought a slate of iSlate presents -- ah, blog posts -- to the InterWeb and perhaps to Apple's share price come Monday when stock markets reopen. [Update: Apple opened on Monday at $2 more than Thursday's close, reaching a new high of $213.95 in early trading.]

    At this point in writing this post, I stopped to search my RSS feeds for "iSlate.com," and found Engadget also had posted (yesterday) about Apple's soaring share price. Ross Miller blogged:

    It seems everyone decided to spend their holiday bonuses on some Apple shares. Now, we're not claiming to be professionals here by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems a lot of the activity here can be attributed to the recent flux of rumors.

    From November 23, Apple shares started a steady decline from about $206 to around $189 on December 7. On December 17, after a brief rise, Apple shares reached their second bottom for the month, around $192. A series of spikes followed, perhaps not surprisingly tracking with news about Mac and iPhone sales projections and Apple tablet rumors. From December 17, the share price rose sharply as tablet rumors increased, such as leaks about possible content deals and private developer briefings. These rumors lifted Apple shares over the next six days from $191.88 to $202.10 on December 23. On Christmas Eve, the shares spiked about $7 more, to the aforementioned $209.04 close.

    Please forgive my eggnog-induced, conspiracy-theory thinking, but don't ignore it. A number of unnamed source(s) leaked to SEO-obsessed blogs about an Apple event and possible tablet all around the same time -- and during the holidays, when there is less business or tech news to report and senior staff might be vacationing. Perhaps it's no coincidence that financial analysts or blogs sourced these unnamed people. Gasp -- did someone try to lift Apple's share price higher? Or maybe it's all a great coincidence, or the most amazing feat of simultaneously good reporting?

    I'm not asserting that Apple won't soon announce a tablet. I am claiming not to know, and that most of the rumors are coming from people who also don't know. They're guessing, and their guesses aren't facts. With that I have to ask: What do you think of these rumors and, in context, Apple's rising share price? What about the rumored Apple tablet? Should Apple release one at all?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/24/10_things_Apple_did_wrong_in_2009'

    10 things Apple did wrong in 2009

    Publié: décembre 24, 2009, 8:51am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The year 2009 will go on record as one of Apple's best years ever, as I explained in the "10 things Apple did right in 2009" list. This second, did-wrong list looks at the mistakes, and there were plenty. But one did-wrong is pervasive throughout nearly all of them. Apple failed to innovate the way it did during the last recession. Apple CEO Steve Jobs and his senior executives took many of the actions affecting 2009 during 2001 and early 2002. With that introduction, I present the list of 10 things Apple did wrong in 2009 -- in no order of importance. They're all important. Apple:

    1. Made no CES commitment. Apple has given up Macworld, so why not make a big splash at Consumer Electronics Show, which is January 7-10 next year? During the summer, there were rumors (and they may not have been true) that Jobs had been asked to keynote in 2010. Apple is a Consumer Electronics Association member but not currently listed as a CES 2010 exhibitor.

    For years, Apple has been a shadow CES participant because of Macworld and rumors what the company might reveal during the expo. Some rumors, like iPhone, literally stole the CES thunder. For years, CES and Macworld have taken place days apart or even overlapped. This year, with Apple gone, IDG will hold Macworld in early February. There may be some Apple tablet rumors, but no event venue to drive expectations. CES will be Google's show, judging by the staggering buzz about the Nexus One smartphone. For a company that gains so much from buzz, including its soaring stock price, Apple's CES no show is baffling.

    That said, after I wrote the two above paragraphs and before I posted, rumors started circulating about a late-January 2010 Apple event. Timing would be more preemptive to Macworld, leaving Google and other smartphone and mobile/device manufacturers to storm the CES buzz.

    2. Made no spectacular investments. Apple ended the decade strong in part because of decisions made during the 2000-01 recession. In 2001, Apple opened retail stores, launched Mac OS X, released iPod and debuted iTunes. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is right. He said during his Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote that companies making strategic investments during economic hard times tend to emerge stronger than competitors later on. Apple's 2001 product launches and Apple Store openings were daring for their timing. Other than product pricing, there was nothing daring about 2009. Apple advanced incrementally rather than aggressively (See #s 3, 4, 6, 8 and 10). Mac defenders will use Jobs' medical leave as excuse. Oh? That changes what good for Apple's future?

    3. Iterated rather than innovated iPhone 3GS. Sure, Apple amped the hardware -- faster processor, more memory and double the 3G throughput -- but the third-generation iPhone doesn't extend the platform. The device's fixed battery forces compromises, with truncated multitasking being the most severe. All other modern mobile operating systems, including Android, Maemo, Symbian, Web OS and Windows Mobile, freely allow background applications to run. Apple limits them, throwing developers the push notification bone when they're hungry for meat.

    If not for the App Store and what developers and not Apple are doing to advance the platform, iPhone would be a second-rate smartphone with a pretty UI (think Palm Pre). Already, new Android handsets, like Droid and Nexus One, are starting to make iPhone look outdated. Mac fans will go absolutely atomic when reading this paragraph. Suck it up. The truth hurts.

    4. Botched the iPhone 3GS launch. Iteration still generated plenty of demand for iPhone during second half 2009. But sales could have been much greater. Apple acknowledged during its third calendar quarter earnings conference call, it couldn't produce enough iPhones to meet demand. According to Gartner, Apple sold 7 million iPhones during the quarter, compared to the 7.4 million the company said it shipped. That means Apple ended the quarter with only 400,000 units in inventory -- and by executives' admission from a slight build up late Q3 -- rather than the more typical 2.2 million units. Lost sales aren't easily quantified, but there was plenty enough concern how much to keep Wall Street analysts repeatedly asking during the conference call.

    5. Lied about Steve Jobs' illness. This one makes both lists, because Apple's execution was both good and bad. Using "lied" surely will inflame hardcore Mac fans, but misled simply doesn't apply here. The lying started in December 2008, with the announcement that Apple would pull out of Macworld from 2010, which really masked something bigger: Jobs wouldn't give the 2009 keynote.

    Apple wasn't under any regulatory obligation to disclose Job's illness, or, when it did somewhat, to reveal everything. But there is another kind of obligation that Apple may pay for whenever times get bad -- and they can't stay good forever: Shareholders. Apple is a public company, which success comes in part from the trust shareholders place in future performance. Full disclosure risked a run on the stock, but could have generated trust and even concern and goodwill towards Jobs. Trust is a commodity which value is simply immeasurable.

    The comment flamers to this post will insist that Jobs' has a right to privacy. As a private person he has this right but not as CEO of a public company. Jobs doesn't work for his board of directors. He works for Apple shareholders. Apple secretiveness and corporate denial may yet be a future problem for the company, when performance lags and some shareholders look at Apple's response with mistrust.

    6. Poorly placed iPod nano camera. Apple usually gets design better than right, but when bad it's terribly so. Nothing feels right about the iPod nano video camera other than the marketing, which is superb. Video quality is so-so, which Apple tries to make up for by applying flaw-covering visual effects and marketing them as features. But the camera's placement, near the lower-left hand corner (when viewed from the back) is bizarre. Other mobile devices and handsets tend to have the camera at the top rather than at the bottom of the device, which also is better placement for looking at objects to shoot on the display.

    7. Shipped iPhone to China without Wifi. The phones cost too much, also. A feature-deficient iPhone is the wrong approach for China. Apple isn't the only handset manufacturer facing this problem. The reason: Growing grey market sales. The grey market is really two: Sales of unlocked iPhones imported from other countries; fake iPhones, many of which adding new features not found in the original. When the fakes' features are better than original, the original's manufacturer has a problem. Apple should diminish grey market sales, rather than encouraging them by offering something less to the Chinese market.

    8. Sat on a mountain of cash. Apple ended fiscal 2009 (on September 26) with $34 billion in cash, up from $24.5 billion in FY 2008 and $15 billion in FY 2007. Cash is a huge asset during a recession. Apple has the means to buy good companies and technologies for cheap. Apple's major list of 2009 has one item: The early December acquisition of Lala. The year 2009 should have been Apple's buying spree, particularly in context of #2, where Apple failed to make the strategic internal, organic investments that defined company operations during the 2000-01 recession.

    9. Rejected Google Voice. This one could easily be on the did-good list, seeing as how Apple and Google are on a collision course in the mobile operating systems, device, services and applications market. These two partners are rapidly becoming competitors. That said, Google Voice rejection brought lots of unnecessary negative attention to the App Store approval process. Apple still isn't free of it. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission has opened an investigation into the rejection.

    10. Couldn't stop/fix Mac display problems. Apple has struggled with customer complaints about ELD display problem all year long. It's unclear the cause, although graphics chips are good candidate. On Tuesday, Apple released a firmware update designed to resolve various display problems, such as flickering. Yesterday, Betanews founder Nate Mook told me: "My 24-inch LED flicks to black a couple times a day." There's an 11-page Apple support thread about the blackout problem.

    In typical fashion, Apple has a taken a secretive approach to the ongoing display problems. On December 13, Apple apologized for 27-inch iMac delays, without saying why there was delay. Was there too much demand for supplies, or did Apple hold back new shipments while it fixed graphics problems? I approached Apple PR but couldn't get a clear answer.

    Apple's marketing reputation is about quality -- and as a benefit for paying higher prices than most Windows PCs. Ongoing display problems undermine Apple's reputation and raise questions that higher volumes come with less quality control. That's not the message Apple should want to convey to customers. I agree with Nate Mook who observed: "As Apple gets bigger, these type of problems intensify."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/23/10_things_Apple_did_right_in_2009'

    10 things Apple did right in 2009

    Publié: décembre 23, 2009, 11:44pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's 2009 execution was nothing short of spectacular, given the sour economy and CEO Steve Jobs' medical leave. Apple executives handled both circumstances, which might have sunk another company, with finesse and subtle but direct aggressiveness. I had a difficult time narrowing the did-good list to just 10 items. I'll post a did-wrong list later today or just after midnight tomorrow. For now, I present the list of 10 things Apple did right in 2009 -- in no order of importance. They're all important. Apple:

    1. Kept Mac prices high. While Windows PC competitors slashed computer prices -- and so their margins and profits -- Apple held above-$1,000 pricing firm for iMac, Macbook Pro and Mac Pro. The higher pricing surely didn't seem to hurt Mac sales, which were strong all year. Meanwhile, low-cost netbooks sapped Windows PC margins and profits. Apple did right by lowering prices at the high end, which simply opened up more sales over $1,000, where Apple has more than 90-percent revenue share for computers sold at U.S. retail, according to NPD.

    2. Told everyone: "There's an app for that." The recession gave many companies reason to cutback advertising budgets. But Apple kept the marketing strong, across different media types, including online, print and television. By far, iPhone advertising dominated the lot, with increasing emphasis on the applications. It was a smart move, considering that the 3GS model was an evolutionary product lacking compelling new features.

    3. Appropriately priced Snow Leopard. Apple reaps high margins from software. Given the economy, Apple could have easily justified the usual $129 pricing for Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard). Instead, Apple offered the software for $29 -- or $49 for a five-user Family Pack -- to Leopard users (not that there is anything really stopping older Mac OS X users from upgrading). Some vocal Mac blogs have called the pricing appropriate, as signaled by the "Leopard" in the name; Apple added few new features, so lower pricing was justified.

    That's a rather inane way of thinking. Improved Exchange support is a huge new feature improvement. I've criticized the Mac OS X user interface as being tired, but not the reworked plumbing. There is plenty of new engineering in Mac OS X 10.6, just not where most users will see it. Snow Leopard is the most important Mac OS X release since v1.0 shipped in March 2001. The lower pricing encourages existing users to upgrade to 64-bit architecture, preparing the Mac market for Mac OS X 10.7.

    4. Lied about Steve Jobs' illness. This one makes both lists, because Apple's execution was both good and bad. Using "lied" surely will inflame hardcore Mac fans, but "misled" simply doesn't apply here. The lying started in December 2008, with the announcement that Apple would pull out of Macworld from 2010, which really masked something bigger: Jobs wouldn't give the 2009 keynote. Apple dished out information piecemeal, ending with announcement of Jobs' six-month medical leave.

    Apple grappled with a difficult problem: How much outsiders, particularly investors, identified the persona of Steve Jobs with Apple's success. Timing complicated matters. The late-September 2008 stock market crash hit Apple hard, as it did other public companies. Apple had legitimate concern about how news of Jobs illness might affect Apple's falling share price. The stock hit its bottom for the year in late January, about the time Apple announced Jobs' six-month medical leave. Withholding information may have prevented a short-term run on shares. But as I'll explain in the did-wrong list, Apple may lose long term.

    5. Updated the $999 Macbook. In late 2008, Apple tossed potential buyers one older model white MacBook for under $1,000. Apple updated features throughout the year, later introducing a redesigned model with good features for the same $999 price. For consumers looking for a cheap Mac, Apple delivered a no-compromise laptop (That's no-compromise compared to other Macs; I add this for benefit of commenters comparing to Windows PCs).

    6. Put Phil Schillers' marketing skills to work. Super-secretive Apple broke the silence several times during 2009, using its marketing chief as mouthpiece. Schiller addressed developer concerns about App Store approvals in a surprisingly proactive fashion. I would describe Schiller as "Mr. Likable." He's the right man to mollify angry or confused developers or to quiet raucous bloggers bashing Apple. In November, he made the interview rounds explaining the App Store approval and rejection process. Business Week got a big interview. Sigh, too bad the new owners sacked senior columnists not long later.

    7. Lowered iPhone pricing to $99. In conjunction with the June launch of iPhone 3GS, Apple continued selling the 8GB iPhone 3G for 99 bucks. The lower price point opened a new market segment of iPhone buyers, which includes teenagers. For example, according to ComScore, among U.S. consumers planning to buy an iPhone within three months, more than one-third said the iPhone 3G. For many buyers, the iPhone 3GS' $199 starting price is simply too much for their budgets.

    8. Supported HTML 5 in Safari 4. Some people may see Safari's HTML 5 support as mere marketing, seeing as how the standard isn't finalized. Oh but it is so much more. Apple doesn't want Flash on iPhone, but that's how most video is delivered on the Web. If Apple lets the Flash cat out of the bag, it will try to claw out App Store's eyes. The last thing Apple wants is a rival development platform on iPhone (and even HTML 5 risks some development competition in the browser). But no Flash means no video outside of Apple technologies.

    By supporting HTML 5, Apple:

    • provides a browser platform for plug-in free RIAs, rich Internet applications, which could generate more cross-platform apps or services for Macintosh and eventually iPhone.
    • opens the way for plug-in free audio and video streaming -- no Flash required -- on Safari for computers and eventually the mobile browser.

    For today, iPhone's browser offers limited HTML 5 support, but that does include audio and video tags and HTTP streaming. Microsoft Silverlight video streaming, using Internet Information Server Media Services, over HTTP to iPhone is one example of what's to come.

    9. Took out Psystar. Apple's legal battle with the Mac cloner was more than about intellectual property rights. Apple needed to win, which it effectively did earlier this month, in order to establish important precedents (legally and concretely) against software piracy. Psystar's Mac cloning was the most visible misuse of Mac OS X licensing since Apple started offering Intel-based computers four years ago next month. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't use product activation, which wasn't a big problem when Macs used PowerPC chips. Apple can control piracy more on trust, which is enforced by its end-to-end, software-to-Mac model. Hackintosh threatens that model, which Apple has now successfully defended.

    10. Opened new retail stores. Apple launched the first Apple Store during a recession. Why should another recession be reason to stop opening new ones? At a time when the weak economy caused major chains to close, including Circuit City this year, Apple continued its retail expansion. It's a smart investment in the brand, product sales and customer service.

    Apple opened the 280th store, on New York's Upper West Side, in November and plans another 40 or so store openings in 2010. Sales per store is about $26 million, and Apple consistently claims that half of Mac buyers are Windows users.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/23/Google_s__Open__definition__Simply_brilliant_business__but_is_it_evil_'

    Google's 'Open' definition: Simply brilliant business, but is it evil?

    Publié: décembre 23, 2009, 1:10am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Just about everyone who is anyone has asked "Is Google evil?" some time during 2009. I did, in an early November post. Google's growing dominance is reason enough to wonder. That dominance helped put me out of a job nearly eight months ago and many other journalists since. Google's free business model, supported by advertising, has hugely disrupted news and other information services. More disruption is coming to more business categories in the early 2010s.

    Is this disruption evil? The answer may depend upon worldview. In a compelling blog entry posted late yesterday, Jonathan Rosenberg, Google's senior vice president of Product Management, described the company's "meaning of open." But the meaning is broader than open standards or open source. What he lays out, whether intended or not, is a different business worldview -- and it's one that can't help but be disruptive.

    Open and Closed Principles

    "At Google we believe that open systems win," Rosenberg asserts. "They lead to more innovation, value, and freedom of choice for consumers, and a vibrant, profitable and competitive ecosystem for businesses." For Google, open -- as in "open information" and "open technology" -- is a business philosophy. "We run the company and make our product decisions based on these principles, so I encourage you to carefully read, review, and debate them. Then own them and try to incorporate them into your work."

    Exactly what kind of public company talks about principles? Not many, but most successful companies operate by some guiding principles, even if not overtly stated. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates tipped off his business principles in 1976 "An Open Letter to Software Hobbyists." Gates wrote:

    Most of you steal your software... One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free?

    Many people are asking the same question today. It's fundamental to the recent clash between media mogul Rupert Murdoch about Google search. Gates' question "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?" was strangely prescient of today's expanding Google free -- supported by advertising -- business model. The question also defines one of the principles behind Microsoft's worldview -- that people (or the businesses they work for) who create something have a fundamental right to profit from it.

    Modern American capitalism is built on concepts of dominance and profit. Businesses seek to control key concepts, copyrights or patents that put critical information in their control or allow them to selectively lock-in customers to proprietary technologies or standards. Copyright laws have helped organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America and the record labels it represents to gain copyright control over most music and lyrics. Getty Images obtains the rights to photographs that it licenses on a per-use basis.

    Microsoft is a technological monopoly. Gates understood the importance of establishing and controlling file formats and software standards that locked-in customers and partners. The resulting Windows ecosystem has been hugely successful for the company. But as I explained 11 days, during the last decade Microsoft abandoned the standards principles that made it a software giant.

    A Contrary Worldview

    Google's open principles and resulting business model are in many ways the antithesis of concepts behind establishing modern monopolies or other corporate centers of power. Yesterday's Google blog post compares so-called open and closed systems: Traditionally trained MBAs are "taught to generate a sustainable competitive advantage by creating a closed system, making it popular, then milking it through the product life cycle," Rosenberg asserts. He adds:

    There are different tactical approaches -- razor companies make the razor cheap and the blades expensive, while the old IBM made the mainframes expensive and the software -- expensive too. Either way, a well-managed closed system can deliver plenty of profits. They can also deliver well-designed products in the short run -- the iPod and iPhone being the obvious examples -- but eventually innovation in a closed system tends towards being incremental at best (is a four blade razor really that much better than a three blade one?) because the whole point is to preserve the status quo. Complacency is the hallmark of any closed system. If you don't have to work that hard to keep your customers, you won't.

    That's an apt description but also a misdirection, whether or not intended. The stagnation he describes isn't necessarily from a system being closed. It's a byproduct of success. Dominant products tend to stagnate as they reach a certain threshold of adoption. If there is an ecosystem established around them, it seeks to preserve the status quo infrastructure.

    Take the television as example. There were many manufacturers creating TVs using network broadcast standards for which they didn't control. The system was more open than closed, yet still stagnated in the United States during the 1970s. In the late 1990s and throughout the first decade of the new century, new technologies revived the sagging TV set industry.

    Rosenberg claims that "open systems are just the opposite" of closed ones. He writes:

    They are competitive and far more dynamic. In an open system, a competitive advantage doesn't derive from locking in customers, but rather from understanding the fast-moving system better than anyone else and using that knowledge to generate better, more innovative products. The successful company in an open system is both a fast innovator and a thought leader; the brand value of thought leadership attracts customers and then fast innovation keeps them. This isn't easy -- far from it -- but fast companies have nothing to fear, and when they are successful they can generate great shareholder value.

    Open systems have the potential to spawn industries. They harness the intellect of the general population and spur businesses to compete, innovate, and win based on the merits of their products and not just the brilliance of their business tactics. The race to map the human genome is one example.

    These two paragraphs are staggering for their implications -- and directly relate to other portions of Rosenberg's post I will only briefly explore here; open information and open source, for example. Harnessing "the intellect of the general population" raises the question: "By whom?" It's not like there is a collective, Borg-like "open" hive mind. Google harnesses the intellect of others for profit. As a public company, Google has obligation to its shareholders to make money. The "competitive advantage" belongs to individuals and companies savvy enough to exploit the smarts of people working for similar profit-making goals or none at all.

    The human genome is an amazingly revealing example of Google's worldview. What's open about companies rushing to patent biological processes related the the Human Genome Project? Rosenberg writes about how open is Google technology, but he ignores that it is closed, too. The company controls key technologies, such as the secret recipe behind its search algorithm, that provide competitive advantage. Open is open until there is a business need to be closed.

    Means to an End

    In 2004, at JupiterResearch's defunct Microsoft Monitor blog, I took a contrary view about Google. I asserted that Google is not a search company. "Search is a means to an end, and information is that end. Google monetizes the information through search and contextual advertising." That Google is all about information should be obvious enough now, although perhaps not to many people outside of Google five years ago.

    Google is in the information trading business, which is another aspect of its open philosophy and really the foundation of the free business model. "On the Web, the new form of commerce is the exchange of personal information for something of value," Rosenberg writes. "This is a transaction that millions of us participate in every day, and it has potentially great benefits."

    Rosenberg writes about individuals giving up information as part of a mutually beneficial ecommerce transaction. But Google takes much more information through its search bots. Information is currency to Google. The more information that Google catalogs, the more money it can make from search keywords and advertising.

    This so-called open approach fundamentally opposes longstanding principles of intellectual property ownership. Copyrights are a barrier to Google gaining information that it can monetize. Google takes what it gets for free -- but which someone else may have paid to produce -- gives it away for free but with eventual profit motive.

    My decade 2010 prediction: Unchecked, Google's open approach and free business model will eventually disrupt most businesses that produce information. The news business is being disrupted now. Google will disrupt software products or Internet services, too. The RIAA, Hollywood studios and stock image companies should watch their backs for a Google knife. Google's power isn't so much the open philosophy as the free business model it empowers. Bill Gates asked the right question 33 years ago: "Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?" It's the question everyone should ask as Google's free business model expands.

    Is this evil? If your worldview is in line with Gates' -- that he or she who creates something should own it and profit from it -- the answer is likely "Yes." Perhaps it is not, if your worldview is that all things -- all information -- belong to everyone.

    I encourage anyone trying to really understand Google to read Rosenberg's post, but to think of the content as presentation of a business worldview rather than definition of open. Google knows its business model is disruptive. Dare I use "anarchy" to describe its goals. Rosenberg writes: "We are technology optimists who trust that the chaos of open benefits everyone. We will fight to promote it every chance we get."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/22/Hey__Microsoft__Betanews_readers_have_some_2010_advice_for_you'

    Hey, Microsoft, Betanews readers have some 2010 advice for you

    Publié: décembre 22, 2009, 6:28pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Betanews readers are an opinionated lot, so it's no surprise they've got a few things to tell Microsoft about how to run the business. On December 7, I asked readers to offer their advice for Microsoft in 2010 -- and, whoa, have they done it.

    By the way, I'll offer advice, too, sometime next week. I've been doing it for the last couple years in lieu of making predictions. Meanwhile, here are readers' recommendations:

    xsnred: "Would it really hurt MS to give away their OS in 2010? I mean really. Even at $19.95, but wait, act now and will send you a free copy of Office 2010, MS and Gateboy will still be uber rich. I realize this is an absurd suggestion, but it seems to be the least MS can do for the public that they have led around by the nose for 25 years now."

    johnrc2: "Don't just copy your competitors. Innovate. I know there are brilliant people at Microsoft. Unleash them, and take the lead back from Apple and Google."

    fadeblack: "Strip the OS and make the world's leanest, fastest OS. Then sell browsers, e-mail and everything else that chokes a OS seperate. You then don't have to worry about the UA lawsuits. Everything will be low price pieces. Everyone will be happy getting just [what] they want."

    Floodland: "Use the KISS concept (Keep It Simple Stupid) when developing new software. That does not mean to produce crippled software. Just avoid the .NET philosophy (thousands of shared libraries hanging without reason, hard to deploy, hard to maintain and very hard to diagnose when something goes wrong). There are many examples of good software to look at (not yours)."

    rojo:

    1. Get Natal to market this year since it executes on the "Natural User Interfaces" vision.

    2. Bring Natal-like experiences to Windows Mobile 7. This and #1 will gain mindshare.

    3. Release a new Windows Home Server product.

    4. Create a Microsoft branded phone.

    5. Release a HTML5 and CCS3 compliant IE9 by June with a radically new UI.

    6. The Zune platform is good but you need to switch to a 6-month release cycle to catch up to Apple. Create lala.com-like features on Zune.net for Zune pass subscribers.

    7. Add movies/TV to the Zune pass subscription to compete with Netflix Watch Instantly.

    8. Take ZuneHD and store global.

    9. Add Microsoft stores in Dallas, Chicago, New York, LA, and San Fran but make them look radically different. Like your visitor center on the main campus in Redmond. That would make a fantastic store concept. http://www.istartedsomet...icrosoft-visitor-center/

    10. Show off Windows 8 at PDC in 2010.

    Aires: "There's too little inter-connectivity (which I've wrote about before). Bing, Xbox, Windows 7, Windows Mobile - they're all too separate from each other and not tightly knit. I can't remember what I wrote before about 6mths to a year ago, but it was brilliant. Microsoft have no seeming overall strategy in place and they need one badly. Oh and Microsoft need to buy out Opera if they want a foothold in the mobile market."

    pforbes: "The permanent introduction of new operating systems and the lifecycle policy give a sense of provisionality to all Microsoft products, but when you know what you have in your hands you find that the new 'invention' means only a few new essential things and a lot of eye candy. New real advantages should be offered and sold as improvements to an essential permanent NT OS, so that you could introduce them easily into your present computers forgetting once and for always the damned lifecycle policy according to which anything you buy to Microsoft has to be abandoned in a short time to be replaced by something which is 90% similar to what you previously had."

    jc_lvngstn:

    1. XP shipped with what, three different skins? Microsoft proceeded to act as if it couldn't care less if anyone ever did anything else with it. They need to include at least some more powerful skinning options with windows, aka windowblinds or something.

    2. Windows needs some 'cool' or 'wow' apps. Things that surprise people in how cool it is. The apps that ship with Windows (calculator, wordpad, PAINT) are about as bland and uninteresting as they come.

    3. ...Microsoft marketing...it's fail. Horrible fail. They need a some true visionary here also.

    mdn777901: "Please, Microsoft, One answer emails, Two provide contact numbers/e-mail addresses for repair shops. Legitimate shops like ours have no problem registering with you all. If a computer doesn't have a MS License, they either buy a legitimate one or we won't work on it. Come up with an OS install disk similar with the Vista Anytime disk. Retail purchases kills the profit margin for little shops like ours. Of course, I can refuse to repair Windows 7 computers which won't exactly be a positive advertisement for Microsoft Win 7, but do you leave us much choice?"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/21/10_things_Microsoft_did_wrong_in_2009'

    10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2009

    Publié: décembre 21, 2009, 9:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Earlier today, I posted "10 things Microsoft did right in 2009." I originally planned to post the did-wrong list tomorrow. But in view of today's news about Microsoft's out-going chief financial officer, Chris Liddell, I changed the timetable. Liddell's departure is one of the things Microsoft did wrong in 2009 (He will become CFO at GM).

    The did-wrong list was way too much easier to compile than the did-right list. I could easily put 20 items here. The year 2009 was perhaps the most difficult for Microsoft since Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded the company nearly 35 years ago. Company executives can thank economic turmoil for the hardships. But Microsoft could have handled 2009 much better than it did. Hopefully, 2010 will be better.

    I present the list of 10 things Microsoft did wrong in 2009 in no order of importance. They're all important. Microsoft:

    1. Let Chris Liddell get away. Liddell has proven to be an exceptionally adept Microsoft CFO. He managed Microsoft finances in better times and bad, doing a resounding good job overseeing difficult cost cutting as global economic crisis sapped software sales. Liddell has an excellent relationship with Wall Street analysts and -- until January (see #4) -- he offered continually conservative guidance to them. His departure is a huge loss at Microsoft's highest executive level.

    There is simply no excuse for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and his board of directors letting Liddell leave for General Motors. No incentive should have been enough to keep him, although given Liddell's tight-fisted financial operations during the econolypse, as CFO he might not have allowed it. How ironic is that?

    2. Offered no direct Windows XP to Windows 7 upgrade. Some Betanews readers will be surprised to read that this only marginally makes the list. From a customer relations and software sales perspective, the Windows XP upgrade path to 7 is a frak up. Windows XP users shouldn't have to backup everything, do a clean installation and restore data from backup. For many enterprises, a fresh image would be business as usual. For consumers and small businesses, Microsoft has placed a huge deterrent to Windows 7 upgrades.

    But like with Zune HD (see #7 in the did-right list), Microsoft backed away from the shackles of its longstanding practice of putting backwards compatibility before anything else. From that perspective, the Windows XP to Windows 7 upgrade is something Microsoft did right -- and hopefully foreshadows more of it. Microsoft can't support every customer running any old version of its software. Such practice keeps Windows from being the modern operating system it needs to be.

    3. Laid off Don Dodge. Microsoft's January announcement of 5,000-plus layoffs showed how quickly the economic crisis waylaid the company. Or did it? In a future post I will apply a magnifying glass to Microsoft layoffs, which appear to have been more about firing highly paid, tenured staff than making necessary cuts of employee fat. Microsoft's ambassador to Silicon Valley, Don Dodge, was the most surprising of the layoffs -- and yet from the perspective of lopping big salaries it was not. Microsoft lost three things with Dodge:

    • Vital experience sussing out good startups
    • Someone well respected in Silicon Valley
    • An ally, who became a competitive enemy

    In mid November, less than two weeks after being laid off by Microsoft, Dodge took a job with Google. How the frak did Microsoft executives not see that one coming?

    4. Withheld financial guidance. Starting in January, Microsoft stopped giving financial guidance to Wall Street. It was simply a disastrous decision that established an even worse precedent. Sure, the guidance couldn't be good (given sagging sales) and risked further run on the stock, as if the last quarter of 2008 wasn't bad enough for Microsoft and nearly every other public company. But bad guidance would have been better than none. Successful public companies don't just manage finances, they manage perceptions about their performance.

    By withholding guidance, Microsoft let uncertainty and gossip determine perceptions about its sales and earnings performance. By comparison, Apple continued to release guidance and, combined with marketing and product launches and leaks, generated positive perceptions. These perceptions helped to lift Apple's share price to new heights. Meanwhile, Microsoft shares remained in the doldrums, even while quarterly results remained relatively buoyant considering economic conditions. Microsoft lost opportunity to generate really positive perceptions on Wall Street during Windows 7's late development and October launch.

    5. Botched the mobile phone strategy. Earlier this month, I encouraged Microsoft not to hang up on its mobile phone strategy. But the company has fewer options by the day, as hardware manufacturers hang up on Windows Mobile and shift to Google's Android. In October and mid-December posts, I observed how Google has put together a winning mobile strategy -- in third quarter, according to Gartner, reaching 3.5 percent smartphone market share, up from zero a year earlier.

    Meanwhile, Microsoft has got simply nothing to offer. Windows Mobile 6.5, which launched in October, lags behind Android and iPhone OS in critical areas of innovation. Meanwhile, Windows Mobile 7.0 is MIA, with rumors running about delays into late 2010 or early 2011. Microsoft's mobile browser is oh-so early century, and the company is rapidly losing developers to Apple and Google. With sophisticated handsets and smartphones poised to be, with cloud services, the next-generation computing platform, Microsoft's disastrous, run-aground mobile strategy is just short of corporate malfeasance against shareholders.

    6. Chased Google in search -- again. Microsoft should just give up its pursuit of Google in Web search from PCs. Google's search share lead is insurmountable. Microsoft's only real hope is mobile, which will be the future of search, but the company's mobile strategy is hosed (as explained in #5). Microsoft frittered away 2008 chasing Yahoo, only to bag a Yahoo search deal in July of this year.

    I called the agreement "Google's Christmas-in-July present." As I predicted then, and as recent ComScore numbers show, Microsoft can only take search share from Yahoo; when the deal is complete and implemented, Microsoft will cannibalize Yahoo share rather than combine with it. Microsoft's Google search obsession distracts the company from what's important: Mobile and the cloud, which will be the next-generation computing platform.

    7. Retrenched into enterprise. Microsoft responded to the economic crisis by doing exactly what Ballmer recommended against. In January, during his Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote, Microsoft's CEO extolled the importance of investing during hard times -- that historically successful companies reaped from research and development and other investments sowed during recessions. But Microsoft did something else: Retreat to the enterprise. Microsoft also killed vital incubation projects (see #9).

    Nearly as bad (reiterating #6), Google continued to set the development agenda, with Microsoft again chasing the search giant's every cloud software or service. Aside from some modest Bing features and user interface changes, Microsoft failed to leap ahead of its rival.

    8. Allowed netbooks to grow unchecked. Netbooks are a plague, sucking the margins out of the PC industry and from Microsoft. The company should have used every means imaginable to discourage these pesky, cheap underpowered portables. But somewhere inside the hallowed halls of Microsoft's corporate campus, someone freaked about all those early netbooks running Linux, resulting in the disastrous 2008 decision to license Windows XP Home for the little buggers. If Linux on netbooks is so bad an experience, as Microsoft product managers claim, sales collapse should have been the future without Windows licensing.

    Instead, Microsoft encouraged netbooks' continued sales surge by licensing Windows 7 Starter Edition for them, all the while pushing costlier, thin-and-light laptops as the better alternative. Cheap rules the day. Gartner predicted that netbooks -- and not Windows 7 -- would lift sagging 2009 PC sales.

    9. Killed incubation projects. Microsoft didn't just wield the cost-cutting axe against valuable employees, it whacked vital incubation projects. The nastiness started in earnest with April's gutting of Live Labs. As I blogged then: "Stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid. Did I not say stupid?" Microsoft continued jettisoning projects all year, again, contradicting Ballmer's January assertion "that companies and industries that continue to pursue innovation during tough economic times will achieve a significant competitive advantage positioning themselves for growth far more effectively than companies that hold back. That's why Microsoft continues to focus on R&D."

    Oh, yeah? How is killing incubation projects investing in R&D? Some of Microsoft's best product development over the last three years came from incubation groups that acted more like internal startups. Who's running this company, if the CEO says one thing and underlings do something else -- or, worse, he is the contradiction?

    10. Licensed ActiveSync to Google. Synchronization is the killer application for the connected world. So why in hell would Microsoft license its synchronization protocols to competitor Google? Perhaps someone at Microsoft saw advantage for Exchange Server. That's one way Google used ActiveSync, but not where the company got the real bang.

    Immediately, Google used ActiveSync for e-mail, calendar and contact synchronization from its cloud services to iPhone and Windows Mobile handsets. Google also used the technology to provide Exchange Server sync with Google Apps, so that businesses could use the hosted service instead of Outlook. Sync is quickly defining Google's mobile handset and mobile cloud strategies, and Microsoft helped move it along faster. How dumb is that?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/21/10_things_Microsoft_did_right_in_2009'

    10 things Microsoft did right in 2009

    Publié: décembre 21, 2009, 8:27am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The year 2009 was pretty good to Microsoft, even as the weak economy ravaged sales. Microsoft actually did a few things right. The did-wrong list will come later today (not tomorrow as previously posted). For now, I present the list of 10 things Microsoft did right in 2009 -- in no order of importance. They're all important. Microsoft:

    1. Flawlessly launched Windows 7. There's a metaphor somehow in Microsoft launching Windows 7 during the 40th anniversary year of the Apollo moon landing. Microsoft's precision reminds of NASA sending man to the moon. While the human risk wasn't as great and many of the engineering challenges were far less than Apollo 11, Windows 7 needed perfect launch and delivery, from testing to release candidate to voluming licensing availability and retail release. Microsoft pulled it off.

    It's clear that Microsoft re-engineered the engineering process. The mistakes that led to overlong development of Windows Vista, the dumping of well-publicized features and late delivery (How could Microsoft miss Holiday 2006?) didn't reappear. Microsoft successfully executed a taunt development schedule, improved performance in the right places (like startup and wakeup), made better the user interface and insured that most drivers would be available for popular devices.

    Microsoft's success was as much about managing perceptions as developing and delivering a good product. The company clearly worked the blogs that Microsoft influencers, IT managers and some consumers read, as well social networks and forums they might participate in. Early positive reviews and some kick-ass "Laptop Hunters" marketing helped Windows 7 to pull free from the negative reaction gravity that kept Windows Vista from achieving escape velocity.

    2. Opened retail stores. Coordinated with Windows 7's launch, Microsoft opened retail stores in Arizona and California and a café in France. The stores are a first step that will need many more to follow. During his Consumer Electronics Show 2009 keynote, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said that companies most likely to succeed after a recession make investments during one. Retail stores are one such investment. Apple opened its first retail stores during the 2000-01 recession. Microsoft's situation and timing remind of Apple in May 2001, for starters during a recession. Microsoft's retail strategy will require commitment, if necessary, including running stores at losses for their greater marketing benefit.

    3. Offered crapware-free PCs. Microsoft started selling Windows 7 PCs through its online and brick-and-mortar stores in October, free of the preloaded software -- crapware -- that can bog down the performance of even a new system. It's an important change to giving Windows 7 PC users the experience Microsoft engineered out of the box.

    4. Launched Bing. Microsoft's "decision engine" may never catch Google. Bing will cannibalize Yahoo search share first. But as a consumer product, with excellent user interface and simply exceptional advertising, Bing already is helping to revive Microsoft's brand outside of the business market. Search is the most popular activity on the Web. By being there with a solid product and big brand, Microsoft can snatch some of the good consumer feeling that Apple or Google gets.

    5. Released Security Essentials. Microsoft finally did the right thing by customers and the Windows brand by offering free malware protection. No doubt, Microsoft long resisted the inevitable for the benefit of its anti-malware software partners and for concern about antitrust problems. Security Essentials is reliable malware protection that doesn't overtax Windows. For 2010, Microsoft could make the software better by making it even easier for consumers to get -- say, on new PCs.

    6. Promoted Steven Sinofsky. The man who methodically led the team that turned around Microsoft's flagship operating system now leads the Windows & Windows Live division. Sinfosky hugely deserved the promotion to president of the division (see #1). Next up: Turning around Windows Live. Can Sinofsky and team deliver? First answer may come at MIX 10, in March.

    7. Released Zune 4.0 software and Zune HD. It's too bad iPod is so popular. Zune 4.0 and Zune HD are both kick-ass products. Microsoft showed that Xbox 360 and Xbox Live aren't flukes. Microsoft can provide good end-to-end solutions in other markets. The company also learned, hopefully, an important lesson: Backwards compatibility isn't everything. Microsoft broke backwards compatibility, by providing new features in Zune HD not available for older devices.

    8. Settled antitrust case with the European Union. Last week's browser "Choice Screen" agreement with the EU's Competition Commission is much bigger than it seems. Microsoft's concessions did more than end the browser antitrust case, they effectively sidelined another open investigation, by the company agreeing to release additional interoperability information -- and for products broader than Windows, including Office and SharePoint Server.

    9. Improved advertising. Microsoft advertising has long been major lame, particularly the persistent and pointless corporate commercials. From February, Microsoft hit a series of marketing home runs, each stronger than the last:

    • "The Rookies," featuring cute kids using Windows Live Photo Gallery.
    • "Laptop Hunters," where people shopped for a PC, which they could keep if within their pre-agreed budget.
    • "Bing," which commercials made real the limitations of search keywords.
    • "Windows 7 was my idea," what anyone's idea of good Microsoft advertising should be.

    If 2010 advertising is this good, or even better, Microsoft will get a good branding start for the new decade.

    10. Debuted Silverlight 4.0. Microsoft continued making its nearly annual updates to Silverlight, releasing v4 beta during Professional Developers Conference 2009. Sadly, Silverlight 4.0 was the only real light coming out of PDC. Internet Explorer 9 is vaporware and Azure has morphed into last year's Amazon Web Services. But Silverlight promises Adobe AIR-like capabilities, support for microphones and Webcams, standalone Silverlight containers and better HTML support, including HTTP streaming, among other new features. A good thing is getting even better.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/19/10_last_minute_gifts_for_geeks'

    10 last-minute gifts for geeks

    Publié: décembre 19, 2009, 9:24am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's the last shopping weekend before Christmas and perhaps you just don't know what to give that special geek in your life. I've prepared a list of 10 gifts, none of which might make your holiday list without a little prodding. I intentionally picked gifts I would want to give that you might not think to give. If you've got other, hopefully better, ideas, please share them in comments. A list of 10 suggestions isn't enough.

    1. Panasonic Lumix LX3K -- Earlier this week, Amazon had this compact digital camera for $398.95 but sold out. Adorama lists the camera for $499.95, but the price drops to $398.95 in the shopping cart. B&H Photo offers the LX3K for the same price. Four hundred bucks is simply an excellent price for what is one of the most versatile compact digicams available -- and it's suitable for novices or pros.

    2. Microsoft TechNet Plus Subscription -- For $349 ($299 upgrade), subscribers can get, presumably for evaluation purposes, all major Microsoft desktop and server software products. It's a good bargain with Windows 7 just released and Office 2010 coming next year. The $349 price is for downloading software. The subscription with DVD software shipments costs $599.

    3. Etymotic Research HF2 Earphones -- Available in black from Amazon for $128.94, these binaural earphones and microphone are designed for mobile handsets, including iPhone. I personally would prefer Bluetooth earphones, but this wired set offers much -- frequency response of 20 Hz -16 KHz, 16 ohms impedance and 35- 42 dB noise isolation -- for a value price.

    Nokia BH-905 headphones4. Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited -- OMG, 5,000 titles are available with stunning graphics and fluid page turns that give sense of being part of the action. For $59.98 a year, it's one of the cheapest geek gifts to give this holiday.

    5. Phase One Capture One 5 -- One of the best photo RAW editing software applications is available in a new version this year. While Capture One 5's workflow options fall short of Adobe PhotoShop Lightroom 2 (v3 is in beta) or Apple Aperture 2, it offers excellent RAW editing, particularly noise reduction and manipulation of dynamic range. Standard version is $129 or go Pro for $399 (Mac/Windows). Windows users might also consider exceptionally good, competitive alternative SILKYPIX Pro ($249) or v4 ($149).

    6. Amazon Prime -- For the geek who is chained to his or her computer and who frequently orders everything online, there is Amazon's Prime service. You pay $79 a year and get free two-day shipping on everything Amazon sells (but not affiliates) or overnight shipping for $3.99 per item. Big selling point: Four different Amazon accounts can share one Prime. So if you've got four roomies that's 20 bucks a piece.

    7. Nokia Bluetooth Stereo Headset BH-905 -- These noise-cancelling headphones sport several wired (including 3.5mm) and wireless connections. Specs include eight noise-cancellng microphones, 15 Hz to 20 kHz frequency response and 32 ohm speaker impedance. The microphone is a bit glitchy for phone calls, but for listening the audio fidelity, noise cancellation and connection options are excellent. Available from Amazon for $219.99 or $169.99 after $50 mail-in rebate.

    WowWee pico projector8. AT&T U-verse -- I've used Comcast, Cox and Verizon FiOS, and none delivers quite the bang as U-verse, which runs Microsoft's Media Room software. The IPTV service offers a clean, easy-to-understand program guide, loads of HD channels, DVR sharing with other set-top boxes in the home and recording of up to four channels simultaneously -- two in HD. I've had U-verse since February 2008 and highly recommend it. Drawback: Service is only available in about 22 states. U-verse 200 package with Internet and one DVR is $102 a month.

    9. Financial Times or Wall Street Journal (online editions) -- Geeks who want a more global perspective (and everyone really should have one) need look no further than either the Financial Times or Wall Street Journal. These two financially-oriented dailies have morphed into first-class general reporting papers. Quality isn't cheap. FT Premium, which includes mobile editions, is $299 for one year. WSJ costs much less: $103 annually. Kindle editions are available for both: $9.99 a month for FT; $14.99 a month for WSJ. Both dailies offer some free online content, but expect that to change -- at least for WSJ -- in 2010.

    10. WowWee Cinemin Swivel Pico Projector -- This DLP projector is tiny, measuring 120mm x 52mm x 22mm and weighing 170g (For non-metric Americans that's 4.7" x 2.1" x 0.9" and 6 ounces). Resolution may only be 480 x 320 with a 3:2 aspect ratio, but what do you expect from something this small? Battery life is 135 minutes, just long enough to get through a regular movie and hopefully any slide presentation (two-hour meeting is more than long enough). The WowWee Website warns that the Cinemin Swivel is sold out and orders won't be fulfilled until next year. But Amazon still has stock, priced at $305.93.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/19/_Operation_Chokehold__shows_the_social_media_mob_has_influence'

    'Operation Chokehold' shows the social media mob has influence

    Publié: décembre 19, 2009, 2:21am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    "Operation Chokehold" has come and gone, with no sign it even put AT&T in a headlock. But with so many people complaining of service already so spotty, could anyone really tell the difference short of network failure? For AT&T, there is little victory in surviving the coordinated, customer-driven denial-of-service attack. The publicity has done damage enough, and, as I blogged yesterday, everything is different now for companies looking to manage their brands and customer relations.

    Dan Lyons, writing as Fake Steve Jobs, called for Operation Chokehold -- a coordinated effort by AT&T users to overwhelm the network with heavy data requests -- at 3 p.m. ET today. Lyons started backpedaling on December 16, perhaps after realizing that Operation Chokehold had become a serious movement, with a Facebook fan page and buzz spreading across social networks, blogs and the news media.

    Today he blogged: "This was meant as a joke. My blog mixes fiction and non-fiction, and the item on Monday was fiction...But some people took it seriously and now the joke has taken on a life of its own...This may be cathartic, but it is pointless. A few thousand people are not going to make a dent in a wireless network. If you participate, you'll most likely be wasting your time."

    Perhaps the joke is on Lyons, and he's not laughing. It's often difficult to separate Fake Steve Jobs' sarcasm from Dan Lyons' anger -- clearly at AT&T, if no one else. The more recent backpedaling posts smell of fear, that Lyons started something he couldn't control. Hey, that's how it is with mobs. The moment you yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Lynch the bastard!" before a cornered man, the mob rules. Mob psychology sets in -- yes, even on the InterWeb.

    Netizens selecting a Smaller Worldview

    That's because behavior long observed about traditional media has transferred to the Web. Contrary to popular conventions about the Web opening minds, people are more likely to read information or participate in social groups that reinforce what they already believe. Example proof point is a recent study conducted by Ohio University professors Jingbo Meng and Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, from which they published paper: "Looking the Other Way: Selective Exposure to Attitude-Consistent and Counterattitudinal Political Information."

    The researchers conducted two sessions -- with 156 and 221 college student participants, respectively -- presenting online news information for review. "We found that exposure to attitude-consistent messages exceeded exposure to counter-attitudinal messages and that the proportion was remarkably consistent for article choices and exposure time," the professors write. In plain speak: The participants generally choose to engage news and information that reinforced predisposed attitudes.

    "Selective exposure" is not a new concept. Social psychologist Leon Festinger proposed in his 1956 and 1957 books When Prophecy Fails and Theory of Cognitive Dissonance the concept of "cognitive dissonance" -- the idea that people feel uncomfortable with contradictory viewpoints and settle on a single one. Festinger's work, which Meng and Knobloch-Westerwick repeatedly reference in their paper, is foundational to the concept of selective exposure -- that people associate with arguments or ideas that support their own beliefs.

    Marketers, politicians and propagandists have long exploited selective exposure in their campaigns. But who would have thought people would selectively expose themselves (no sarcastic comments, please) to some information and not others on the massively informational World Wide Web? Betanews commenters wag "fanboy" as an accusation, but on the Web many people are just that. They seek out news, information, people and social groups that support what they already believe -- what reinforces their self identity. Whatever political, religious or cultural view people seek, they can find it on the Web. Mac users seek out Apple blogs, news sites and communities; Windows users do the same. Look at the number of Facebook fan pages or how many like-minded people gather on one forum or newsgroup but not another.

    Timeless Damage inflicted on Brands

    Then there are the disgruntled, like dissatisfied AT&T customers who seek out places to vent and share their frustrations. Until this week, they were leaderless. Then Fake Steve Jobs made a proposal that gave them leadership, direction and a goal -- even after he attempted to relinquish his leadership role. It's a social media mob psychology and itself a power for companies like AT&T to reckon with. The social media mob has the power to tarnish a brand, to undo what millions of dollars in marketing generated in good feeling.

    The mob's mark won't easily go away, because the Web is more timeless, less temporal, than other forms of media. Whether a month or five years from now, disgruntled AT&T users can Google "AT&T service interruption" and find blogs, forum posts, news stories, Tweets and Websites about Operation Chokehold and much more. They can reinforce their beliefs, magnify their anger and find community in people who share their gripes.

    Some people will call Operation Chokehold a failure because AT&T's network didn't fail. But as a movement of like-minded customers angry at AT&T, Operation Chokehold is a chilling success. Their voice was heard, and it won't be the last time. Lyons wasn't the only backpedaler this week. AT&T partly backed down on proposed data caps.

    The social media revolution started quietly, unexpectedly in 2006, with the launch of Twitter and YouTube and the public availability of Facebook. Many other cloud services followed, and some of the best are tied to iPhone or other handsets. The social media mob can gather anytime, anywhere and on anything. Some Betanews commenters will scoff at the idea -- and please do be opinionated in comments. It means that you don't have to be one. If Dan Lyons can gather a social media mob from what he calls a joke, how much more power or influence could there be?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/18/As__Operation_Chokehold__approaches__readers_sound_off_on_AT_T_service'

    As 'Operation Chokehold' approaches, readers sound off on AT&T service

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    What started out as a joke, or perhaps simple mad rantings, has turned into something bigger: "Operation Chokehold," which is scheduled for 3 p.m. ET today. Dan Lyons, writing as Fake Steve Jobs, has called on AT&T users to show their service dissatisfaction by trying to overwhelm the network with data-intensive tasks. The joke may be if no one participates or AT&T's network survives the data assault.

    But questions remain about AT&T service quality. Ten days ago, I asked Betanews readers to share what they think about AT&T's service. I've picked a constellation of comments that hopefully reflect how Betanews readers feel about AT&T. By the way, please do stop and take Betanews poll: "Would wireless carrier quality kill the iPhone?"

    With that, here are some of your comments about AT&T service quality. Please feel free to leave even more.

    fkmalone: "I have AT&T currently and I am getting ready to switch next month. To be clear, I don't have an iPhone and don't want one. I don't like the arrogance of Apple and I hate AT&T...I have occasions every day where I will get a call and answer it only for it to disconnect 10 seconds later and tell me I have a missed call. What the heck? I just answered it and actually started talking to someone. I even purchased a new phone thinking it was the phone. What a waste of 2 years. Never again...I don't know about the true extent of AT&T coverage, but the quality is terrible here."

    tigreseis: "Never had a problem with AT&T (I have been using them for 7 years). I have always had great customer service. I live in the country as well."

    dhjdhj: "The fact of the matter is that AT&T coverage has progressively been declining, it's not just the occasional random failed call anymore. While driving on a trip yesterday, I had 4 calls to the same person get dropped within 20 miles, and two of those drops were in an area with 5 bars displayed."

    nightops: "I have been a customer of Cingular/AT&T Wireless now for about 13 years. I travel across mostly the midwest, but have been to Hawaii, Mexico, and a chunk of the western US. I have owned multiple types of phones while on their service...Overall, I'm very satisfied with my experience. Support has always been top-notch for me. Even with the lack of 3G penetration, I've been very satisfied."

    gawd21: "Here in Louisville, KY, AT&T is the worst carrier. You can't even drive down 71 without it dropping. That is a major highway! The cheap Cricket, has better coverage in this area."

    Peteorius: "I've been with the iPhone for a few months now and have lived in Manhattan my whole life. Rarely a txt won't go through, occassionally data is a little slow, and I've only had one dropped call in months. All in all, the iPhone is by far the most efficiently run, most effective phone/computer I've ever had, and I don't mind being on the Nation's fastest 3G network."

    epobirs: "My personal observation is that you can have a dozen different makes and model of cell phone in a room, all on AT&T, and only the iPhone user will have serious connection issues. This is certainly true at my house. Everybody here has different phones and we're all on AT&T. Only my brother has major issues with service on his, you guessed it, iPhone. My five year old Samsung 427 connected far more reliably and my new Blackberry Curve 8310 does the same. I think there needs to be some investigation into the iPhone side of the issue."

    aduffbrew: "As I watch at&t's consumer ratings drop, I can't help but wonder how much of that is due to actual personal consumer experience and how much of it is the media fanning the flames. Both are influencing the numbers, that much is a certainty."

    Jeffyo: "Switched from ATT to Verizon and got the Eris. No dropped calls and better and faster 3G coverage than my friends using the 3Gs iphone(we competed network speed). My eris rated faster in all aspects of data transfer."

    johnrc2: "I have been on AT&T cell phone service for several years. I don't have an iPhone; I have a Nokia whatever, but I have friends at work who have iPhones, and a son who has an iPhone. None of them have complained about the service."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/18/Mac_fan_blogs_miss_the_point_about_Android__iPhone_and_Windows_Mobile'

    Mac fan blogs miss the point about Android, iPhone and Windows Mobile

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

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It amazes me how Mac and tech blogs can take data touting Google Android phone gains and turn it into an iPhone beats Windows Mobile phone foo fest. Give it up. The data reveals much more interesting findings than that.

    Earlier today, ComScore announced availability of report "Android: Crashing the Smartphone Party" and issued a press release about some of the data. The press release doesn't contain mobile operating system usage, but FierceDeveloper published the data, presumably from the nearly $5,000 report (That's too rich for my blood, dude). FireceDeveloper's two charts show iPhone OS overtaking Windows Mobile OS usage among U.S. mobile subscribers in October.

    It didn't take long for the bloggers to start writing iPhone beats Windows Mobile stories: Apple 2.0, The Apple Blog, Boy Genius Report, Engadget, Gizmodo, ReadWriteWeb, Seattle PI, Silicon Alley Insider and The Unofficial Apple Weblog, among many others. Of the blogs here listed, all sourced Comscore, but, with the exception of the Apple Blog, they used data and chart(s) from FireceDeveloper. So, the real source was FierceDeveloper, except for the Apple blog, which used Daily Tech. Does nobody do original reporting anymore?

    Half of Future Smartphone Purchasers want BlackBerries

    The data publicly released by ComScore -- the stuff overlooked in the iPhone-beats-Windows-Mobile blog posts -- is rich and revealing. Even the charts released by FierceDeveloper show trends overlooked by the aforementioned blogs.

    Based on a survey of 2,300 U.S. consumers, among those planning a smartphone purchase in the next three months, 51 percent said one of several BlackBerries. By comparison, 20 percent plan to buy either an iPhone 3GS (14 percent) or iPhone 3G (6 percent). More surprising, 17 percent plan on buying one of several Android-based models. Almost half of these, 8 percent, said the Verizon Droid.

    BlackBerry is iPhone's ceiling and Android the floor, and they're squeezing iPhone between. In an August survey, 21 percent of U.S. consumers planning a smartphone in three months purchase told ComScore they would buy an iPhone, but only 7 percent an Android phone. ComScore attributed the change three months later to the increasing number of available Android handsets.

    "With handsets on multiple carriers, from multiple manufacturers, and numerous Android device models expected to be in the U.S. market by January, the Android platform is rapidly shaking up the smartphone market," Mark Donovan, ComScore's senior vice president over mobility, said in a statement. "While iPhone continues to set the bar with its App Store and passionate user base, and RIM remains the leader among the business set, Android is clearly gaining momentum among developers and consumers."

    Smartphone Media ConsumptionComScore found that media usage among Android phone and iPhone users are about the same, except one category: E-mail. Over the three months ending in September, 87 percent of iPhone users used e-mail compared to 63 percent for Android smartphones. The difference is quite surprising, because Android phones require a Gmail account, which is activated or synchronized during initial device setup. Gmail is free, while Apple charges $99 for MobileMe, although consumers can easily set up another e-mail service. Based on my experience with Android handsets and iPhone, third-party e-mail setup is easier on Apple's smartphone.

    While media consumption is about the same for Android phones and iPhone, it's quite a bit higher than other smartphones. That trend makes sense given how many other smartphones are BlackBerries (According to IDC, BlackBerry shipments grew five times faster than iPhone during third quarter). Ninety-four percent of iPhone users and 92 percent of Android handset users used mobile media, compared to 80 percent of other smartphone users.

    ComScore's assessment of Android's potential rings well with what I asserted in October: "iPhone is to Android -- and somewhat Symbian OS -- handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s." Gartner predicts that Android OS shipments will exceed iPhone OS by 2012.

    Apple's Android and BlackBerry problem is the Real Story

    So what about mobile operating systems? I'll make some observations based on the FierceDeveloper as published. It's too late at night to confirm the data with ComScore. Hereafter then, I'll refer to it as the data published by FierceDeveloper. The data reveals an important trend that has little to do with iPhone or Windows Mobile OSes. Based on the data published by FierceDeveloper, U.S. consumer usage of smartphones with X, Y or Z mobile operating system increases after the release of new, subsidized handsets. It's not rocket science, simply what the data shows.

    The data published by FierceDeveloper covers four months: February, May, July and October. Apple's iPhone OS jumped dramatically in July (6.63 million) and October (8.79 million), following the release of iPhone 3GS and the iPhone 3G price cut to $99. Symbian OS increased following AT&T's release of the Nokia E71x -- July (1.04 million) and October (1.28 million). After declining in July (6.66 million), Windows Mobile picked up in October (7.13 million), around the time major new models debuted.

    By comparison, Android OS and BlackBerry OS showed consistent gains over the four months, with Google's OS going from 427,914 in February to 1.02 million in October. BlackBerry: From 9.7 million in February to 15 million in October. Whether looking at the data publicly published by ComScore or the FierceDeveloper data attributed to ComScore, the real stories are Android and Blackberry rather than iPhone and Windows Mobile.

    The question everyone -- bloggers, carriers, handset manufacturers, journalists, retailers and software developers -- should ask: "Why?" Apple offers 100,000 or more applications than either Google or Research in Motion. Other than e-mail, BlackBerry media consumption simply isn't in the same league as either Apple or Google smartphones.

    The answer is likely different for both devices. BlackBerry has huge distribution in the United States, while iPhone is available only from AT&T. BlackBerry's physical keyboard is as good as, if not better, for texting as e-mail. Who do you see using BlackBerries? I mostly see business people and young women (teens or twentysomethings). It's e-mail for one group and texting for the other.

    The reasons for Android gains are probably many -- HTC and T-Mobile marketing, G1 and MyTouch handsets and the Google brand, among others, for the first three quarters of the year. More recently: New Motorola devices, Droid release with Android 2.0 and Verizon Droid marketing. But the "Why?" is a topic better flushed out in a future post.

    For today, the fanboys can claim victory -- with more Americans using a handset with iPhone OS than Windows Mobile. But BlackBerry usage is greater and many more people plan to buy a RIM smartphone over the coming three months than iPhone. Meanwhile, Android is coming on fast.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/17/Can__Operation_Chokehold__be_stopped__Will_you_join_the_AT_T_DoS_'

    Can 'Operation Chokehold' be stopped? Will you join the AT&T DoS?

    Publié: décembre 17, 2009, 11:23pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The strangeness spinning around AT&T's quality of service is starting to make Christmas feel like Halloween. It's scary and tantalizingly inviting to observe. It's like watching a train wreck or freeway pileup in horror and awe. Does Apple have an app for that?

    Tomorrow, a service which reliability many customers have questioned, may be intentionally brought down. Whether or not there is any action or even if it fails, everything is different now -- not just for AT&T but any company looking to manage customer relations. The crowd has found a voice. Will the AT&T mob be more American Revolution or French Revolution and its "reign of terror?"

    What a strange 10 days it has been for AT&T. How did it comes to this? On December 7, AT&T released the "Mark the Spot" app that lets iPhone users notify the carrier about service problems. The next day, Network World recapped a Root Wireless study that revealed AT&T consistently has the fastest 3G service of any major U.S. carrier. OK, if data's so fast, why can't telephony be more reliable? A day later, AT&T's Ralph de la Vega started talking about imposing data caps on wireless users, which would be one way to address service problems. Say what? Cap the same people who are required to purchase a data plan with their smartphone?

    Then Fake Steve Jobs (aka writer Dan Lyons) called for "Operation Chokehold," in response to AT&T's demand that customers use less data. The idea: To consume even more data on AT&T's network tomorrow, December 18, at 3 p.m. ET, thus bringing down AT&T's service. He wrote on December 14:

    Subject: Operation Chokehold On Friday, December 18, at noon Pacific time, we will attempt to overwhelm the AT&T data network and bring it to its knees. The goal is to have every iPhone user (or as many as we can) turn on a data intensive app and run that app for one solid hour. Send the message to AT&T that we are sick of their substandard network and sick of their abusive comments. THe idea is we'll create a digital flash mob. We're calling it in Operation Chokehold. Join us and speak truth to power!

    Plan of Attack

    If I hadn't switched from AT&T to T-Mobile in October, I likely would join in tomorrow's planned denial-of-service attack. Whether or not the call to action was real or a gag designed to drum up pageviews for Fake Steve Jobs no longer matters. There appears to be real momentum behind AT&T customers -- particularly iPhone users -- venting their frustrations in one massive crowd-sourced DoS.

    That said, surely AT&T is planning for the attack and people often flake out last minute. Chokehold could yet be a half-hearted headlock that AT&T easily escapes. Success or failure is no longer the point, but what the noise means.

    Today, at Gizmodo, Adam Frucci threw his support behind Fake Steve Jobs in post: "FSJ's Anti-AT&T Manifesto Makes Me Raise My Fist in Solidarity." Frucci has plenty of company. Operation Chokehold support is surprisingly widespread, with social media services joining -- and perhaps usurping -- bloggers and news sites driving the message.

    Viva La Chokehold

    Over at the Apple 2.0 blog, Philip Elmer-DeWitt asks: "Can kids bring AT&T to its knees?" He observes that the Facebook Operation Chokehold fan page has a young audience: "Scroll down the members list for affiliations and you'll see a few companies, a bunch of colleges and a whole lot of high schools."

    Maybe, but how many high school students have AT&T phones with data capabilities/plans? It's the large number of college participants that pose a greater risk. As of this posting Operation Chokehold has more than 3,400 Facebook fans. That's not bad for something that started as a gag -- or seems to be. It's sometimes hard to separate Fake Steve Jobs' sarcasm from Dan Lyons' anger.

    Crowding 'The Man'

    This isn't just noise or one blogger -- Dan Lyons -- ranting. The planned attack on AT&T demonstrates the new power of the crowd, and it should be big lesson to any company about how social media is changing customer relations. One voice easily becomes many, particularly when there are shared common problems -- or frustrations. If the mob does unite and successfully brings down AT&T's network, customer relations will never be the same, anywhere.

    The social media services that have allowed people to create fan pages and organize impromptu meet-ups or parties can be used to organize something else: Actions against the corporate establishment. There have been plenty of minor actions, but nothing quite as visible or on the potential scale of Operation Chokehold. Perhaps in a different era, these tools would be used more to express social outrage. "The Man" is no longer the government but more the corporation and the quality of services it provides.

    There is a Facebook fan page, Operation Cuckoo, opposing Operation Chokehold, but as of this writing it has less than 70 members. The mob isn't against action but for it. Fake Steve Jobs may have tapped into something much, much bigger than he ever expected. It's now Frankenstein out of control.

    Today's question: Can the one voice silence the mob it generated? Yesterday, Lyons applied some friction to Operation Chokehold. Jennifer Van Grove writes at Mashable:

    With the crusade date and time (Friday) fast approaching, and proponents and opponents coming out of the woodwork, Fake Steve appears to be doing the that's-not-what-I-really-meant backtrack dance. In his latest blog post, Lyons's conscience makes an appearance and seems to drown out the voice of Apple's fake -- and now fearful -- leader.

    Fake Steve Jobs writes in that blog post: "For what it's worth, we don't expect many people to participate in the flash mob. Even if all 1,600 fans of the Facebook group participate, that's probably not enough people to crash a network. Is it? Truth is, I hope not." The number of Facebook fans has doubled since yesterday, and surely there are many more. Then comes the reversal of Lyons' earlier outage: "I really don't want to cause any actual harm to my fellow AT&T users. Quite the opposite -- I feel as if we're all caught in the same horrible prison, suffering alongside one another."

    That was yesterday. Today, Lyons shows continued interest in Operation Chokehold and as Fake Steve Jobs has written post after post attacking AT&T. The picture above was sent to Fake Steve Jobs' by reader Luis. Meanwhile, AT&T is preparing its defenses. Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that AT&T plans to offer customers incentives to cutback data usage rather than penalize them for heavy usage. But is there really difference? That's a question I ask you to answer in comments -- and please tell everyone if you support or oppose Operation Chokehold.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/17/10_Things_you_shouldn_t_give_Steve_Ballmer_for_Christmas'

    10 Things you shouldn't give Steve Ballmer for Christmas

    Publié: décembre 17, 2009, 7:20am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is a man who has pretty much everything. That makes him a difficult person to buy holiday gifts for. God forbid, if you're the Microsoft employee who picks Ballmer's name to be his secret Santa. Just because Ballmer might have everything, doesn't mean you should buy him anything.

    I couldn't resist putting together a list of things not to buy Microsoft's chief executive. It might seem like a slow news day thing to do. In fact, Tuesday was a busy news day. This is all just holiday fun.

    But how to present the list? I considered writing long explanations, but decided instead to use links -- mostly to somewhere other than Betanews. It's the giving season, so we're giving some link love to other sites.

    I'm considering a second list on what might be appropriate to buy Ballmer for Christmas. I'm collecting reader suggestions by e-mail or comments. The gift suggestions could be funny (as in gag) or totally sincere. You might ask yourself what Ballmer deserves this holidays, which bring to close his first decade running Microsoft.

    So-o-o-o, if you value your life, don't buy Steve Ballmer any of these things:

    1. An iPhone

    2. Toyota Prius

    3. Windows 7 Family Pack

    4. New wardrobe

    5. Bobblehead Steve Jobs

    6. MSN Direct Watch

    7. Plane ticket to Brussels

    8. Ballmer puppet

    9. Dinner with Don Dodge

    10. A new hat

    Do you have a gift to add to the list? Please do so in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/17/Ask_Santa_for_one_of_these_compact_digicams_for_Christmas'

    Ask Santa for one of these compact digicams for Christmas

    Publié: décembre 17, 2009, 5:30am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Are you shopping for or asking Santa for a compact digital camera this holiday? Sure, it seems like everyone who is anyone wants a digital SLR for their Christmas stocking. But compacts have their place -- and a newer crop are closer to digital SLRs in performance and photo quality.

    But to be fair, close is still a long ways off. Shutter response, action shooting, optical viewfinder, photographic quality and changeable lenses all put dSLRs way ahead of compacts. Still, compacts can be easily carried pretty much anywhere, and many newer models sport surprisingly pro features.

    I would want to receive or give any of the digicams listed below for Christmas. None is perfect, and each has different strengths I will highlight. I present them in no order of importance. What features appeal to one person might not appeal to others. Besides, a digital camera is more than about features. It's about handling and ergonomics, too. Anyone considering any of these digicams should try them out in a store. Feel them. Handle them. Use them. Get to know them. This isn't a gadget purchase but a relationship.

    Canon PowerShot S90

    The PoweShot S90 is a simply delightful and innovative pocket digital camera. The f/2 lens lets in more light than do most other compacts, and the multi-function control ring (around the lens) will make amateur shooters feel like pros. Meanwhile, the same control ring, 10-megapixel CCD sensor and RAW support should appeal to pros looking for a small carry-along camera.

    I can't say enough good about the multi-function ring, which gives the shooter surprisingly easy access to changing settings. A review at Steve's Digicams, emphasizing the lens ring's functionality, sold me on the S90. But that review is gone following a massive site redesign. The replacement review is more a features list. At Gizmodo, Matt Buchanan's S90 review -- "It'll Never Leave My Pocket (Except When I'm Taking Pictures)" -- captures a geek's reaction to the lens ring, which he found to be awkward to use; I didn't.

    Canon PowerShot S90Highlights:

    • f/2 lens
    • 10MP sensor
    • RAW shooting
    • Image stabilization
    • Multi-function ring
    • 28mm-105mm zoom range
    • Good low-light performance
    • Same sensor as PowerShot G11

    Dings:

    640 x 480 (no HD) video

    Street Price: $400 (Spend another $35 and get the Canon PSC900 deluxe leather case)

    I highly recommend the S90 to just about anyone -- novice, amateur or pro -- who doesn't care about HD video in a compact digicam (I'm someone who does). The multi-function ring alone makes the S90 a helluva geek stocking stuffer. By the way, I recommend that most anyone considering the larger PowerShot G11 to choose the S90 instead.

    Sony Cyber-shot WX1/B

    I would never have considered the WX1/B if not for using it. Sony's pro compact takes surprisingly sharp pictures, which perhaps says something about the "G" lens and sensor matchup. The compact is solidly constructed and comfortable to use. Sony has a habit of overwhelming performance with features. But the WX1/B is an exception.

    I found the 10-pic burst mode setting to be a bit odd, yet it delivered satisfying results while shooting a high school volleyball game. Small gripe: The feature ties up the camera from other uses for too long, at least for my tastes. The Cyber-shot offers excellent face detection, which improves self-portraits and group shots (It will delight teens). The auto macro mode is simply awesome. "Twilight" mode combines six images into one, sprinkling in some software magic, for night shots without using a tripod. It's appealing, but I got mixed results.

    Highlights:

    • Sony G lens
    • 10.2MP sensor
    • "Twilight" mode
    • Auto macro mode
    • 720p HD recording
    • Image stabilization
    • Excellent battery life
    • 24mm-120mm zoom range

    Dings:

    • No RAW option; JPEG only
    • Mono audio; inappropriate for HD video
    • Audio picks up lens motor when zooming in video mode

    Street Price: $299

    I recommend the Sony Cyber-shot WX1/B to anyone who wants to shoot like a pro without being one. The auto mode will nicely suit most novices, who can switch to manual mode as their photo skills improve. Twilight mode and surprisingly good normal low-light shooting make the WX1/B an excellent gift for teens or night-owl party goers. By the way, DigitalCameraReview.com contributor Howard Creech posted a first impression review using the camera, today.

    Sigma DP1s, Sigma DP2

    The Sigma DP1s and DP2 are compact digital cameras that require loads of patience. But for those with patience and a good eye, they will deliver simply the best photos taken by any compact digicam or by many dSLRs. The two cameras share in common the same Foveon sensor also available on the Sigma SD14 dSLR. The sensor has two compelling features: Large size compared to sensors typically found on compacts and pixel color processing. Typical compact (and most dSLR) sensors capture red, green and blue in disproportionate number of pixels on the sensor. By comparison, the Foveon sensor captures each color in its own layer. The difference is richer, more accurate color.

    Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEOAmazon CEO Jeff Bezos, taken with Sigma DP1

    The larger sensor, color processing method and suitably matched "prime" lens deliver exceptionally good photographic results. But both cameras come up short for ergonomics and shutter speed. The LCD display hopelessly washes out in bright light. Simply put: Neither compact is for the masses. But people who use either camera well will shoot simply amazing photos. Carl Rytterfalk's Sigma DP1 and DP2 China galleries demonstrate the compacts' potentials.

    Highlights:

    • Prime lens
    • RAW shooting
    • Foveon sensor
    • dSLR-size sensor
    • 14MP (4.7MP x 3)
    • Exceptional image quality

    Dings:

    • No image stabilization
    • JPEG photos are subpar
    • Cumbersome ergonomics
    • No macro or zoom options
    • Low-resolution 320 x 240 video
    • Slow focusing and shutter response
    • Writing time to storage cards unusually long

    Street Price: $599 for either camera.

    I recommend either the Sigma DP1s or Sigma DP2 for patient amateurs or experienced photographers. The major differences between the cameras are the lenses. Sigma DP1s: f/4 24mm (film equivalent). Sigma DP2: f/2.8 35mm (film equivalent). Either camera is ideally suited to nature shots or portraits, although the Sigma DP1s' wider-angle lens will prove a little better for landscapes. Both cameras are pretty much useless for anything moving fast. I recommend either camera as an adjunct to a dSLR but not as the only digital camera used. I highly recommend both Sigma compacts but for the minority of shooters.

    Leica D-LUX 4/Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3

    Leica-d-lux-4Who says that identical twins are the same in every way? These two essentially identical compact digital cameras are different in ways that will likely divide potential buyers. Leica has big brand appeal, while Panasonic offers the more budget-friendly digicam. The guts are essentially the same -- and made by Panasonic -- with a Leica lens attached. Feature-for-feature these cameras are identical inside, although their exteriors differ. Ha, does that make them fraternal twins?

    The cameras are easy to recommend. Like the Canon PowerShot S90, they have light-loving f/2 lenses. Ergonomics are excellent, RAW shooting is available and shutter response is fast -- at least the D-LUX 4 is blazing, or it is with a class 10 storage card. I haven't tested the nearly identical DMC-LX3 but assume performance should be comparable if not the same. Over at DPReview, Richard Butler gives an excellent and through review of the DMC-LX3, which he rates as "highly recommended." The D-LUX 4 ships with Phase One's Capture One 4 software, which is excellent for processing RAW images. I upgraded to Capture One 5, which I highly recommend.

    The controversy surrounding these two cameras is religious warfare. Think Mac and Windows PC fanboys. On the street, the Leica digicam costs $200 to $300 more than the Panasonic, for essentially the same camera. As I write, Amazon has the black DMC-LX3 discounted to $398.95, while the D-LUX 4 is $699.95. What's in a name? Oh, about $300. The forum and blog chatter about the price and other presumed differences is fiercely emotional. D-LUX 4 supporters claim the photo colors are warmer and clarity is better than the DMC-LX3. I've done blind tests of photos taken by both cameras and can see the slightest difference in favor of the Leica, but nowhere near $300 worth.

    Highlights:

    • f/2 lens
    • RAW shooting
    • 10.1MP sensor
    • 720p HD recording
    • Image stabilization
    • 24mm-60mm zoom range
    • Good low-light performance
    • Responsive performance and fast shutter

    Dings:

    • Occasional color over-saturation
    • 60mm zoom range limiting for some shooters
    • White balance accuracy in high-light situations

    Street Price: $400-$450, Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3; $699 to $779, Leica D-LUX 4.

    Like the S90, I highly recommend either of these twin cameras to just about anyone -- novice, amateur or pro. Auto mode delivers excellent results, while there are plenty of controls for advanced shooters. Pro photographers should find either camera to be a great carry-along. I chose the D-LUX 4 because I preferred the exterior styling and retro Leica brown leather case. But I also shopped around and got good enough deal that the price difference was acceptably small. Would I pay $300 more for the D-LUX 4 this holiday? Absolutely not. But if the styling and prestige of the Leica name matter to you -- Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas!

    [Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/16/Europe_gets_off_Microsoft_s_back____ends_browser_antitrust_case'

    Europe gets off Microsoft's back -- ends browser antitrust case

    Publié: décembre 16, 2009, 4:26pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's Web brower antitrust troubles in Europe are essentially over. Starting in mid-March, European Windows users will have option to choose the default Web browser. Microsoft also will embark on a new interoperability initiative.

    In a press conference today, the European Union's chief antitrust enforcer, Neelie Kroes, described the situation she sees about browser choice: "It is as if you went to the supermarket and they only offered you one brand of shampoo on the shelf, and all the other choices are hidden out the back, and not everyone knows about them. What we are saying today is that all the brands should be on the shelf."

    In a statement, Brad Smith, Microsoft's general counsel, said, "We are pleased with today's decision by the European Commission, which approves a final resolution of several longstanding competition law issues in Europe."

    Besides a "Choice Screen" for browsers, "Microsoft has committed to allow interoperability between third party products and several important Microsoft products. These products include Windows, Windows Server, Office, Exchange, and SharePoint," Kroes said.

    Inclusion of Office, Exchange and SharePoint goes beyond interoperability disclosure commitments required in the United States. "We believe it represents the most comprehensive commitment to the promotion of interoperability in the history of the software industry," Smith asserted.

    For years, I've heard Microsoft employees quietly talk about the "European Drama," which to them seemed to be unending and unresolvable. They gave sense of persecution, that somehow Microsoft was singled out for being a successful American company. The European Union Competition Commission's case against Intel shows that Microsoft isn't alone, but doesn't end questions about Americanism being a crime on the Continent.

    That said, today the U.S. Federal Trade Commission formerly charged Intel for abusing its dominant position in microprocessors. As I warned last week, the Obama Administration plans to step up enforcement of major tech companies, including Google and Intel. As Intel's troubles begin, Microsoft's come to a likely end, putting the company in a better position to compete in the coming decade than it did in this one. The quality and timing of Microsoft releasing interoperability information could yet affect another open issue in Europe.

    "The Commission will carefully monitor the impact of Microsoft's proposals on the market and take its findings into account in its assessment of the pending antitrust investigation regarding interoperability," Kroes said today.

    Beginning and End

    Microsoft started the new century with an adverse ruling in the U.S. antitrust case filed in May 1998. In summer 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ordered Microsoft broken into two companies. One appeal and a change of judges and administrations in Washington later, Microsoft settled the case in November 2001. The new judge approved the settlement in November 2002. Microsoft is now under its second extension of government oversight, which concludes in 2011.

    The European Commission took about five years in its initial investigation to reach a ruling against Microsoft, in March 2004. The EC found that Microsoft had illegally bundled or "tied" its media player to Windows and used its dominance in desktop operating systems to get an unfair position in the market for workgroup servers. The European Commission fined Microsoft $612 million, ordered the company to release a version of Windows without the media player and demanded publication of interoperability information for third parties. Microsoft appealed the decision, but lost in September 2007.

    Throughout the appeals process, EC and Microsoft relations were strained at best. Microsoft's initial naming for the separate Windows version and scant release of interoperability information led to European Commission rebukes and additional fines. Microsoft finally acquiesced to European oversight in November 2007.

    But rather than end the drama, new acts followed. In January 2008, the EC announced that it had launched a new antitrust investigation, into Web browser bundling, and yet another investigation started, too. In January 2009, the EC signaled its adverse ruling against Microsoft would be shortly coming. In June Microsoft proposed offering yet another version of Windows in Europe. Today's agreement means that Microsoft will offer the aforementioned Choice Screen of browsers to European Windows users.

    "The Choice Screen will be provided to those European Windows users (currently more than 100 million) who have Microsoft's web browser Internet Explorer set as their default Web browser," according to the European Commission's FAQ. The Choice Screen will be available for five years.

    "The Commission's aim is to ensure that Microsoft does not abuse its dominant position on the PC operating system market and so distort competition on the web browser market," the FAQ further explains. "This is part of the Commission's commitment to consumers where we help to make markets work better -- delivering more choices, innovation and quality."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/15/Number_of_Apple_sites__unique_visitors_rises_as_iPhone_and_Mac_sales_surge'

    Number of Apple sites' unique visitors rises as iPhone and Mac sales surge

    Publié: décembre 15, 2009, 2:04am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In November, Apple burst into the Top 10 U.S. parent Websites, as measured by number of visitors. Nielsen released the data earlier today. Apple has been in the list of Top 10 Web brands for some time, but its appearance in the "Top 10 Parent Companies/Divisions" is unusual.

    The Nielsen Wire blog explains the difference between parent and brand levels: "The parent level is defined as a consolidation of multiple domains and URLs owned by a single company or division. The brand level is defined as a consolidation of multiple domains and URLs that has a consistent collection of branded content."

    What that means for Apple: "The data indicates that 62.1 million home and work Internet users visited at least one of the Apple Computer-owned sites or launched an Apple Computer-owned application during the month, and each person spent, on average, a total of 1 hour, 18 minutes and 23 seconds at one or more of their sites or applications." By comparison, Google had 155.5 million unique visitors in November.

    Nielsen doesn't reveal where the traffic comes from, but Mac sales are strong right now and an obvious source to consider. Today, two Wall Street analysts, J.P. Morgan's Mark Moskowitz and Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster, estimated that fourth calendar quarter Mac sales would be between 2.9 million and 3.29 million units, which is above consensus shipments. Apple shipped more than 3 million Macs in third calendar quarter. New Macs ship with the Safari Web browser, which is set to a start page off of Apple.com. More Macs mean more Apple parent level traffic, from consumers that don't change the defaults. Then there is iPhone/iPod/App Store to consider and fee service MobileMe, for driving traffic to Apple parent sites.

    Other data of interest from Nielsen about U.S. Internet users in November:

    • Amount of time spent on PC per person: 66 hours 24 minutes and 44 seconds
    • Number of Webpages visited per person: 2,603
    • Domains visited per person: 85

    Evaluating Time Spent Online

    Number of unique visitors is valuable, but time spent online is a more important measure of any Web properties' or brands' success -- and it's one often overlooked by blogs or news reports emphasizing search share, where Google is the global leader. People coming and staying for hours is potentially more valuable to online advertisers than Internet users who click in and click out, which too often is the only measurable value of pageviews. Time spent online at a site is one way to measure sustainable audience.

    Nielsen Web Properties 11-09

    There, Facebook is simply a giant. In November, Facebook only ranked fourth for unique audience with110,000 Internet visitors, but topped other sites for time spent on line -- by a substantial margin. According to Nielsen, U.S. Internet users each spent an average 6 hours 10 minutes and 6 seconds on Facebook in November -- that's up from 5 hours 24 minutes and 38 seconds in September. U.S. Internet users spent less than half as much time at second-ranked Yahoo: 3 hours 3 minutes and 36 seconds.

    Yahoo's time spent online shows how valuable the company remains, despite the Microsoft takeover turmoil of 2008 and layoffs and reorganization this year. Yahoo still commands great brand strength and users' time online at services like Flickr and Yahoo Mail.

    For time spent online, Apple ranked 8, only about 4 minutes behind News Corp., which owns declining social network MySpace. Apple's time-online ranking shows where there is untapped potential. Apple doesn't have a social networking service like Facebook or MySpace or search engine and attached properties like Google, Microsoft or Yahoo. Meaning: Apple's number of unique visitors and time they spend online could be much higher with the right connected suite of services.

    But Apple, like most of the other parent sites in Nielsen's Top 10, sends traffic to Facebook. One Apple example: iPhoto upload to Facebook. Long term, is it really in these major Website's best interests to drive up Facebook's unique visitors and the time they spend online there? Facebook support may ultimately be self-defeating, as Apple and other major Web properties give up more than they gain.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/14/Microsoft_should_take_Zune_to_the_cloud__offer_music_for_any_device'

    Microsoft should take Zune to the cloud, offer music for any device

    Publié: décembre 14, 2009, 7:32pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There has been much speculation and punditry about why Apple bought music streaming/sharing service Lala, with cloud services being the biggest reason. I don't agree with this cloudy reasoning, but it got me to thinking that a music cloud service would be helluva good idea for Microsoft -- and the company has been there before.

    Apple wasn't motivated to buy Lala to offer cloud services, even though that may eventually be the outcome. As I explained last week, Apple has two conjoined objectives: Thwarting Google competition and improving music discovery. Strangely, Microsoft shares the same reasons and has another: A broken mobile OS/device strategy.

    In October, Google added Lala and several other services to music search. For example, a search for band "The Bravery" would also provide links for streaming some songs from Lala, with option to buy them in the Web browser. The new music option brought the power of Google's free model and search capability to iTunes' front listening room. Google made music discovery easier through search and sampling better -- full tracks streamed rather than the more typical 30-second snippets. Music streaming is by no means new, but tying it to Google search was potentially game changing.

    Something else: Android phones are seemingly popping up everywhere, and they're getting the kind of buzz long associated with iPhone. There was geek madness over the weekend about the Nexus One and fervor enough less than two months ago about the Droid. These and other Android phones connect to the AmazonMP3 store for music purchases. To re-emphasize: Apple responded to perceived Google competition first and foremost.

    Microsoft shares Apple's Google problems, even more so, and already is one step ahead for improved music discovery. Zune 4.0 and Zune HD offer delightful enhancements for discovering music, such as the Smart DJ feature integrated into both the PC software and music device. Another: Ability to purchase or download subscription tracks playing on HD radio.

    But Zune music discovery is largely limited by the smaller number of Zune device users (compared to iPod/iPhone/iTunes). While Zune software is available for all supported Windows versions, music sync requires a Zune music player. Granted, there are workarounds for non-DRM content, such as Windows Media Player, Windows 7 Device Stage or -- gasp -- iTunes. But the Zune store experience is lost, and in the case of iTunes sync the Zune store can be co-opted.

    Microsoft doesn't yet offer a Zune store option for Windows Mobile phones, putting it behind both Apple and Google smartphones for easy music purchases. Microsoft's great music discovery begins and ends with Zune. Solution: Extend music discovery's utility by taking it to the cloud and there leveraging other Microsoft services. Microsoft has been there before, with MSN Music in 2004, and it already is heading back there today.

    In its first incarnation, MSN Music service could be accessed from a Web browser. There consumers could search for and purchase singles or albums. But DRM limited music to Windows PCs or supported PlaysForSure devices. Today, Microsoft sells DRM-free tracks, like most every other online download store. These MP3 tracks are playable on most any portable media player or cell phone. Microsoft launched a preview of a new MSN Music service in early November in United Kingdom, where songs can be streaming sampled and purchased. Microsoft also offers MSN music services in France, Germany and Italy. Four countries isn't reach enough.

    The Web-portal service is a good start, and it uses Zune infrastructure on the back end. But Microsoft could and should do much more:

    • Offer a Zune-branded Web-based music service
    • Use Bing to improve music discovery through search
    • Provide music streaming and purchase options with search (ala Lala)
    • Incorporate Smart DJ functions into Bing music search results and streams

    Microsoft would benefit by:

    • Making Zune service and music available to any device supporting MP3s
    • Overcoming handicaps created by Microsoft's stalled mobile phone strategy
    • Extending the Zune music discovery experience to Apple turf -- meaning Macs
    • Matching Google in providing a widely available and easily used music search tool

    Microsoft's need for a cloud-based music service is much greater than Apple's. More importantly, search rival Google has reset the bar for music discovery and purchasing. Music is too important a brand, purchasing and search category for Microsoft to let Google seize the search initiative.

    Question time: What more would you like from Microsoft in music? Comments are open for your responses.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/13/Google_Nexus_One_phone_rumors_show_the_power_of_buzz'

    Google Nexus One phone rumors show the power of buzz

    Publié: décembre 13, 2009, 7:09pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Rumors and scattered confirmations that Google would sell its own, branded Android-powered phone are seemingly everywhere this weekend. The noise is so loud as to essentially quiet persistent rumors about an Apple tablet. That alone is some feat. The buzz reminds me of the rumors before Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007. Cover your ears. The noise is deafening.

    The rumors don't need to be true. The buzz is benefit enough to Google. Buzz like this -- the kind Apple has commanded for years -- creates an aura of innovation about a brand, raises higher a brand's profile and, for a public company, lifts the share price and analyst evaluations. Also, the rumors break during a typically slow news cycle -- the holidays and ahead of the Consumer Electronics Show in January -- further heightening the buzz. For the last several holiday seasons it was Apple buzz building during the holidays. Now it's Google.

    Rumor buzz tends to be the most tantalizing and generates the most blog posts or news stories, because there is so much speculation and investigation going on; geeks love a good mystery. What is known: Secret Santa handed out a smartphone running Android 2.1 to many Google employees. Yesterday at the Google Mobile blog, Mario Queiroz, vice president of product management, confirmed the act. "We recently came up with the concept of a mobile lab, which is a device that combines innovative hardware from a partner with software that runs on Android to experiment with new mobile features and capabilities, and we shared this device with Google employees across the globe," he wrote. "This means they get to test out a new technology and help improve it."

    This also means that Google isn't sharing any details, "because dogfooding is a process exclusively for Google employees," he emphasized. "We hope to share more after our dogfood diet." Perhaps that's the official line, but Google employees just couldn't keep their Twitter traps shut. They extolled the handset's virtues -- 140 characters at a time -- and posted Twitpics for your rumor-salivating pleasure.

    Then there is the seemingly authoritative confirmation that Google will offer a smartphone on a BYOC -- bring your own carrier -- basis. The Wall Street Journal cites unnamed sources claiming Google will sell a branded, unlocked phone made by HTC that will be called the Nexus One. Based on the leaked pics, assuming they're not fakes, the Google phone is a variation on the HTC Passion.

    The Nexus of Rumors

    The Journal's Jessica Vascellaro writes that Google is "designing a phone without working with the wireless carriers that often dictate what features they allow on their networks." She adds: "The move could alienate wireless carriers and handset makers that offer Android phones and do not want to compete with Google. Google has repeatedly said that its goal is to have hundreds of Android phones rather than one."

    Nexus One?From Twitpic: Google's rumored new phone? Is it for real?

    Vascellaro misses two obvious facts: Apple and not carriers dictated the design of iPhone and Nokia has sold unlocked phones for years without alienating carriers. Google risks little to nothing by releasing its own branded phone; carriers won't walk away just because of the Nexus One, assuming it's real and that's the name.

    By the way, Nexus One is a crappy name. It has no brand appeal, although the name is descriptive enough to reveal what Google's broader mobile objectives will be for the rumored device. By dictionary definition, nexus is the center of a connection or link, singly or to a group. Presumably, the Nexus One will synchronize Google cloud services to the device -- something Android 1.6 and 2.0 smartphones already do today. But Google will solely be the center, not carrier software or skin UIs like the HTC Sense or Motorola MotoBlur. Nexus also implies enabling social connections, which already are better enabled by both custom UIs and Android 2.0.

    The rumored Nexus One also would allow Google to establish baselines for third-party Android phone development and for operating system uniformity. Apple rewrote handset rules by taking control of software updates, rather than letting carriers distribute them. As such, iPhone is a uniform development platform. For Google, carrier and hardware manufacturer customization and uncoordinated software updates risk fragmenting Android. I have a T-Mobile MyTouch running Android 1.6, while the newer Verizon Droid runs v2.x. It's unclear when, if ever, T-Mobile will offer v2.x for MyTouch.

    Google Phone Is Not Game Changing

    More broadly, a phone sold directly by Google isn't as game changing, as some pundits are claiming this weekend. At Gizmodo, Matt Buchanan leads the ridiculous game changing charge:

    It's hard to understate just how radically this changes the landscape not just for Android, but what it means for Google and their relationship to the cellphone industry. The Google phone would be a radically different model, a shift from the Microsoft one -- make the software, let somebody else deal with the hardware??"to the Apple and BlackBerry one -- make the software and the hardware, tightly integrated. And Google's even taking a step further, by selling it directly, bypassing the carriers, at least initially.

    Statements like Buchanan's show just how badly buzz can distort the thinking of geeks and gadget freaks (They're all oogled-- or is that Googled-- eyed about Android 2.1, I guess). A Google phone is not game changing. Buchanan's game changing idea partly describes Nokia's longstanding business model. Granted, Nokia is a hardware manufacturer. But Nokia licenses Symbian OS, which is mostly open source. Samsung and Sony Ericsson both sell Symbian-based phones. Additionally, Nokia sells unlocked phones directly to businesses or consumers; BYOC. Nor is a Google-branded phone different branding. For example, my MyTouch clearly has Google's brand on the back.

    But there is something game changing: The rapid pace of Android OS and Chrome browser development strongly suggest that the days of everlong Google betas are gone. Granted, Google got Android in a 2005 acquisition. But the first Android phone only released to the public in late 2008, as did Chrome. Now Google has pushed past Android 2.0 and is working on Chrome 4.0. That's an amazing pace for any developer, but much more so for one that kept Gmail in development for about five years.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/12/If_the_Obama_Justice_Department_guns_for_Google__is_Microsoft_Safe_'

    If the Obama Justice Department guns for Google, is Microsoft Safe?

    Publié: décembre 12, 2009, 5:47am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft reached a surprising milestone this week. In a routine court filing, the U.S. Justice Department and handful of attorneys generals asserted that Microsoft's communications protocol disclosure is "substantially complete." Finally. The Microsoft that once beat Netscape senseless had finally bowed before the great government overlord. Perhaps for good reason. There's a new sheriff in town, looking for bad guys to jail.

    The Obama Administration appears ready to legally take on dominant companies in a way the Bush Administration simply wouldn't. In May, the Wall Street Journal claimed that the Obama Administration had put together an antitrust watchlist, on which there is Google's name, among others.

    About a month after her appointment to head the Justice Department's antitrust division, Christine Varney set the new enforcement tone. "Americans have seen firms given room to run with the idea that markets 'self-police,' and that enforcement authorities should wait for the markets to 'self-correct,'" she told members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in May. "It is clear to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches the evening news that the country has been waiting for this 'self-correction,' spurred innovation and enhanced consumer welfare. But these developments have not occurred. Instead, we now see numerous markets distorted."

    Varney emphasized: "The Antitrust Division must step forward and take a leading role in the development of the Government's multi-faceted response to the current market conditions. Vigorous antitrust enforcement action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act will be part of the Division's critical contribution to this response."

    Microsoft Seeks Safety in Oversight

    Either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission can take jurisdiction over a prosecution depending on circumstances. The Justice Department, along with 20 states (originally), brought the landmark antitrust case against Microsoft in May 1998. Three years later, the FTC investigated and later settled with Microsoft, regarding Passport authentication privacy and security.

    In the case of Intel, the FTC is leading the investigation. FTC subpoenaed Intel in June 2009 and by December had expanded the investigation to include the chip giant's nVidia disputes. In May, the European Union's Competition Commission found that Intel had violated antitrust laws on the Continent, fining the company $1.45 billion. It's perhaps no coincidence that the FTC subpoena came a month later. In her May speech, Varney made clear there would be closer coordination between U.S. enforcers and their European counterparts.

    Microsoft may be the only dominant high-tech company outside the periphery of increased antitrust enforcement. Microsoft's government oversight was to end in November 2007, but the judge imposed a two-year extension. Google helped the decision, by filing a complaint about Windows search that led to voluntary changes by Microsoft. In April 2009, the Justice Department, Microsoft and settling states filed a motion to further extend oversight, which U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted. Microsoft's oversight continues through May 2011, unless extended again.

    The first question to ask: Why would Microsoft so easily agree to another 18 months of oversight? The answer is another question: Why not? If the Obama Administration is going to step up antitrust enforcement, the safest place for Microsoft is existing oversight. Microsoft is a problem solved, from the Obama Administration's perspective.

    Stalking the Wild Google

    The three most obvious dominant U.S. high-tech companies are Google, Intel and Microsoft. All could be classified as monopolies -- and this is where I point out that being a monopoly isn't illegal in the United States. It's the abuse of monopoly power that normally concerns antitrust enforcers. Intel is an animal cornered by the FTC. Microsoft is the beast caged by the Justice Department. By comparison, Google is fair game. It's open season, and the Obama Administration is on the hunt. For the hunters, an over-dominant Google could be seen as disrupting the food chain. That Google would have to be caged, too. Or killed.

    Google's search dominance is indisputable, with worldwide search share around 60 percent, according to combined analysts data, but much higher in some countries. Google is hugely influential over the Web, particularly when it comes to utility of search and the economy around keywords. But Google's influence stretches farther.

    In the strangest of coincidences, today at ZDNet, Doug Hanchard posted blog: "DOJ vs. Google: Will it happen? Unlikely -- as government would lose." I planned to write the post you are reading much earlier in the day, but personal matters delayed finishing the writing. So I'm in the disappointing position of appearing to respond to Hanchard, which isn't the case. But since he posted first, I'll say that he's probably wrong. An Obama Administration could win against Google, which is dominant in search and advertising -- and something more, often overlooked.

    The Google economy disrupts many established companies that sell goods or services that the search/information giant gives away for free. The dispute some newspapers and media mogul Rupert Murdoch have with Google is really about the free economy. Will the more regulatory inclined Obama Justice Department view this disruption as anticompetitive?

    The High Price of Free

    U.S. antitrust law is particularly hard on price fixing, which usually takes place between two or more companies. Classic example would be airlines agreeing to set prices, thus negating the price fluidity caused by competition and bringing harm to consumers. Google fixes prices for many services at zero, and this is for stuff other companies charge for. Is that anticompetitive?

    I wouldn't say so, but I'm no lawyer. But I have closely followed Microsoft court cases for more than a decade -- and learned something about antitrust law along the way. Pricing certainly was an issue in Microsoft's U.S. antitrust case. The company gave away for free Internet Explorer and bundled it for free with Windows. Netscape charged for its browser, but later was compelled to give away the software. U.S. trustbusters argued that Microsoft used its Windows dominance to push into an adjacent market, with IE's free cost and Windows bundling being two tactics.

    The Clinton Justice Department had a tough time making pricing and adjacent market arguments stick, but ultimately convinced the judge of something more pressing for his remedy: That together, Office and Windows created an "applications barrier to entry" for competing products. Google may be vulnerable, too. For example: Google search bundling with Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari and Google's own Chrome. An aggressive Justice Department could argue that the company's dominance in search and, related, advertising create barriers to competition for other products.

    Google is standing pretty much where Microsoft did 11 years ago. The Clinton Administration prosecuted Microsoft for fear the company would otherwise become gatekeeper to the Internet. The Obama Administration could easily act against Google from the same fear.

    Microsoft's past sins give it some protection from Obama's antitrust hunters. As previously stated, Microsoft is caged. Google is game. I know, I know, guns and liberals are supposed to be oil and water. Not back home in Maine. My dad hunted bear and deer, and he voted Democrat. Would he shoot a Google? If it had antlers, absolutely.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/12/If_the_Obama_Justice_Department_guns_for_Google__is_Microsoft_safe_'

    If the Obama Justice Department guns for Google, is Microsoft safe?

    Publié: décembre 12, 2009, 5:47am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft reached a surprising milestone this week. In a routine court filing, the U.S. Justice Department and handful of attorneys generals asserted that Microsoft's communications protocol disclosure is "substantially complete." Finally. The Microsoft that once beat Netscape senseless had finally bowed before the great government overlord. Perhaps for good reason. There's a new sheriff in town, looking for bad guys to jail.

    The Obama Administration appears ready to legally take on dominant companies in a way the Bush Administration simply wouldn't. In May, the Wall Street Journal claimed that the Obama Administration had put together an antitrust watchlist, on which there is Google's name, among others.

    About a month after her appointment to head the Justice Department's antitrust division, Christine Varney set the new enforcement tone. "Americans have seen firms given room to run with the idea that markets 'self-police,' and that enforcement authorities should wait for the markets to 'self-correct,'" she told members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in May. "It is clear to anyone who picks up a newspaper or watches the evening news that the country has been waiting for this 'self-correction,' spurred innovation and enhanced consumer welfare. But these developments have not occurred. Instead, we now see numerous markets distorted."

    Varney emphasized: "The Antitrust Division must step forward and take a leading role in the development of the Government's multi-faceted response to the current market conditions. Vigorous antitrust enforcement action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act will be part of the Division's critical contribution to this response."

    Microsoft Seeks Safety in Oversight

    Either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission can take jurisdiction over a prosecution depending on circumstances. The Justice Department, along with 20 states (originally), brought the landmark antitrust case against Microsoft in May 1998. Three years later, the FTC investigated and later settled with Microsoft, regarding Passport authentication privacy and security.

    In the case of Intel, the FTC is leading the investigation. FTC subpoenaed Intel in June 2009 and by December had expanded the investigation to include the chip giant's nVidia disputes. In May, the European Union's Competition Commission found that Intel had violated antitrust laws on the Continent, fining the company $1.45 billion. It's perhaps no coincidence that the FTC subpoena came a month later. In her May speech, Varney made clear there would be closer coordination between U.S. enforcers and their European counterparts.

    Microsoft may be the only dominant high-tech company outside the periphery of increased antitrust enforcement. Microsoft's government oversight was to end in November 2007, but the judge imposed a two-year extension. Google helped the decision, by filing a complaint about Windows search that led to voluntary changes by Microsoft. In April 2009, the Justice Department, Microsoft and settling states filed a motion to further extend oversight, which U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly granted. Microsoft's oversight continues through May 2011, unless extended again.

    The first question to ask: Why would Microsoft so easily agree to another 18 months of oversight? The answer is another question: Why not? If the Obama Administration is going to step up antitrust enforcement, the safest place for Microsoft is existing oversight. Microsoft is a problem solved, from the Obama Administration's perspective.

    Stalking the Wild Google

    The three most obvious dominant U.S. high-tech companies are Google, Intel and Microsoft. All could be classified as monopolies -- and this is where I point out that being a monopoly isn't illegal in the United States. It's the abuse of monopoly power that normally concerns antitrust enforcers. Intel is an animal cornered by the FTC. Microsoft is the beast caged by the Justice Department. By comparison, Google is fair game. It's open season, and the Obama Administration is on the hunt. For the hunters, an over-dominant Google could be seen as disrupting the food chain. That Google would have to be caged, too. Or killed.

    Google's search dominance is indisputable, with worldwide search share around 60 percent, according to combined analysts data, but much higher in some countries. Google is hugely influential over the Web, particularly when it comes to utility of search and the economy around keywords. But Google's influence stretches farther.

    In the strangest of coincidences, today at ZDNet, Doug Hanchard posted blog: "DOJ vs. Google: Will it happen? Unlikely -- as government would lose." I planned to write the post you are reading much earlier in the day, but personal matters delayed finishing the writing. So I'm in the disappointing position of appearing to respond to Hanchard, which isn't the case. But since he posted first, I'll say that he's probably wrong. An Obama Administration could win against Google, which is dominant in search and advertising -- and something more, often overlooked.

    The Google economy disrupts many established companies that sell goods or services that the search/information giant gives away for free. The dispute some newspapers and media mogul Rupert Murdoch have with Google is really about the free economy. Will the more regulatory inclined Obama Justice Department view this disruption as anticompetitive?

    The High Price of Free

    U.S. antitrust law is particularly hard on price fixing, which usually takes place between two or more companies. Classic example would be airlines agreeing to set prices, thus negating the price fluidity caused by competition and bringing harm to consumers. Google fixes prices for many services at zero, and this is for stuff other companies charge for. Is that anticompetitive?

    I wouldn't say so, but I'm no lawyer. But I have closely followed Microsoft court cases for more than a decade -- and learned something about antitrust law along the way. Pricing certainly was an issue in Microsoft's U.S. antitrust case. The company gave away for free Internet Explorer and bundled it for free with Windows. Netscape charged for its browser, but later was compelled to give away the software. U.S. trustbusters argued that Microsoft used its Windows dominance to push into an adjacent market, with IE's free cost and Windows bundling being two tactics.

    The Clinton Justice Department had a tough time making pricing and adjacent market arguments stick, but ultimately convinced the judge of something more pressing for his remedy: That together, Office and Windows created an "applications barrier to entry" for competing products. Google may be vulnerable, too. For example: Google search bundling with Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari and Google's own Chrome. An aggressive Justice Department could argue that the company's dominance in search and, related, advertising create barriers to competition for other products.

    Google is standing pretty much where Microsoft did 11 years ago. The Clinton Administration prosecuted Microsoft for fear the company would otherwise become gatekeeper to the Internet. The Obama Administration could easily act against Google from the same fear.

    Microsoft's past sins give it some protection from Obama's antitrust hunters. As previously stated, Microsoft is caged. Google is game. I know, I know, guns and liberals are supposed to be oil and water. Not back home in Maine. My dad hunted bear and deer, and he voted Democrat. Would he shoot a Google? If it had antlers, absolutely.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/11/Microsoft_isn_t_losing_its_consumer_edge__it_was_game_over_long_ago'

    Microsoft isn't losing its consumer edge, it was game over long ago

    Publié: décembre 11, 2009, 5:25pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I disagree with Mark Anderson, writer of the Strategic News Service, about Microsoft's future. Last night, at his 10th annual "Predictions Dinner," Anderson asserted that in 2010 Microsoft would lose "its consumer play. Specifically, "except for gaming, it is game over for [Microsoft] in consumer. This will make consumer the place to be, where the most robust and exciting change artists will work." His prediction isn't the future. It's the past.

    Microsoft has been retreating from the consumer market for some time, following a deliberate strategy that is creating a circa-1980s IBM. Two days ago, I blogged about how Apple applies what I call "David Thinking" to challenge the status quo. Apple plays off its strengths to change the rules. By comparison, Microsoft is using its strengths to preserve the status quo, isolating the company to the enterprise. I've written about this IBM-transformation many times. In context of Anderson's prediction, it's good time to again explain Microsoft's consumer-losing strategy.

    He Who Controls the Standards

    Microsoft has abandoned the fundamental principles that made it the most successful software company of the last two decades and ensured its software would be the most widely used everywhere. The company established Windows as a technology platform that became the standard around which developers and other partners supported products. In the early days, Microsoft's approach was one of necessity: Maintaining standards compatibility with the IBM PC.

    Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates understood early on the importance of controlling standards and also file formats. In the early 1980s, Gates put Charles Simonyi in charge of productivity applications development. Early work done by the father of Microsoft Office achieved two important goals by the mid 1990s:

    • Established format standards that resolved problems sharing documents created by disparate products.
    • Ensured that Microsoft file formats would become the adopted desktop productivity standards.

    Format lock-in helped drive Office sales throughout the late 1990s and early 2000s -- and Windows along with it. Businesses needed Office to share documents and to maintain backwards compatibility with a growing amount of their valuable information being stored in Microsoft file formats. But even as Microsoft standards drove sales, a new standards threat had developed.

    In May 1995, Gates penned the "Internet Tidal Wave" memo that warned about the extended network's threats to Microsoft. In the memo, he specifically identified HTML, HTTP and TCP/IP. "Browsing the Web, you find almost no Microsoft file formats," Gates wrote. He observed not seeing a single Microsoft file format "after 10 hours of browsing," but plenty of Apple QuickTime videos and Adobe PDF documents.

    Microsoft's visionary founder warned: "The Internet is the most important single development to come along since the IBM PC was introduced in 1981. It is even more important than the arrival of the graphical user interface (GUI)."

    Today, that "most important single development" looms over Microsoft, which in response is becoming the definitive, stodgy computer company of the 2010s, like IBM was in the 1990s.

    Microsoft tried to exert control over or influence developing Web standards in the late 1990s and early 2000s. But in response to antitrust actions in Europe and the United States and to business customer demands, Microsoft also pursued a strategy of increased openness. For example, Microsoft's Interoperability Principles contribute to its weakened support of standards it controls.

    Microsoft is Lost in the Cloud

    In a surprisingly short span of time, Microsoft has lost control of standards and formats outside the enterprise. The company has reached a critical juncture that executives seem unable to comprehend.

    Part of Microsoft's problem is corporate cultural. Executives spend too much time focused on competitors. That's how the Internet crept up on the company in the early 1990s; Gates and most key managers were obsessed with AOL and CompuServe. They were looking the wrong way. Now there is the Google obsession, which in the early 2000s has made Microsoft blind to its rapidly eroding control over technology standards and the importance of the next-generating computing platform. While Microsoft frittered away corporate energies chasing Google search, startups and Apple released cloud and mobile computing products that are outside the software giant's control. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Windows Mobile has run aground, as the company seeks solace in the enterprise rather than fully embracing the new applications stack.

    Google isn't the enemy Microsoft needs to worry about now. It's the mobile-to-cloud application stack that Apple and various cloud and social media startups are advancing. If iPhone/App Store succeeds, Apple -- or even Google with Android tied to Web search -- will control the standards that define the next-generation computing platform; all around mobile devices and the cloud. Google and newer startups have vested interest in preserving the early Web 3.0 status quo: Open standards or others with published APIs that Microsoft doesn't control.

    As Microsoft has lost control of standards defining the new applications stack -- notebook/mobile device to the cloud -- the company has retrenched and pulled back to where its standards control is strongest, the Windows-Office-Windows Server applications stack. In the consumer marketplace, where social media and cloud computing products and services rapidly gain attention and adoption, Microsoft's strategy has been to pull back. Since 2006, Microsoft has cut most of its major consumer desktop applications, shifting some capabilities to Windows Live services.

    The timing of Microsoft's consumer pullback coincides with a surge of transforming consumer products or services tied to control and using standards or formats outside Microsoft's control. Most social media startups, whose products and services are taken for granted today, started in the last three years. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube opened to the public in 2006. Most other popular or growing popular social media tools launched within the last three years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumbr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others. Apple's iPhone launched in summer 2007 and the mobile App Store -- now with more than 100,000 applications -- a year later.

    Recent cutbacks and internal refocusing point to Microsoft making its core business market the top investment priority. It's a shortsighted strategy that will lead to long-term problems. The products, services and standards that will eventually take hold in the business market are winning over consumers now. Microsoft doesn't control the standards or file formats behind them.

    Among businesses, Microsoft controls an application stack that no competitor has shaken, let along topple. Microsoft's control of technologies, standards and formats gives it a stronghold on enterprise computing. Two-fold problem:

    • Microsoft has abandoned most consumer products and focused its cloud strategy (e.g., Azure and Online Services) on businesses.
    • Microsoft seeks to preserve its existing applications stack, while failing to engage the newer one around the mobile device and cloud.

    Stated differently, Microsoft is too focused on seeking to preserve existing revenue streams when creating newer ones should be the priority. Microsoft's self-preservation approach compels its developers to bind new technologies to Office or Windows, when they should be set free to embrace standards and help establish others. Related, as mentioned earlier, Microsoft also is distracted chasing Google search.

    Perhaps Microsoft could, or would, be more adaptable if not for the global economic crisis, which has compelled executives to push harder the preserve-the-application-stack strategy. IBM followed a similar path in the 1980s, seeking to preserve its application stack around the mainframe. IBM released a PC, but the company made protecting its legacy business priority. IBM and its mainframe business didn't go away, but its relevance diminished before a new applications stack. Microsoft faces similar challenge before the new applications stack. That path will make Microsoft the IBM of 2010s, unless there is a dramatic course correction; if it's not already too late.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/10/The_strange_parallels_between_Microsoft_s_century_start_and_decade_s_end'

    The strange parallels between Microsoft's century start and decade's end

    Publié: décembre 10, 2009, 11:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    End of year is typically time for company retrospectives, but 2009 is also end of decade. For Microsoft, the slow economy and push into Web services bookends the decade 2000-2009. Microsoft parallels between the new century's first year and the decade's last year are surprising. I've put together a list of 10 things, presented here in no particular order of importance.

    1. Microsoft struggled through recession. In December 2000, Microsoft issued an unexpected profit warning for its fiscal 2001 second quarter. In January 2009, Microsoft released disappointing 2010 second quarter results, announcing intent to lay off 5,000 employees. Recessions marked the beginning and end of the decade, hitting Microsoft sales hard.

    2. Major new Windows versions launched. In February 2000, Microsoft released Windows 2000, mainly for the business market. Windows 2000 promised to fix many of the applications and device driver incompatibilities and performance problems associated with predecessor Windows NT. In October 2009, Microsoft launched Windows 7, promising better device driver support and improved performance than predecessor Windows Vista.

    3. Internet Explorer bundling with Windows. In April 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson found that Microsoft had violated 1898 Sherman Act by, among other things, integrating Internet Explorer into Windows. In January 2009, the European Union issued Statement of Objections that later solidified into a formal ruling against Microsoft's integrating Internet Explorer into Windows.

    4. Office on the cheap. In November 2000, Microsoft announced that Office 10 (aka Office XP) would be available by subscription. Microsoft later scraped the subscription plan several times (anyone remember Equipt?) but not the concept. In summer 2009, Microsoft began testing Office Web, a hosted version of the productivity suite for the low subscription price of free.

    5. Web services vision to delivery. In June 2000, Microsoft unveiled .NET, which replaced what had been called Next Generation Windows Services. In November 2009, Microsoft announced that its next-generation Azure Web services platform was in production among some businesses, in preparation for Jan. 1, 2010 official launch.

    6. Ebook publishers unite. In March 2000, 30 publishers supported launch of Microsoft Reader format for ebooks. In December 2009, Condé Nast, Hearst, Meredith, News Corporation and Time announced plans to "develop open standards for a new digital storefront," supporting many portable devices (What? No Microsoft?).

    Related: In August 2000, Barnes & Noble started selling ebooks in Microsoft Reader format. In December 2009, Barnes & Noble started selling the Nook ebook reader, based on software from Microsoft rival Google.

    7. MSN butterfly takes wing. In February 2000, Microsoft introduced a new MSN logo, the four-color butterfly. In October 2009, Microsoft updated the butterfly logo.

    8. Tablet PC keeps on trying. In November 2000, at Comdex, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates unveiled Tablet PC, a concept that never really caught on. In October 2009, Windows 7 launched with touchscreen support, extending and finally fulfilling the original Tablet PC concept.

    9. Mobile devices rule the day. Handheld PDAs, many running Palm or Windows CE operating systems, were the hot geek gadgets in 2000, as seen at PC Expo and Comdex trade shows (Anyone remember the first Compaq iPaq?). In 2009, smartphones were so popular that unit sales exceeded laptop sales, according to Gartner. But for smartphones, Microsoft's mobile OS stood behind Apple and Google products for mindshare and geek enthusiasm.

    10. The Ballmer Era. In January 2000, Steve Ballmer replaced Gates as Microsoft CEO. Gates stayed as Chairman, a position he still holds. In 2009, Ballmer.... I simply can't complete this one, because people's emotions seem to run so high about him. That's your role, to offer appropriate Ballmer parallel from 2000 to 2009 -- or to add others that I might have missed. Comments are open for your Ballmer insight.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/10/Deep_discounts_drive_Black_Friday_tech_revenue_down__unit_sales_up'

    Deep discounts drive Black Friday tech revenue down, unit sales up

    Publié: décembre 10, 2009, 6:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The sour economy soured consumer technology retail revenue on Black Friday, according to new research from NPD Group. Related, U.S. retail pricing declined year over year in all major categories -- camcorders, GPS systems, LCD TVs, notebook computers, point-and-shoot digital cameras and stereo headphones. NPD did not publicly report pricing on cell phones or desktop PCs. The company tracks online and brick-and-mortar sales.

    Black Friday revenue declined for a second year in a row -- both days since the late-September 2008 stock market crash that sent an already recessionary economy tumbling downward. Overall Black Friday revenue was $2.7 billion at U.S. retail, down 1.2 percent from the same day a year earlier. On Black Friday 2008, year-over-year revenue fell 3.4 percent.

    But the smaller decline is really nothing to cheer "Ho, Ho, Ho" about. Because of 2008's already weaker results, Black Friday 2009 had a more favorable year-over-year comparison and still couldn't show growth. More disconcerting, the fire sales necessary to drive revenue lead to smaller profits per item.

    "The biggest surprise is that nobody should be surprised," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, told me this morning. "Everything [retailers] did for Black Friday just reinforced the sales trends: Lower prices, heavy discounts, lots of unit volume, units driving through the roof. But the dollars just aren't there. It's kind of difficult to monetize that kind of traffic right now."

    Pricing on notebooks, typically the strongest PC category, fell 26 percent year over year compared to an 8 percent decline on Black Friday 2008. For most of 2009, increasing netbook sales have sapped overall average selling prices. That said, Black Friday sales were unusually aggressive this year, sending notebook ASPs downward -- to $500 from about $680 a year earlier.

    NPD-Black Friday 2009

    Lower prices were good for unit sales, which for the overall PC category were up 63 percent, to which NPD credited new operating systems -- Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Windows 7 -- and new PC designs.

    Flat-panel TV ASPs fell 20 percent to $535, driving unit growth up 15 percent but revenue down 9 percent from Black Friday 2008. Again buoyed by fire-sale pricing, unit sales grew in most other core technology categories:

    • Blu-ray players: 53 percent
    • Camcorders: 55 percent
    • GPS systems: 15 percent
    • Multifunction printers: Flat
    • PC hard drives: 33 percent
    • Point-and-shoot digital cameras: Flat

    "Consumers came out this year because there were deals to be had -- the same reason they have been shopping for electronics all year," Baker said in a statement. "What made Black Friday different this year is how aggressive those price cuts were. This year retailers and manufacturers knew it wasn't going to be about increasing revenue, it needed to be about getting consumers excited to shop and moving those products out of the stores."

    There remains the question: Can retailers keep consumers excited and shopping through the entire holiday season? Christmas shopping season ends two weeks from today. Baker wouldn't make predictions.

    The aggressive discounting is certainly good for U.S. consumers looking for good deals -- assuming many of the companies offering them will be around in a year. Circuit City was 2009's most notable technology retailer casualty of the econolypse. "Who's next?" is the question to ask about 2010. Retailers typically go into bankruptcy in January or February when they have the most cash on hand, largely from holiday sales. Will today's fire sale be tomorrow's liquidation?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/10/iPhone_brings_back_the_DOS_dilemma'

    iPhone brings back the DOS dilemma

    Publié: décembre 10, 2009, 5:56am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's iPhone is supposed to be about the cool, new mobile Internet future. But using the smartphone reminds me too much of the past. The beautiful, ergonomically-designed iPhone has two related flaws: Fixed battery and prohibited background applications. Apple wrongly chose to put form before function in designing iPhone hardware and software.

    The device's related flaws remind me of MS-DOS PCs' 640k memory limit. Microsoft used digital steroids -- extended and expanded memory -- to bulk up MS-DOS. But it was never enough to make up for what memory limitations took away from DOS' performance or stability.

    MS-DOS of the 1980s and iPhone of the 2000s share an important similarity: They're emerging application platforms. Apple's App Store arguably offers the best mobile applications available anywhere; hey, 100,000 apps are nothing to snicker at. MS-DOS and later Windows succeeded largely because of the breadth of available applications. But number of apps isn't the measure of a successful platform.

    The IBM PC and later clone memory architecture brought great pain to developers, end users and IT organizations. So many early problems running MS-DOS go back to hardware memory limitations and which device drivers loaded when and where in the 640K memory space (which technically was much less). Meanwhile, a huge aftermarket of memory enhancements developed. Microsoft sought to fix memory problems first with Windows 2.0 and later Windows 95, but never really satisfactorily; backward compatibility made the 640K limit an ever-present handicap. Windows NT, particularly v4, brought much better memory architecture, but the masses didn't see the benefits until Windows XP (and v2000 for many businesses).

    The iPhone inflicts developer and end user pain, too, just with a different ceiling. Most of iPhone's problems start with the battery, which simply isn't good enough as designed. Battery life is too short for the device's use as phone and pocket computer. If the battery life were adequate within the fixed design, Apple would allow background applications to run freely. But they would too quickly sap battery life. Like early PCs, a hardware limitation undermines the operating system and applications.

    Most every iPhone user I know plans daily activities around the device's battery life, even 3GS users. Some people keep the smartphone constantly cradled. Others use daily commutes to recharge the battery. Still others defile iPhone's beautiful form by attaching extended batteries. But none of these people squeeze much more than a full day's phone and application use from a single charge of iPhone's internal battery. These people modify their lifestyles because they so love iPhone and App Store.

    If you do get enough from a single charge, I'd like to read about it, as probably would many other iPhone users. Please comment. Everyone else, feel free to gripe and offer your iPhone battery coping techniques. People who modify behavior because of alcoholic or dysfunctional family or friends seek counseling. You, iPhone users, I share your pain. Let's open up a mass counseling session in the comments.

    Apple doesn't just inflict coping behavior on iPhone users. There is the aforementioned technological compromise, too. All modern mobile operating systems multitask -- even iPhone OS is capable. But Apple largely hobbles background applications.The company is on record admitting that background apps sap battery life. Apple's push notification solution, which released more than a year late, by the way, reminds me of Microsoft tricks to get around MS-DOS PCs' 640k memory limitations.

    It's a case of Apple putting form over function, which is a longstanding -- and perhaps flawed -- practice. Some examples, since Apple cofounder Steve Jobs' return:

    • Power Mac G4 Cube, which couldn't easily be upgraded, cost too much for the form and suffered from beauty marring mold lines.
    • Mac OS X 10 1.0, which released without support for optical drives that Apple shipped on several generations of Macs.
    • First generation iPod nano, which scratched way, way too easily.
    • iPhone/iPhone 3G, which when released lacked basic and expected features, like MMS and video recording, that are standard on even the cheapest of handsets.
    • MacBook Air, which is light and beautiful but costs too much for the hardware features (look how many are available refurbished from Apple Store).

    There are plenty of other examples, but the list is long enough to make the point. Apple chose a fixed battery for purposes of form. Additionally, there is no removable cover that could be lost or broken and would mar the phone's svelte form.

    The iPhone could be so much more if not for physical limitations created by the battery and arbitrary limitations of background applications to cope with the fixed battery. Now it's your turn, so I ask: Do you really get enough oomph from your iPhone battery? Do you have confidence that background apps could run without sapping battery life to quickly? Please answer in comments.

    [Editor's Note: A different version of this post appeared on Joe Wilcox's personal Website in June 2009. That version is no longer available-- only its revised replacement here exclusive to Betanews.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/10/Mobile_Internet_is_450_million_users_strong_and_doubling_in_four_years'

    Mobile Internet is 450 million users strong and doubling in four years

    Publié: décembre 10, 2009, 4:07am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do you browse the Web on your phone, iPod touch or other portable wireless device? Congratulations, you're one of the 450 million mobile Internet users, according to IDC. The analyst firm today predicted that number would reach 1 billion by 2013.

    I'll do some quick math. Apple has shipped more than 30 million iPhones, so there's a possible 6 percent or so of mobile Internet users -- and that's not counting more than 20 million iPod touch users. Another nearly 30 million Crackberry -- ah, BlackBerry -- addicts accounts for another 6 percent of users.

    "Internet-connected mobile devices are reshaping the way we go about our personal and professional lives," John Gantz, IDC's chief research officer, said in a statement. "With an explosion in applications for mobile devices underway, the next several years will witness another sea change in the way users interact with the Internet and further blur the lines between personal and professional."

    That change may be accelerating, with smartphones pushing the gas pedal. In October, Gartner reported that smartphones accounted for 14 percent of overall mobile device sales, but would grow to 37 percent by 2012. Gartner forecasts 180 million smartphone sales in 2009, exceeding notebooks for the first time. From 2009, Gartner predicts that consumers would spend more on smartphones than notebooks.

    No surprise, mobile Internet usage is more informational -- search, online news and sports, e-mail and instant messaging -- and where recreational, downloading music and videos.

    Besides, the mobile Internet forecast, IDC also offered up a plethora of other information about Internet usage:

    • The number of Internet users will increase from 1.6 billion this year to 2.2 billion -- or one third of the global population -- by 2013.
    • China has more Internet users than any other country -- 359 million growing to 566 million in 2013.
    • The number of U.S. Internet users will grow from 261 million in 2009 to 280 million in 2013.
    • As measured by percentage of population with Internet access, the United States hugely leads China.
    • India's Internet population will grow nearly two-fold over the next four years. IDC didn't give exact numbers of users.
    • The number of devices -- mobile phones, PCs and video games -- accessing the Internet is more than 1.6 billion. The number will grow to more than 2.7 billion by 2013.
    • The United States leads the world with the most Internet connected devices, but China ranks tops for mobile Internet-connected devices -- 85 million, or nearly 20 percent of the worldwide total.
    • The number of Internet users making online purchases exceeds 624 million worldwide. Online purchases will double, from $8 trillion to $16 trillion, between 2009 and 2013.
    • Global Internet advertising will reach $61 billion this year, growing to over $100 billion in 2013. The 2009 figure represents 10 percent of advertising spending across all media categories. IDC forecasts 15 percent by 2013.

    'The next several years will witness another sea change in the way users interact with the Internet and further blur the lines between personal and professional," Gantz expressed in the statement. He's so right about that.

    Because it's not just end of the year, but end of the decade, I have a question for Betanews readers: How do you expect to be accessing the Internet in just five years? PEW Internet forecasts that by 2020, the mobile phone -- and not the PC -- will be the primary way people access the Internet. I predict the transition will be much sooner. What do you think? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/09/Why_Apple_succeeds__and_always_will'

    Why Apple succeeds, and always will

    Publié: décembre 9, 2009, 3:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Simply put: Apple doesn't play by the rules. It reinvents them. Apple applies what I call "David Thinking" to its broader business, product development and marketing. Apple is David to Microsoft Goliath -- and other ones, too. Goliath plays by one set of rules. David choses to change the rules, which favor his strengths rather than those of Goliath.

    David Thinking is most provocative and surprising when Goliath acts like David. After all, David sometimes becomes Goliath; Apple is a giant in music with iPod and iTunes Music Store. But David turned Goliath also risks making mistakes that would allow another upstart advantage. Today, Apple is both David and Goliath, depending on market.

    March 11, 2009, The New Yorker magazine story "How David Beats Goliath" is what got me to looking at David Thinking and making the realization this is how Apple operates its business. Writer Malcolm Gladwell could easily have written about Apple, but his examples are 12-year-old girls basketball and T.E. Lawrence.

    Gladwell tells how obvious losers are winners more often than might be expected: "David's victory over Goliath, in the Biblical account, is held to be an anomaly. It was not. Davids win all the time." Gladwell explains why: "The political scientist Ivan Arreguín-Toft recently looked at every war fought in the past two hundred years between strong and weak combatants. The Goliaths, he found, won in 71.5 per cent of the cases. That is a remarkable fact."

    David wins almost 30 percent of the time when playing by his opponent's rules. But the percentage dramatically increases when David changes them. Gladwell explains:

    In the Biblical story of David and Goliath, David initially put on a coat of mail and a brass helmet and girded himself with a sword: he prepared to wage a conventional battle of swords against Goliath. But then he stopped...and picked up those five smooth stones. What happened, Arreguín-Toft wondered, when the underdogs likewise acknowledged their weakness and chose an unconventional strategy? He went back and re-analyzed his data. In those cases, David's winning percentage went from 28.5 to 63.6. When underdogs choose not to play by Goliath's rules, they win, Arreguín-Toft concluded, 'even when everything we think we know about power says they shouldn't.'

    Nearly two-thirds of the time is a remarkable figure. The approach defines almost every line of Apple's business.

    Steve Jobs as David

    Apple isn't a team player, particularly under the two chief executive tenures of cofounder Steve Jobs. The examples of Apple's rule-changing behavior are simply too numerous to recount. So I'll start with a few around the 1984 launch of Macintosh:

    • While Compaq and other clone upstarts sought to imitate the IBM PC, Apple defied it. Macintosh's graphical user interface, mouse and other features defied convention.
    • The "1984" commercial launching Macintosh aired only once, bucking traditional marketing approach of repeated airings to build brand and product awareness.
    • Apple bought out every single ad space in the Newsweek 1984 election issue -- 39 pages.
    • Macintosh came bundled with Apple applications MacPaint and MacWrite.

    Apple's business was at its worst -- closest to expiration -- during the early 1990s, when the company played more by rules Microsoft established. Apple had put on Goliath's mail and brandished his sword. For example, Apple embraced clones, allowing third parties to release their own hardware running Mac OS. The seemingly sensible strategy was anything but. Apple's attempts to play by DOS/Windows PC rules put the company at grave competitive disadvantage. Steve Jobs' late-1996 return to Apple and ascension to interim CEO in 1997 set forth dramatic changes in the company's business strategy. Among Job's first actions: The end of Mac cloning. Only Apple would make and sell Macs.

    Since Jobs' return to Apple, there are so many examples of Apple changing the rules, it's hard to find ways the company played by Microsoft's -- or other Goliaths' -- rules. Some examples:

    • Streamlined product SKUs, from 1997 to present: Following Jobs' second coming, Apple reduced the number of products in each family. Example: Today there are three Mac notebook families -- one MacBook model, five MacBook Pro models (at different screen sizes) and two for MacBook Air. Popular convention is to offer more product families and SKUs. The counter-culture approach lets Apple streamline manufacturing and distribution while maximizing margins.
    • Bondi Blue iMac, released 1998: Some Windows PC OEMs offered all-in-one designs, but none like Apple, which dumped all the legacy ports for USB and FireWire. Hundreds of translucent products followed the design trend established by iMac.
    • Apple Store, first opened in 2001: Apple moved into retail during a recession and while Gateway prepared to shutter, and later closed, hundreds of stores. Everything about Apple Store, from design to retail staff training and more, defied computer retail convention. Genius Bar was a genius concept for servicing customers and endearing good feelings about Apple products. Goliaths Circuit City and CompUSA later liquidated, while Apple Store is a vibrant retailer.
    • iPod, launched in 2001: Apple redefined the nascent MP3 player market with the click wheel and hard-disk storage. Then Apple reinvented the device with iPod nano and again with iPod touch. Companies more typically seek to preserve the status quo they create. Apple has chosen to instead repeatedly reinvent iPod.
    • iPhone, launched in 2007: Like David, Apple played to its strengths, such as software and industrial design, rather than play by rules established by handset carrier and manufacturing Goliaths. Examples include use of capacitive instead of resistive touchscreen, multitouch user interface, synchronization and control of software, software updates and services (rather than letting the wireless carrier control them).
    • Recessionary pricing, now: Apple pricing has long defied convention. The company prices high, choosing not to compete with Windows PCs in the sub $500 market. The approach preserves the brand's value and margins. No time has Apple's higher pricing been more obvious than during the current economic crisis. So far, Apple's rule-changing approach defies low-pricing logic.

    Microsoft was once David

    At one time Microsoft changed the rules, too, when David to the IBM Goliath. For example:

    • Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates admonished early developers in 1976 "An Open Letter to Software Hobbyists. The convention had been to share code, which he called stealing.
    • Gates and cofounder Paul Allen licensed what would later be called MS-DOS to IBM in 1981, rather than selling the software. The approach broke the end-to-end hardware/software model and later flourished a robust IBM PC-clone market.
    • Microsoft's approach to partnering, particularly software developers and resellers, put more money in others' pockets. In the IBM model, money flowed up. By contrast, Microsoft shared the wealth.

    There are many other examples how Microsoft defied convention over the years, how the company changed the rules. No longer. Microsoft seeks to preserve the status quo it established through success and becoming Goliath. For example, top perennial design principle for Windows is backward compatibility. It's the preservation of the past way of doing things.

    Status quo thinking prevents Microsoft from being competitive and disruptive like Apple. Goliath thinking is so pervasive, Microsoft fails where it shouldn't. Microsoft will not beat Google in search as long as it plays by the information giant's rules. Microsoft must change the rules of the engagement, leveraging its strengths against Goliath Google. Gladwell writes in The New Yorker:

    David, let's not forget, was a shepherd. He came at Goliath with a slingshot and staff because those were the tools of his trade. He didn't know that duels with Philistines were supposed to proceed formally, with the crossing of swords...He brought a shepherd's rules to the battlefield.

    Microsoft must leverage its strengths, by battling Google in an unexpected way. Perhaps Microsoft should apply Apple's David Thinking to search. Apple's sales priority is profit share rather than market share. Maybe Microsoft should seek to make more money off lower search share, as Apple does today in the personal computer market.

    Yesterday, at the Loop, Jim Dalrymple asked: "Apple can be copied, but can it be beat?" Apple can be beat if its David Thinking approach can be copied, I assert. But competitors let Apple set the rules in markets where it competes.

    So far, Apple has resisted Goliath thinking, consistently competing, at least under Steve Jobs' leadership, in ways that emphasize its strengths rather than complying with rules set by others. Even as Goliath, Apple has consistently changed the rules to its advantage. The challenge ahead: Resisting the temptation to protect the status quo -- to truly be Goliath.

    [Editor's Note: A different version of this post appeared on Joe Wilcox's personal Website in May 2009. That version is no longer available-- only its revised replacement here exclusive to Betanews.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/09/Microsoft_reorg_creates_the_Server___Cloud_Division'

    Microsoft reorg creates the Server & Cloud Division

    Publié: décembre 9, 2009, 12:05am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Stranger things have happened than this. I think. Microsoft has formed a new group within the Server & Tools Business: The Server & Cloud Division, or SCD. Is it me, or is there some redundancy in the name, seeing as how cloud services run on servers?

    "This change reflects the alignment of our resources with our strategy, and represents a natural evolution for Microsoft as the Windows Azure business moves from an advanced development project to a mainstream business," according to an uncredited post on Microsoft's Windows Server Division blog. The new group "combines the Windows Server & Solutions group and the Windows Azure group."

    S-C-D is too awkward for my tastes, so I'm going to pronounce it scud. Say, any readers out there remember Scud missiles? Surely there's a twisted marketing angle there, as SCuD missiles fall from the cloud and nuke Microsoft's cloud competitors. Boom goes Amazon. Boom goes Google.

    As with any Microsoft reorganization, there is a shuffling of executives. Some of these changes are surprising. The Windows development team will move to the Server & Tools Business, which means they will no longer report to Microsoft Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie. Ah, isn't he supposed to be chief architect of Azure? Amitabh Srivastava, senior vice president, will be in charge of SCD, reporting to Bob Muglia, STB president.

    Bill Laing, corporate vice president, will lead the Windows Sever & Solutions group, reporting to Srivastava. "Laing will partner with [Srivastava] to continue the bilateral sharing of technology between Windows Server and Windows Azure, which has been a key design goal of Microsoft's software + services strategy," according to the blog post.

    Doug Hauger will continue to lead the "Windows Azure business and marketing team," but "join the Server and Tools Marketing Group, led by Corporate Vice President Robert Wahbe," who will report to Bob Kelly, corporate vice president. He "is also responsible for Windows Server, System Center and Forefront."

    Many Betanews readers probably don't care about the personnel shift, but it will impact Microsoft development partners. Microsoft org charts read like overlapping strings of overlapping Christmas tree lights anyway. Few people can follow them, and paths become hopeless when a light burns out (e.g., someone leaves or is laid off).

    What has me puzzled here is Ozzie's role. Exactly what is it? If there's a cloud in this reorganization it's not in the new division's name but the one in my mind about what's next for Ozzie. Microsoft's chief software architect has been the driving force behind Microsoft's cloud computing strategy. Does he just assume a new role with the official Azure launch coming on January 1? Is Ozzie being pushed aside? Perhaps the reorganization signals his coming exit from Microsoft?

    After posting, I got response from Microsoft to my questions about whether Ozzie's role would be changing. I asked: "Does Ray Ozzie assume a new role with the official Azure launch coming on January 1 and today's reorganization? Is he perhaps moving on from Microsoft?" The e-mail response, attributed to a Microsoft spokesperson: "As Chief Software Architect...[Ozzie] is responsible for oversight of the company's technical strategy and product architecture. [Ozzie's] role isn't affected by this change."

    That's kind of an answer and non-answer. If people who were reporting to Ozzie on the Azure team aren't doing so any more than absolutely his role has in some way changed.

    Here's something to consider: The cloud vision Ozzie outlined at Microsoft's 2009 developer conference didn't ring like the one he presented at the same event a year ago. At PDC 2008, Ozzie presented an exciting vision of a cloud operating system, where developers write to the datacenter instead of the PC. By comparison, the Azure launching next month sounds more like Amazon Web Services. That difference could foreshadow Ozzie's future at Microsoft.

    [Editor's Note: This post was updated about two hours after time stamp with Microsoft comment and author's reaction to it.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/08/What_does_AT_T_s__Mark_the_Spot__app_say_about_service_quality_'

    What does AT&T's 'Mark the Spot' app say about service quality?

    Publié: décembre 8, 2009, 7:38pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Do you have AT&T as wireless carrier? Are you happy with the network service quality? I encourage Betanews readers to respond in comments to these questions, which are suddenly surreal now that AT&T has released the "Mark the Spot" app for iPhone. There's something comical about an app that tells AT&T about its connection problems. The app also is tacit admission that AT&T has voice service problems. Surely for some greedy lawyer, there's a lawsuit for that.

    Some readers will ask why post a commentary like this one. What's newsie about whacking AT&T aside the head for its well-publicized service problems? Answer: Most of us here -- me writing and you reading -- are gadget freaks. Many American Betanews readers use iPhone, for which there is only one official carrier choice: AT&T. In that context, bad service is a problem. Additionally, it's the holidays, when some people give the gift of phone. Since most dumbphones and smartphones are sold subsidized and locked to a single carrier, network should be considered in any handset purchase.

    By the way, I want to make a distinction about two different kinds of service: Voice and data. There are plenty of complaints about AT&T calling problems, but I don't read (or hear) nearly as many about data quality. There, AT&T might just deliver. So I ask commenters to make a distinction between data and voice in answering the question: Are you happy with your AT&T service?

    If the January 2010 issue of Consumer Reports is any measure, U.S. cell phone users are happier with the other three major carriers. In CR's survey of "3,257 respondents who had prepaid service," AT&T ranked last, with a score of 66 out of 100. Top-ranked Verizon scored 75. AT&T got a black circle, meaning worse, for voice. In San Diego, where I live, AT&T scored 64. Verizon's lowest score in any of the 26 metropolitan areas was 72.

    My AT&T Customer Story

    I became an AT&T Wireless subscriber when it rolled out GSM services more than a half decade ago. Cingular later acquired AT&T Wireless, which later became AT&T following another merger. I had generally been satisfied with the service, both in San Diego and Washington, D.C., until about six weeks after Apple launched the iPhone 3G in July 2008. Service quality tumbled, seemingly overnight. Calls regularly dropped on three different iPhones through autumn 2008. My wife insisted on my returning her iPhone during the 30-day grace period for refund. She switched back to the Nokia N95.

    In the early days of service problems, I blamed iPhone for the connection problems. But after months of tests using other handsets, I found calling problems to be persistent, although not as severe, on them all. Overall call quality was noticeably better on HTC and Nokia handsets than iPhone, and calling problems were frequent just not unbearable.

    But all that changed again in summer 2009. Ahead of the June iPhone 3GS launch, AT&T service actually improved, only to return to its wicked, dropped-calling ways by August. My service quality went all to hell after AT&T opened up MMS to iPhone customers. I started experiencing dropped connections on most calls, and failed connections went from annoying to unbearable.

    AT&T Mark the Spot

    After six years as an AT&T customer, I switched to T-Mobile in October, days before the carrier introduced unlimited voice, data and texting plans. My reason for giving up AT&T: Relentless calling problems. In the nearly two months since switching carriers, I have had one dropped call and two failed connections, both on the same day last week. The calling consistency is simply liberating.

    But leaving AT&T meant dealing with broken contracts. In California, carriers must prorate rate the fee, which is $175 per line for AT&T, based on time remaining on contract. Among my four lines, only one was out of contract. AT&T and I haggled over the remaining fees, which I disputed because of my reason for leaving. In the end, AT&T discounted my final bill by one's month service fee, which brought my contract-breaking fee to around $200.

    There's more I'd like to say about my satisfaction with T-Mobile, but I don't want to turn this post into an advertisement for the carrier or for it over AT&T. Verizon conistently ranked No. 1 in the Consumer Reports survey. But I can't let AT&T off so easily, either. I'm a fan of telecommunications student Trent Sense's blog. He changes handsets more often than I do. Sense also switched to T-Mobile, in November, and he writes:

    AT&T is due for some hard times in the coming future if it doesn't totally focus on improving the infrastructure of its 3G network. Dropped calls at home and a lack of comparable plans are what caused me to eventually choose TMobile and make the most of my money.

    Mark the Blind Spot?

    All this comes full circle back to AT&T's new "Mark the Spot" app, which essentially marks where your service went to hell and tells the carrier all about it. From one perspective, AT&T deserves praise for providing an app that can help identify troubled services areas. But from marketing and public relations vantage points, the app is potential disaster. Now subscribers will be reminded by this app every time there is a calling problem -- and somebody at AT&T thinks that's a good thing? Better approach: Offer a background service (for shame, on iPhone?) that silently notifies the carrier of problems, after subscribers agree once to the information being sent.

    If comments on the app at iTunes App Store are any indication, "Mark the Spot" could do much PR harm -- that even with a majority of five-star ratings. Commenter Kovanen, who rated the app five stars, complains: "The AT&T network is just consistently terrible!" The commenter wants to take the iPhone to Verizon. "You have no service on AT&T and you're expected to notify AT&T of no service on AT&T with an app that needs AT&T service to let them know there's no service on AT&T," writes App Store commenter Marin Princess. Many other commenters did acknowledge the app as a good step forward, but several others thanked Verizon for putting competitive pressure on AT&T. The point: AT&T listened more to Verizon than to its own customers.

    Now it's your turn. Are you satisfied with AT&T service? If you switched from another carrier, how does it compare? I've told my story, and I should emphasize that switching was a hard decision. I was satisfied with all other aspects of AT&T service. How about you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/08/Nokia__can_you_please_stop_kicking_yourself_in_the_head_'

    Nokia, can you please stop kicking yourself in the head?

    Publié: décembre 8, 2009, 7:30am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Nokia has long been one of my favorite tech companies, but recently I started to lose faith in its future. When an enthusiast/fan says something like that, a company either has a serious public image crisis or serious problems. Both situations are about equally bad. I want to believe in Nokia, I really do, but recent events unravel my confidence.

    Nokia's fundamental problem is retreat. The company has started to retreat before the great econolypse. Now should be the time for Nokia to make new investments -- in products and research -- not pull back on them. Retreat signals to competitors that there is vulnerability, which also can unravel customers' confidence about buying new products. In October, I switched from AT&T to T-Mobile, because of constantly annoying dropped calls and in preparation for the Nokia N900. T-Mobile service satisfies, but I still haven't bought the N900. I'm too unnerved about Nokia's future and its product and services strategy.

    Nokia's Retreat Documented

    My Nokia unnerving has been a process, but one accelerating over just a few months. I'll start with Friday's disturbing Nokia news and work backwards to explain.

    Regent store closing. Mobility Today reported that Nokia would be closing its flagship store on Regent Street, London. World of Nokia's Dan Carter lamented that for "a Nokia fan it is a sad day." I agree with that. Over at Engadget, Chris Ziegler expressed my sentiments: "If Nokia can't generate sales in the heart of one of its strongholds -- Western Europe -- we can't imagine that this bodes well for the other flagships either."

    Closing even one Nokia store might make sense for a company trying to cut costs. But for Nokia, which excels at lifestyle marketing, the store closure is a big mistake. The flagship store doesn't have to make loads of money. The store should promote the Nokia brand and the mobile digital lifestyle associated with using its products. Since Nokia has so few stores, the company should seek to make them fan customer and tourist destinations. No cost savings can recover what Nokia will lose by closing the London store, or, gasp, others.

    Cutting number of smartphones. On Thursday (December 3rd), Reuters reported that "Nokia will drastically cut back on the number of different smartphone models it rolls out next year." I could imagine Nokia cutting back the number of dumbphones, but smartphones? Does Nokia perhaps have a different definition of smartphones? Nokia doesn't produce that many. There are two major "E" series smartphones -- the E63 and new E72 -- and two "N" series smartphones, the N97 and N900.

    If anything, Nokia needs to release better smartphones, combining features from other N Series handsets like the N85 and N86 into its smartphone line up. Related, Nokia needs to greatly improve its smartphone software and services and number of useful third-party applications.

    Last week, Betanews' Tim Conneally reported that "Nokia expects 33 percent of its 2010 smartphone lineup to have both touchscreens and QWERTY keypads, another 33 percent to have QWERTY only, 25 percent to have all touch, and the remaining 9 percent to have an ITU-T keypad."

    The handset growth market of the future is the smartphone. The global install base of handsets is about 4 billion units, with manufacturers shipping about 1 billion every year. The majority of people use dumbphones, most of which could eventually be upgraded to smartphones. Nokia is still the market share leader for smartphone devices and operating systems -- 39.3 percent and 44.6 percent, respectively, in third quarter, according to Gartner. Nokia should build from its strength, not retreat before long-term threats posed by iPhone or handsets running Google's Android OS.

    Research cutbacks. In November, Nokia announced two separate research and development layoffs -- 330 employees in Denmark and Finland and another 220 in Japan. The layoffs represent only about 3 percent of Nokia's R&D workforce. But research is where Nokia needs to invest even more, particularly to bring its smartphones, software and services up to competitive pace with iPhone and Android handsets.

    Research has been one of Nokia's differentiators and the outreach from its research staff, such as the team behind Nokia Labs. Then there is the Nokia Research Center, which does bleeding edge mobile technology development. Nokia does great research. The problem isn't the research but how Nokia brings some of the products and services to market. Too many are disjointed, rather than working well together.

    U.S. market doldrums. Nokia is a truly global handset manufacturer, with leading market share in most geographies. But three markets have proved tough for Nokia, in part because of how carriers operate there: Japan, Korea and United States. Nokia simply pulled out of Japan, which is no solution. In the United States, Nokia is better known for low-cost (many times free) dumphones. The E71s is the only smartphone available subsidized from any carrier (AT&T). I'm still waiting for the N900 to pop up at T-Mobile, which 3G frequencies the device supports. Nokia needs America, but for its high-end handsets. Nokia offers unlocked phones for the U.S. market, but prices are high without carrier subsidies.

    Will 2010 be Make or Break?

    Last week, Nokia outlined its plans for next year. They're encouraging. Nokia plans include:

    • Revamping Symbian OS (in first half 2010)
    • Bringing multitouch and more capacitive handsets to market
    • Releasing the first Maemo 6-powered device (in second half 2010)

    But from where things stand today there is a huge disconnect between Nokia's lifestyle marketing, which is simply awesome, and the delivered experience. Nokia handsets simply don't deliver as good a connected and social Web experience as iPhone or Android-powered handsets. Nokia's "connecting people" slogan promises much, but Apple and Google connect better. If you disagree, that's what comments are for.

    I've long loved Nokia marketing, which is sometimes oddball but entertaining and engaging. One example: "Offline as It Happens" campaign for N Series touchscreen smartphones. Another: The recent team up with singer Rihanna. More: The N79 and N79 Active marketing videos. Marketing and many other videos from Nokia Conversations wonderfully engage customers.

    Last week, Michael Gartenberg, vice president of strategy and analysis for Interpret, expressed even more misgivings than I have here about Nokia in a blog post at Engadget:

    Truth be told, Nokia now reminds me a lot of Apple back in 1996, losing relevance and market share in places that matter but with huge potential to leverage core assets and a terrific brand with millions of loyal fans. And as Apple did in its day, Nokia must now either try to decisively seize back its leadership position -- or lose it entirely.

    I want to believe in Nokia, I really do. But I'm pragmatic as I survey the mobile landscape ahead. Android OS had 3.5 percent market share in third quarter, according to Gartner. That might seem small, but it was zero a year earlier. Apple's App Store has more than 100,000 applications and increasing. As the market share leader, Nokia has everything to lose. Will it? You tell me, please in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/08/More_employees_are_using_a_personal_laptop_as_primary_work_PC'

    More employees are using a personal laptop as primary work PC

    Publié: décembre 8, 2009, 12:34am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Should businesses let employees use their personal laptops at work? For 10 percent of mid-size businesses and enterprises, the answer is more than yes; they have employees using personal portables as primary work PCs. Today, Gartner released survey results from second quarter (why so late in the year, I ask) stating that number and its expected rise to 14 percent by mid-2010. Gartner surveyed 528 technology managers from companies with more than 500 employees.

    I'm actually surprised the number isn't higher, and surely it is in other categories, such as smartphones phones. Official policy is one thing, what employees might actually do is another. According to various analyst reports, most enterprises only started deploying laptops, PDAs or smartphones after employees used them for work purposes.

    According to Gartner, 90 percent of companies have some kind of policy governing personal device usage. Forty-three percent have enacted policies for using personal devices in the workplace, while 48 percent prohibit them. Confession: Regardless of policy, I've used personal equipment for better part of a decade. Employers issued equipment, which went right into a closet.

    Even the stiffest corporate IT manager resisters have in this weak economy reason to lighten up policies on personal devices in the workplace. "While employee-owned notebook programs started to appear a couple of years ago, the acceptance of such schemes by organizations varies greatly," Annette Jump, Gartner research director, said in a statement. "However, in the current climate of cost containment, large enterprises are exploring all possibilities offered by alternative client computing architectures and device solution, and that includes employee-owned PCs."

    In a separate statement, Meike Escherich, Gartner principal research analyst, said that a "growing numbers of employees are asking to use personally owned notebooks for work and an increasing proportion of companies will meet these requests through employee-owned notebook programs, which define policies for usage, technical requirements and process for maintenance and support."

    Policies make sense, and I'll give some recommendations that Gartner doesn't:

    • Commingled data -- Employees using the same laptop personally and professionally commingle usage and data. IT policies and software tools should protect corporate data from loss or theft. Hosted Web service that keep data behind the corporate firewall is one solution.
    • Security -- A laptop or smartphone used personally and professionally is potentially higher risk for malware infection. What if the employee's teen downloads games or music from Torrent sites? Businesses should enact and enforce policies about laptop usage and add extra security layers to protect the company.
    • Theft or loss -- Companies should insure personal laptops against theft, loss or damage when used for professional purposes, which could be office work or business travel.

    Gartner found that some industries are more likely to allow personal devices than others. For example, insurance and telecommunications companies are more likely to embrace personal PCs than governments, manufacturers or wholesalers. Usage varies by country, too, with 30 percent of U.K. and U.S. companies allowing personal PCs compared to a whopping 60 percent in Germany.

    I think Gartner's 14-percent figure will prove to be too conservative or non-reflective of employee laptops used a secondary work PC. Netbooks are the reason. The category has exploded this year, something a second-quarter survey may not fully account for.

    It's once again question time: Do you use a personal device -- let's say laptop, mobile phone or smartphone -- for work purposes? How is the arrangement working out for you? Comments are open for your responses.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/07/Can_tween_and_teen_iPod_touch_users_assure_iPhone_s_success_'

    Can tween and teen iPod touch users assure iPhone's success?

    Publié: décembre 7, 2009, 7:18pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For years, analysts have opined about the iPod "halo effect" on Mac sales -- the idea being that people buying iPods who enjoy the experience and exposure to the Apple brand will be more likely to buy Macs. Mobile platform analytics firm Flurry, which data I am using for the first time, claims there is a second halo effect -- iPod touch to iPhone. Flurry puts some hard, and quite believable, data behind this assertion.

    In a blog entry posted yesterday, Peter Farago, Flurry's vice president of marketing, described iPod touch as "Apple's weapon for mass [iPhone] consumption." His reasoning: Younger consumers buying iPod touch now and will buy iPhone later.

    "While the Android platform is the most legitimate challenger to iPhone smartphone dominance, it's important to remember that the iPhone's flank is protected by an often overlooked, powerful fighting brand: iPod touch," Farago writes. He notes that Apple has revealed 58 million iPhone OS devices sold -- shipped, really -- through September 2009. "Of those, Flurry estimates that just over 40 percent, around 24 million, are iPod touch devices," he continues. "While it is clear that the iPhone has significant short-term revenue value for Apple, Flurry believes that the iPod touch holds more long-term strategic value for Steve Jobs and team."

    Happy Meal Marketing

    Farago certainly isn't the first person to suggest that Apple's mobile platform should be regarded as iPhone and iPod touch, since they use the same operating system. But he makes a connection to younger users, putting forth data to back up the claims (the charts here are those Flurry provided in the blog post). He writes:

    Apple is using the iPod touch to build loyalty with pre-teens and teens, even before they have their own phones (think: McDonalds' Happy Meal marketing strategy). When today's young iPod touch users age by five years, they will already have iTunes accounts, saved personal contacts to their iPod touch devices, purchased hundreds of apps and songs, and mastered the iPhone OS user interface.

    This translates into loyalty and switching costs, allowing Apple to seamlessly 'graduate' young users from the iPod touch to the iPhone. For OEMs hoping to challenge Apple, we believe an even greater sense of urgency must be adopted.

    Lock-in is an approach long used by many capitalists. Microsoft crafted lock-in into a science during the 1980s and 1990s, by establishing de facto standards around DOS/Windows protocols and file dependencies coupled with proprietary application file formats. U.S. trustbusters claimed Office-Windows created an "applications barrier to entry" that thwarted competing products. Maybe, but those so-called dependencies also improved business productivity and communications, by reducing the number of disparate file formats -- and applications needed to read them -- and by diminishing operating system fragmentation.

    Flurry on iPod touch/iPhone

    Microsoft's big lock-in advantage was less about its technology and more about human behavior and business logistics -- as measured in switching costs. People develop habits they are slow to change. Any IT manager bringing in new applications or processes can attest to the human switching costs, where employees resist adopting something new. The other switching cost is logistical, when there is a high cost switching from one platform or product to another. Microsoft competitors face these costs when trying to get businesses to move to free, open-source software. Even Microsoft struggles with switching costs, when businesses hold fast to older Office or Windows versions because of costs associated with upgrades.

    If Apple can lock in younger users now, future switching costs, familiarity with iPhone OS and fascination with the Apple brand could turn millions of iPod touch users into future iPhone users. Marketers dream of locking in users young so they will be customers as they grow older. Cigarette marketing has repeatedly come under fire for allegedly marketing to kids. Microsoft has long deeply discounted software for the college and university markets, hoping to lock-in future customers.

    The iPod touch Generation

    There's another factor, which Farago only indirectly considers: Generational behavior. Sociologically, generations aren't just about time of birth. Each generation has clearly defined characteristics that distinguish it from others. Today's tweens and teens are at the end -- and a little beyond -- the Millennials, which are sometimes referred to as Echo Boomers or the Net Generation. Millennials are highly social, more likely to take buying and fashion cues from their peers than advertisers. Farago rightly observes that today's tweens and teens fall into an even more social group:

    Anecdotally, we know the 'iPod Touch Generation' is made up of heavy MySpace, Facebook and SMS users, who voraciously share their lives with, and influence their ever-expanding social graph. Importantly, this also includes promoting products they like. Empirically, Flurry compared how iPod touch session usage has changed over the last six months across key application categories important to this demographic; namely, social networking and games.

    Certainly, several analyst studies -- and declining Nintendo DS and Sony PSP sales and Nokia's discontinuation of N-Gage -- identify iPod touch as a gaming device growing in popularity. The games tweens and teens buy today, they'll want to take with them to their cell phone. Apple's DRM, formats and technologies will make iPhone a top priority for many members of the iPod touch generation. If influence matters, friends will want to belong to the same iPhone club. If social networking apps are better on iPhone OS, the iPod touch generation will want these, too.

    Flurry on iPod touch social media

    All of this is made possible by a key technology decision made by Apple that I blogged about in February. Before iPhone launched in June 2007, wireless carriers generally controlled mobile operating system updates. The resulting fragmentation created a barrier to mobile applications development. With iPhone and iPod touch, Apple controls and distributes the updates, creating a single platform across many devices. So those 58 million iPhone OS devices are a single platform, something no other mobile operating system developer can claim about its products.

    In October, I blogged that "Apple will lose the mobile device wars." But Apple may yet win the mobile platform wars. At the least, if Flurry's analysis proves right, today's tween and teen iPod touch users may be tomorrow's iPhone users. Assuming they buy a computer, too, it could easily be a Mac and Windows PC. Hey, if one Apple, why not a bushel?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/07/Now_you_can_tell_Microsoft_what_to_do'

    Now you can tell Microsoft what to do

    Publié: décembre 7, 2009, 6:15am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft advertising has people claiming that "Windows 7 was my idea." I'd like to make "my idea" more real for Betanews readers, by offering a soapbox to give Microsoft a piece of your mind (be polite, but firm); first some context on why do it now.

    For Microsoft, the New Year really is a new beginning. January 1 marks the half-way point in the company's fiscal year and the period leading into the annual review process. Employee reviews can't be good this year, with Microsoft morale low (or so I've been hearing) following calendar 2009 layoffs.

    I've been collecting stories from laid-off Microsofties, which I had planned to post on my (languishing) Oddly Together Website but have decided to put at Betanews instead, assuming I can get permission for the site switch from everyone who shared a story. I'll be in touch with the story sharers this week and expect to put together composite stories into two or three different posts really soon. Another, separate post will reveal the trends the former employees' stories reveal about the firing -- eh, layoff -- process. Some advice to Microsoft employees who have long "length and level," now would be a good time to think advancement, unless "brutal" is a word you'd like applied to this year's review; or "pink slip," in worst-case scenario.

    The new year also marks the start of Microsoft planning for the new fiscal year, beginning July 1. That's why I regard January 1 such a good time to be telling Microsoft what to do. Each year, rather than make predictions for the year ahead, I take a more arrogant approach: Offer unsolicited advice for the coming calendar year. This year, I am offering Betanews readers a chance to the join in the fun. If you ever wanted a say -- a voice -- you can have it. I will collect the best reader suggestions from this post's comments and put them together in a few weeks. This would be separate from my annual telling-Microsoft-what-to-do post.

    Meantime, below I briefly review my 10 suggestions made for 2009, hoping they might be examples for Betanews readers. Did Microsoft listen to me? Here is the shortlist of recommendations with my assessment of Microsoft's response to them, with response ranked low-to-high 1 to 10:

    10. Chuck Windows' Software Assurance requirements. Like Vista, Windows 7 requires enterprises to pay extra for Software Assurance upgrade protection to get the Enterprise version. I wrote: "Be sensible, Microsoft. If enterprises have less to spend, do you really think they'll spend more on Windows 7 Enterprise because of Software Assurance?"

    Microsoft Response: 0. Microsoft kept the Software Assurance requirement, which is good for the company's bottom line but bad for cash-strapped IT departments.

    9. Advertise everywhere. I recommended: "Recession is opportunity for smart companies with strong brands and loads of cash to maximize marketing effectiveness. Less ad chatter means your message will be better heard, and you don't want people to forget your brand."

    Microsoft Response: 9. The company's 2009 marketing was outstanding, simply a remarkable turnaround.

    8. Fire your ad agency. I contended that ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky had squandered first chunk of the $300 marketing budget. Those Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and comedian Jerry Seinfeld TV commercials had about as much appeal as Elaine Benes dancing.

    Microsoft Response: 0 -- and good thing. By spring 2009, Microsoft marketing hit its stride, with a series of great campaigns: "The Rookies" and "Laptop Hunters," later followed by the absolutely great "Bing" and "Windows 7 was my idea" campaigns. I was wrong, Microsoft.

    7. Expand emerging market programs like "Unlimited Potential." I warned Microsoft: "People will be more likely to steal than buy your software. You've got to make the stuff easier to buy than to steal." The global economic crisis presented Microsoft chance to be the good guy, by offering low-cost solutions and gaining legitimate share in emerging markets.

    Microsoft Response: 5. Unlimited Potential wasn't as lively in 2009 as the previous couple of years. Microsoft is still working with local governments, but there is more emphasis on hawking something, such as Microsoft's OneApp or MultiPoint Server.

    6. Be real to people. Microsoft has no charismatic leader like Steve Jobs, but the company needs one. I chided Microsoft: "You must choose someone -- and pretty much anyone would be better than the no one you've got now."

    Microsoft Response: 6. There still is no charismatic leader, but really great product marketing did make Microsoft more real to people in 2009.

    5. Clean up your branding. It's a mess. Microsoft has long defied good branding conventions, by using too many similar brands, having too many sub-brands and by repeatedly changing brand names.

    Microsoft Response: 6. New brands like Bing are excellent. Even Windows Phone and Windows 7 are good improvements. But Windows Live/Bing services branding is a mess.

    4. Become the world's Web hoster. Economic crisis should be a sales opportunity to bring more businesses to hosted services, and I told Microsoft to ramp them up.

    Microsoft Response: 4. Microsoft Online Services execution is OK at best, and pricing could be better, even after recent cost cutting. More importantly, Azure cloud computing platform didn't even make a 2009 debut. Microsoft will launch the service on January 1, but Azure now feels more like an older version of Amazon Web Services than the revolutionary cloud OS promised in October 2008.

    3. Make incubation projects the top development priority. Some of Microsoft's best new or emerging products came from incubation projects the previous two years. I contended that these internal startups "engage enthusiasts"; "create positive buzz"; and "show how Microsoft can truly innovate."

    Microsoft's Response: 0 -- total fail. During layoffs and cutbacks, Microsoft eliminated most of its best incubation projects and laid off key innovating employees.

    2. Open Microsoft retail stores. For the second year in a row, I asked Microsoft to open its own stores -- in 12 cities: "Beijing, Berlin, Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, New York, Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Sydney and Tokyo (or Seoul)."

    Microsoft Response: 7. The company opened two stores, in Arizona and California, and a café in France. Microsoft made a good start, but two stores simply aren't enough.

    1. Launch an application store. I strongly recommended: "Your application store should start with development tools for offering Silverlight apps to most any platform: mobile, desktop or Web. Suggestion: Use your Xbox Live/Zune Marketplace infrastructure to get up an initial store fast. Within six months, you'll need a real store, built with Silverlight, that can run on any platform."

    Microsoft Response: 4. Microsoft did launch a Windows Mobile app store and combined some Xbox Live/Zune Marketplace features. But integration is scant among the three app stores, and Silverlight looks like a calendar 2010 story.

    Now, with that, I once again ask you to offer up your suggestions for Microsoft during calendar 2010. Comments are open.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/06/Lala_could_make_iTunes__Genius_smarter'

    Lala could make iTunes' Genius smarter

    Publié: décembre 6, 2009, 7:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple's apparent acquisition of music streaming service Lala is about improving iTunes music discovery and competitively combating Google search as a music discovery tool tied to free music streaming services. I say apparent acquisition because there is no official confirmation from Apple, although I'd be shocked if All Things Digital's Peter Kafka got it wrong. He has confirmation of a done deal, and Kafka's reporting record is outstandingly excellent.

    Apple gets two major assets from Lala, some technology and the development team. While the development team is likely more important, the technology is valuable, too -- and both lead to the same place: Apple improving iTunes music discovery.

    Apple also diminishes one of the most credible threats to the iTunes Music Store that has come along in years. Lala streaming costs loads less than buying music from iTunes -- 10 cents a stream, which can be applied to purchase of the track. But there is a glaringly free option, too, with Google music searches; that's something new (late October) and quite threatening to what has long given iTunes Music Store edge: The aforementioned music discovery.

    The Google deal hugely raised Lala's profile and made a catalog of 8 million streaming tracks easily available to anyone typing "All American Rejects, "Lady Gaga," "Jason Mraz" or some other musician or band into Google search. Search for band All American Rejects brings up four tracks -- "Gives You Hell," "I Wanna," "It Ends Tonight" and "Dirty Little Secret" -- all available for immediate, free streaming in a Lala pop-up window; there is also an option to purchase the tracks. Lala charges 89 cents for "Dirty Little Secret" -- Apple a buck twenty-nine. You do the math, whether free or 89 cents, Apple loses.

    Apple nabbed Lala, for which the power of Google search and its reaching free business model extends, before it could become a real competitor. But Google has other music partners, so Apple still faces competition from easily discovered -- hey, what's better than Google search -- and consumed music for nominal price, if any at all.

    The Google-Lala deal also exposed a potential new business model for Apple, again, by making iTunes music discovery easier. But for Apple directly, Microsoft demonstrates the real power of streaming as a music discovery tool, as I explained in my Zune 4.0 software and Zune HD reviews. I described Zune's new Smart DJ feature as "music discovery on steroids, but without those nasty side effects." The feature plays music, based on style and genre, related to the currently playing track. Smart DJ uses the user's music library but can do much more. For consumers paying for a $14.95 Zune Pass -- a monthly music subscription service -- Microsoft's entire catalog is available to Smart DJ, whether by stream or subscription download to the PC. The feature beats the hell out of iTunes' Genius feature, which is a great discovery tool for finding new stuff to buy, not music to immediately listen to.

    There are several ways Apple could incorporate streaming into the music discovery process, starting with full-song samples rather than 30-second ones. Apple could also incorporate a Smart DJ-like feature into iTunes Genius, where songs play streamed or locally in similar fashion but with only one play for unpurchased content; that would be equivalent to sampling, but provided through Genius with option to purchase track or album. Upsell would be Apple's primary motivation for offering streaming.

    This weekend, there were numerous blogs or commentaries speculating iTunes streaming is coming and is likely reason for Apple buying Lala. I don't see streaming as a viable music business model for Apple; there's more revenue to lose than to gain. But streaming incorporated into iTunes as a discovery and sales mechanism makes loads of sense. That said, I could see Apple offering streaming for a substantial fee -- not free or near it -- on a subscription basis.

    Apple's plans for Lala's team are bigger than most pundits are speculating. There is something about this deal that reminds me of late 2000. That summer, Apple released new iMacs missing something: CD-RW drives. Windows PC manufacturers were going CD-RW, but not Apple, which stuck with DVD drives. In August 2000, I wrote for CNET News.com: "Apple misses the tune on CD-RW drives." The Mac community flamed me. I got more than 200 e-mails (CNET didn't have comments back that), most of which essentially called me an idiot for not understanding that Apple was about movies not music.

    Presumably, someone at Apple saw something in music, too; I wasn't wrong as Mac defenders claimed then (and many times since). Not long after my story posted, Apple bought SoundJam, which technology became the core of iTunes. Apple announced iTunes in January 2001. Suddenly Apple got music, and in a big way. The company launched iPod in October 2001 and opened the iTunes Music Store in spring 2003. The rest, as they say, is history.

    My intuition is that Lala could be as big for Apple as SoundJam was. What do you think of Apple acquiring Lala? Please respond in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/05/Microsoft_pulls_Windows_7_Family_Pack__so_you_can_spend_more_for_the_holidays'

    Microsoft pulls Windows 7 Family Pack, so you can spend more for the holidays

    Publié: décembre 5, 2009, 7:50pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I've got a new spelling for "Scrooge." M-i-c-r-o-s-o-f-t. The company has ended the Windows 7 Family Pack promotion, which is a nice Ba Humbug to you and yours for the holidays. Sure, it could be good for Microsoft's bottom line and perhaps partners' PC sales. But for the masses considering upgrading existing Windows XP/Vista PCs to 7, a good thing is suddenly bad.

    Maybe Microsoft executives looked at Apple charging so much for Macs and thought, "Why discount Windows 7?" Perhaps, but generally companies offer greater discounts as the holidays approach, not take them away. Windows 7 Home Premium Family Pack offered three upgrade licenses for the tidy sum of $149.99. Now the upgrade price is $119.99 per license.

    Family Pack was a great idea, one Apple applied to Mac OS X about seven years ago and extended to other products, such as iLife and iWork. Apple charges $49 for the Mac OS X 10.6 (aka Snow Leopard) Family Pack -- for users upgrading from predecessor Leopard. Users of older Mac OS X versions have the option of the five-license Mac Box Set Family Pack, which also includes iLife `09 and iWork `09, for $229.

    While Apple made its Family Pack a permanent fixture, Microsoft announced Windows 7 Home Premium Family Pack as a limited-time offer, with the emphasis on limited. But I always assumed that limited meant at least through the holidays, especially in context of other multi-license software specials -- Office Home and Student 2007 for $79.99, discounted from $149.99. But Ho, Ho, Ho, Humbug, that promotion is gone, too.

    I first learned of Family Pack's demise from Ed Bott, who blogged: "Microsoft's Grinch kills Windows 7 Family Pack." Bott credited Paul Thurrott. Both men are recognized Microsoft software experts. Bott writes: "I haven't heard much about the Grinch lately. Now I know why. He's been hanging out in Redmond, working on marketing plans and drafting statements for the press." It's Scrooge, baby. Perhaps Scrooge Ballmer, although Scrooge Sinofsky has a nice ring to it.

    A notice on the Windows 7 Family Pack product page announces: "Thank you for your interest in Windows 7. The Windows 7 Family Pack offer has ended." Offer ended isn't a sell-out, by the way, which is evidenced by the software seemingly disappearing everywhere at once. Microsoft has ubiquitously pulled the software.

    Amazon still lists the Family Pack, because some associates offer it new or used -- anywhere from $2 (yeah right) to $259.99, which is still much less than buying three separate licenses for about 120 bucks each. I make the point the offer ended, in anticipation of misleading Microsoft PR claiming the product sold out.

    If the Family Pack sold well -- or even better than expected -- Microsoft would have incentive to end the promotion as soon as possible, from a profit-per-license perspective. But there's another way to look at the Family Pack's value and why Scrooge should have kept his stingy little hands off this promotion:

    • If Windows 7 security is so much better, as Microsoft claims, the priority should be to get as many users on the newer software as possible. Family Pack encourages consumers to upgrade more PCs sooner.
    • Apple is sopping up Windows XP PC users, based on Mac sales suggesting that 50 percent of buyers are Windows PC users. Better for Microsoft to get those people onto Windows 7 cheap. If the software is as good as claimed, these end users will be more likely to stick with Windows and make the next computer purchase a Windows PC.
    • Family Pack discourages piracy, plain, pure and simple and meets the real world consumer expectation that one Windows copy should be installable on more than one PC.
    • Consumers using Windows 7 at home will ask for it at work. Microsoft should want to get as many of them on the new OS as quickly as possible. Holiday sales is a rocket ship to adoption, if the price is right.

    OK, I've had my Saturday say about Windows 7 Family Pack. Now it's your turn -- in comments, please.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/05/Five_2009_predictions_that_widely_missed_the_mark'

    Five 2009 predictions that widely missed the mark

    Publié: décembre 5, 2009, 4:24am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    As the holidays approach and New Years not long beyond, analysts turn ESPers as they try to predict the future. Sometimes, the predictions are so crazed, they're somewhere between alcoholically induced and reaching into an alternative universe where reality beats to other drums. The best measure of accuracy for the future is the past -- what analysts predicted for 2009.

    I've randomly picked five that show just how wrong the predictions can be. Keep them in mind when reading 2010 predictions, like IDC's audacious claim that iPhone applications will triple -- to 300,000 -- by end of 2010.

    1. "Christmas 2008: The Last Year of the Retail CD" was a report Gartner announced on Dec. 22, 2008. We all know that digital downloads are big, big, big. But retail CD sales aren't just continuing to sell, they got a boost late year from the remastered Beatles' collection. That's right, the songs are available only on CD and not for digital download (legally anyway). The CD's days may yet be numbered, but I predict retailers will still have plenty to sell for Holiday 2010 and beyond. Hey, people still buy vinyl.

    2. Consumers will "go on social media diets." Nielsen predicted that consumers would cut back social media connections at services like Facebook and Twitter: "Less may well become the new more." Less? Facebook went from about 150 million subscribers in early 2009 to over 350 million in December. Facebookers post 55 million status messages a day. Twitter literally exploded in 2009, going from about 9 million unique visitors in February to more than 58 million in October. Yes, there was a September-October decline, but overall Twitter was way up for the year.

    3. "It will be a grim year for mobile gadgets as consumer spending shrinks and vendors cut prices (and margins) to capture or maintain market share," IDC predicted in December 2008. Apple shipped more than 31 million iPods through third quarter compared to more than 32 million a year earlier. For first three quarters 2009, Apple shipped more than 16 million iPhone. Smartphone shipments rose double digits every quarter, and manufacturers introduced a bunch of new ones in third and fourth quarter. Sure, it wasn't a great year for Nintendo DS or Sony PSP -- and Nokia gave up N-Gage -- but more because of Apple competition than consumer spending.

    4. "Google will see search share decline significantly for the first time ever," search analyst John Battelle predicted on January 9. "It will also struggle to find an answer to the question of how it diversifies its revenue in 2009." Ah, yeah. In January, Google US search share was 63 percent, according to ComScore. October: 65.4 percent. That's a significant decline?

    5. "Babies born in 2009 will be immortal," Ferris Research predicted in January. Well, neither of us may live long enough to find out.

    As a rule, I don't make yearly predictions (so that no one does to me what I did to these analysts). I usually make a list of recommendations, such as that Microsoft open a retail store, in 2007 and 2008. Did you make or read an outrageous 2009 prediction that just didn't make it? Please share in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/04/Advertising_is_the_wrong_model_for_the_open_Web'

    Advertising is the wrong model for the open Web

    Publié: décembre 4, 2009, 11:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Some Betanews readers made such excellent comments to yesterday's post, "Can there be a free Web if no one makes money?," I will respond to some of them with another post rather than piecemeal in comments. The current advertising model isn't sufficient to handle all the online content out there -- and there will be more of it.

    Yesterday, commenter bigsexy022870 wrote: "Maybe I am missing something. But I thought that ads paid for all this free stuff. I mean Google produces nothing yet it's super rich. Every Website is loaded with ads."

    Not every Website is loaded with ads, nor could there be. There is simply too much content on the Web, and the amount increases seemingly exponentially. There is a widespread fallacy that advertisers are fleeing newspapers, TV and radio for the Web, because the same media organizations give away the same content online for free. Advertising is about reach. If advertisers thought they were reaching the right audiences through old media, they wouldn't shift some dollars to new media.

    To be clear: Much of the decline in ad spending offline isn't going online. Advertisers' losing confidence in old media hasn't turned into grand confidence in new media. According to Barclays Capital, U.S. Internet ad spending is expected to grow about 2.3 percent in 2009 year over year to $23.98 billion. Advertisers will still spend more on newspapers and TV (broadcast and cable) -- $26 billion and $61 billion, respectively, down from $47.4 billion and $67.9 billion in 2005.

    I agree with Betanews commenter lvthunder regarding what pays for what: "Web ads will pay for servers and bandwidth. Currently (and fading fast) revenue from the newspapers paid for the content creators to create those news articles. When the newspapers fail (and they will) the Websites aren't going to be able to make up the difference."

    Three Years of Change

    The enormous amount of online content is the root cause of shifting ad spending, and who produces it. Before early 2006, massive news organizations collected information, which was printed, posted or broadcast for people to consume. Within these news organizations, a small number of individuals made decisions about what constitutes news and how information was packaged and distributed. That's the business model News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch is trying to preserve when he talks of erecting paywalls for news.

    But in the last three years, hugely transforming cloud services have brought the power of content distribution and creation to the masses -- making you the publisher, broadcaster, journalist or editor. Take YouTube as example. Its influence is seemingly everywhere. But YouTube is but a recent construct, only going live in 2006. Three years ago. Twitter debuted three years ago this month, but it only has reached mass awareness within the last 12 months -- and what influence! Facebook opened to the public in 2006, as well. Three years ago. Most popular or growing popular tools for community and self expression launched within the last three years: Disqus, FriendFeed, Posterous, tumblr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many, many others.

    There was no iPhone, Google Chrome or Android Phones three years ago -- the latter two and Apple's App Store debuted in 2008. All these technologies or services have remarkably and rapidly transformed content creation. Anyone can broadcast or publish, and with mobile devices pretty much anytime or anywhere -- unfiltered and outside the control of news conglomerates. You could broadcast live to the Web from your smartphone using Qik during most any major or minor event. No TV camera crew required. Or you could tweet.

    The current advertising model isn't suitable to support all this content, and even search engines like Bing or Google can't adequately catalog all of it for easy retrieval. There is too much content, meaning ad space for amount of online ads. There's no way to fill all the content with advertising, or at high enough rate to sustain most personal or professional operations. Additionally, by supply-demand logistics, the more content there is, the less valuable it is to advertisers. The scale that gives the Web huge global reach makes it too big to support the current advertising model, particularly since the social media revolution of 2006.

    By comparison, newspapers, radio and television are fixed markets. There are only so many newspapers or radio or TV stations. Today's situation on the Web is kind of like there being a TV station on every block in every city -- or in every home. The difference in scale -- between number of newspapers or radio stations per each market and enormous number of online content producers is major reason why advertising can't sustain Web content, at least the current model.

    Who Profits from News?

    There's a related problem: A growing number of amateur, semi-professional and professional news sites and blogs scramble for a shrinking individual share of advertising revenue. Their best money comes from increasing the number of pageviews, with Google search and Google News rankings being important.

    Betanews commenter ir0nw0lf complains there is "too much must-get-the-exclusive-no-matter-what and too much sensationalistic stories out there." Commenter therealbillybob makes a related point: "Back in the day, journalists earned their money by going out and hunting down the news. Today most journalism seems to be just regurgitating press releases and opinion pieces like this one."

    There are two growing and related trends that correlate to both comments:

    • For many reasons -- with news organization layoffs being high among them -- there is increasingly less original reporting and more linking to existing reports without verifying the information. Yesterday's Betanews Black Screen of Death post by Scott Fulton is good commentary on the increasing Web of misinformation and misreporting.
    • Many blogs aggregate news -- again linking to sources without verification -- essentially to drive pageviews and so advertising revenue. These blogs don't produce the content, but profit from those who pay to produce it.

    I want to briefly expand on the latter trend. On Tuesday, the Fair Syndication Consortium released a study, indicating that October 15 - November 15, 75,195 Websites published unlicensed content lifted from newspapers. By the way, blogs only accounted for 10 percent of the total. Additionally, 112,000 unlicensed "full copies of U.S. newspaper articles were found on sites across the Internet."

    The profit motive: Search-driven revenue, with Google accounting for "53 percent of the total monetization with Yahoo accounting for 19 percent." Interestingly, "38 percent of the sites were ranked in the top 100,000 most trafficked sites."

    I consider content created by the masses, through the post-2006 social media revolution of tools and services, to be legitimate. By contrast, I regard content stolen from professional news organizations or individuals to be illegitimate. Still, both sources contribute to the same problem: There is too much content on the Web for the amount of available advertising.

    Is there a solution? Does there need to be one? These are questions being hotly debated right now by professional news organization, new media operations and even individuals like you. I pose the questions to you. Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/04/Microsoft__don_t_hang_up_on_Windows_Mobile__but_do_call_for_help'

    Microsoft, don't hang up on Windows Mobile, but do call for help

    Publié: décembre 4, 2009, 5:24am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It hasn't been a good day for anyone working on Microsoft's Windows Phone team. This morning, IDC made the ridiculous prediction that the number of iPhone/iPod touch applications would triple to 300,000 by end of 2010. Later, here at Betanews, Carmi Levy slammed Microsoft's Windows mobile strategy.

    Yes, Windows Mobile is down -- really low -- but the operating system isn't bad. The mobile OS is good at the core, meaning the kernel, and multitasks pretty well. It's the user interface and partner model that needs a makeover -- and awfully fast. Microsoft is quickly falling behind Apple and Google, but there's hope. Android is a bigger threat than anything Apple has got, because of competing licensing and partner models. Don't give up, Microsoft, but for frak's sake do get a move on.

    For Microsoft's benefit I'll respond to IDC's prediction and then to Levy. My question of the hour: Who spiked the eggnog at IDC? Three hundred thousand iPhone apps? What are they drinking at IDC? There's simply no way that the iPhone/iPod touch ecosystem can support that many apps, unless there is huge application separation across geographies, cultures and languages.

    Apple shouldn't want that many apps, and IDC had better be wrong. I will say that Apple app bloat would be wonderful for every competitor, including Microsoft. Too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing. Apps are already hard to find or differentiate at 100,000-plus. Triple the number would be beyond way too many.

    Switching analysts, Levy writes:

    With market share for Windows Mobile OS in freefall, vendors fleeing and its mindshare in meltdown, now is as good a time as any for the company to dive into a full-on re-think of its mobile strategy. Or an exit from the market until it can figure out what makes the most sense.

    He strongly emphasized:

    After 13 years and countless kicks at the can, it's time for Microsoft to call it a day. Kill Windows Mobile, consolidate resources and skills from the shuttered unit as well as Danger and Zune -- which continues to impress with technically sophisticated offerings that languish on store shelves -- and pick one cohesive strategy.

    I won't disagree with Levy about Windows Mobile's dire straights. Microsoft has fallen behind, and there's no sign of any catching up. But I would strongly recommend against Microsoft exiting the mobile phone market. There is simply too much at stake. Smartphones are poised to be the next big computing platform, and the handset replacement market will be huge. The global mobile handset install base is about 4 billion, according to industry statistics, or about four times the PC install base. More than 1 billion new handsets are sold every year.

    Most of the handsets in use are not smartphones, which already are beginning to replace so-called dumbphones -- slowly at first but increasing numbers over the next three or four years. Nokia has the sales volume, with nearly 40 percent market share in dumbphones and smartphones, worldwide. Apple has the huge applications lead. Google seemingly picks up new Android licensees by the day. Android went from zero worldwide smartphone marketshare in third quarter 2008 to 3.5 percent share a year later. Meanwhile, Windows Mobile share declined during the same time period, to 7.9 percent from 11.1 percent.

    History Repeats

    What bugs me about Microsoft and Windows Mobile: It reminds me of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft let languish for years. There's a saying that history repeats. It's my observation this theory applies to organizations as well as people. Microsoft is repeating with Windows Mobile past mistakes made with IE -- and not demonstrating the initiative to do better. Is somebody living in denial up there in Redmond?

    Microsoft won the browser wars in the late 1990s only later to abandon the territory. Browser development essentially ended with IE6 in 2001 and didn't pick up again until Mozilla released Firefox five years ago. Now, there is fierce browser competition, driven in part by search revenues; all the while, IE continues to bleed usage share even after two major releases.

    According to Net Applications, in November, IE usage share was 63.62 percent, down from 67.88 Percent in July. By comparison, Firefox share was 24.72 percent, up from 22.47 percent, during the same time period. Safari: 4.36 percent and Chrome 3.93 percent. To reiterate, Net Apps data reflects usage and not market share, and many people tend to use multiple browsers.

    There's more than corporate history repeating. Browsers are important to the burgeoning smartphone market, where Internet Explorer trails even more than Windows Mobile. Microsoft must change its ways now. Hanging up on the mobile market is a bad idea. Letting Apple or Google woo away developers is even dumber.

    Perhaps it's time for Microsoft to call on partners for help. HTC already is nicely skinning Windows Mobile 6.5. The Windows Phone concept, with dedicated "Start" button, is a nice concept, but a Zune-like phone with a Microsoft brand or co-brand would be even better. A Nokia-Microsoft team could greatly benefit both companies. The point: Microsoft has to do something, and tomorrow is already too late.

    I tell you this: If Microsoft loses the mobile market, it loses the future. Once again, and I'm exhausted from blogging this, I say that Microsoft must launch a mobile Manhattan Project. If not, it will be buyers of all categories, including enterprises, hanging up on Windows Mobile.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/04/Can_there_be_a_free_Web_if_no_one_makes_money_'

    Can there be a free Web if no one makes money?

    Publié: décembre 4, 2009, 1:35am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Paywall is suddenly a hot topic as free content turns many longstanding businesses -- news among -- to apparent ruin. News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch is mad as hell, and he's not going to take this anymore. This week Murdoch repeated his call for paid services during a U.S. Federal Trade Commission public workshop. "We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality, reliable news and information does not come free," he said. "Good journalism is an expensive commodity."

    But how is the value of the digital content, whether news or some other commodity, determined when so much of it is free? Bill Buxton, principal researcher for Microsoft Research, briefly addressed this topic during an October talk at the Business Innovation Factory. "When the cost of goods approaches zero, the effective price inevitably for that product goes to zero," he said. "We've seen it in music, and the music pirates -- maybe they were bad, maybe they weren't -- were not causing it; they were just accelerating it. Every single other entity that goes digital has zero cost of goods. So, whatever's happened in music is going to happen in literature, news, cinema, theater and so on."

    The prevalent theory is to fund all this stuff with advertising. "But if everything is going digital, going onto the Net, where is the money for advertising going to come from?" Buxton asked. The Microsoft researcher cares about digital content going free, "because I can't design an ebook [reader] without thinking about that stuff. Because I don't want to design the most incredible experience of reading electronic things...[if] there's nothing worth reading by the time I do it, because there are no professional authors, no professional journalists because they can't make a living."

    A Free Web Advocate

    Buxton applies one view of economics -- cost of production -- to the value of content produced. Wired editor Chris Anderson puts forth another and one related in book Free: The Past and Future of a Radical Price. In a July 8, 2009, interview with WNYC promoting the book, Anderson asserted that on the Internet "free really can be free." Nobody has to pay. "Google doesn't show up on your credit card bill," he asserted. (Actually its does on my credit card bill, once a year for Google Apps Premiere Edition.) Anderson supported his view, which does allow for combo free and paid models, by way of marketing and economic history and theory.

    But I don't agree with Anderson's economic construct or Buxton's even though I agree that the value for all content is in rapid decline. Contrary to popular belief, economics doesn't derive from human culture or society, but from the natural world -- where nothing is really free. Air doesn't cost you anything. It's free; natural processes over billions of years paid for the atmosphere we freely take for granted. But the process of breathing isn't free. It requires the proper functioning of interdependent biological systems and input of energy, provided by ingested food. There's always some price.

    The same principal applies to human society. For example, as an American I seemingly drive on the highway for free. But that free is a deception. I didn't pay to build the highway, but sales, state and federal taxes -- including the gasoline fueling the car -- pay to maintain the roads. The price is hidden, but it's there. My point: Nothing is really free. Somebody pays. But with the Internet and proliferation of seemingly free content, will online consumers pay fair value for producing it? That question is at the core of Murdoch's desire to erect more paywalls and his threats to pull out of Google search indexing.

    Modern economic theory is too hung up on prices, when value is more important. Often pricing is independent of value, as should be apparent from the housing market collapse. An artificial debt-driven bubble drove up home prices, which didn't make the real estate more valuable. For a teen the value assessment might be: Is it worth cleaning my room so my parents won't yell at me or will I get more benefit from chatting with my friends online? There is an associated value assigned to the action, but not an associated price.

    People will pay for anything for which there is perceived or actual value. The problem with digital content is the overwhelming access to stuff produced nearly at no cost -- whether pirated music or aggregated news -- for which online users find enough value. They aren't willing to pay.

    Gatekeeper to the Web

    I sometimes blame Microsoft -- and its competitors even more -- for this free-out-of-control mess. In March 2001, the company outlined and ambitious Web services strategy called HailStorm. I wrote for CNET News.com:

    HailStorm is a group of services, using Microsoft's Passport authentication technology, meant to provide secure access to e-mail, address lists and other personal data from virtually anywhere via PCs, cell phones and PDAs (personal digital assistants). The catch? Users of the services will be required to pay a fee to use them. Analysts said that if the HailStorm model is widely adopted -- and if people will pay a premium for security -- the days of ad-subsidized Internet services, such as free e-mail and messaging, may be over.

    Microsoft planned to make Passport authentication -- and the paid services they would enable -- broadly available. But within a year after the announcement, Microsoft abandoned HailStorm and pulled back its ambitious single sign-on authentication system. Security and privacy concerns and business and technology limitations were among the reasons. Perhaps most significant: Competitor attacks -- what I call competition by litigation -- by way of legal complaints filed with the U.S. FTC and Justice Department. The prevailing theory: Microsoft would become gatekeeper to the Internet, if not checked.

    A gatekeeper did come. Google is the master of free, around which it makes billions through keywords, advertising and other services related to search. Google search is the means by which most people access Internet content, for free. Free access, supported by SEO (search engine optimism)-driven aggregated digital content, creates perceptions of value -- what the content is worth. Too often, nothing is the value. But even that search-engine found content comes from somewhere. Somebody pays to produces it.

    Perhaps if the content was harder to get at, such as going behind that paywall, people would value it more. That is if they can find it through search. Paywall content might not be accessible through search. Applying the old tree-falls-in-the-forest axiom, does content that nobody can find through Google really exist? How can someone pay for something they can't find?

    During the Business Innovation Factory talk, Buxton told of having content in a book changed because the editors couldn't verify the information via Google. The contentious issue: Who invented the chalkboard -- or in the nineteenth century what was called the slate. "I realized, 'Oh, crap. We are screwed,'" Buxton said. "If it's not on Google, if it's not on the Internet, it doesn't exist."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/03/Microsoft_s_Bing_Bar_takes_the_clutter_and_complexity_out_of_browser_toolbars'

    Microsoft's Bing Bar takes the clutter and complexity out of browser toolbars

    Publié: décembre 3, 2009, 9:33pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I despise browser toolbars. They're ugly, clutter up the browser and reduce viewable content space. But unexpectedly, I've found a better toolbar. This old crankypuss might soon be spending time at the new Bing Bar, which is a helluva good name, by the way.

    There's much to like about Bing: The advertising, the name and most importantly the approach to user interface design. I love Bing TV commercials, by the way. Good advertising uses familiar motifs, scenarios and situations, stuff that most anyone can relate to. Familiarity is important. Who can't relate to information overload -- too much needless information coming too fast to process?

    The Bing search page user experience (UX) is in many ways superior to Google, by the way the home page makes information easily available without loads of complexity (Sure, we could argue day and night about search term accuracy). Good design also should lead to discovery. Those photos on the Bing home page aren't just pretty. Moving the mouse across the image reveals hidden boxes and text -- reminiscient of photo comments on Flickr -- that lead to additional searches. For example, on today's pic: "These fish are swimming in the last confederate state to be admitted to the Union. Where are they?"

    The UX carries forward to Bing Bar, which replaces MSN Toolbar. Bing Bar is UI and UX design done surprisingly well, for starters because of its spare appearance and generous use of white space. Bing Bar doesn't feel cramped or cluttered, characteristics that define most browser toolbars. Then there are tools for greater informational discovery, which are good for the user and for driving additional search traffic to Bing. Bing Bar is available for Internet Explorer 6, 7, 8 or Firefox 3.x

    Buxton Bucks Convention

    From broader UI and UX perspectives, not just Bing, I'm really liking many recent Microsoft products, which are cleaner, less cluttered, less complex and full of features available really only when needed. Windows 7 is one example, for sure. I'm convinced that one man, Bill Buxton, principal researcher for Microsoft Research, is main catalyst driving dramatic UI and UX changes throughout Microsoft. Buxton talks about good design broadly, culturally, historically, socially and software developmentally. He joined Microsoft in 2006, and it wasn't long after that the company's UI design started to dramatically improve. Some leaps were already midway, such as Office's version 2007 UI makeover.

    Buxton recently spoke about UX at the Business Innovation Factory. Regarding technology, he asserted: "Without informed designed, it's more likely to be bad than good." Buxton emphasized: "It's an ethical obligation to make best efforts. To make the right decisions." Whoa, who talks ethics in design?

    Buxton has a stereotypical mad scientist look, and he rambles like one. He looks to me a little like Uncle Monty from "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events." I've embedded the video from his speech so you can see.

    "For every 'generation n technology,' its role is to fix the problems of n - 1, but keep the good stuff," Buxton told BIF attendees in October. "But what about that? That's also a value judgment. It's all about ethics. It's all about values."

    Bing Me Values

    No question, user interfaces and the experiences they bring are all about values -- the values of a country, society or corporation. Search is intrinsically about values, because the search engine makes a value judgment about what's important to the searcher. Perhaps I should say "values judgment." Often that value judgment is wrong, which is one of the points of Microsoft's Bing "Search Overload" marketing. Too often, keywords don't lead the searcher to what's important to him or her.

    In the late 1990s, when Yahoo was a search leader, people hired by the company made the value judgments about search rankings. In this decade, Google's algorithm makes the value judgments, and not always around the most sensible criteria. I consistently find that in helping my daughter do background research for a history paper on the French Revolution that Google search leads to popular destinations that are meaningless for her topic.

    Bing Bar -- and this week's exciting Bing Maps improvements -- are values-oriented products. They reflect changing Microsoft values about what constitutes good user-interface design and values for making search more meaningful. A common undercurrent for both -- and so long it must be topic of a future post -- is storytelling. I predict that storytelling will be a major Bing differentiator over Google search in the coming 12 months.

    Funny aside: Bing Bar also is a confection. Here's one of many recipes on the Web for making Bing Bars. Or perhaps you'd like to buy a Bing Bar from Palmer Candy, which debuted the candy bar in 1923.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/03/Apple__can_you_do_for_video_what_you_did_for_music____perhaps_saving_us_all_from_NBComcast_'

    Apple, can you do for video what you did for music -- perhaps saving us all from NBComcast?

    Publié: décembre 3, 2009, 3:36am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last month's rumors about Apple talking to networks and Hollywood about TV show subscriptions got me thinking about what CEO Steve Jobs & Co. should do for making video content more accessible. I'm musing even harder today, given the pending announcement that Comcast will buy NBC Universal. The deal should have wide-ranging impact for cable and online TV content and companies that distribute it -- everyone from Hulu to Apple.

    Now would be a really good time for Apple to rethink its video content strategy and make changes that will hold what I'm unaffectionately calling NBComcast at bay. Since I'm in one of my know-it-all moods, I'd like to offer a few suggestions to Apple. It's time for Apple to leverage its strengths by offering something like "Complete My Album" or "Upgrade to iTunes Plus" for movies, TV shows and music videos. Such iTunes features could change how people electronically rent or buy video content.

    Timing is right to do something, given recent buzz about Hulu and YouTube charging for TV shows. Then there is NBComcast to consider, which merger should include partial Hulu ownership. Maybe Apple should renew those rumored Hollywood/TV network talks. The suits suddenly have reason to worry about NBComcast and what muscle it can wield over program development and distribution.

    An Apple deal for watching programming through iTunes -- at the rumored $30 a month -- ought to look a helluva lot more appealing with Comcast gobbling up NBC. Apple should have most of the billing and technology infrastructure in place from renting movies. Surely it couldn't be too hard to add TV shows.

    Something else in favor of making some big iTunes video changes: Paywall is a suddenly popular topic thanks to News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch. Not that Apple gives away much. At iTunes it's pay, pay, pay. Some of the paying is whacky. Yesterday, I stumbled on obscure, almost-one-hit-wonder-band Gun Hill Road at iTunes Store. Apple sells 1971 album "First Stop" for $4.99 -- say, a good deal for 22 songs -- but $1.29 for each track. Huh? What kind of pricing strategy is that -- more than 28 bucks at the single track price? But Gun Hill Road is off topic.

    Back on topic: Apple, like everyone, is cranking out promotional emails for the holidays. Occasional iTunes sales and promotions do some of what I want to suggest ( and hopefully I haven't missed any important perpetual promotions or features): iTunes Store should apply the upsell "complete my this or that" music strategy to video. It worked for music, why not video? Of course, content copyright holders and distributors would have to be willing parties to the changes (if rumors be true about TV subscriptions, Apple already is talking to the right copyright holders). My requests/suggestions:

    Complete My Purchase: People renting movies, particularly in HD, would be given a limited-time option to apply their rental fee to the full purchase price. So, if someone rents "Push" in HD for $4.99 and really likes it, he or she could buy the movie for $15 instead of $19.99.

    Complete My Season Pass: Similarly, if someone buys a few episodes of "House," he or she could purchase the remaining Season Pass without paying for the already purchased ones.

    Upgrade to HD: Someone who had purchased movies, music videos or TV shows in standard definition could go HD for the price difference between the formats. Long ago, I bought "Battlestar Galactica, Season 1" from iTunes in standard definition (HD wasn't available at the time). I would pay the difference for HD.

    I'm convinced that options to upgrade to HD or purchase from rentals would extend the utility of the iTunes Store. How many more people would rent, if they knew of an option to buy discounted from their rental? How many people would buy standard definition today knowing they could upgrade to discounted HD when available?

    Surely the licensing issues can't be insurmountable. Already, Apple offers standard versions with HD purchases for iPhone and iPod touch. Content providers would profit from the upsell, right? I ask that as a question, not knowing margin differences for rentals versus sales. I know that margins tend to be higher for subscription music content than tracks that are sold. I don't know the breakdown for video content.

    So in closing I have to ask: What suggestions would you make to Apple about iTunes Store video content? Additionally, what do you think of Comcast plucking the NBC peacock's feathers? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/03/Five_compact_digital_camera_myths_and_realities'

    Five compact digital camera myths and realities

    Publié: décembre 3, 2009, 1:23am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The holidays are fast approaching and geek gift shopping with it. This year I will post several shopping primers for making the best decisions in buying tech gear. This first installment is about compact digital cameras and what features do and don't matter. It's particularly important because geeks used to buying PCs might wrongly think that more of this or that matters for digicams. Misplaced emphasis on the wrong features can lead to disappointing purchases.

    Some background: I'm no professional photographer, but I do know digital photographic gear. I bought my first digital camera in 1997, the 1-megapixel Kodak Digital Science D120 (OK, I didn't know better). The D120 was one of the first 1-megapixel compact digicams selling for (barely) under $1,000. I purchased additional compacts from Canon, Kodak, Olympus and Sony over the next couple of years, but no compact satisfied until the 3.3-megapixel Canon PowerShot S20 in summer 2000. I got plenty of use from the S20, including shooting the opening of the first Apple Store in May 2001.

    Since 1997, I've used about two dozen different digicams -- compacts and digital SLRs -- from Canon, Kodak, Leica, Nikon, Olympus, Sigma and Sony. These include, since 2007, the Canon EOS 50D, Nikon D200, Nikon D90, Olympus PEN E-P1 and Sigma DP1. When I say that I used these digicams, I don't mean tested.

    In this first primer, I'll offer tips specifically for buying compact cameras that also can be applied to entry-class dSLRs. A follow-up post will offer my holiday pics for compact digicams that should satisfy the most discerning gadget geek or photographer -- even the pros. By the way, I define a compact as having a non-removable lens, meaning four-thirds, micro four-thirds and rangefinder digicams belong in a different category.

    1. Megapixels don't matter. One measure of PC greatness is processor clock speed or number of cores. Greater often is better, but the same isn't true for compact digital cameras. More megapixels can actually be worse, because of compact digicam's smaller sensor size. Increasing number of pixels over a smaller CCD or CMOS sensor causes distortion, artifacts and grainy appearance -- or noise, as ISO increases.

    chalkMore megapixels doesn't mean better; this photo was taken with 5 MP compact in 2003

    For many smaller compacts, 5-megapixels delivers optimum performance. I took the picture above in 2003 with the 5MP Canon PowerShot G5, which produces sharper and more pleasing photos than many, newer compacts sporting more megapixels.

    Among the compacts I'll recommend in a later post, nearly all are 10-megapixels -- not 12 or 14 MP -- and these cameras are designed to appeal to more experienced photographers. By comparison, more megapixels is usually good for dSLRs, where the sensor size is much larger and the pixels aren't as tightly packed. More typically is better.

    Here's another perspective on why more megapixels don't matter. To double the resolution, number of megapixels multiplies by four. So a 12-megapixel image has twice the resolution of a 3-megapixel image. Apple's iPhone camera, at 3 megapixels, may not take the best photos, but plenty of people print or post acceptable images. Meaning: More megapixels isn't necessarily better.

    2. Sensor matters more than megapixels. Digicams with larger sensors can produce much better photos even if megapixels are less than a camera with smaller sensor. With larger sensors, pixels are less compacted. As previously mentioned, as pixels compact across a smaller surface, image quality degrades and artifacts increase. For example, photos tend to be noisier as light decreases, in essence because of how little light must spread out over so many pixels.

    The effective size of a 35mm frame is 36mm x 24mm, which is the sensor size of the "full frame" Canon EOS 5D Mark II -- a 21-megapixel dSLR. Many lower-costing dSLRs use "single frame" sensors that measure 16mm x 24 mm, such as the 6-megapixel Nikon D70. By comparison, the Canon PowerShot S90 -- a compact I would recommend -- is 10 MP with 1/1.7-inch CCD sensor. The Nikon P6000 sensor is same size as the S90 and a shocking 13.5 megapixels.

    National GuardA "prime" lens delivers outstanding clarity but narrow depth-of-field

    Pixel count isn't the only consideration. Smaller sensors require a shorter focal length to achieve the same angle of coverage as larger sensors. This results in numerous photographic irregularities along most of the focal range, such as vignetting.

    Sensor quality and size are hugely important, particularly in compacts, where there are already so many compromises compared to dSLRs.

    3. A good lens means everything. This rule is more true for dSLRs, where lenses can be swapped. Photo pros know that the lenses are more important than the camera body, and they hold their value and remain useful longer -- decades. Even for compacts, lens is hugely important but often overlooked in the sales process. D`oh, should it be rocket science that the optics -- the glass through which the photos are captured -- matter big time? Some general tips:

    • Optical quality matters. For example, Sony uses a higher optical quality "G" lens on its 10-megapixel Cyber-shot WX1/B. Ask about the glass when buying a compact. Canon and Nikon are optics companies.
    • Fixed focal length -- "prime" -- or shorter focal length zoom lenses are better; images will be sharper with fewer artifacts. Long zoom ranges are generally undesirable in compact cameras with small sensors and more megapixels.
    • The more light the better, particularly for compacts. The PowerShot S90 or Leica D-LUX 4 come with f/2 lenses which let in lots of light, overcoming some of the limitations of the camera's smaller sensors.

    4. RAW is more desirable than JPEG. At least RAW should be an option. Most compacts only shoot photos in JPEG format, a flat file that can be manipulated with limitations. RAW isn't a format but raw data coming off the camera's sensor, and it can be manipulated extensively by numerous photo-editing software applications. Example: I've taken pictures at dusk that were too dark because of available light. But the camera focused correctly. Using software, I could change the exposure and fill-light on the RAW image, salvaging the photo. A JPEG photo would have been throwaway.

    Merry ChristmasSome compacts, like Canon PowerShot G series, shoot RAW

    Some compacts that can shoot RAW: Canon PowerShot G10, G11 and S90; Leica D-LUX 4; Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3K; Sigma DP1, DP1s and DP2.

    5. Compacts don't match dSLR performance or output. I have yet to see a compact digicam that can equal or better a dSLR. But some come close in some areas. For example, the Sigma DP1, DP1s and DP2 all deliver exceptional image quality -- better than even some dSLRs. It's a combination of a high-quality "prime" lens, dSLR-size sensor and unique "Foveon" sensor technology that captures red, blue, green in layers -- reminiscent of film. Color reproduction is exceptional, and there is no discernible vignetting or other artifacts in RAW photos. Disappointingly, these Sigma compacts also are slow shooting, and they're ergonomics are rough, at best.

    A different example: I recently started using a Leica D-LUX 4 compact, which has surprisingly fast shutter response. I have yet to see the shutter lag so common in compacts. Shutter response is one of the major benefits of choosing a dSLR over compact. Click. Click. Click. But speed of shooting doesn't change that the Leica camera comes with a smaller sensor and is handicapped by other limitations common to compacts.

    The point: Compacts are great, and it's even possible to use one shooting RAW to fill for a dSLR. But holiday shoppers will want a dSLR if better performance, greater photographic quality and choice of lenses are priorities.

    In a future post, I will pick the top compacts for Holiday 2009 shoppers. Please watch for it.

    [Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/02/Microsoft_s__Black_Screen_of_Death__denial_solves_the_blame_not_the_problem'

    Microsoft's 'Black Screen of Death' denial solves the blame not the problem

    Publié: décembre 2, 2009, 6:26am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's response to the so-called "Black Screen of Death" problem is a throwback to an older and equally ineffective strategy -- what I have called "security by PR." Rather than managing the problem, Microsoft is managing the reaction. That simply is the wrong approach to quality customer service or instilling users with confidence about using Windows. With Windows 7 only in market for about six weeks and the holiday sales season just started, the company's priority should be fixing the problem rather than denying culpability.

    Recap: Some Windows users are complaining of a Black Screen of Death (KSoD), where the operating system essentially fails to fully load at startup. KSoDs aren't new, but there have been recent reports suggesting an increasing number starting in mid November. Last week, British security firm Prevx claimed that November 10 Microsoft security updates caused recent KSoDs. However, in a late-day blog post yesterday, Prevx backed away from its assertion:

    "Having narrowed down a specific trigger for this condition we've done quite a bit of testing and re-testing on the recent Windows patches including KB976098 and KB915597 as referred to in our previous blog. Since more specifically narrowing down the cause we have been able to exonerate these patches from being a contributory factor."

    The post followed Microsoft's denial by many hours. But Prevx's update doesn't exonerate Microsoft from having mishandled the situation, because Windows security may yet be an issue. Prevx still identifies a registry problem, just one it now asserts could be caused by malicious software:

    The issue appears to be related to a characteristic of the Windows Registry related to the storage of string data. In parsing the Shell value in the registry, Windows requires a null terminated "REG_SZ" string. However, if malware or indeed any other program modifies the shell entry to not include null terminating characters, the shell will no longer load properly, resulting in the infamous Black Screen with the PC showing only the My Computer folder.

    The malware modifying the registry caught my attention, and Microsoft mentions it in yesterday's blog post denying culpability as deflection of responsibility:

    We've conducted a comprehensive review of the November Security Updates, the Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool, and the non-security updates we released through Windows Update in November. That investigation has shown that none of these updates make any changes to the permissions in the registry. Thus, we don't believe the updates are related to the 'black screen' behavior described in these reports.

    We've also checked with our worldwide Customer Service and Support organization, and they've told us they're not seeing 'black screen' behavior as a broad customer issue. Because these reports were not brought to us directly, it's impossible to know conclusively what might be causing a 'black screen' in those limited instances where customers have seen it. However, we do know that 'black screen' behavior is associated with some malware families such as Daonol.

    But neither Microsoft's denial nor Prevx's retraction resolve the issue or answer why some Windows users report experiencing new KSoDs after installing Microsoft security updates. What if, say, the security updates corrected changes made by malware that results in black screens? I certainly have seen Windows PCs rendered partially unusable after removing malware. Example: Networking features disabled after some spyware is excised.

    The point: Prevx only just made its assertions about Microsoft security updates and KSoDs last week, offering up a fix, too. How can either company definitively say that Microsoft security updates aren't involved? In the scenario I arbitrarily suggest, Microsoft could still claim its security updates weren't the cause, since the updates would fix changes made by malware. That's great security by PR.

    Even if the security updates aren't the cause, Microsoft should show customers that it's aggressively looking for what might be causing the KSoDs -- particularly if malware might be mucking with the Windows registry. I expect more from Microsoft. Security by PR shifts the blame. Real security seeks a solution for the benefit of customers that might have comprised systems and, more importantly, to protect other users who might be assaulted by others' infected Windows PCs. Afflicted customers don't want to hear what's not causing their KSoDs. They want to know the cause and how to fix the problem. Microsoft's denial fixes nothing but blame.

    The holidays have historically been a time of increased malware attacks. That's all the more reason for Microsoft to show customers -- and even malware writers planning holiday attacks -- that it's prepared for most anything. But is Microsoft really on the job, or are too many security professionals without a job because of the company's 5,000-plus layoffs? I'm not feeling confident because of Microsoft's response to Prevx? Are you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/02/My_Windows_7_confession__and_why_you_should_confess__too_'

    My Windows 7 confession (and why you should confess, too)

    Publié: décembre 2, 2009, 12:56am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    They say that confession is good for the soul -- or the mind. I'll make mine but insist that you read no further unless you're willing to make yours in comments. Deal?

    My confession is the real reason for running Windows 7. In September, I wrote "Why I chose Windows 7 over Snow Leopard (and why you should, too)." In that post, I explained about Windows 7 being my primary operating system since January on two different Sony VAIO notebooks (I see from comments how many Betanews readers remember the Sony rootkit and just love the company for it). As I explained in that post, two primary reasons led to my picking the newer version of Windows over Mac OS X: Windows 7's fresh, new user interface and VAIO Z720 hardware features -- mainly higher-resolution display -- compared to 13-inch MacBook Pro. But neither of these reasons is why I stuck with Windows 7, even for the productivity gains realized from using the operating system over Mac OS X Snow Leopard.

    As much as I like Windows 7, there is still no iLife equivalent for Windows. The need -- the want -- for iLife has left an empty longing for Mac OS X. After all, people buy computers for applications not operating systems. I blame Microsoft's severely back-asswards content strategy for my terrible Mac OS X longing.

    The company controls the last-generation application stack: Office-Windows-Windows Server. Office productivity suites defined PC computing during the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s. There is enormous infrastructure and huge revenues tied up with this aging, and quickly becoming ancient, application stack. Microsoft seeks to preserve this aging stack through productivity suite ties to SharePoint Server and with new versions like Office 2010, which is beta testing now and due for release in June next year.

    The application stack of the present and future is in the cloud. Most people generate content on a non-PC device, manipulate or edit on a PC and share via the Internet -- perhaps by email or more likely Facebook or other online community or service. Granted, text is often created on a PC, but who really uses Word, other than a few stuck-in-the-past businesses -- and, of course, Microsoft? (If you use Word, it's OK to confess.)

    Wordprocessing is a commodity. The basic formatting features most people need are available in most any product using text -- blogging service, email client, instant messenger or online community, among many others. None of these products require a separate, dedicated wordprocessor, with Microsoft's Outlook being one of very few exceptions (and there is a longstanding bug -- hopefully not a feature -- that sends attachments to non-Outlook clients as unusable DAT files).

    The majority of content people produce today is either textual, using features already part of the aforementioned products, or audiovisual. For example, the PowerPoint of the 2000s is the Web-hosted photo slideshow. Photos and videos easily top the list of content that most people regularly produce and want to share with others. Music is another, although for most of it there are sticky copyright considerations.

    Apple understands and has taken a commanding lead in both consumer and professional markets for digital audio, photo and video content creation. Apple controls an applications stack, too: Final Cut Studio-Mac OS X-Mac OS X Server, and it's hugely popular among people that professionally produce content. There's a smaller application stack, with iLife at the front end.

    Microsoft needs to understand how important iLife is to the Mac, and how much more important an iLife-equivalent would be to Windows. The company's recently renamed Windows & Windows Live division is supposed to deliver something during MIX10, which last I checked is scheduled for mid-March. By the way, any Microsoft employee thinking that Windows Live Essentials and iLife are comparable is seriously delusional.

    So, I've been pining for Mac OS X because of iLife, which would be hugely useful for my work as a journalist. But something has held me back from giving up Windows 7, and it also is part of the new cloud and content stack Microsoft has failed to adequately embrace: Google Chrome. I confess. I'm a Chrome junkie. The browser is fast, elegant and (seemingly) safe, all without those nagging warnings that make Internet Explorer 7 or 8 a spiteful nuisance (C`mon, you know it's true. Confess!). There's something about the Web and cloud content that is simply better on Chrome, but that's topic for another post.

    As the official Chrome for Mac beta approaches -- albeit minus many features -- I find myself considering putting away the VAIO Z720 for the 13-inch MacBook Pro. Yes, I'd give up the simply gorgeous 1600 x 900 LED display, but I could always run Windows 7 and Mac OS on the Apple laptop.

    The new application stack is the cloud, and Google gets it perhaps even better than Apple. I've got to wonder, will I be running Chrome OS in 2011? Will you? OK, so it's time for your confession. For what applications do you run either Windows 7 or Snow Leopard?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/01/Where_did_Apple_s_Black_Friday_sales_go_'

    Where did Apple's Black Friday sales go?

    Publié: décembre 1, 2009, 7:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster issued a report indicating that brick-and-mortar Apple stores sold 8.3 Macs per hour on Black Friday versus 13 per hour in 2008. Will Macs sales really be down this holiday and could it be because of, gasp, Windows 7?

    Microsoft and its PC partners didn't have anything really new to offer consumers last holiday season. Macs had -- and still have -- a newness for many holiday shoppers, the majority of which already use Windows PCs at home or work. The only real barrier to buying a Mac during Holiday 2008 was price: Spending $1,000 or more. Same barrier remains this year.

    Another difference -- and this must have some sales analysts scratching their heads: State of the economy. Holiday 2008 seemed so much worse, because of the late-September stock market crash that sucked billions of dollars in savings and equity out of world economies. Surely a year later things should be the same or better, not worse.

    Yet another difference: PC manufacturers pulled back inventory for Holiday 2008, which turned out to be a smart stocking decision. Ahead of Holiday 2009, PC sales improved, despite truly gloomy analyst forecasts. Last week, Gartner predicted that worldwide PC sales would grow year over year in 2009, rather than decline as previously predicted. If more people are buying PCs, surely that should be good for Apple, right?

    The reasons for Apple's Black Friday sales slowdown are probably more complex, and it's yet too early in the season to write-off Macs. But if there is a sales slowdown, even super secretive Apple will tell all. Poker players look for a "tell," some behavior that reveals what kind of hand the opponent might hold. If Mac sales are slower, Apple will tip off by discounts, promotions or other activities ahead of Christmas Day. Meanwhile, here is my shortlist of factors likely affecting Mac sales -- and they all in some way or another have to do with economy:

    1. The econolypse's effects will impact holiday sales more this year than 2008. Absolutely, the stock market crash and uncertainty about larger economic collapse hurt Holiday 2008 sales. In November a year ago, many credit card companies started raising interest rates and minimum monthly payments, which also curtailed holiday spending.

    A year later, consumer confidence may be higher, but not necessarily spending power. I'd contend that more people had more to spend a year ago than today:

    • According to analyst estimates, in the United States one in five homes is worth less than the mortgage obligation. Credit Suisse predicts that unchecked the number could reach nearly 50 percent by end of 2010.
    • Unemployed rose all year, now above 10 percent nationwide.
    • More credit cards have raised interest rates and minimum payments, squeezing spending from the majority of Americans carrying some debt.

    It's not surprising then that a recent Nielsen study found that 42 percent of Americans plan to spend less this holiday than last year and another 44 percent plan to spend about the same.

    2. Consumers shop differently during the holidays than any other time of year. They wait for sales -- plain, pure and simple. Given the economy, many consumers are likely to wait and see if retailers will offer even better deals closer to Christmas. Wait and see is likely to be this holiday's mantra.

    On Black Friday, I typically shop the shoppers and stores. This year, at anchor stores in several San Diego malls, I asked sales associates about Black Friday 2009 compared to last year. Consistently they said that shopping traffic was up, but spending was down from the same day in 2008. The point: Shoppers are spending more cautiously, looking for better deals and delaying purchases.

    3. Mac dealers are offering sweeter deals than is Apple. Apple Store was not the place to shop for Macs this holiday, despite some pretty good deals. Online dealers like MacConnection or MacMall offered better pricing. Some of those discounts continue, typically using rebates. For example, Apple discounted MacBook Pros by $101 for Black Friday. MacConnection's price for the higher-end 13-inch MacBook Pro: $70 less than Apple, with $130 mail-in rebate, putting the price at $1,299, or $200 off typically selling price. Most buyers would pay tax on a Mac purchased from Apple, but not to online Mac dealers, which typically offer free, faster shipping during the holidays.

    Sales shifting to dealers still means Macs sold, which is good for Apple even if its online and brick-and-mortar store sales don't zing this holiday. The question to ask: Where are the rebates coming from? Is Apple subsidizing them? That's a question I'll seek to answer as the holiday season proceeds. Apple subsidies would be a tell, suggesting slower overall Mac sales.

    4. Windows 7 is likely pulling away some would-be Mac switchers. Mac has finally got some real Windows competition. More importantly, Microsoft and its PC partners are aggressively marketing Windows 7 computers. Marketing matters, just look at Apple's persistent iPhone and Mac TV commercials. Windows 7 is the brand new thing, and it will be available on PCs selling for much less than Macs.

    In this economy, low-cost Windows 7 PCs will be good enough for many people. It doesn't hurt that Windows is familiar to most computer shoppers. Then there is the netbook phenomenon. Gartner asserts that Windows 7 will have negligible effect on 2009 PC sales, based in part on holiday forecasts. I'm not convinced, because low-cost netbooks running Windows 7 Starter or Home Premium will be a new thing to many shoppers -- and for ridiculously attractive prices compared to Macs. Then there are perceived benefits around size and portability.

    So there remains question: What do you think? Will it be sales as usual for Apple this holiday or sales decline? Please answer in comments; please offer your reasons for Black Friday's apparent Mac sales decline.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/12/01/Windows_desktops_and_notebooks_reach_near_price_performance_parity_for_Holiday_2009'

    Windows desktops and notebooks reach near price-performance parity for Holiday 2009

    Publié: décembre 1, 2009, 6:01am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Historically, Windows portables sold for considerably more than desktops, while delivering less performance or features. This holiday season, prices will be closer than ever -- and, aside from netbooks, there will be little significant difference in performance for price. The question: If prices are about the same, who wouldn't buy a notebook for portability over a desktop? Further: At what point should desktops go the way of the dodo?

    At U.S. retail in October, the average selling price for a Windows portable PC was $519, just $28 more than desktops, according to NPD. A year earlier, the portable ASP was $659 and $556 for desktops. Windows desktop and portable ASPs could grow even closer, as super low-cost netbooks continue sales gains. Go back a few years and the gulf between desktops and portables is greater -- as is the ASP. According to Merrill Lynch, in 2006, the portable ASP was $1,160 and $775 for desktops (high Mac ASPs inflate these numbers, which are for the whole PC market not just Windows).

    Comparing Cyber Monday Deals

    The sales battle between Windows desktops and notebooks can be seen in so-called Cyber Monday deals offered by the same PC manufacturers -- for example, two Dell systems compared at their default configurations and prices. The notebook is the Inspiron 15, which lists for $549 but Dell discounted to $449: 15.6-inch glossy display with 1366 x 768 resolution, Intel Pentium 4300 dual-core processor (2.1GHz with 1MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD, 4GB DDR2 memory, 250GB SATA hard drive (5400 rpm), 8X dual-layer DVD burner, 802.11g wireless and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    The Dell desktop is the Inspiron 546 MT, which lists for $697 but Dell discounted to $499: Dell IN1910N 18.5-inch external monitor with 1366 x 768 resolution, AMD Athlon II X2 215 processor (2.7GHz with 1MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, integrated ATI Radeon HD3200 graphics, 4GB DDR2 memory, 500GB SATA hard drive (7200 rpm), 16X dual-layer DVD burner, 10/100 networking and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    For price, the Inspiron 15 is slightly better and for performance the 546 MT is slightly better. Yes, the desktop comes with a larger display, but it's VGA (not digital) and has the same screen resolution as the notebook (Trust me, most people shouldn't want an 18.5-inch monitor with such low resolution and VGA only). Graphics accelerators are comparable as are front-side bus and system memory between the computers. The processor is faster on the desktop and the hard drive is larger. Are these big differentiators? Not at this price point, I say.

    Another comparison: HP desktop and notebook offered during Best Buy's two-day Cyber Monday sale. The notebook is the HP Pavilion dv4-1514dx, discounted by $100 to $499.99: 14.1-inch glossy display with 1280 x 800 resolution, Intel Pentium 4300 dual-core processor (2.1GHz with 1MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500M, 4GB DDR3 memory, 250GB SATA hard drive (7200 rpm), dual-layer DVD burner, WebCam, 802.11g wireless and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    The desktop is the HP Pavilion s5220y slimline PC, which Best Buy offered for $479.99 non-discounted and with no external monitor: Intel Pentium E5300 dual-core processor (2.6GHz with 2MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 3100, 4GB DDR2 memory, 640GB SATA drive (7200 rpm), 12X dual-layer DVD burner, 10/100 networking and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    Again, these two computers are fairly comparable, depending on which features matter more to the buyer. Graphics accelerators and memory are close enough, although faster for the notebook. The desktop has faster processor and much larger hard drive, while the laptop has 14.1-inch display, WebCam and HDMI port.

    PC ASPs 10-09

    The point: At the prices where most U.S. consumers will shop for a Windows desktop or laptop, price is no longer major differentiator or inhibitor. As prices close together, holiday shoppers will choose more based on function, such as portability versus larger display.

    Similarities at Higher Prices

    Some Betanews readers will ask what about computers selling for more, which is a good question. I wouldn't buy any of these four systems, nor would I recommend them. Low as the prices seem to be, the value for buck is marginal at best. All four Windows PCs come with underpowered graphics accelerators for today's demanding digital media content creation or consumption needs. Nor am I swooning with excitement about the AMD or Intel processors. Considering that most shoppers will have at least one computer at home, they should reasonably expect to get something better for their bucks spent. So, I will do another desktop-notebook comparison at higher selling prices.

    SonyStyle store raises features and price into the $800 range. The Sony notebook is the VAIO VPCCW13FX/R, which is sold non-discounted for $799.99: 14-inch LED glossy display with 1366 x 768 resolution, Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 processor (2.2GHz with 2MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, 256MB dedicated nVidia GeForce G210M graphics, 4GB DDR3 memory, 320GB SATA hard drive (5400 rpm), dual-layer DVD burner, 802.11n wireless, Bluetooth and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    The Sony desktop is the VAIO VGCJS410F/S all-in-one PC, which is listed as backordered and non-discounted for $849.99: Built-in 20.1-inch monitor with 1680 x 1050 resolution, Intel Pentium E5400 processor (2.7GHz with 2MB cache), 800MHz front-side bus, Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500HD, 4GB DDR2 memory, 320GB SATA hard drive (7400 rpm), dual-layer DVD burner, WebCam, 802.11n wireless, 10/100/1000 networking and Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit.

    Once again, the systems are fairly comparable, depending on which features matter more to the buyer. The processors should deliver reasonably similar performance because of differences beyond clock speed. The notebook has better graphics accelerator and faster memory. The desktop packs a much larger and higher resolution display and faster hard drive.

    Not long ago, Windows desktops packed more features and performance for much lower selling price than notebooks. But as prices have fallen and closed together, so have the features and performance gaps diminished. No doubt, some Betanews readers will write in comments about quad-core systems that cost a little more than portables packing less performance or features. I will concede that you can find them. The point here is what the average -- not necessarily the most sophisticated -- computer shoppers will see at retail.

    All six of these computers share one feature in common: Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit. There is no differentiation in operating system. During Holiday 2008, Windows Vista 64-bit differentiated higher-cost portables from cheaper laptops. This year, 64-bit Windows is standard across most price points.

    I have to ask: What's your dream desktop, laptop or netbook this holiday? Please answer in comments.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/28/Is_Microsoft_Store_just_a_cheap_Apple_Store_rip_off_'

    Is Microsoft Store just a cheap Apple Store rip-off?

    Publié: novembre 28, 2009, 10:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, Black Friday 2009, I drove 70 miles north from San Diego to Mission Viejo, Calif. My goal: To answer that question. In October, Microsoft opened two retail outlets, in Arizona and California, that do remind of Apple Store.

    Tech bloggers, particularly those in the Mac camp, have repeatedly slammed Microsoft for imitating Apple and doing so badly. But as the saying goes, imitation is the best form of flattery -- and imitation is quite common in retail.

    "It is not like there are infinite ways of doing retail," Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of retail analysis, recently told me. "There are prescribed best practices; everybody copies everybody else if something works."

    Geekdom seems obsessed with Apple and Microsoft copying each others' products or strategies, with retail stores being but the most recent example. In a November 3rd Betanews comment, reader Viking369 asked: "With more people on the web and tuned into the 'blogosphere,' is the perception of Microsoft copying Apple in terms of stores as bad for the brand as the presence of the stores is good? Does anyone actually know or care outside the geek world?"

    My answer to the first question: The stores' presence is more important. To the second question: Probably not. My 15 year-old daughter accompanied me to The Shops at Mission Viejo, where the second Microsoft Store is located. Upon seeing Microsoft Store she immediately observed that it looks like an Apple Store. But she quickly added that Microsoft "could do things to improve" on the store concept. Those improvements are crucial to Microsoft reviving its brand.

    Microsoft Store BannerMicrosoft Store banner prominently hangs in The Shops at Mission Viejo

    Looking Inside Microsoft Store

    Microsoft's Mission Viejo store is ideally located, and the company has fully capitalized on the advantage. Microsoft Store overlooks the mall's open-air pavilion, diagonally across from the food court, on the upper level. The store is easily visible from either of the mall's two levels. A large Microsoft Store banner rises above the large open space. Microsoft marketing placards adorn the second-level rails encircling the open-air area looking down on the lower level. Visibility is important in retail, and Microsoft Store has got plenty of it.

    Like Apple Store, Microsoft's retail shop front is all glass (or perhaps plexiglass) that opens onto low, wooden tables displaying products. The floors appear to be wooden (even if they might not be). The layout is very reminiscent of Apple Store, with products displayed along both walls, as well as tables throughout. Along the left-side back wall there is software; games and gear can be found along the opposite back wall.

    Microsoft StoreYes, Microsoft Store bears striking resemblance to the Apple Store on same level

    One of Microsoft Store's most distinctive features are video panels that go down the side walls to the back. In an Apple Store, colorful marketing material adorn the walls above products displayed below. By comparison, the video panels allow Microsoft to frequently change the content along the walls.

    Down the store's center, towards the back is Microsoft's version of Apple's Genius Bar. There, Microsoft Gurus assist customers with technical service problems. Behind the Guru Bar is another Apple Store knock-off, a theater where Microsoft offers training and other tech activities.

    Microsoft Store Product and Video WallVideo panels behind products change marketing messaging throughout the day

    In perhaps a sign of how much alike the Apple and Microsoft stores might look to regular consumers, I observed a woman with a MacBook at the Guru Bar early yesterday afternoon. I thought maybe she sought assistance with Macintosh Office. But looking over her shoulder, that's most certainly not what I saw on the Mac's Finder.

    Microsoft Store was high energy on Black Friday. There is simply no better way to describe the chatter and excitement. Microsoft Store was extremely busy, like I've seen Apple Stores located in California, Maryland or Virginia. Microsoft Store employees kept the energy high by clapping for every customer buying a computer. The energy is as high outside the store as inside, where Microsoft has a Xbox 360 gaming display area. During my visit, I saw Microsoft Store employees and customers singing Karaoke together.

    Microsoft Store Guru BarMicrosoft Guru Bar is so similar to Apple Genius Bar, customer brings in Mac for service

    By the way, I didn't count number of Microsoft Store employees, but there sure were lots of them. Even with the store packed with customers, it felt like a 1:1 ratio between staff and shoppers. (By the way, the photos intentionally don't show many customers, for permission-use reasons.)

    Geek versus Neat

    Employees at Apple and Microsoft stores wear colored T-Shirts. There is something oh-so original Star Trek about Microsoft Store employees' red, yellow, blue and green T-Shirts. They subliminally add to store staffs' geek mystique. Surely, Microsoft has some unwritten policy that employees must look geek, because every employee at Microsoft Store Mission Viejo surely does. Better said: The staff looks more like normal people, just like the majority of customers. For me, the geek mystique instilled subliminal confidence every employee could answer any Windows PC question. The look is so different from employees working the Apple Store on the same level as Microsoft Store.

    Microsoft Store Employees ClapMicrosoft Store employees clap whenever a customer purchases a Windows PC

    Microsoft is smart to put its stores in malls where Apple has retail shops, too. Microsoft has announced plans to do this, although there is no Apple Store at the Arizona mall -- Scottsdale Fashion Square. Mall colocation creates a sense of competition that is more personal. Employees at one store compete with others several hundred feet away -- if that far. They're competing not just for sales but for customers who will chose one of two different digital lifestyles. The Mac-Windows rivalry coalesces around people working the actual stores, not two ambiguous companies. I visited the Apple Store located near anchor store Nordstrom, for comparison. The energy was much higher at Microsoft Store.

    Energy is one thing. Perception is another. Copycat accusations from the geek elite and reach of the social Web magnifies everything that Microsoft does. Example: Microsoft Store line dancing video that appeared online about two weeks ago. Baker and I discussed the video, which led to sneers and jeers from some tech bloggers, particularly in the Mac camp. I pointed out that near the end of the video, customers can be seen dancing with Microsoft Store employees. "That's nice! That's a positive thing that people are connecting with them in the store," Baker said.

    Microsoft TheaterLike Apple Store, Microsoft Store has a theater for training and other tech activities

    As I've repeatedly written: Perception is everything in business, and Microsoft struggles to manage perception -- something I got a whiff of yesterday. I told one Microsoft Store employee that all the staff looked to me like real geeks, which set the discussion off on an unexpected tangent. "I just want to feel good about Microsoft," the staffer expressed. The employee clearly understood the mystique following Apple, while among many vocal techies there is disdain for Microsoft and continued copycat accusations. The staffer didn't need say how difficult feeling good about working for Microsoft could be when videos posted to YouTube make the company and its retail store employees look like goofballs.

    "They can't get a break," Baker acknowledged. "Everybody turns it into goofy things," Baker said about the line dancing or Windows 7 House Party. I said it for him: They are not.

    Microsoft Store GeeksMicrosoft Store employees are real geeks

    As for Microsoft Store, yes, it is an Apple Store imitation. But is it a bad imitation? No. Is imitation a bad thing? No. It's what retailers do. I enjoyed my visit to Microsoft Store. I hope Microsoft opens plenty more stores and nearby to Apple shops. The competition will make computer shopping better for everyone.

    [Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox]

    For additional pics, please visit my "Black Friday at Microsoft Store" Flickr gallery

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/25/Nearly_half_the_money_spent_at_US_retail_on_desktop_PCs_goes_to_Apple'

    Nearly half the money spent at US retail on desktop PCs goes to Apple

    Publié: novembre 25, 2009, 8:24pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In October, Mac US retail desktop computer revenue share was 47.71, percent up from 33.44 percent a year earlier, according to NPD. It's a stunning number, given just how many Windows PC companies combined command so much more market share, while competing for the same revenue share.

    NPD measures in-store and online sales to compile the numbers. Contrary to blogs or news sites that will link to this post, NPD did not issue a report with this data. I asked for it. That's what reporters do -- ask questions.

    The larger questions: Can Apple sustain such high desktop dollar share? Does Apple benefit long-term from the trend? "No" is likely answer to both questions.

    Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis, attributes some of Apple's October gains to the release of fast, new iMacs during the same month that Windows PC sales declined ahead of Windows 7's October 22nd launch. "You only really had 10 days to catch up some 20 days of lost [Windows PC] sales," Baker said.

    Additionally there is the recession, which force hit following the late-September 2008 stock market crash. "You're comparing the [iMac] launch month this year to the month last year when people stopped going into stores to buy things," Baker said. "To some extent it's a little bit apples and oranges."

    PC Revenue Share 09-10

    He emphasized: "While those are great numbers, that's probably not sustainable." Perhaps, but even a decline to 40 percent revenue share would put Apple head and torso above every single competitor selling Windows PCs. It's worth noting that Mac desktop revenue share had already risen to 44.91 percent in April 2009, although Baker attributed some of that "pop" to the "residual effects" of new iMac upgrades a month earlier.

    One factor helping Apple is average selling price. The Mac maker has largely chosen not to compete with Windows PC manufacturers below $1,000. While price wars continue at the low end among Windows PC manufacturers, Apple's entry-level iMac starts at $1,199. True, Apple offers the Mac mini for $599 or $799, but the ASP is considerably higher than comparably priced Windows PCs. Low-cost Windows PCs typically come with monitor, keyboard and mouse, which are all extra-cost items for Mac mini unless the buyer uses existing gear.

    In October, the Mac desktop ASP was $1,338, down from $1,390 in April and $1,581 in October 2008, according to NPD. By comparison, Windows desktop PC ASP was $491, or nearly $900 less than the Mac desktop. Generally, Apple also captures more revenue share on much smaller sales. For example, according to Apple SEC filings, worldwide, the company shipped 3.05 million Macs -- only 787,000 of them desktops -- in third calendar quarter. By comparison, HP shipped 16.1 million PCs and Acer 12.5 million, according to Gartner.

    PC ASPs 10-09

    Where Apple's sales are stronger, in notebooks, it's revenue share is by no means as high -- yet still an enviable percentage for any single computer manufacturer. Mac notebook US retail revenue share was 33.66 percent in October, up from 30.07 percent in April but down from 38.13 percent in October 2008. In the year-ago month, Apple released its first unibody MacBooks and MacBook Pros, which lifted revenue share. The change in revenue share from October to April to October bookends the new Mac laptop launches and corroborates Baker's assertion that Apple revenue share will recede in coming months.

    "Apple gets a huge bump out of new products that no one else gets," he said. "Those [share increases] haven't tended to be sustainable in the long term."

    Maybe, but one third of sales going to one company is an amazing feat -- and it's where the market is growing fastest: Portable computers. The Mac laptop ASP also is much higher than Windows notebooks: respectively, $1,410 to $519 in October, according to NPD. Apple sells fewer units, but commands higher margins on every one than Windows PC manufacturers.

    The question ahead: What about Windows 7 and the holidays? On Monday, Gartner predicted that Windows 7 wouldn't lift PC sales in 2009. That's a question to answer in January when the sales figures are final. But based on Apple's ability to defy the recession's downward pull on computer sales and just how consistently busy are the company's retail stores, I'll predict that Mac overall US retail revenue share will stay well above one-third and more than 40 percent for desktops. Surely any Windows PC competitor would want make so much on so few computers sold, comparatively.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/24/Can_you_come_up_with_a_better_brand_for_AOL_than__Aol.__'

    Can you come up with a better brand for AOL than 'Aol.'?

    Publié: novembre 24, 2009, 1:11am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The new, much maligned "Aol." logo has upped its failworthiness. Newest buzz: A 27-year-old with no marketing expertise was the driving force behind AOL becoming Aol.; that has many people wondering what the company was thinking.

    Age isn't so much concern as lack of marketing expertise. What was AOL thinking, particularly with the rebranding being so important to a company spinoff planned for early December?

    I think Betanews readers could do at least as well, and probably a lot better. So I ask: What would you have done with the AOL brand? Please respond in comments. Be graphic. Be creative. Be critical, if like me you think Aol. spoken aloud sounds like "A-hole."

    User AOL Logo

    [Update: Betanews reader Jason Syth submitted the logo above. I'll add others as they come in from other readers.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/24/AOL_s_decision_to_rebrand_as_Aol._takes_a_bad_brand_and_makes_it_worse'

    AOL's decision to rebrand as Aol. takes a bad brand and makes it worse

    Publié: novembre 24, 2009, 12:06am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Not since AT&T gobbled up Cingular and rebranded as at&t with that ugly Death Star-like logo has a company erred so far from sensibility. The new AOL brand, Aol., is coming soon to frighten you. AOL's attempt to be hip is anything but. Not that AOL, distributor of a billion CD coasters, was ever cool. The service may have been the biggest online community of the 1990s, but it was never hip. Nor will the lame rebranding make it so.

    AOL previewed the new brand identity overnight ahead of its unveiling on December 10th, for the company's spin-off from Time Warner. By measure of big tech sites and Twitter, the rebranding is a total fail before even being officially launched.

    Giga OM's Om Malik opined: "The new logo fails to capture what is going to be a smaller, nimbler AOL, one that is represented by a collection of smaller, iconic brands such as Engadget and Joystiq. AOL should ask for its money back!"

    NBC Washington's Jim Iovino blogged: "Give those image consultants a year's worth of dial-up and a few thousand AOL CDs packed away in the Dulles campus boiler room. And yes, they're officially calling the logo 'aol-dot'. Dot-what you ask? Good question. We'd suggest 'dot-lame,' but whatever."

    Designer Daily blogger Mirko Humbert likes the basic lower-case logo and period, but still gives it a fail: "Unfortunately, there are many chances that you won't even notice the nice changes to the logo since it also features some horrible background images."

    AOL Rebranding

    The logo was a big topic on Twitter today, too. Some random tweets:

    Web designer Will Ayers: "AOL's new branding + identity is nothing short of a complete disaster. Wow. Speechless."

    FASTforward blogger Paula Thornton: "And in lower case it is now subjected to pronunciation. How would YOU pronounce aol? : )"

    Business Insider writer Alaska Miller: "Iterate, get trolled, re-iterate. Ad nauseum. Maybe now AOL can finally compete. Good on them. TS on the shareholders, though."

    Web developer Bruce Clark: "AOL, the world is crying for you. How in the world did you ever seriously consider this...much less make it real?"

    Marketer Doug Chavez: "Does anyone else think the new Aol logo looks like it was designed by a 5th grader?"

    The branding announcement comes at a strange juxtaposition. AOL execs are on the road trying to woo investors to next month's public offering, while also looking to lop 2,500 heads from the 6,000 payroll. You've got to wonder who would want to leave a company right before a spinoff. I lived in Washington, D.C., when an earlier incarnation of AOL went public and turned even the lowliest of employees into instant millionaires. Surely this past isn't lost on the AOLers looking at the big exit sign.

    AOL is giving employees some untoward exit options. Last week, All Things Digital's Kara Swisher blogged:

    AOL is offering those who 'volunteer' to leave the company now a departure package that ranges from three to nine months of pay, compared to one to four months for employees laid off in the first quarter of next year. It's a depressing rock-and-a-hard-place choice. An AOL spokesperson confirmed the offer.

    Say, AOLers, if the new brand is any indication of things to come, maybe you should take the money now and run. But use that rebranding as bargaining chip for 12 months pay with benefits and a bunch of cheap AOL shares. You can look for reemployment at leisure instead of going down with the good ship Aol., which can't be all that good for you. How cruel is it to take voluntary departures until December 4th, only to trot out the big public offering days later? The point: AOL's execution problem is much bigger than just the rebranding.

    Wait. Now when is that public offering again? Officially, it's December 9th. But according to Silicon Alley Insider's Nicholas Carlson, AOL stock could start trading as early as tomorrow under "when issued" trading rules. Sure enough, there's an 8-K filing dated November 20th explaining AOL's plans.

    Can you come up with a better brand for AOL than Aol.?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/23/Uh_oh__netbooks____not_Windows_7____will_lift_2009_PC_sales'

    Uh-oh, netbooks -- not Windows 7 -- will lift 2009 PC sales

    Publié: novembre 23, 2009, 8:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Gartner is just full of bad news that will suck Windows PC manufacturers' thanks out of American Thanksgiving -- and Christmas along with it. Ho Ho Ho Ba Humbug. Today, the analyst firm predicted that based on fourth-quarter PC shipment estimates, for 2009, the market would grow -- but not because of Windows 7 -- and with deep declines in average selling prices. Combined, the latter two predictions spell lower profits for Windows PC OEMs and potentially overshipment of PCs for holiday 2009.

    "We just don't see consumers buying new PCs solely because of Windows 7," Gartner research director George Shiffler said in a statement. "We are expecting a modest bump in fourth-quarter consumer demand as vendors promote new Windows 7-based PCs, but the attraction will be the new PCs, not Windows 7."

    Microsoft and many of its PC partners were looking for Windows 7 to bring a big sales uplift during the holidays. Microsoft already got its big bang, recording in third quarter the highest quarterly sales ever for any Windows version. Strong OEM Windows sales make sense as PC manufacturers stocked store shelves for holiday sales.

    Gartner predicts that globally 298.9 million PCs will ship this year, for a year-over-year increase of 2.8 percent. For 2010, Gartner predicts PC shipments will grow 12.6 percent year over year to 336.6 million units. But Gartner warned that 2.8 percent growth is by no means sign of a recovery, because of the weak year-over-year comparison. Holiday 2008 PC shipments stalled, as manufacturers pulled back inventory following the late-September stock market crash.

    More disturbing, in what looks to be a long-term trend, rapidly falling average selling prices are pulling down the total value of the PC market. Gartner predicts a 10.7 percent year-over-year decline in 2009 to $217 billion.

    "We don't see PC ASPs rising any time soon," Shiffler said in the statement. "As a result, growth in the market value of shipments will significantly lag shipment growth next year and beyond."

    As I've complained all year, netbooks are a menace. Netbooks, what Gartner calls mini-noteboks, pull down ASPs and cannibalize notebook and desktop margins. According to NPD, US retail Windows portable PC ASPs fell to $519 in October from $558 in April and $659 in October 2008. Without netbooks, declines were less severe. By comparison, the Mac portable ASP was $1,410 in October.

    Gartner predicts that of the 162 million portable PCs shipping in 2009, 29 million will be netbooks. For 2010: 41 million netbooks out of 196.4 million portable PCs shipped. Next year's netbook shipment gains will come with slower growth, but not enough to lift already sunken ASPs.

    "Mobile PC shipments continued to get a significant boost from mini-notebooks," Shiffler explained, adding that "Mini-notebooks are facing increased competition from other low-cost mobile PCs, as well as alternative mobile devices. They are rapidly finding their level in the market, and we expect their growth to noticeably slow as early as next year."

    But for holiday 2009, Windows PC manufacturers are looking at netbooks' continued ASP downward pull, even while Windows 7 looks to give only marginal lift to PC sales, if any at all. Meanwhile, Mac US retail laptop ASP was nearly $900 higher than Windows portables in October. Apple will be selling at top dollar and capturing higher margins, following another record quarter of Mac shipments. In third calendar quarter, Mac shipments increased 17 percent year over year to 3.05 million units.

    Netbooks are only a part of the problem facing manufacturers and sellers of Windows PCs. The question: Did OEMs and retailers overstock? If the answer is yes -- as Asian component orders and high third quarter Windows 7 license shipments suggest -- retailers will have to heavily discount PCs to clear store shelves during the holidays. All while Mac pricing is expected to remain much higher.

    The good news for consumers and retailers, according to Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis: "We anticipate very strong unit volume growth in the core tech categories like flat panels and notebook PCs." The bad news for retailers and PC manufacturers but potentially good for holiday bargain shoppers: "PC Pricing will be very difficult to maintain, and we expect to see aggressive pricing all through the holiday."

    No thanks to Windows 7.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/20/10_things_about_Microsoft_s_PDC_2009__The_good__the_bad_and_the_ugly'

    10 things about Microsoft's PDC 2009: The good, the bad and the ugly

    Publié: novembre 20, 2009, 10:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft's 2009 developer conference wrapped up yesterday in Los Angeles. Not since PDC 2003 has Microsoft talked so much and said so little. As I listened to the keynotes and have reviewed the sessions, words "series finale" repeatedly popped into my head -- like a TV show coming to its end after a long run. Good or bad for Microsoft, a computing era is ending. Perhaps PDC 2009 demarcates the transition.

    PDC 2003 was memorable for demos that wooed but seemed insubstantial. Within weeks after that developer conference, I began telling my clients (I was a senior analyst for JupiterResearch then) to expect Microsoft to delay Windows Longhorn sometime in early 2004. The delay came, followed by several others, as Microsoft dumped features to get Windows Vista out the door -- late -- missing holiday 2006.

    PDC 2009 had a quality that reminds me of the event six years earlier. Much of the big new stuff came off a bit airy, and there are gapping pot holes in the product strategy -- mobile being the biggest -- that Microsoft executives tried to walk around or jump over. Ignoring these holes doesn't make them go away, unless perhaps sticking one's head in them like an ostrich might.

    Windows is no longer the satellite around which trendy development projects revolve. Windows gravity remains strong in the enterprise, for which switching costs to competing platforms hold tight the orbit. Increasingly, Web development and the mobile device capture pull developers away from Windows. Microsoft didn't increase enough the gravity to pull them back. For example, Internet Explorer 9 demos were laughable in context of continued and aggressive Apple Safari, Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox development. Meanwhile, Microsoft had virtually nothing to say about Windows Mobile/Phone.

    With that introduction, I've compiled my thoughts about PDC 2009 -- and related announcements this week, such as the Office 2010 public beta -- into a list of 10 things. The things are in no particular order of importance.

    1. Two screens aren't enough for a three-screen strategy. The most baffling Microsoft messaging coming out of PDC 2009 was the continued talk about three screens -- mobile device/phone, PC and TV. But Microsoft only really has one of those screens down, the PC. The TV screen is more about Xbox gaming and entertainment, without enough synchronicity yet with the PC.

    The mobile phone strategy is a disaster. Microsoft has got no software or service that can effectively compete with Apple, Google, Nokia or Research in Motion mobile operating systems. Windows Mobile is losing licensees to Google's Android, and Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform is a black hole sucking in developers.

    Actually, it's embarrassing for Microsoft to pitch three screens when the software and strategy around one of those screens stinks so badly. I actually felt sorry for Microsoft executives trying to make the three-screen pitch. I was embarrassed for them.

    2. A laptop isn't a bribe, it's an investment. During the PDC Day 2 keynote, Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live divisional president, told paying attendees they would each receive a free laptop. Microsoft and Acer designed the thin-and-light laptop, with 11.6-inch touchscreen. The other features seemed quite underwhelming,

    But underwhelming really was an overwhelming achievement. Microsoft accomplished two important objectives by giving away the laptops:

    • Every developer attending the conference now has Windows 7 for creating new applications.
    • The laptop establishes a baseline for which developers should create their new applications.

    The latter is important. Many Windows XP and Vista systems can be upgraded to Windows 7, and they won't have the fastest processors, best graphics capabilities or highest screen resolutions of computers shipping now. Then there are all those underpowered netbooks that businesses and consumers are buying. Microsoft set an appropriate baseline for where the market is and where Microsoft wants the market to go -- touchscreens.

    3. A big conference should justify attendees' investment of time and money. PDC 2009 didn't offer any big surprises, aside from the the free laptop. Perhaps that's OK, as Betanews' Scott Fulton expressed yesterday:

    The big stories here in Los Angeles this week were more evolutionary than revolutionary. That was actually quite all right with attendees I spoke with this week, most of whom are just fine with one less thing to turn their worlds upside down. It's tough enough for many of these good people to hold onto their jobs every week.

    Perhaps some other attendees would like to keep their jobs by justifying the time and expense of attending Microsoft's developer conference. Microsoft should have skipped doing a developer conference this year. It's better to saying nothing if you really have nothing to say.

    4. A shipping operating system is better than none. Windows 7 is here. It's real, and it's really much better than either Windows XP or Vista. Windows 7 is fun and productivity boosting. During PDC, Microsoft made a pretty good pitch for why Windows 7. Yesterday, during a Webcast, Google made an operating pitch, too -- for Chrome OS. After months of rumors, Google finally explained what to expect from Chrome OS. The news was everywhere yesterday. But for all the buzz, Chrome OS is, at least for today, vaporware. The software release is a year, maybe even more, away.

    But the timing of the announcement felt deliberate, like Google had looked into the Microsoft playbook and copied a few strategies. During the 1990s, Microsoft was notorious for announcing big new -- coming someday in the future -- things about the same time competitors released new products. Some of these forthcoming Microsoft products were real vaporware; they never shipped. But whether real products or not, the announcements gave businesses and consumers reason to wait on the competing thing available in the present for the one that sounded so good in the future. Chrome OS is Google's reason to wait on Windows 7. I say that nothing is no reason to wait on something.

    5. Being Amazon is no way to launch Azure. During PDC 2008, Microsoft's Web services pitchman, Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie, gave a rousing pitch for Azure. He convinced that Azure would be a cloud-based operating system developers would write their applications to. The strategy beamed with innovation. A year later, the pitch came across as something much different. Ozzie still talked about a cloud OS, but the deliverables and new services were about databases.

    It seemed as if Microsoft had pulled a Windows Longhorn, dumping features and shifting strategies before reaching the destination. Azure, which won't launch until Jan. 1, 2010, now looks less like a cloud OS and more like an up-and-coming Amazon Web Services. Chasing Amazon is not a winning strategy, even with all the leverage Microsoft commands from existing PC desktop and server software.

    Like PDC 2003, where Microsoft employees showed lots of Longhorn facade but not much structure behind it, Azure seemed not only less substantial than PDC 2008 but missing pieces even ahead of the launch. What about Windows Live and important services like Windows Mesh for which there was supposed to be synchronicity with Azure?

    6. Silverlight can light Microsoft's way to the Web. Scott Guthrie made a compelling pitch for the new features coming in Silverlight 4.0, which is now in beta. The Microsoft corporate vice president showed that at least with this one product, Microsoft is innovating -- and remarkably fast. New features include Adobe AIR-like capabilities, support for microphones and Webcams, standalone Silverlight containers and better HTML support, including HTTP streaming. There is much for developers to like in Silverlight 4.0.

    But Microsoft also is acting like the old Microsoft and not the more open one presented during PDC 2008. Some new features are specific to Windows, which potentially fragments Silverlight functionality across different platforms.

    7. People don't want to work more, they want to live more. The most baffling Microsoft marketing messaging of the week had to be for Office Mobile. Tagline: "Take work with you?" Exactly what is aspirational about that? Microsoft expects so-called knowledge workers, whose computing habits already mix professional and personal lives, will want to take even more work with them? The tagline is reason not to use Office Mobile. That is unless the marketing goal is to generate fear: It's better to take more work home than to not work at all, given the increasing chances of otherwise being laid off in this economy. Such approach is perhaps motivational, but certainly not aspirational.

    8. Real open-source supporters improve Azure's allure. Ozzie has consistently and persistently pitched Microsoft's Web services strategy as being more open. He made his case during PDC 2009 in a surprising -- and I'd say shocking -- way. He brought out two surprising Azure supporters It was a simply brilliant marketing maneuver. The first: WordPress creator Matt Mullenweg came out on the PDC stage to announce that Automattic would begin using Azure in production ahead of the official service launch. From a marketing perspective, it was a stunning announcement, since Automattic uses open-source tools like Apache and MySQL. The message: Azure isn't just about Microsoft products or development tools.

    Additionally, Vivek Kundra, the US government's chief information officer, appeared via satellite link. Many news reports have painted Kundra as a Google hosted apps lover. That buzz has raised questions about how much the Obama Administration might embrace Microsoft software or services. Kundra is on record supporting the use of open development tools for government online services. While the Federal CIO mostly spoke about the government's open-development efforts, his appearance at PDC was good for Microsoft by association. Kundra concluded by saying that he looked forward to the "thousands of applications that are going to be created." But he didn't specifically say with Microsoft development tools or services.

    9. SharePoint and Windows Live are not social networks. On Monday, Microsoft released Office 2010 beta, ahead of PDC 2009's official opening. Among the announcements with potential developer appeal: Office Social Connector. Microsoft is attempting to make Outlook 2010 the hub for users' social connections. But right now, the major supported product/service is SharePoint 2010. While Microsoft acts like SharePoint is a social network, it most certainly is not. Meanwhile, Microsoft promises Windows Live support for Office Social Connector sometime next year. Third-party services must support a Microsoft proprietary XML schema to appear in Office Social Connector.

    10. Digital natives are looking elsewhere. The biggest tech news of the week was about competitors' vaporware -- the aforementioned Chrome OS and Apple's rumored tablet. How outrageously laughable. Apple's rumored tablet is rumored to be delayed. It was all over the InterWebs during PDC! A product that doesn't exist will ship late. Later than what?

    The point: Apple and Google are having much more success appealing to geeks and digital natives than is Microsoft. While Microsoft executives talk big iron -- the kind of blathering heard from IBM a generation ago -- Apple and Google offer products or services meaningful to everyday users, such tools for creating or managing content that matters, like photos and videos, rather than static text documents. Just look at the bazillion of iPhone/iPod touch new App Store application stories that post to the Web in any week.

    Apple and Google have got the buzz. By comparative perception, Microsoft makes software for aged computing users and IT stiffshirts. Microsoft did little to change perceptions through PDC 2009.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/18/Microsoft_gives_free_laptop_to_PDC_2009_attendees'

    Microsoft gives free laptop to PDC 2009 attendees

    Publié: novembre 18, 2009, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows 7 took the Professional Developer Conference stage this morning in the guise of Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft's Windows & Windows Live division. Sinofsky stood before the crowd of Microsoft developers as a victor. Last month, his team released Windows 7 nearly flawlessly and to generally positive reviews (PDC Day 2 live blog).

    Sinofsky did not pitch a three-screen strategy -- PC, TV and mobile device -- as I expected based on statements Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software architect, made during the Day 1 keynote. For PDC, Microsoft is missing one screen. The company doesn't plan to announce its next-generation Windows Phone -- or Windows Live, for that matter -- until next year's MIX conference.

    Sinofsky started by talking about Windows 7 development. "It's an incredibly humbling experience," he said. Sinofsky described developing Windows as building a movie theater. The movies are the applications developers create.

    Sinofsky's keynote was exceptionally targeted to a developer audience and superbly delivered. He spoke practically about how Microsoft used different feedback mechanisms to improve Windows 7 development.

    In a stunning announcement, Sinofsky told the audience that paid PDC attendees would receive a free thin-and-light laptop that Microsoft designed with Acer. Microsoft designed the laptop with features and baseline hardware for which developers should create their applications. Touchscreen is among the capabilities.

    Sinfosky Windows 7 Demo

    Microsoft has given Sinofsky a difficult role: Pitchmen for revitalizing an aging platform, even as developers flock to the cloud and to mobile devices, where Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod platform is highly visible. About two weeks ago, Apple announced that the number of mobile applications available from App Store topped 100,000.

    The Netbook Problem

    Microsoft's mobile problem is really twofold: Netbooks and smartphones, and the company appears ill-prepared to deal with either. Netbook sales are surging. For example, netbooks accounted for about 20 percent of all portable PC sales to EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Asia) in third quarter, according to Gartner. The netbook problem reduces Microsoft's operating system margins; the company makes less money on Windows XP Home or Windows 7 Starter Edition than "premium" versions. Netbooks also tend to be underpowered compared to notebooks or desktops, making them better suited to running some cloud applications and services. I say some, because many cloud apps or services are resource intensive, too.

    Microsoft's PDC attendee laptop giveaway is a brilliant response to the netbook problem. The company has talked about thin-and-light laptops as better alternative to netbooks -- and for good reasons. Thin-and-light laptops offer many of the size-and-weight advantages of netbooks but with potentially hardier hardware performance, better customer experience and greater operating system margins for Microsoft.

    Smartphone OS Q3 2009

    Sinofsky asked developers to use Windows 7's Device Stage to get applications "out of the boot path." The feature lets users call up software services or applications when they are needed rather than having them run in the background. Applications or services in the boot path can slow down system startup or resume from sleep and degrade overall Windows performance. While Sinfosky didn't specifically mention netbooks, the request would have huge potential performance and customer experience impact on the underpowered portables.

    Windows Mobile Declines

    Smartphones and other super small devices pose different problems for Microsoft. Smartphones like iPhone, Motorola DROID or Nokia N900 are as much pocket computers as cell phones. Like netbooks, they are designed to connect via 3G networks or WiFi to cloud services. Gartner predicts that smartphone sales will exceed notebooks this year, and that in response major PC manufacturers will develop their own devices, starting in 2010. Dell already is doing so.

    Smartphones are tracking to be the next major computing platform. A year ago next month, PEW Internet predicted that "the mobile device will be the primary connection tool to the Internet for most people in the world in 2020." A year more of smartphones later and 2015 is looking to be a more realistic date.

    Windows 7 Development

    According to Gartner, manufacturers sold 41 million smartphones during third quarter, for a 12.8 percent year-over-year increase. Smartphones accounted for about 13 percent of worldwide handset sales. Nokia (39.3 percent), Research in Motion (20.8 percent) and Apple (17.1 percent) are the smartphone market share leaders. None of these leading smartphone manufacturer leaders ships Windows Mobile.

    Microsoft's mobile operating system is in decline. During third quarter, Windows Mobile worldwide market share fell to 7.9 percent from 11.1 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner (see chart). Meanwhile, Android, BlackBerry and iPhone operating systems all gained share. Android went from zero shipments in third quarter 2009 to 1.4 million units a year later, for 3.5 percent market share. Android gains are expected to increase. HTC and Sony Ericsson are among the handset manufacturers swapping out Windows Mobile for Android.

    Microsoft's inability to articulate a clear mobile OS strategy undermines the overall messaging around Windows 7 development, or three screens. Should developers look to the past platform or to the future one? Perhaps for some of them, a free laptop will answer the question.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/18/Microsoft_gives_free_laptops_to_PDC_2009_attendees'

    Microsoft gives free laptops to PDC 2009 attendees

    Publié: novembre 18, 2009, 7:01pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Windows 7 took the Professional Developer Conference stage this morning in the guise of Steven Sinofsky, president of Microsoft's Windows & Windows Live division. Sinofsky stood before the crowd of Microsoft developers as a victor. Last month, his team released Windows 7 nearly flawlessly and to generally positive reviews (PDC Day 2 live blog).

    Sinofsky did not pitch a three-screen strategy -- PC, TV and mobile device -- as I expected based on statements Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software architect, made during the Day 1 keynote. For PDC, Microsoft is missing one screen. The company doesn't plan to announce its next-generation Windows Phone -- or Windows Live, for that matter -- until next year's MIX conference.

    Sinofsky started by talking about Windows 7 development. "It's an incredibly humbling experience," he said. Sinofsky described developing Windows as building a movie theater. The movies are the applications developers create.

    Sinofsky's keynote was exceptionally targeted to a developer audience and superbly delivered. He spoke practically about how Microsoft used different feedback mechanisms to improve Windows 7 development.

    In a stunning announcement, Sinofsky told the audience that paid PDC attendees would receive a free thin-and-light laptop that Microsoft designed with Acer. Microsoft designed the laptop with features and baseline hardware for which developers should create their applications. Touchscreen is among the capabilities.

    Sinfosky Windows 7 Demo

    Microsoft has given Sinofsky a difficult role: Pitchmen for revitalizing an aging platform, even as developers flock to the cloud and to mobile devices, where Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod platform is highly visible. About two weeks ago, Apple announced that the number of mobile applications available from App Store topped 100,000.

    The Netbook Problem

    Microsoft's mobile problem is really twofold: Netbooks and smartphones, and the company appears ill-prepared to deal with either. Netbook sales are surging. For example, netbooks accounted for about 20 percent of all portable PC sales to EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Asia) in third quarter, according to Gartner. The netbook problem reduces Microsoft's operating system margins; the company makes less money on Windows XP Home or Windows 7 Starter Edition than "premium" versions. Netbooks also tend to be underpowered compared to notebooks or desktops, making them better suited to running some cloud applications and services. I say some, because many cloud apps or services are resource intensive, too.

    Microsoft's PDC attendee laptop giveaway is a brilliant response to the netbook problem. The company has talked about thin-and-light laptops as better alternative to netbooks -- and for good reasons. Thin-and-light laptops offer many of the size-and-weight advantages of netbooks but with potentially hardier hardware performance, better customer experience and greater operating system margins for Microsoft.

    Smartphone OS Q3 2009

    Sinofsky asked developers to use Windows 7's Device Stage to get applications "out of the boot path." The feature lets users call up software services or applications when they are needed rather than having them run in the background. Applications or services in the boot path can slow down system startup or resume from sleep and degrade overall Windows performance. While Sinfosky didn't specifically mention netbooks, the request would have huge potential performance and customer experience impact on the underpowered portables.

    Windows Mobile Declines

    Smartphones and other super small devices pose different problems for Microsoft. Smartphones like iPhone, Motorola DROID or Nokia N900 are as much pocket computers as cell phones. Like netbooks, they are designed to connect via 3G networks or WiFi to cloud services. Gartner predicts that smartphone sales will exceed notebooks this year, and that in response major PC manufacturers will develop their own devices, starting in 2010. Dell already is doing so.

    Smartphones are tracking to be the next major computing platform. A year ago next month, PEW Internet predicted that "the mobile device will be the primary connection tool to the Internet for most people in the world in 2020." A year more of smartphones later and 2015 is looking to be a more realistic date.

    Windows 7 Development

    According to Gartner, manufacturers sold 41 million smartphones during third quarter, for a 12.8 percent year-over-year increase. Smartphones accounted for about 13 percent of worldwide handset sales. Nokia (39.3 percent), Research in Motion (20.8 percent) and Apple (17.1 percent) are the smartphone market share leaders. None of these leading smartphone manufacturer leaders ships Windows Mobile.

    Microsoft's mobile operating system is in decline. During third quarter, Windows Mobile worldwide market share fell to 7.9 percent from 11.1 percent a year earlier, according to Gartner (see chart). Meanwhile, Android, BlackBerry and iPhone operating systems all gained share. Android went from zero shipments in third quarter 2009 to 1.4 million units a year later, for 3.5 percent market share. Android gains are expected to increase. HTC and Sony Ericsson are among the handset manufacturers swapping out Windows Mobile for Android.

    Microsoft's inability to articulate a clear mobile OS strategy undermines the overall messaging around Windows 7 development, or three screens. Should developers look to the past platform or to the future one? Perhaps for some of them, a free laptop will answer the question.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/17/Windows_Azure_opens_for_business_on_Jan._1__2010'

    Windows Azure opens for business on Jan. 1, 2010

    Publié: novembre 17, 2009, 6:45pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    This morning, Microsoft kicked off its 2009 Professional Developer Conference in Los Angeles. Typically, Microsoft times PDC around new operating systems that are testing and launching in the near future. Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 launched less than a month ago. So what operating is left? Windows Azure Platform (Day 1 Live Blog).

    Ray Ozzie, Microsoft's chief software architect, took the keynote stage in typical fashion. Ozzie is a brainy type, who talks like his head is in the clouds, which is perhaps appropriate for someone laying out Microsoft's cloud computing strategy. He introduced the world to Azure Services Platform a year ago, during PDC 08. Today, he added when to why, what and where about what Microsoft now calls the Windows Azure Platform.

    Microsoft will launch Azure as a production service on January 1st, but customers won't be billed until February 1st, so the first month will be free. The Technical Preview now underway will continue through the end of the year.

    Ozzie said that a few companies would take Azure into production starting today. With that as introduction, Ozzie announced that Automattic, creator of open-source WordPress blogging system, would be one of those companies. From a marketing perspective, it was a stunning announcement, since Automattic uses open-source tools like Apache and MySQL. The message: Azure isn't just about Microsoft products or development tools. I must say it was simply shocking to see WordPress creator Matt Mullenweg on the PDC stage.

    In another brilliant marketing move, Vivek Kundra, the US government's chief information officer, appeared via satellite link. Many news reports have painted Kundra as a Google hosted apps lover. He is on record supporting the use of open development tools for government online services. While Kundra mostly spoke about the government's open-development efforts, his appearance at PDC is good for Microsoft by association. Kundra concluded by saying that he looks forward to the "thousands of applications that are going to be created."

    Azure Primer

    Azure is, simply put, an operating system in the clouds. Developers write to an applications layer hosted on datacenters, as they might for an operating system on the PC or other device. This morning, Ozzie described Azure as a cloud OS "designed for the future but made familiar for today." Azure also provides data services.

    During the keynote, Ozzie also announced Microsoft Pinpoint for building online marketplaces and catalogs. Related, starting today, Microsoft is previewing "Dallas," which Ozzie said is "built on Windows Azure and SQL Azure." Dallas showcases how Azure can be used to provide cloud-based data services.

    More broadly, Microsoft sees the cloud as unifying business users' and consumers' experiences with existing products. "Many platforms means many choices," Ozzie asserted. In dealing with these choices, Microsoft has but one goal: "Focus on leverage and seamlessness in everything that we do."

    Put another way, Ozzie described Microsoft's broader paroduct strategy as "three screens and a cloud." He spoke about Web-based experiences delivered to various devices.

    But the strategy is incomplete, which Ozzie acknowledged by telling PDC attendees what's coming next year. He promised that Microsoft would reveal its next-generation development strategy for Windows Live and for Windows Phone during the MIX 10 Web developer conference.

    Ozzie praised Windows 7, claiming it could for developers "sweep through and reinvigorate" the "fragmented" PC market. Perhaps Steven Sinofsky, Windows & Windows Live division president, will explain how during tomorrow's keynote.

    Storm Clouds Rising

    In the year since Microsoft debuted Azure, with expectation of late 2009 or 2010 release, much has changed for the company and its customers. The late-September 2008 stock market crash sent IT budgets tumbling, millions of global information workers into unemployment and Microsoft sales falling. For Microsoft flagship products, Office and Windows, 2009 has brought slower sales.

    Meanwhile, the social, cloud-based Web is seemingly advancing exponentially. During his keynote, Ozzie said that Microsoft started talking about services "four years ago this month." There was something prescient in the timing. Nearly all the most popular social services in use today didn't exist before 2006. Many of them gained huge mass-market success in 2009.

    For example, most social media startups, whose products and services are taken for granted today, came to market in the last three years. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube opened to the public in 2006. Most other popular or growing popular social media tools launched within the last three years: Disqus, FriendFeed, tumbr, Twine, Qik and USTREAM, among many others.

    Meanwhile, in the year since Microsoft announced Azure, smartphone and netbook sales have surged, creating new mobile platforms for consuming cloud services. In the smartphone market, Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform is doing for software plus services today what Microsoft is talking about delivering tomorrow.

    The point: The cloud isn't static. It is a storm moving across the technological and societal landscapes. Can Microsoft keep pace? That's the question PDC may answer over the next three days.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/14/Apple_was_NOT_more_profitable_selling_cell_phones_than_Nokia_in_Q3'

    Apple was NOT more profitable selling cell phones than Nokia in Q3

    Publié: novembre 14, 2009, 4:35am CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    For days, I've read blogs and news stories misstating Apple's cell phone profitability compared to Nokia. Headlines range from the AppleBlog's "Apple Surpasses Nokia as Most Profitable Cell Phone Maker" to Reuters' "Apple tops phone chart as Nokia, Samsung step up" to Silicon Alley Insider's "Apple's iPhone Operating Profit Beats Nokia For The First Time," among, many, many others. As good as this feat sounds for Apple -- profit share beating market share -- every one of these stories is wrong. Right, everyone is wrong.

    Three days ago, Strategy Analytics released report "Apple Becomes World's Most Profitable Handset Vendor in Q3 2009," written by Alexander Spektor. I contacted Spektor this morning for clarification on the report or for an actual copy. He hasn't yet responded. So I have to go by all the misreporting.

    According to Telephony Online: "The firm estimates that Apple's iPhone operating profit came in at $1.6 billion in Q3, while Nokia recorded only $1.1 billion in operating profit." Reuters: "Apple does not unveil profits per business line, but Strategy Analytics estimated Apple's operating profit for its iPhone handset unit stood at $1.6 billion in the third quarter, compared with Nokia's $1.1 billion."

    Well, hell, that sounds reasonable enough, right? Wrong. Apple and Nokia SEC filings tell a different story. Both companies announced third calendar quarter results a few days apart in mid October. For devices and services, Nokia reported profits of $785 million euros, which is about US $1.1 billion. Apple reported total profits -- that is for all products -- of $1.67 billion in its earnings press release, and later the 10-K filing. I searched the 10-K, and, as I expected, Apple doesn't breakout iPhone profits.

    Q3 09 Smartphone Sales

    But it doesn't have to for purposes of this discussion. I don't doubt that Apple is more profitable per handset, since iPhone is a smartphone, than Nokia. But the numbers don't add up to Apple's overall handset profitability exceeding Nokia's during third quarter, unless someone is making the bold assumption that all, or nearly all, Apple profits came from iPhone. They surely do not. What? Apple made only $70 million on iPod, Macintosh, retail and software -- $1.6 billion -- on iPhone. No way.

    The disturbing lack of fact checking seems to be a trend when it comes to Apple these days. One headline today about Gartner Q3 phone sales data claimed that Apple had closed in on Research in Motion. The reporter later changed the headline after I tweeted that the numbers show RIM extended its lead over Apple (see second chart).

    Gartner reported that cell phone manufacturers sold 41 million smartphones during third quarter. Earlier this week, IDC reported that manufacturers shipped 43.3 million smartphones during the same time period. The nearly 2.4 million difference shows still historically low inventory levels -- even for Apple. Based on Gartner's numbers, Apple only had about 400,000 units unsold at the end of the quarter. During its October earnings call, Apple acknowledged that it couldn't ship enough iPhones to meet demand during third quarter.

    Q3 09 Smartphone Sales

    Gartner and IDC put Apple smartphone market share the same -- 17.1 percent -- but RIM's share was much higher based on actual sales: 20.8 percent compared to 19 percent as accounted by shipments. That made RIM's real-time market share even greater than Apple's during Q3.

    As for Apple's overall phone profits being higher than Nokia's, don't believe it. Just because dozens of Websites report something as true doesn't make it so. Because of the extent of misreporting, I can't say where the fault lies. The Strategic Analytics report, which again I haven't seen, might have gone no further than present numbers showing that Apple makes more profit per phone than Nokia. That absolutely makes sense. But to assert that iPhone generated $1.6 billion profit during a quarter when all Apple products generated $1.67 billion is simple stupidity.

    [Update:: That rascal (I'm being polite) John Gruber has flamed my analysis. Since Gruber doesn't take comments on his site, I'm put in position of defending the analysis here. Gruber uses Apple's non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) like a club. I quite purposely did this analysis based on GAAP figures, because that's how Apple is required to report them. Of course, I was well aware of the non-GAAP figures, which would add more than $1 billion to Apple profit during third calendar quarter. But like it or not, that money is deferred over eight quarters.

    I chose to use the GAAP figures because a) Again, that's what Apple is supposed to report; b) It made for a simpler analysis; c) Apple recognizes previously deferred revenue with the quarterly results; d) According to Apple SEC filings, deferred revenue is for more than just iPhone and Apple TV. The last two points are paramount.

    The non-GAAP figure can include previously deferred revenue, which mixes monies taken in during the one quarter with revenue held back from an earlier time. Additionally, not all Apple's deferred revenue is from iPhone or Apple TV. For example, according to the October 2009 10-K filing: "For online sales to individuals, for some sales to education customers in the U.S., and for certain other sales, the Company defers recognition of revenue until the customer receives the product." The third quarter was a big one for Apple educational sales, which presumably includes accounting for rebates offered for iPod touch. Apple doesn't say how much non-iPhone revenue it deferred from third quarter, although that should become clearer when future results are announced.

    The point, deferred revenue -- the non-GAAP results Gruber so gleefully trumpeted -- is not so cut-and-dried about iPhone or as explained by his simple math. Lots of companies defer subscription revenue, and that money is counted over time, whether or not Gruber or anyone else likes it. Contractual licensing accounts for 55 percent of Microsoft server software revenue, which must be deferred over 24 or 36 months. No reputable analyst firm compares Microsoft non-GAAP server profits to competitors' profits. But Mac enthusiasts and investors treat Apple differently, for reasons that should be obvious regarding the company's high-flying shares.

    I stand by my GAAP analysis. It's the proper way to look at iPhone revenues/profits, for as long as Apple defers a portion of the product's revenue.]

    [Update 2: On November 16th, I finally heard back from Strategy Analytics. As I expected, the figures stated for Apple were based on non-GAAP iPhone sales. Strategy Analytics calculated for operating profit, which would be higher than the net profit figures I used.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/09/If_Microsoft_sites_lead_time_online__pigs_can_fly'

    If Microsoft sites lead time online, pigs can fly

    Publié: novembre 9, 2009, 9:05pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On Friday, ComScore reported that in September, worldwide, Internet users spent more time at Microsoft sites than at Google, Yahoo or even Facebook. It's an amazing statistic that has questionable street cred. ComScore has presented the data in a favorable way to Microsoft but which doesn't accurately represent exactly how Internet users really spend time on popular Websites.

    Time-spent-online data is hugely important to Microsoft and other popular destinations, such as Facebook, Google or Yahoo. While bloggers and news organizations obsess over every pageview, time spent online is a much more important metric. People coming and staying for hours is potentially more valuable to online advertisers than Internet users who click in and click out, which too often is the only measurable value of pageviews.

    How people spend their time online is important, too. There -- when read between the lines -- ComScore's data has some value for Microsoft. Are site visitors reading blog posts or news stories? Banner advertising and contextual search keywords could be effective. Are they playing interactive games with other Internet users? Contextually relevant ads within games could be better. Are they chatting with friends via IM or social status updates? Banner ads and interactive surveys might be more effective.

    Time after Time

    ComScore claims that worldwide during September, Microsoft sites accounted for 14.5 percent of the time spent online, followed by Google at 9.3 percent. What a strange perspective. After so many months -- years -- of Microsoft trailing Google by huge amounts, roles are decidedly reversed. But in the United States, Google and Yahoo led Microsoft, which overwhelming dominated online time in Europe,Latin America and Middle East (see first chart), ComScore claims.

    The ComScore report is big on "What?" or "How much?" but offers scant reasons on "Why?" that makes the data relevant. The reasons are hugely important for understanding how consumer Microsoft marketing and new product releases could be paying off. Additionally, the phenomenon could show where Microsoft could leverage against Google and how Yahoo might be fumbling. I couch with "could" and "might" because of the caveats coming in the next two paragraphs.

    Time Spent Online 09/09

    The ComScore data, while important for Microsoft, is incomplete. ComScore excludes Internet cafes, public computers and smaller mobile devices, such as cell phones, PDAs and smartphones. Internet cafes could be good for Microsoft because of some emerging markets, where the MSN and even Windows Live brands are strong; ditto for Yahoo. Public computers, if these count education institutions, could be good for Google. Cell phones and smartphones are a grabbag.

    The data also is unspecific in a crucial area: How much actual time did individuals spend online. ComScore findings are in aggregate. For perspective, back in February, AOL and Yahoo led with most time online per Internet user, according to Nielsen. Per individual: 3:58:22 (hours, minutes, seconds) for AOL but only 2:16:54 for Microsoft. Caveat: Nielsen's data only measures United States, while ComScore offers worldwide view. That said, U.S. data is inconsistent between the online analysis firms, too (see both charts).

    Nielsen's most recent data, also for September, shows Microsoft sites as No. 5 not No. 3 in the United States (see chart 2). Nielsen's data is inconsitent with ComScore's findings. AOL, which ComScore ranks No. 3 in the United States doesn't show up at all in ComScore's US rankings. Most startling, ComScore puts Facebook at No. 4 for time spent online among US Internet users, while Nielsen ranks Facebook as No. 1.

    Facebook's placement is hugely significant. In February, the social networking site didn't even make Nielsen's US top five. Now Facebook is tops, with time-spent-online per individual a whopping 5:24:38. Right, almost five-and-a-half hours per Internet user. Something else: Nielsen shows time online at Microsoft sites going down by about 8 minutes between February and September. By comparison, time online at Google sites rose about 40 minutes, nudging ahead of Microsoft.

    Means to a Measure

    Metrics and measurement mean everything for online data such as this. But to companies like Facebook, Google or Microsoft, marketing matters more. Microsoft will gain immeasurable PR value from ComScore's study. But Nielsen's consistency tracking time online -- and measurement per individual -- is more credible. Then there is the "Why?" ComScore does give, which makes sense of its approach to measuring time spent online at various Websites. Quoting the ComScore press release -- a rarity for me:

    Mearly 27 billion hours were spent on the Internet globally by a record online population of 1.2 billion Internet users age 15 and older. Microsoft Sites accounted for 14.5 percent of total minutes spent online in September, making it the most engaging global property, with Microsoft's Windows Live Messenger representing nearly 70 percent of time spent on the property during the month.

    Whoa. Seventy-percent came from Windows Live Messenger? Exactly how does usage of Microsoft's desktop IM client count as time spent on the company's sites? Surely only a fraction of Live Messenger users come through the the Web-based version, based on Microsoft data about client downloads. I ask again: How does time spent in Live Messenger count as time at Microsoft sites? Windows Live log-ins perhaps?

    Time Spent Online 09/09 Individual

    Maybe Safeway or Trader Joes should tally everyone using one of their shopping bags in monthly store customer counts. Perhaps Visa should count everyone using its cards to buy products as visitors to its Website. How about beauty product companies like Clinque, Mac or Sephora count every free product sample as customer purchase.

    Something about ComScore's data -- at least as presented -- doesn't make sense.

    Still, behind the measure, Microsoft can gain valuable insight. Windows Live Messenger is an arguably hot on-desktop/online property. It's real estate Microsoft could connect to other properties, particularly broader Windows Live services or Windows 7.

    To reiterate, ComScore's data is questionably valid as presented (other than for Microsoft marketing purposes) because:

    • ComScore ignores public PCs, Internet cafes, PDAs and smartphones
    • The measurement is aggregated rather than for individual time spent online
    • Windows Live Messenger accounts for 70 percent of the time spent at Microsoft sites
    • Nielsen data, which does track individual time spent online, is more consistent over many months and contradicts some ComScore's findings.

    So, Betanews readers, I have to ask: Where do you spend most of your time online? Gulp, I would hope it would be Betanews. Comments are open for your answer.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/05/BlackBerry_shipments_grew_five_times_faster_than_iPhone_in_Q3'

    BlackBerry shipments grew five times faster than iPhone in Q3

    Publié: novembre 5, 2009, 8:40pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Despite last week's blog and news assertions that iPhone market share had reached 30 percent or even 40 percent, today IDC put Apple's smartphone smack in its place: No. 3, with 17.1 percent worldwide smartphone market share during third quarter. A year earlier, Apple ranked ahead of Research in Motion, which has reclaimed second spot, behind Nokia.

    Manufacturers shipped 43.3 million smartphones during third quarter, up 3.2 percent from 41.9 million units in second quarter and up 4.2 percent from 41.5 million units in third quarter 2008. More broadly, manufacturers shipped 287.1 million handsets, up 5.6 percent year over year, according to IDC.

    Nokia's overall handset and smartphone markets shares were almost identical, 37.8 percent and 37.9 percent, respectively. For smartphones, second-ranked RIM posted year-over-year shipment growth of 35.7 percent growth, compared to 7.1 percent for Apple. While iPhone is doing quite well, BlackBerry is doing much better. RIM shipments increased from 6 million to 8.2 million units year over year, while Apple shipments grew much less -- from 6.9 million to 7.4 million units.

    Last week, I blogged that "iPhone cannot win the smartphone wars" and about a month ago that "iPhone's global success is more myth than marketing reality." Same day as my post from last week, ChangeWave released survey results asserting that BlackBerry smartphone market share was 40 percent, while Apple had reached 30 percent.

    On October 27th, an Apple 2.0 blog post about the ChangeWave data set off a series of follow-up/copycat reports claiming that iPhone was in "striking distance" of BlackBerry, including All Things Digital, CNET, National Post, Technologizer and The Unofficial Apple Weblog, among, many, many, many others. Reports of iPhone soon overtaking BlackBerry were seemingly everywhere late last week.

    Q3 09 Smartphone Shipments

    But in keeping with reservations I expressed on Twitter last week: Apple's smartphone market share is nowhere near 30 percent. It's still quite aways from 20 percent. I tweeted: "Busy street. Do you see 3 iPhones or 4 BlackBerries for every 10 smartphones? No? Why then believe ChangeWave's 30% iPhone share claim?"

    Several people responded that they in fact did see numbers that high. Michael Gartenberg, Interpret's vice president of strategy and analysis, tweeted: "it's all anecdotal which means nothing. That's why we do surveys ;)" To which I responded: "Right, but you also publish methodology with those surveys. This one has only number of people. Demographics unclear."

    ChangeWave's presentation of the data reflects larger problems with how online news is degenerating into a mass grab for traffic and page views. ChangeWave was highly selective, presenting only market share data on Apple, Palm and RIM smartphones. The data polarized around BlackBerry and iPhone, conflict sure to make great blog titles and news headlines, particularly with Apple an endlessly hot topic. Meanwhile, ChangeWave's online report offered scant methodology -- other than number of people surveyed -- to support its findings.

    ChangWave's methodology is much different than IDC's. The survey method gives a snapshot of what people are using now, which can be a very useful metric. But typically surveys are online, with people self-selecting to participate (I can only assume that's how ChangeWave collected the data). Self-selected surveys can skew the data, particularly for devices like BlackBerry and iPhone, which might have higher connected audience -- among other factors.

    Q3 09 Mobile Phone Shipments

    By comparison, IDC's data is more exact by counting the number of smartphones actually shipped during a three-month time period. While the data is more precise, it's less likely to reveal overall usage share -- something a well-done survey can do.

    Gartner also counts number of units, but differently than IDC. Gartner counts sales to end users, while IDC tracks total units shipped, which doesn't necessarily mean sold. That's why Gartner unit shipments for iPhone are typically lower than Apple's shipment data, which corresponds with IDC data. Both Apple and IDC count shipments into the channel. The difference also explains why Gartner has consistently put BlackBerry ahead of iPhone, based on actual smartphone sales.

    All three methodologies are useful for measuring a product's success, but in different ways. Gartner's data will contrast against IDC's, both offering necessary views on number of smartphones shipped and those actually sold. Gartner hasn't yet publicly released third-quarter smartphone shipment data.

    As for iPhone, I predict the smartphone will remain in third place as long as US distribution is locked to a single carrier. Gartner predicts that by fourth quarter 2012, Android phones will be second to Symbian-based handsets (mostly from Nokia), with BlackBerry and iPhone neck-and-neck but RIM's device ahead.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/04/Is_there_any_sense_to_Microsoft_s_800_layoffs_'

    Is there any sense to Microsoft's 800 layoffs?

    Publié: novembre 4, 2009, 9:14pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's Microsoft layoffs -- 800 employees -- are surprising. Following the last round, executives seemingly slammed the axe into the chopping block, even though the full number of 5,000 layoffs planned over 18 months hadn't been met.

    Late last night, TechFlash first reported that layoffs would be coming today. Microsoft started informing employees today, in what surely has to be an unexpected misfortune. So much time has passed since the last layoffs, the threat of more surely faded. For good reasons. Until these 800 pink slips, there were reasons to be cheerful on the Microsoft campus.

    Microsoft's recent fiscal 2010 first-quarter results, where cost-cutting measures helped lift profits, are reason enough to be stunned by today's layoffs. Microsoft beat Wall Street consensus. Typically companies announce layoffs right before or after troubling earnings results -- not when the numbers are good, or in this case better.

    Something else: Windows 7 just launched, with Microsoft reporting strongest desktop operating licensing sales ever. Windows Server 2008 R2 released same day, and Microsoft has cued up lots of other products for preview or release, including Office 2010, Office Web Apps and SharePoint 2010, among others.

    Other reasons to be cheery:

    Windows Mobile is the only stink coming out of Redmond right now. OK, there are Office Accounting's imminent demise and slashed Online Services fees.

    So what do Microsoft executives know that you or I don't? It's the only question to ask regarding the layoffs' timing. I'll propose some possible reasons, befitting my wicked, conspiracy-thinking ways. I ask you to dispute my reasons or offer up others in comments. None of my suggested reasons are mutually exclusive.

    1. Microsoft announced the layoffs now, when mood is better inside and outside the company, to finish off with the bad news. Supposedly, today's layoffs more than complete the expected 5,000. Remaining employees can throw off their sense of dread (Can you say "uplifted morale?") and Wall Street can finally focus on all those new products in the pipeline.

    2. Five weeks into the new quarter, Microsoft sees the econolypse continuing to pull downward on enterprise sales, even with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 freshly released. Microsoft already set lower expectations for Business division results, of which Office accounts for 90 percent sales. Proactive cost cutting now would be beneficial in the future, even if only to show Wall Street that Microsoft cut first and asked questions later.

    3. Windows 7 OEM license orders are way down for the quarter. Fiscal 2010 first quarter's record Windows 7 license shipments corroborate earlier reports of a surge in PC component orders, which raise concerns that OEMs shipped or are shipping massive amounts of computers into the retail sales channel. Will holiday demand meet supply? For Microsoft, the answer doesn't much matter, if licensing orders are down in fiscal second quarter because they were up so high earlier.

    4. Microsoft planned on tweaking employee headcounts anyway -- preparation for taking over Yahoo's search operations. This way, Microsoft can roll together all the remaining layoffs with Yahoo search integration cutbacks, which for the future would better boost employee morale and negate outside perceptions about the company. Layoffs typically generate negative press.

    5. Dan Lyons hit a nerve that sent Wall Street analysts and Microsoft investors screaming. Lyons' October 29th Newsweek commentary, "The Lost Decade: Why Steve Ballmer is no Bill Gates," is a scathing indictment of Microsoft's current CEO. Commentaries like this rattle analysts, CEO peers and investors, who in turn shake a company. An attack so personal can lead to reaction or overreaction, with Ballmer putting on a tougher guy face and cutting where Wall Street would like to see it. By the way, Lyons (aka "Fake Steve Jobs") is wrong about Ballmer's leadership. That's a topic I'll blog about later.

    I would be saddened and disturbed if Microsoft rewarded the Windows & Windows Live group with layoffs. Typically, launch of a new Windows version is path to Microsoft promotion, not pink slip.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/11/02/Must_Microsoft_Store_copy_Apple_Store_to_succeed_'

    Must Microsoft Store copy Apple Store to succeed?

    Publié: novembre 2, 2009, 9:11pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Over the last 10 days, Microsoft has opened two retail stores, in Arizona and California, and a café in France. Bloggers and journalists largely dismissed the retail outlets as Apple Store knock-offs, which is surprising considering reports of 1,000 or more people lined up for the second opening in Mission Viejo, Calif. That said, the numbers aren't confirmed and a free music concert likely bolstered them.

    Over the weekend, ifoAppleStore chronicled the Mission Viejo-store opening -- albeit with some pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft commentary -- and large gallery of photos. From the text and pics, Microsoft Store similarities to Apple Store are obvious.

    But striking physical similarities to Apple Store is no reason to dismiss Microsoft's retail efforts. Microsoft is getting into the retail business for pretty much the same reasons Apple did in May 2001. To succeed, Microsoft will need to make at least the same kind of commitment Apple did early days. Microsoft must open many stores quickly and be prepared to take losses -- even large ones -- to reap greater marketing benefits.

    Microsoft must also advance its retail strategy for the right reasons, and none of them is about competing with Apple. My prediction: Microsoft's retail strategy will fail, if the only -- even primary -- objective is competing with Apple Store.

    Shared Apple and Microsoft Problems

    Common problems Microsoft in 2009 shares with Apple circa 2001:

    1. Distribution: In 2001, Apple depended on major computer retailers and Mac dealers to sell its goods. But Windows PCs dwarfed Macs in most stores to near invisibility. In 2009, Microsoft relies on fewer chains, like Best Buy or Walmart; major computer retail partners -- Circuit City and CompUSA, among them -- are gone. TVs and consumer electronics dwarf Windows PCs in most stores.

    2. Retail experience: In 2001, the Mac buying experience usually ended with a computer store employee recommending a Windows PC. Most employees either weren't trained to sell Macs or pushed what they knew -- Windows. In 2009, many electronics store employees don't know how to sell Windows in context of capabilities tied to TVs and other devices.

    3. Digital lifestyle: In 2001, Apple wanted to position the Mac as a digital hub for photos, music, movies, the Web and other digital activities. Apple Store presented a place to showcase the Mac's capabilities -- something not happening in regular retail. In 2009, Microsoft wants to advance Windows as hub for three screens -- the phone, the PC and TV -- but retailers aren't effectively selling it.

    4. Brand building: In 2001, Apple had a marginally resurgent brand. There was yet no iPod, and Mac market share was but a few percent. Apple Store created permanent presence where people could see Apple's brand and experience the Mac lifestyle. In 2009, Microsoft's brand is tarnished for many reasons. Among them: Ineffective retail experience, Window Vista debacle and security perceptions. Microsoft Store establishes a permanent presence exposing masses of people to the brand and Microsoft lifestyle.

    5. Customer service: In 2001, Mac dealers and PC retailers determined the extent of Apple customer service. The Apple Store Genius Bar reclaimed the customer experience, by providing a place where Mac customers could get free technical support and even product replacement. Satisfaction endears customers. In 2009, Microsoft has little to no control over customer satisfaction, as retailers or hardware manufacturers provide most support services. By providing in-store training and technical support, Microsoft Store increases customer satisfaction by solving problems and, perhaps more importantly, by helping people get the most value from their products.

    Commitment is the Only Way to Success

    Microsoft probably should have opened retail stores three years ago. Perhaps negative Windows Vista perceptions would have been less. Timing is OK, with Windows 7 launching to more positive reception. But timing would be much, much better if concurrent with Windows Mobile 6.5 and Windows 7 launches Microsoft opened a dozen retail stores in the United States and one each in another dozen countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, South Korea and United Kingdom.

    International stores risk more problems with existing dealers and retailers (what Microsoft calls "channel conflict") but they're necessary for revitalizing the company's brand, fighting piracy and offering localized shopping experiences. I've long advocated Microsoft retail stores as one of the most effective tools for combating software piracy, particularly in BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India, China -- countries.

    But Microsoft can only be effective enough, achieve the needed retail reach, by jumping in the lake rather than sticking in a couple of toes. Two stores is a losing tip-toe-in-the-water strategy. Microsoft must make the big splash, with the willingness to loose tens of millions of dollars. If the stores are viewed as marketing investment, top executives can justify early retail losses.

    Microsoft launched Xbox knowing the console would lose money for years before achieving sustainable profits or gaining market share against Sony PlayStation. More recently, Microsoft has invested billions of dollars building out datacenter infrastructure or building up Web search. Microsoft's retail strategy needs this kind of commitment, otherwise it will fail.

    Apple Store Double Vision

    Is imitating Apple Store Microsoft's best strategy? The ifoAppleStore photos certainly show many striking similarities in terms of layout and design but not materials or colors. The browns and dark wood colors are particularly unsettling, unless Microsoft is trying to achieve some kind of collegiate feeling. It turns out that the Mission Viejo Microsoft Store is only 70 miles north of San Diego. I'll drive up there this week, take some photos and write up a real first impression blog post.

    But, for today, based on the ifoAppleStore photos, I must express misgivings about where the California store appears to be too much a bad imitation of Apple Store layout and design.

    Four years ago, for Betanews, I wrote commentary," iPod Shuffle: Apple Understated." I explained how Apple used understated design to emphasize product features and benefits. The approach applies to Apple Store. I wrote:

    Apple retail stores are remarkably understated. The only bright colors are found on marketing material placed throughout the store. Otherwise, the tasteful stores are quite stark, so that the shoppers' eyes are drawn either to the colorful marketing posters and signs or to the products on sale.

    By comparison, many retail stores are overly cluttered, with Walmart being one of the obvious examples. Shoppers' eyes are wildly drawn here, there and everywhere. There is confusion, which can leave shoppers feeling unsettled.

    Apple Store is inviting for the good feeling its understated design generates. This essence is more than just layout, but in the quality of materials, too. Then, there are those low tables, which give shoppers a clear view of the whole store, draw their eyes downward to products and create a cheery feeling of breadth and openness.

    Can Microsoft do as well or better with its retail stores? My initial reaction is alarm, after reviewing the ifoAppleStore photos. Perhaps I will feel better after spending time in Microsoft Store. But I will say that a bad Appe Store imitation is better than nothing. Microsoft should have opened retail stores years ago. The branding and marketing benefits outweigh risks of channel conflict.

    By waiting, there is some advantage in timing. In the United States, the commercial real estate market is in early stages collapse, like the homeowner market in late 2007 and early 2008. Commercial foreclosures and otherwise higher-than-normal store closings will give hard negotiator Microsoft chance to get good locations under favorable leasing terms. I say, "Go for it, Microsoft." Do you agree or perhaps have opinion about Microsoft Store similarities to Apple Store? Comments await you.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/27/iPhone_cannot_win_the_smartphone_wars'

    iPhone cannot win the smartphone wars

    Publié: octobre 27, 2009, 8:00pm CET par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I'm going to make a bold prediction: Apple's iPhone will lose the mobile device wars. Such statement will send some iPhone fans howling -- perhaps appropriately so with the full moon days passed and Halloween days away. :)

    Put another way: iPhone is to Android -- and somewhat Symbian OS -- handsets as Macintosh was to the DOS/Windows PC in the 1980s and 1990s. The Mac's rocky start in 1984-85 gave way to great success because of several killer applications, with desktop publishing being among the most important. But by the mid 1990s, Windows PCs pushed down Mac market share. The iPhone is poised to track similarly. Gartner predicts that Android OS shipments will exceed iPhone OS by 2012 (see chart). I'm a believer.

    The question of how far iPhone can go is important, because a new computing platform is rapidly emerging. Mobile devices like cell phones are sure to replace PCs. PEW Internet claims by 2020. I'm on record as predicting much sooner.

    Today, Gartner predicted that this year, worldwide smartphone shipments would grow by 29 percent year over year to 180 million units, exceeding laptop unit shipments. From this year, Gartner predicts that end users will spend more on smartphones than they will on notebooks. The analyst firm expects that most PC manufacturers will move into the smartphone market (where Apple already is with iPhone).

    Chicken-and-Egg Thinking

    The iPhone's staunchest defenders insist that applications will rule the market. Over the weekend, tech blogger Robert Scoble followed a Twitter debate with blog post: "85,000 reasons why iPhone isn't going to be disrupted." Like many other iPhone enthusiast bloggers or journalists, Scoble believes that iPhone must succeed because of the vast number of applications. In a somewhat terse Twitter exchange, I called him and other die-hard iPhone fans unreasonable. He blogged in response:

    If you get me all those, and all the other 85,000 apps, but on a device that is sexier and more fun to use (and more productive) then I'll definitely be reasonable and switch...Until then I have 85,000 reasons to be unreasonable...Yes, I'm unreasonable. Let me know when I can stop being unreasonable! :)

    The large number of applications does at first glance seem like a pretty good reason to claim iPhone's eventual domination of what arguably is the next, major computing platform. However, the number of applications is no surefire measure of iPhone's or any other platform's success. Applications are but one -- and not the most important -- platform characteristic. Successful platforms share five common traits:

    • There are good development tools and APIs for easily making good applications
    • There is at least one killer application people really want
    • There is breadth of useful applications
    • Third parties make lots of money
    • There is a robust ecosystem

    I usually only put the first four items on the list, but here extend the fifth from the fourth, which is the most important of all. To single out applications as the measure of success is to put the chicken before the egg. Related: The platform chicken-or-egg scenario, where there is question: Which comes first, the platform or the applications? The chicken-or-egg question presumes that many PC operating systems fail because there aren't enough applications; that many developers wait to develop applications because they want to see if the platform will gain momentum among consumer or business customers; that platforms cannot gain momentum if there are not applications.

    Gartner Smartphones 2012

    But this reasoning is flawed. It ignores fundamental rules of economics. The chicken-or-egg theorists should ask why do developers wait at all -- or not? My answer: Because they want to make money. The fourth point in my list -- "third parties make lots of money" -- is more important than number of applications. It's the most fundamental reason why platforms succeed or fail. The fifth point --"there is a robust ecosystem" -- is intrinsically connected to the fourth and over the long term is as important, if not more.

    The Ecosystem is Everything

    Among technology platforms, the Windows PC is classic example of a robust and vital ecosystem. The Google informational/search platform is another. Around either platform, there is a discernible ecosystem of third parties -- not just software developers -- making lots of money. The two ecosystems are broad and deep. By comparison, Apple's App Store/iPhone/iPod touch platform is narrower and shallower, despite the depth of applications, because the ecosystem depends on a closed, end-to-end technology platform. Apple controls everything.

    By comparison, in the 1980s and 1990s, DOS/Windows was more open than Mac OS, because Microsoft only controlled the software and Chairman Bill Gates took the brilliant approach of licensing to third parties. (Commenters, please don't huff. I didn't write that DOS/Windows was open, but more open than Mac OS, because of licensing.) Through the licensing scheme, good luck (because of competitors' mistakes) and Microsoft efforts to establish standards around DOS/Windows and DOS/Windows PCs, a robust ecosystem of third-party profiteers emerged.

    The ecosystem is everything. Windows Vista's market failure is good explanation why. Vista suffered from perception problems that were much larger than its performance problems; Vista isn't a bad operating system, it just wasn't good enough to displace Windows XP. Vista wasn't just competing against XP but a huge, supporting ecosystem of third parties making money from it -- PC, peripheral and component manufacturers; distributors, resellers and retailers; software and Web services developers; and consumer, enterprise and small business services providers, among many others. XP had five years in the market before Vista's release to build up this broad and deep ecosystem, which also included customers -- many of them large businesses -- dependent on the software to make (or save) money.

    What's really interesting about the Gartner numbers (see chart): Windows Mobile declines, but not that dramatically, through 2012. Why? The ecosystem. Microsoft has established a viable Windows Mobile ecosystem that somewhat compensates for the weak mobile strategy. Ecosystem also is one major reason why Symbian OS will remain so dominant, despite steep market share declines. Another: Nokia plans to open source Symbian OS (process is underway). By comparison, Gartner predicts that BlackBerry and iPhone OSes will reach near identical market shares, and, not coincidentally, both are part of closed, end-to-end systems.

    A History Lesson

    Parallels between the past and present foreshadow iPhone's future. The IBM PC launched in mid-1981. About 18 months later, Compaq announced its 12.5 kg clone, nicknamed the "luggable." A year after Compaq started selling its IBM PC clone, Apple announced the Macintosh, in January 1984.

    Desktop publishing was the Mac's first killer application, contributing to sales growth over the next five years. But Apple couldn't win the "Clone Wars" against DOS -- and later Windows -- PCs. The resulting clone attack, essentially every other PC manufacturer against Apple, was too much for Macintosh. The PC ecosystem overwhelmed Apple.

    To reiterate: In the 2000s, like the 1980s, Apple successfully launched industry-changing platforms -- iPhone and Macintosh, respectively. Like Macintosh, iPhone's end-to-end licensing model is poised to limit the supporting ecosystem's growth. Meanwhile, Google, Microsoft and Nokia license their mobile operating systems to third parties.

    Among the three, Google's Android is the one to most closely watch, followed by Symbian OS, assuming publication of source code under open source license is completed next year as planned. While DOS/Windows was more open than Mac OS during the 1990s, Windows Mobile is more closed because Microsoft has failed to establish standards around the software. By comparison, Android, which Google open-sourced, is to mobile devices more like DOS/Windows was to PCs in the 1980s and 1990s: A more open operating system around which third parties make money and an ecosystem thrives.

    iPhone Against the World

    In March 2009 Microsoft Watch blog post, "The iPhone Platform Comes of Age," I glowingly praised App Store/iPhone/iPod touch. But I tempered my enthusiasm:

    Whether or not that platform succeeds depends on many factors. Among them:
    • How Google, Microsoft and Nokia shape up their mobile platforms in 2009-10.
    • How many market share-leading handset manufacturers adopt Android (HTC just announced three more Android handsets).
    • How quickly Apple can expand its iPhone OS install base -- and that includes iPod touch.

    Since I raised these reservations about Apple's platform, Microsoft and Nokia fumbled their mobile strategies. Meanwhile, Android is rapidly gaining momentum among handset manufacturers and developers. In a presentation given last week, Gartner analyst Ken Dulaney predicted that Android smartphone OS share would grow from 1.6 percent in first quarter 2009 to 18 percent in fourth quarter 2012 (see chart). By comparison, iPhone OS: 13.6 percent, up from 10.8 percent. Symbian OS will remain dominant, Gartner predicts.

    That said, the mobile device market will be bigger than just handsets, which is where Android already is gaining adoption for use on other connected devices. Barnes & Noble's Nook ebook reader and Verizon's Droid phone are but recent examples of where Android is going, and where iPhone is not. Meanwhile, new information published this week shows how Android 2.0 emphasizes information interoperability -- openness that should grow the ecosystem, like DOS/Windows did for PCs decades ago.

    Another "everyone else against Apple battle" is coming, with Android looking to be the better OS around which an ecosystem grows and thrives. There's a Star Wars metaphor here somewhere. Apple lost out to DOS/Windows because of the attack of the PC clones. Now the droids are coming for iPhone. Apple's power is the Force -- blogger and journalist enthusiasts like Robert Scoble. Can the Force win? I say no, but you tell me. That's what comments are for.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/23/Microsoft_Q1_2010_by_the_numbers__Windows_license_sales_at_record_levels'

    Microsoft Q1 2010 by the numbers: Windows license sales at record levels

    Publié: octobre 23, 2009, 5:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft may have quite a headache, but the economy finally isn't whacking the company as hard. This morning, Microsoft announced fiscal 2010 first quarter results before Wall Street's opening bell, beating analyst consensus expectations. Mixing metaphors, Microsoft's results don't stink as bad as they have for the last couple of quarters.

    Windows 7 is off to a resounding start. Microsoft launched the new operating system yesterday, but PC OEMs have been buying the software for months. During a conference call with financial analysts this morning, Bill Koefoed, general manager of Microsoft investor relations, said that Windows license sales were strongest ever for any single quarter.

    For fiscal 2010 first quarter, Microsoft reported revenue of $12.92 billion, for a 14 percent year-over-year decline. Operating income: $4.48 billion, down 25 percent. Net income: $3.57 billion, or 40 cents a share. Net income fell by 18 percent and earnings per share by 17 percent year over year.

    Results would have been higher if not for a one-time charge. Microsoft deferred $1.47 billion from fiscal first quarter to the second, because of technology guarantees for Windows 7. People buying Windows Vista PCs were eligible for free or discounted 7 upgrades starting July 1. Without the deferral, Microsoft would have reported $14.39 billion in revenue, for only a 4 percent year-over-year decline, and 52 cents earnings per share, up 8 percent from fiscal 2009 first quarter.

    Microsoft stopped offering guidance during fiscal 2009. So Wall Street consensus was solely based on analysts' judgment. Consensus called for a 17.9 percent year-over-year revenue decline, to $12.37 billion. Earnings-per-share estimate was 32 cents, for a 33.3 percent consensus decline. So even without the deferral, Microsoft beat the Street.

    Chris Liddell, Microsoft's CFO, described the quarterly results as "strong," during the conference call. He attributed Microsoft's start at revenue and earnings recovery to Windows and Xbox sales and to cost containment. Fiscal 2010 first quarter "might have been the bottom of the economic reset," he said. He predicted real recovery to start in early calendar 2010.

    Microsoft Q1 2010 Revenue

    Liddell still didn't offer much guidance for fiscal second quarter, but still more than other quarters:

    • Windows & Windows Live: Revenue growth will be in line with the PC market, or slightly ahead. Liddell said Microsoft expects the "netbook mix to stabilize" over the fiscal year.
    • Server & Tools: Revenue growth will exceed server shipments.
    • Business: Revenue growth will lag the PC market, in part as businesses wait for Office 2010.
    • Online Services: Revenue growth will be equal to or better than the market.
    • Entertainment & Devices: Flat.

    Microsoft got a little boost by bad news not being worse. Last week, Gartner and IDC released better-than-expected preliminary third calendar quarter PC shipment data. Gartner had expected worldwide PC shipments to decline 5.6 percent, when they instead rose 0.5 percent to 80.9 million units. IDC put PC shipments up 2.3 percent following 6.8 percent and 2.4 percent declines in the first and second quarters, respectively. IDC estimated PC shipments to be 78.1 million units. By comparisons, Microsoft estimates that worldwid, year-over-year PC shipments were flat to 2 percent growth. Sequentially, sales were up in the mid-teens.

    Microsoft Q1 2010 Income

    But circumstances mitigated the benefits to Microsoft:

    • Netbooks continued their sales surge. Most of these portables shipped with Windows XP Home, for which Microsoft collects substantially smaller licensing fees than either Windows Vista or 7. However, Microsoft also shipped Windows 7 Starter Edition, which margins are better than XP Home.
    • Some regions sagged: PC shipments declined 8 percent year over year in EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), offset by dramatic netbook and low-cost notebook sales, according to IDC.
    • Checks on component suppliers suggest that OEMs flooded the channel with inventory in anticipation of strong Windows 7 uplift. Microsoft could see Windows license sales decline in fiscal second quarter, particularly if PC sell-through is weaker than OEMs and retailers anticipate.

    Segment Results

    Windows & Windows Live. Microsoft has changed the name of what was the "Client" division to "Windows & Windows Live," reflecting recent organizational changes. Revenue fell 39 percent year over year and income by 52 percent. The declines are not as severe as they seem, because of the $1.47 billion deferral. Windows & Windows Live revenue was $2.6 billion without the deferral but $3.8 billion with it. Microsoft expects to realize $1.7 billion total deferred revenue for the division in the coming quarter.

    The division derives 80 percent of its revenue from license sales to PC OEMs, which were up 6 percent year over year. However, OEM license revenues declined by 6 percent, reflecting the margin damage inflected by increasing netbook sales. Microsoft estimates that during the quarter, netbooks accounted for 12 percent of PC sales.

    Microsoft reported that Windows license sales were strong during the quarter, with sales during September being the strongest for any month ever, in line with the aforementioned record quarterly sales. Robust license sales reflect strong OEM demand for Windows 7. However, as mentioned earlier, the strong license sales could be viewed as OEMs flooding the channel with units that may or may not sell through. Liddell said that OEMs "are buying in anticipation of demand" rather than for "actual demand." Therefore, robust Windows license sales are cautiously encouraging.

    Server & Tools. The division is most insulated against economic maladies, because 55 percent of revenues comes from contractual volume-licensing agreements. However, because of corporate layoffs, Microsoft is seeing customers renewing license contracts at lower levels. The division's revenue was flat year over year, while income grew by 23 percent. Microsoft predicted that industry server hardware sales declined 20 percent year over year during the quarter.

    Business. Next to Windows, Microsoft's other cash cow division reported revenue and income declines of 11 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Several factors accounted for growth declines, including aggressive back-to-school promotions for Office and declines in Business and Dynamics licensing -- down 4 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

    Consumer revenue declined $390 million, or 34 percent, which is seemingly counter-intuitive to Microsoft offering deep discounts. Shouldn't revenue increase then? The discounts were for Office Home and Student 2007, which comes with three licenses and sold for less than $90 from some retailers. Presumably, the heavily discounted three licenses-for-one product sapped sales from higher-priced, single-license Office SKUs.

    Online Services. Income plummeted by 50 percent. The division's performance, with ad sales in decline, starkly contrasts with quarterly results from Google, which asserted the worst of the econolypse is over. The majority of the Online Services division's sales come from advertising, which fell 3 percent year over year to $421 million.

    Entertainment & Devices. Microsoft sold 2.1 million Xbox consoles during the quarter, bringing the install base to about 35 million. Xbox Live revenue grew by 50 percent.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/22/Microsoft_s__Have_it_Your_Way__confronts_Apple_s__Have_it_Our_Way_'

    Microsoft's 'Have it Your Way' confronts Apple's 'Have it Our Way'

    Publié: octobre 22, 2009, 7:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Burger King has long used marketing slogan "Have it Your Way." I saw something different during my first trip to New York City 30 years ago inside the Times Square Burger King. There was an express line with sign: "Have it Our Way." Which line was longer? The one where people could choose how their burgers were fixed.

    Today, Microsoft officially launched Windows 7 in New York, emphasizing choice and customer participation. Choice is a longstanding Microsoft marketing and product principle. Participation is a longstanding approach to Microsoft product development. With Windows 7, Microsoft is bringing the two together for the product marketing. Have it your way. "Excuse me, sir. Is that Windows 7 for here or to go?"

    The approach is simply brilliant and it is timely with social networking trends. Microsoft is positioning Windows 7 as your operating system, which you can fix any way want. The first TV commercial asserts that Windows 7 was crowdsourced, with people asking for what they wanted and getting it. Catch phrase: "I'm a PC, and Windows 7 was my idea."

    Microsoft's strategy starkly contrasts with Apple, which is much less about choice than customers being chosen for. For example:

    • Apple product development is secretive, rather than encouraging customer feedback and participation.
    • Product choice is limited to the few computers that Apple releases, such as the same aluminum construction and design for iMac or MacBook Pro.
    • Mac OS X is deliberately designed to discourage customization. There is one look for all Mac desktops.
    • Apple sells only one computer -- the entry-level Mac mini -- for less than $999. Buyers must choose to spend $999 or more.

    Apple's product and marketing approach is very much "Have it Our Way." Microsoft wants you to "Have it Your Way":

    • You help Microsoft improve Windows to meet your needs.
    • You choose the PC that looks and functions your way.
    • You customize the desktop any old way you want it.
    • You choose how much you want to spend on a computer.

    Microsoft long has advocated this kind of choice and participation. The difference now: Microsoft is using these attributes to really sell Windows, in ways the company hasn't done for years and in other ways like it never has. Perhaps it's no coincidence that Burger King and Microsoft share the same advertising agency: Crispin, Porter + Bogusky. Some examples of Microsoft's Windows 7 participation marketing:

    • The aforementioned TV commercials asserting that "Windows 7 was my idea."
    • Windows 7 House Party, where real people celebrate the launch and share pics and videos online.
    • Social Website that collects "What people are really saying about Windows 7" from blogs, feeds and social networks, such a Facebook, Flickr, Twitter and YouTube.
    • Microsoft home page, which today rotates Windows 7 reviews and comments from real people -- mostly via Twitter -- rather than from bloggers or journalists.

    The most successful products sell a lifestyle -- they provide a community where people feel they belong. Apple already had a fervent Mac community before the opening of the first Apple retail store in May 2001. Since, and with products like iPhone, iPod and iTunes, Apple has successfully extended the Mac community to the mass market.

    Microsoft started rebuilding Windows community and belonging with the "I'm a PC" marketing campaign, which debuted in late 2008. Microsoft essentially told customers that they didn't have to feel bad before the cool Mac kids. PC users are just as cool but in different ways, and there are more of them, too. Microsoft also touted a value lifestyle.

    The Windows 7 marketing campaign goes much further, by asserting that everyday people contributed to Windows 7's development -- that Microsoft listened to their input, that their opinions mattered. Who does Apple listen to other than CEO Steve Jobs?

    Everything about Windows 7 marketing is anti-Apple and anti-Mac -- all unstated. Microsoft doesn't need to attack Apple directly, nor should it. The better marketing approach is to attract customers rather than to drive them away from something else. Besides, the bigger market of users run Windows, not Macs. Microsoft is competing against itself. It's Windows 7 against Windows XP (and some Vista).

    That's where the other part of the marketing messaging is so important. The tagline: "Your PC, simplified." Simple is usually better. Among my six principles of good product design, two are more important: Good products should emphasize simplicity and they should hide complexity. Windows 7 unquestionably fulfills both in comparison to Windows Vista or XP.

    In the first Windows 7 TV commercial above, the featured users first ask for a "Whole lotta less" and later for "simpler." The simpler message continues in the two other videos. Microsoft can't countermarket -- or shouldn't -- Windows XP . The marketing does better by enticing people to a better, simpler Windows 7.

    Good marketing is about selling aspiration, about showing people how their lives will be better for buying products X, Y or Z. Microsoft's choice and participation marketing is excellent; joining a community or participating in a lifestyle are aspirational qualities. Better still: Asking for what you want and getting it. Have it your way, baby.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/22/The_Crook_in_the_Nook__Barnes___Noble_ebooks_are_overpriced_compared_to_Amazon'

    The Crook in the Nook: Barnes & Noble ebooks are overpriced compared to Amazon

    Publié: octobre 22, 2009, 2:53am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, I excitedly preordered Barnes & Noble's "Nook" ebook reader. Today, I cancelled the order -- and I'm none to happy about it. Why can't Barnes & Noble learn from its past mistakes? The bookseller's digital titles are way overpriced -- at least compared to Amazon (Sony charges even more than both booksellers for many titles).

    Quick examples -- and more will come later in this post: Twilight by Stephanie Meyer: $6.59 from Amazon; $8.79 from B&N. Philip K Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?: $8.38 from Amazon; $11.20 from B&N. (Sony charges $9.89 for the first and $9 for the second.)

    Barnes & Noble has been down this sordid path before. Ten years ago, B&N was an early ebook pioneer, opening a store using Microsoft Reader technology. But the bookseller had the pricing all wrong, asking the same price for digital -- for which there was no printing or distribution costs -- as hardcover books. That's right, and the ebooks came with onerous DRM that made sharing titles nearly impossible.

    For years, I criticized B&N and other ebook sellers for overpricing that stalled adoption. Eventually, Barnes & Noble closed its ebook store. Here's the epitaph I wrote in September 2003 on the now defunct Microsoft Monitor Weblog once run by JupiterResearch (Forrester Research has absorbed the analyst firm):

    This morning I received a notice from Barnes & Noble.com informing that as of today, the company would no longer offer ebooks online. Customers like me have 90 days to retrieve titles from their online Microsoft Library; 90 days from purchase for Adobe ebook customers.

    I purchased my first Microsoft Reader ebook about four years ago, and, unless I am mistaken, from Barnes & Noble.com. The company offered an excellent ebook library and facilities for downloading titles. I will sorely miss the service. The larger question is what Barnes & Noble.com's exit means for the larger ebook market. Maybe I'm a nut, but I find reading an ebook on my HP iPaq handheld to be quite enjoyable.

    Still, publishers could have done more to make the price of titles more appealing. Who wants to pay 25 bucks for a new ebook, the same as the hardcover price? That hardcover book has associated printing and distribution costs that shouldn't affect ebook pricing. The hardcover can be passed around among family members or borrowed by the neighbor across the street. The ebook version is much less portable, so why charge so much?

    I don't see the ebook market as dead, but Barnes & Noble.com's bowing out of the market isn't a good sign. I remember when the bookseller championed for good writers without big-name publishers or offered print-on-demand services that could revive out-of-print editions. Maybe we're just not a nation of leisure readers anymore, which would be the sadest commentary on this development yet.

    Four years would pass before Amazon showed enough cunning and courage to release the Kindle reader and reasonably priced ebooks. Kindle has got to be the ugliest ebook reader on the planet. It's styling matches what I imagine an Amazon warehouse to look like. But the ebooks are priced to sell, and that's the appeal. Price matters -- a principle Amazon has long and successfully practiced. Apple applied the principle to iTunes Music Store in 2003, by offering 99-cent singles. Kindle reader isn't the revolution so much as Kindle book pricing. Why doesn't Barnes & Noble get that?

    Pricing turned me away from an ebook reader that is really exciting (more on the device in a few paragraphs). Some more comparisons:

    In my searches, I only found a few a newer or popular titles were Amazon and B&N matched prices, such as Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol or The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ann Brashares. But the for majority of my searches, Amazon titles cost considerably less than those from Barnes & Noble. My searches were random, and some I abandoned because Amazon had many ebook titles not available from Barnes & Noble.

    I'm not quibbling pennies here. Barnes & Noble pricing is as much as 50 percent more than Amazon. I found few instances where the difference was less than 10 percent. Barnes & Noble may not be asking as much as it did during its 1999-2003 foray into ebooks, but pricing is way too high -- particularly for a bookseller playing catchup. Amazon has got an early mass-market ebook lead. Competitive ebook pricing would be crucial to winning over people to Nook.

    Barnes & Noble appears to be betting on the device as the bigger draw. No question, Nook is cool. It's well designed, competitively priced and likely more extensible because of the Android operating system. From the broadest strategy perspective, Barnes & Noble is preparing an ebook and content publishing platform as much as a simple digital book reader. That's impressive.

    But can the device be enough when ebook pricing is so much higher? For me, the answer is no. I suspect that many other potential buyers will balk at higher pricing, too. I ask you, Betanews readers, to offer your opinions in comments. Is Barnes & Noble asking too much? Are you even interested in ebooks (I ask mainly because of DRM)?

    In fairness, Barnes & Noble learned a few lessons from its past ebook selling mistakes, and these are worth observing. The first effort came from the Barnes & Noble.com Website, at a time when fewer people were online. The new strategy looks to leverage the physical stores, which makes sense. For example, Nook will be sold at Barnes & Noble stores. Something else: The bookseller is addressing longstanding criticisms of onerous DRM by allowing customers to lend their ebooks for as long as 14 days.

    The difference between Kindle and Nook is the difference between the approach of a real bookseller versus a warehouser. Barnes & Noble is trying to anticipate the needs of the reading customer. Use of physical stores and ebook lending are great examples of Barnes & Noble leveraging its strengths and anticipating what its customers want. But do those needs include paying as much as 50 percent more for ebooks than Amazon? You tell me. That's what comments are for.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/20/Apple_declares_war_on_the_entire_PC_industry'

    Apple declares war on the entire PC industry

    Publié: octobre 20, 2009, 8:49pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There is absolutely nothing coincidental about Apple launching new products today. The big product launch is Apple's first preemptive marketing strike against Microsoft, Windows 7 and the entire PC industry. It's a bold move exploiting a position of strength against an industry weakened by low-margin, low-priced netbooks.

    Windows 7 officially launches in two days. Best Buy already has Windows 7 PCs on sale, but not for purchase. Dell started taking Windows 7 over the weekend. Gartner is telling businesses they must upgrade to Windows 7, despite any hardships migrating from Windows XP. Microsoft is priming the marketing pumps. The PC industry is collectively turning its attention to Windows 7, which Microsoft is trying to launch with some bang rather than a whimper.

    But what has the geek world been babbling about for the last 24 hours? Apple. Firstly, there were rumors of new iMac, revamped white MacBook, new Mac mouse and updated Mac mini -- all products Apple unveiled early this afternoon. Secondly, late yesterday, there were Apple's blow-out fiscal 2009 fourth-quarter results: $1.67 billion profit and 3.05 million Macs shipped, the majority notebooks. Apple outperformed Wall Street's consensus, blasting past the econolypse's effects like it was business as usual.

    Exactly who is talking about Windows 7 today or will tomorrow? Or gasp, on launch day -- Oct. 22nd?

    Netbooks are a Plague

    Apple's new product release timing is clearly deliberate, designed to pull attention away from Windows 7. But Apple also is looking to pull away Windows PC sales at the high end, where Macs are strongest and PCs are weakest. Surely, Apple executives realize that the PC industry is hoist with its own netbook petard.

    I've complained about netbooks for months. They are cannibalizing Windows PC sales at an alarming rate. By comparison, laptops commanded higher margins and average selling prices when their popularity started to increase. PC manufacturers -- and even Microsoft -- benefited from notebooks' reversing the trend of falling computer ASPs; for a time. By comparison, netbooks are a plague, because they dramatically lower ASPs and margins and pull away sales from real laptops.

    Last week, Gartner and IDC issued preliminary PC shipment data for third quarter. Both analyst firms once again identified netbooks as driving portable and overall PC shipments. Gartner observed the negative impact on ASPs. Mikako Kitagawa, Gartner principal analyst, said in a statement:

    The consumer mobile PC market drove US shipment growth in the third quarter of 2009, fueled by back-to-school sales. However, the results came with a revenue loss because of very steep declines in average selling prices...Consumers were comfortable buying PCs, but they were relentlessly looking for bargains. Our preliminary research shows consumer mobile PC ASPs declined more than 20 percent compared to a year ago.

    On October 8, DisplaySearch explained netbook's derisive impact on PC ASPs. Laptop ASPs fell to $688 in second quarter from $704 in first quarter and $849 in Q2 2008. Netbook prices fell to $361 from $371 and $506, respectively, during the same time period. Additionally, netbooks accounted for 22.2 percent of overall PC sales and 11.7 percent of revenues. Netbook sales jumped a staggering 264 percent year over year, while overall laptop sales (without counting netbooks) declined 14 percent.

    Netbooks remain the Windows PC industry's huge Achilles tendon, exposed and ready to be cut by an aggressive Apple. Windows 7 isn't going to lessen demand for netbooks. Consumers might find them even more appealing because of Microsoft's new operating system.

    The "Pay More" Principle

    Apple positioned Macs as the alternative for people willing to pay more, which is a surprising number of buyers given the gloomy economy. Today's new Mac product announcements give potential shoppers more reasons to look Apple's way -- even with Windows 7 launching on Thursday. For Betanews readers frothing to comment, I want to be absolutely clear: I am not suggesting Windows 7 won't sell well. But I am asserting that many new Windows 7 sales will be on netbooks, not the high-priced, margin-rich systems Microsoft and PC partners need to sell.

    Something else -- and this is hugely important: Last week, there was speculation that PC and peripheral manufacturers may have overproduced for the holiday quarter in big anticipation of Windows 7 demand. Based on my own quiet channel checks, I have the same concern. I'll predict now that Windows 7 PC supply will be greater than consumer or small business buying demand during fourth quarter. If OEMs anticipated big demand for netbooks, then the bigger problem will be for Microsoft, which makes less on Windows 7 Starter Edition than other 7 versions. But if OEMs bet big on pricer systems, they will stuff the retail channel this holiday season.

    The resulting price war would be good for consumers looking for bargains, but further sap tight OEM margins. Macs have remained largely immune to the economic gloom or even the potential threat of lower-priced Windows PCs. But Macs have competed against Windows Vista PCs. Can Macs defy Windows 7 gravity? Because of the netbook scourge, I must say yes. Few Windows PC manufacturers are competing where Apple sales are strongest: Computers selling for $1,000 or more. But all major OEMs are fighting for sales in the segment for the smallest, least powerful, lowest-cost and least profitable portables. Are their executives insane?

    I'm on record as asserting that Windows 7's release will stall Mac market share gains. My reasoning: Windows 7 netbooks are sure to drive up PC unit volumes. But market share is but one measure of success. Yesterday there was an interesting Twitter discussion about market volume versus sales margins. Jason Snell, Macworld editorial director tweeted: "Apple sold 2.3M laptops at an average price of $1,265 per unit. Imagine how much money it could have lost if it had a netbook!" He's absolutely right, and so is Apple for choosing not to compete in a portable segment where brands and margins are lost to lowest price.

    Mind Share versus Market Share

    Apple has got geekdom's attention, and that of Wall Street and even consumer and trade publications. For today and tomorrow and quite possibly Thursday, which otherwise should belong to Microsoft and Windows 7. Some enthusiasts will be quick to point out many apparent Mac shortcomings. Windows PC defenders will rightly observe that:

    • "The new MacBook packs less RAM and storage than comparably priced Windows PCs." Maybe, but the $999 price will appeal to enough buyers, who will get a sturdy, attractive new enclosure and big battery life.
    • "The 27-inch iMac is too big and too pricey at $1,699." Maybe, but the screen size makes the desktop a potential computer and TV, when streaming or playing programs or when attached to a tuner from companies like El Gato.
    • "The updated Mac mini remains pricey at $599." Maybe, but price is low enough for many people thinking of adding a Mac as second PC. The $999 Snow Leopard Server Mac mini has huge potential appeal to small or home-based businesses.

    There seems to be a blind spot when it comes to understanding Macs in relationship to Windows PCs, and I don't understand why. Many analysts, computer enthusiasts and reporters miss something simple: Macs compete against Windows PCs, while Windows PCs compete against, well, Windows PCs. Apple can compete differently because Macs are the alternative to a big, saturated Windows PC market. Macs are the new thing, while another Windows PC is just another old thing. Macs will compete against PCs, but in the PC market Windows XP (and some Vista) will compete against Windows 7.

    Yesterday with record Mac sales and today with new Mac products, Apple has declared -- at least for holiday 2009 -- war on the entire PC industry. To win, Apple just needs to make more money off lower volumes. Apple doesn't need to gobble up market share. A few points of share here or there are huge to Apple but losses to Macs have little impact on PC OEMs. It's an unfair battle in some ways, because the PC industry isn't fighting Macs but a civil war of Windows old against Windows new. Sadly, netbooks will scorch the earth behind every sale.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/19/Apple_Q4_2009_by_the_numbers__Beats_street__posts__1.67B_profit'

    Apple Q4 2009 by the numbers: Beats street, posts $1.67B profit

    Publié: octobre 19, 2009, 10:57pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    [Editor's Note: Post was updated with quotes from Apple financial analysts conference call and four charts at 6:20 p.m. EDT.]

    Today, Apple delivered yet another gravity-defying performance, as sales surged across most product lines. After the bell, the Cupertino, Calif.-based company announced fiscal 2009 fourth quarter results that beat its guidance and Wall Street analysts' over-inflated consensus.

    Apple reported $9.87 billion revenue and net profits of $1.67 billion, or $1.82 a share. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $7.9 billion and $1.14 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.26 per share.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $8.7 billion and $8.9 billion, with earnings per share ranging between $1.18 cents and $1.23. Analyst estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $9.2 billion average revenue consensus and $1.42 earnings per share. Still, Apple blew past the Street.

    It's unclear to me from a cursory review of the earnings how much deferred revenue contributed to the quarterly results. Currently, Apple defers some iPhone revenue for 24 months. The company recognizes a portion of the revenue every quarter. In the year-ago quarter, Apple deferred $3.5 billion in revenue from Apple TV and iPhone.

    During a conference call with financial analysts today, Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer described the results as the company's "most profitable quarter ever," including record iPhone and Mac sales. Mac shipments grew 17 percent year over year. Portables represented 74 percent of Mac sales, he said.

    For fiscal 2010 first quarter, Apple forecasts between $11.3 billion and $11.6 billion in revenue, with earnings per share ranging between $1.70 and $1.78. Apple projects gross margins to be about 34 percent. In the comparable 2009 quarter, Apple revenue was $10.17 billion and $1.61 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.78 per share.

    Apple Q4 2009 Revenue 1

    Segment-by-Segment Results

    iPhone. Wall Street carefully watched the quarter, because of several important trends, including sales of new iPhone 3GS and late-quarter releases of Mac OS X "Snow Leopard" and new iPod models. Fiscal fourth quarter is the first full one with iPhone 3GS and discounted iPhone 3G sales. The latter product sells for $99, a price point many analysts claim would boost sales volumes. The iPhone 3GS added features lagging behind many other handsets -- even non-smartphones -- such as video recording and MMS (the latter capability is also available on older iPhones loaded with 3.x firmware).

    Days before the earnings announcement, with many analysts forecasting big iPhone sales, Oppenheimer & Co analyst Yair Reiner dropped a caution bomb: He estimated that, based on Apple's September 9th disclosure of 3.5 million iPhones sold for the quarter so far, shipments would fall short of analyst predictions of about 7 million units. Reiner attributed potentially slower-than-expected sales to demand exceeding supply. [Editor's note: Oppenheimer & Co. should not be confused with Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer; the names are coincidental.]

    For most of the quarter, "demand outstripped the supply," Apple COO Tim Cook told financial analysts today. He estimated that Apple ended the quarter with more than 2 million iPhone units in inventory. "I would have liked to have had more," with Apple starting sales in China on October 30th, he emphasized.

    Apple shipped -- what company executives really mean by sold -- 7.4 million iPhones worldwide. Apple shipments into the channel are usually several million units higher than numbers released by Gartner, which measures actual sales. Shipments exceeded analyst consensus, despite supply problems. Oppenheimer described the reception to iPhone 3GS as "tremendous." Apple distributed iPhone 3G in 80 countries and 3GS in 64 countries. The company expects to offer iPhone 3GS in 80 countries by year's end.

    Apple Q4 2009 Units 1

    For the quarter iPhone revenue was $2.3 billion, up from $806 million a year earlier, for 185 percent year-over-year increase. Oppenheimer said that the value of iPhones sold was "$4.5 billion." The iPhone average selling price for the quarter was $600, on a "high mix of the 3G sell through," Oppenheimer said. Consumers pay less, because AT&T subsidizes the price. He reaffirmed the recent 85,000 number of applications in App Store and 2 million downloads.

    Coming into today's earnings announcement, there were some ridiculous blogs and new stories inflating iPhone's global presence. For example, last week, Silicon Alley Insider used data from RBC Capital Markets to assert that 30 percent of smartphone owners have an iPhone. The figure contradicts Gartner and IDC data. For example, for second quarter, Gartner put Apple's worldwide smartphone share at 13.3 percent. Even if the 30 percent figure were true, it's for a very small market. In Q2, manufacturers sold 286.1 million handsets, of which only 40 million were smartphones, according to Garner. Whether 13 percent or 30 percent of 40 million, it's a small number in a market 7 times larger in total.

    Computers. Mac sales continued to defy the economy's downward pull. Apple shipped 3.05 million Macs during the quarter, up from 2.6 million Macs in fiscal third quarter and fiscal Q4 2008. As viewed separately, Mac desktop shipments declined 16 percent year over year, while laptops increased 35 percent. Combined, Mac shipments grew 17 percent year over year. Apple had its best back-to-school buying season ever, Oppenheimer said.

    Last week, analyst firms Gartner and IDC split on Mac shipments. In the United States, Gartner said that Apple shipped 1.572 million Macs, up 6.8 percent year over year. Market share rose to 8.8 percent from 8.7 percent in fiscal third quarter and from 8.4 percent in fiscal Q4 2008. By comparison, IDC said that Apple shipped 1.64 million Macs, an 11.8 percent year-over-year increase. IDC put Apple's US share at 9.4 percent, up from 7.6 percent a quarter earlier and 8.6 percent in fiscal Q4 2008. Both analyst firms ranked Apple fourth in US market share. Worldwide, IDC puts Apple at No. 7.

    Apple Q4 2009 Revenue 2

    "What's Next?" matters more for Macintosh than "What's Now?" On Thursday, Microsoft will officially launch Windows 7. Best Buy already has new systems on display (but not for sale), and Dell is taking orders. The expected Windows 7 marketing blitz -- and the PC industry's desperation to boast sales pulled down by the econolypse's gravity -- will be big for Holiday `09. Apple won't easily compete ad-for-ad, but may hold surprising sales promise. Based on Gartner and IDC data for the last three quarters, low-cost netbooks are driving Windows PC shipments. It's a segment where Apple doesn't compete. In fact where Apple does compete -- the $1,000-plus computer -- Mac US retail market share exceeds 90 percent.

    iPod. Apple shipped 10.2 million iPods during fiscal fourth quarter, flat from 10.2 million a quarter earlier and 11 million in fiscal Q4 2008. On September 9th, Apple released new iPods, including a new nano with video recording capabilities. Apple also lowered the entry-level iPod touch price to $199, albeit for a device with only 8GB of storage. The $299 model has 32GB of storage, by comparison.

    Apple is putting more emphasis on iPod touch, which is the other leg on which stands the App Store platform. Apple claims more than 50 million lifetime iPhone and iPod touch sales. By comparison, iPod nano sales are sluggish.

    Retail. Oppenheimer said "the stores had a record quarter." Apple opened 15 new stores during fiscal fourth quarter, for a total of 273. Average revenue per store was $7.1 million. As a segment, retail revenue rose 9 percent year over year and 25 percent sequentially. Retail revenue topped $1.86 billion.

    Apple Q4 2009 Units 2

    Fall Into the GAAP

    For this quarter, it is somewhat necessary to look at Apple's GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) and non-GAAP performance. Apple officially started reporting earnings in GAAP and non-GAAP fashion in the year-ago fiscal quarter. Based on GAAP rules, Apple had to spread out some iPhone and iPod touch revenue because of subscription accounting rules. Apple deferred revenue to be realized in subsequent quarters. However, in late September, the FASB -- Financial Accounting Standards Board -- voted to change subscription reporting rules. Apple should be Apple to record most, but not all, revenue; small portion would still be deferred.

    As early as fourth calendar quarter, which would be Apple's fiscal 2010 first quarter, companies can report certain kinds of subscription revenue with other results, meaning on a GAAP basis. The change isn't mandatory until 2011. Apple plans to change its accounting by fiscal 2011 first quarter but could start sooner, Oppenheimer told financial analysts. "Making this change will be complex," he said, noting that Apple's fiscal 2010 first quarter guidance is based on the current, deferred revenue model.

    For Apple, the change will dramatically boost revenues and earnings and offer some unfair competitive comparisons to some competitors. For example, worldwide handset leader Nokia reports revenue on the global equivalent of GAAP/non-GAAP --International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)/non-IFRS as set by the International Accounting Standards Board.

    On a non-GAAP basis, for fiscal 2009 fourth quarter, Apple revenue would be $12.25 billion revenue, with net profit of $2.85 billion. For the year-ago quarter, non-GAAP revenue was $11.68 billion, with a quarterly net profit of $2.44 billion. The difference is phenomenal, almost 40 percent in fiscal fourth quarter 2008.

    Because of the accounting change, Apple will get an extra revenue boost from previous quarters, depending on when the company adopts the new rules. Based on FASB rules, already reported revenue must be realized over time. Apple can't take it all at once. So for a few quarters, Apple can recognize all iPhone/iPod touch in that quarter and some deferred revenue, too. But there will be a price paid in future quarters in year-over-year comparisons unless iPhone/iPod touch sales surge.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/15/Microsoft_sends_Danger_signal_by_not_taking_full_responsibility_for_Sidekick_service_failure'

    Microsoft sends Danger signal by not taking full responsibility for Sidekick service failure

    Publié: octobre 15, 2009, 7:01pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft should be lauded for doing what days ago seem miraculous: The recovery of Sidekick service data lost sometime last week. But Microsoft has failed to take responsibility for the data disaster, in statements issued publicly and given to the Los Angeles Times. The company's pass-the-buck position is simply inexcusable. Sole responsibility falls on Microsoft, because Danger is the company's subsidiary.

    As Betanews' Scott Fulton reported earlier, Microsoft took credit for the data recovery, but not its loss. A Microsoft spokesperson told the LA Times that "the Danger Service platform, which experienced the outage, is a standalone service operating on non-Microsoft technologies, and is not related to Microsoft's cloud services platform or Windows Live." She continued: "Other and future Microsoft mobile products and services are entirely based on Microsoft technologies and Microsoft's cloud service platform and software."

    The position is clear: Microsoft is distancing its cloud services from those provided by Danger, which acquisition was announced in February 2008. Microsoft closed the deal about two months later. Clearly Microsoft is concerned about the negative perceptions the outage could create for its cloud services, about a month before Azure Services Platform makes a big real world debut at the company's Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles. Following the data outage, there appeared many blogs or news stories -- I wrote one of them -- questioning Microsoft's data services reliability or cloud services in general.

    But is it really true that Microsoft services infrastructure wasn't involved in the outage? Last week and over the weekend, unattributed news reports suggested that the failure occurred during a server/services upgrade, which could mean to Microsoft's cloud services infrastructure. If that's true -- and Microsoft says absolutely nothing clear about circumstances -- then the company's cloud services are partially at fault here.

    Even if not, Microsoft cannot abdicate responsibility because:

    • Danger is a Microsoft subsidiary
    • Microsoft closed the Danger deal about 18 months ago
    • If Danger services weren't adequate, Microsoft should have migrated to its systems sooner

    Before continuing, here is the official statement issued today by Microsoft:

    Dear T-Mobile Sidekick customers,

    On behalf of Microsoft, I want to apologize for the recent problems with the Sidekick service and give you an update on the steps we have taken to resolve these problems.

    We are pleased to report that we have recovered most, if not all, customer data for those Sidekick customers whose data was affected by the recent outage. We plan to begin restoring users' personal data as soon as possible, starting with personal contacts, after we have validated the data and our restoration plan. We will then continue to work around the clock to restore data to all affected users, including calendar, notes, tasks, photographs and high scores, as quickly as possible.

    We now believe that data loss affected a minority of Sidekick users. If your Sidekick account was among those affected, please continue to log into the T-Mobile Sidekick forum at http://www.t-mobile.com/sidekick for the latest updates about when data restoration will begin, and any steps you may need to take. We will work with T-Mobile to post the next update on data restoration timing no later than Saturday.

    We have determined that the outage was caused by a system failure that created data loss in the core database and the back-up. We rebuilt the system component by component, recovering data along the way. This careful process has taken a significant amount of time, but was necessary to preserve the integrity of the data.

    We will continue working closely with T-Mobile to restore user data as quickly as possible. We are eager to deliver the level of reliable service that our incredibly loyal customers have become accustomed to, and we are taking immediate steps to help ensure this does not happen again. Specifically, we have made changes to improve the overall stability of the Sidekick service and initiated a more resilient backup process to ensure that the integrity of our database backups is maintained.

    Once again, we apologize for this situation and the inconvenience that it has created. Please know that we are working all-out to resolve this situation and restore the reliability of the service.

    Sincerely,

    Roz Ho

    Corporate Vice President

    Premium Mobile Experiences, Microsoft Corporation

    Distancing from Danger is the wrong approach. It reflects badly on Microsoft as a corporate citizen. Trust isn't just about technology, but corporate character. Microsoft has shown bad character by not taking responsibility for a data disaster that happened on its watch.

    More significantly, Microsoft has failed T-Mobile, a partner. Mirosoft's business is almost entirely built around partnerships. Microsoft develops software that is largey distributed and serviced by third parties. Microsoft's response abandons T-Mobile, which sends another message of mistrust: Partners can't rely on Microsoft to step up for them when it makes mistakes.

    The Sidekick data disaster is potentially catastrophic for T-Mobile. Sidekick users are among T-Mobile's most loyal customers. Related, T-Mobile's customer demographic tends to be younger users than other US carriers. The Sidekick brand may never recover from the stigma of mistrust that data outage caused.

    Microsoft should do right by T-Mobile, by setting aside a sizable marketing kitty -- perhaps $50 million -- for rebuilding the Sidekick brand and confidence in Danger services. TV commercials should as inviting and exciting as those for Bing.

    Something else: Microsoft must understand that its short-sighted approach of protecting the larger cloud services brand is a hole in which conspiracy theorists will bury the company and erect tombstone: "Microsoft killed Sidekick to save Pink." Microsoft's much rumored Project Pink is supposedly coming from the same Premium Mobile Experiences group responsible for Danger. Conspiracy theorists -- and I'm not one of them -- will see the data failure as a Microsoft plot to kill off Sidekick, which sales T-Mobile suspended. According to product leaks, Project Pink appears to be a Sidekick competitor based on the same Danger software platform -- or at least its extension by Microsoft.

    The data recovery is largely inconsequential -- except perhaps to Sidekick users -- because Microsoft failed to take responsibility for its loss, too. Apple and Mac fanboys love to debate about whether Microsoft copies Apple. Apple is notoriously image conscious, media manipulative and secretive. Microsoft's response to the Sidekick data disaster seems awfully Applesque. This is one way Microsoft shouldn't want to copy Apple. Shame on you, Microsoft. Shame on you.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/13/Mac_fanboys_should_get_a_life_and_some_Windows_7_common_sense'

    Mac fanboys should get a life and some Windows 7 common sense

    Publié: octobre 13, 2009, 10:53pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    I have to laugh at the sudden, slew of Mac bloggers taking swings at Windows 7 and asserting that Macs will continue to sell well after Microsoft's newest OS ships. Feeling a little defensive are we, bros? Their reaction shows worry that the thing they profess against -- surging PC sales that swamp Macs -- may yet be reality.

    Windows 7 is simply Microsoft's best operating system ever. Mac fanboys should worry and circle together in defensive posture. Collectively, they're making a last stand against the PC giant. Please, please, boisterous Mac defenders, stand in the front lines and receive the first blows. You deserve them.

    Mac market share actually means little to Microsoft, although it sure matters lots to Mac bloggers thumping for Apple. The little dog barks, but the big dog -- with its enormous market share -- has the bite. Windows 7 is a new set of teeth. (I'll explain what competitors really matter to Microsoft after the subhead.)

    The Apple fanboy crowd snipes against Windows 7 and stresses the over-importance of all things Mac. Some of the assertions about Macs or Windows 7 sales are laughable, they're so ridiculous. For example, today, Apple 2.0 blogger Philip Elmer-DeWitt asked: "Will Windows 7 boost Apple sales?" Philip writes that "over the past decade, Mac shipments have grown with nearly every new Microsoft release," based on research released by Broadpoint AmTech yesterday.

    That's not what the data shows. The biggest increase in Mac sales follows the release of the much-maligned Windows Vista. The data supports what is widely known: Vista was a Windows failure. As for the other spikes, supposedly associated with Windows releases, Occam's Razor dictates that something Apple did and not Microsoft affected Mac sales. For example, the chart shows a huge spike in Mac sales for second quarter 2000, noting that Microsoft released Windows 2000 on February 17. But it ignores something else. A day earlier, Apple unveiled new Power Macs, finally reaching the long-delayed 500MHz processing power milestone and setting off a sales surge.

    Another date: Oct. 25, 2001, and the launch of Windows XP. The chart shows level Mac sales for the quarter and a substantial decline for the one following. In July 2001, Apple introduced dual-processor Power Macs, and accordingly there was a two quarter spike in Mac shipments. Philip asks a silly question, and the chart is more reasonably explained by Apple actions, not Microsoft's.

    BroadPoint AmTech on Macs

    Over at Apple Insider, Neil Hughes continues the Broadpoint AmTech misinformation, also referring to Philip's post. Several other blogs or news sites also reported on Broadpoint AmTech numbers, some of them yesterday.

    Mac fanboys have also attacked verteran tech reviewer Walt Mossberg's fairly favorable review of Windows 7. Perhaps they feel betrayed, as Walt has favored Macs for years -- and for good reasons in the post-Vista era. But go back a decade and you'll find Walt to have been less charitable towards Apple.

    Assessing the Real Competition

    Microsoft's competitive problems aren't Macs but:

    • Windows XP
    • Software pirates
    • Netbooks

    Windows XP. Windows 7's biggest competitor will be Windows XP, which runs on about 80 percent of PCs, according to combined analyst reports. Microsoft's first challenge will be getting XP users to move up to Windows 7. Mac market share was 7.6 percent in the United States in second quarter, according to IDC. (Gartner and IDC should release Q3 preliminary numbers in the next couple of days.)

    Mac share is inconsequential to Microsoft compared to Windows XP. My prediction: Windows 7 will slow Mac share gains, which already declined over the last three quarters, according to both Gartner and IDC.

    Software pirates. Collectively, software pirates pose the greatest competitive threat to Microsoft, next to Windows XP. Not Macs. Certainly not PCs running Linux. According to Business Software Alliance, software piracy rates are highest in emerging markets, which also are where potential Windows PC adoption is greatest: 85 percent in Latin America, 66 percent in Central and Eastern Europe and 61 percent in Asia Pacific. By comparison, piracy rate in North Americs is 21 percent and 35 percent in the European Union. So in Latin America, more than 8 out of 10 copies of software in use are stolen.

    Here's a loaded question: How many people among the Betanews community use software for which they didn't pay for, even though the developer charges something? Anyone care to respond in comments? Maybe this is easier: What do you feel you should have to pay for software?

    More significantly, software piracy creates competitive opportunities for Macs, because of the damage done to the Windows brand. In a report released last week, BSA revealed a direct correlation between online software piracy at torrents and other file-trading sites and malware infections. Countries with high online piracy rates also have high malware infection rates. Related, 25 percent of a sampling of 98 sites distributing pirated software or digital content also contained malware. Where does the blame fall when PCs are infected with viruses? On Microsoft and Windows, which tarnishes the brand and helps foster popular folklore that Macs are more secure than Windows. Macs have problems, too, but they're not always as well publicized.

    Netbooks. Microsoft also faces more competitive threat from netbooks, which are gobbling up Windows margins at an alarming rate. Microsoft makes substantially less on each Windows XP Home license shipping on netbooks than it does on either Windows Vista Home Basic or Premium.

    During second calendar quarter, when Windows Client revenue fell 29 percent year over year and income declined 33 percent, netbooks made up 11 percent of PC sales, according to Microsoft. Microsoft Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell acknowledged that the increase in lower-margin consumer Windows licenses -- fed in part by increasing netbook demand -- contributed to declines.

    Last week, DisplaySearch updated second calendar quarter PC shipment data. DisplaySearch concluded that netbooks accounted for 22.2 percent of overall PC sales and 11.7 percent of revenues. Netbook sales jumped a staggering 264 percent year over year, while overall laptop sales (without counting netbooks) declined 14 percent.

    Meanwhile, increased netbook sales exerted ever greater pull downward on average selling prices. Laptop ASPs fell to $688 in second quarter from $704 in first quarter and $849 in Q2 2008. Netbook prices fell to $361 from $371 and $506, respectively, during the same time period. Microsoft has lots more to worry about than Macs, particularly netbook cannibalization of the PC market and the negative impact on Windows margins.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/12/Should_you_trust_Microsoft_with_your_data_'

    Should you trust Microsoft with your data?

    Publié: octobre 12, 2009, 6:38pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    That's probably not a hard question for many Sidekick users to answer, given recent events. If you're a Sidekick user, please offer your answer -- or your experience during the week-long data crisis -- in comments. I ask the same of everyone else. Answer in comments the question: Should you trust Microsoft with your data?

    Every existing or potential Microsoft cloud computing customer should ask and answer that question following the Sidekick data loss fiasco. How could Microsoft potentially lose all Sidekick user data? What? There was no server backup? It's not like Microsoft is inexperienced hosting data. The company bought Hotmail over a decade ago. Windows Live is all about hosted data.

    As I write, Microsoft and subsidiary Danger, have reportedly informed Sidekick users that potentially all their synced data -- contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists and photos -- has been lost. Best option is to keep the device off, so that syncing doesn't suck any remaining data into oblivion.

    T-Mobile now presents Sidekick Website visitors an explanation about the dire situation. I'm not even a customer, the Website presented me with the information early this afternoon in a pop-up message:

    T-Mobile and the Sidekick data services provider, Danger, a subsidiary of Microsoft, are reaching out to express our apologies regarding the recent Sidekick data service disruption. We appreciate your patience as Microsoft/Danger continues to work on maintaining platform stability, and restoring all services for our Sidekick customers.

    Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger's latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device -- such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos -- that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low. As such, we wanted to share this news with you and offer some tips and suggestions to help you rebuild your personal content. You can find these tips at the T-Mobile Sidekick Forums (http://www.t-mobile.com/sidekick). We encourage you to visit the Forums on a regular basis to access the latest updates as well as FAQs regarding this service disruption.

    In addition, we plan to communicate with you on Monday (Oct. 12) the status of the remaining issues caused by the service disruption, including the data recovery efforts and the Download Catalog restoration which we are continuing to resolve. We also will communicate any additional tips or suggestions that may help in restoring your content.

    We recognize the magnitude of this inconvenience. Our primary efforts have been focused on restoring our customers' personal content. We also are considering additional measures for those of you who have lost your content to help reinforce how valuable you are as a T-Mobile customer.

    We continue to advise customers to NOT reset their device by removing the battery or letting their battery drain completely, as any personal content that currently resides on your device will be lost.

    Once again, T-Mobile and Microsoft/Danger regret any and all inconvenience this matter has caused.

    Timing is the problem and the huge negative exposure it brings to Microsoft. The company is making big pushes into hosted data. Azure Services Platform is about ready for a big debut during Microsoft's Professional Developers Conference next month in Los Angeles. The Office Web Apps Technical Preview is underway, and Microsoft now offers hosted versions of enterprise products like Exchange and SharePoint servers. If Microsoft can sidekick Danger data out the door, how can enterprises trust their most sensitive data to the company?

    Competitors -- even Google -- have huge opportunity here to, from a counter sales-and-marketing perspective, deliver Microsoft a good nuts kick. How's that for a swift sidekick? Smart countermarketing should hit at two different customer levels: End users and Microsoft partners. The Sidekick data loss is much bigger than Microsoft, because it hurts T-Mobile, too. Whose customers are Sidekick users really? T-Mobile's, and the company may lose subscribers as a result of this huge loss of personal data.

    Personal is the problem. Corporations can lose data, but who really notices? Even when there is big data loss? But personal data loss, particularly Sidekick's scale and scope, riles up everyone. Sidekick is a messaging device; it's all about communication -- really personal stuff. Sidekick has a notoriously loyal user base, and a number of celebrities among the lot. I'm surprised there is yet no Sidekick support group for users suffering texting withdrawal or the shock of losing all their friends. Wait. Do you know of one?

    The timing presents another problem for Microsoft. The company's mobile strategy is a train wreck, but there was hope in the oft-rumored Project Pink. Looks like Microsoft was -- and may be -- planning to release new Sidekicks. They'll be stinkers now, because every blog or news story will recall the Sidekick data loss.

    Windows Mobile 6.5 is stinker enough. I took last week off from blogging, while I completely made offer my Oddly Together site. That's mainly why I didn't blog about Windows Mobile 6.5. How could I? The reviews were bad enough. Pee you. I couldn't bring myself to kick Microsoft when it was down.

    It's a wonder how Microsoft could release that stink bomb. But what other choice was there? The mobile market races ahead, even as Microsoft falls behind. I actually felt sorry for Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, while watching his stiff introduction to Windows Phone. Could the normally animated Ballmer look any unhappier to be launching new Windows Phone software and hardware?

    For now, the question remains: Should you trust Microsoft with your data? As Dirty Harry once asked: "Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/10/01/iPhone_s_global_success_is_more_marketing_myth_than_reality'

    iPhone's global success is more marketing myth than reality

    Publié: octobre 1, 2009, 6:15am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Analysis

    American business history almost certainly will recall Apple as one of the most successful marketers ever. With iPhone, the company has performed a remarkable magic trick: Making the late-starting mobile seem ready to take over the world. But the hard reality of facts -- not the torrent of glowing emotions coming from American and European financial analysts, journalists or Mac loyalists -- show something else. Apple's smartphone is by no means the roaring success everyone here claims it to be.

    Let me preface by reminding that I'm on record as calling Microsoft's mobile strategy a train wreck and asserting that the cell phone is poised to replace the PC. I've also called Apple's mobile platform -- iPhone, iPod touch and App Store -- as leading contender to become the next-generation computing platform.

    But hard mobile phone data and analysis raises doubts about whether Apple has got a sure winner. After being an early App Store cheerleader, I'm increasingly of the opinion that Apple's mobile platform may not reach escape velocity after all. Emerging markets and Apple's flawed strategy in India and Russia top my reasons for questioning how high the platform will ascend before falling back to earth. Other factors, such as device pricing and emerging market trends around mobile money, also work against Apple's present iPhone strategy.

    Some iPhone fans might ask: Surely Apple's global reach -- more than 70 countries -- is enough to bring the iPhone/App Store platform everywhere? But there's more to selling handsets than having presence. I contacted IDC Worldwide Mobile Phone Tracker senior research analyst Ryan Reith about Apple's global reach. He explained:

    The 70+ countries is something that looks good on paper, but in terms of volume it doesn't address the regional dynamics. One of the reasons why Nokia and Samsung are so good in developing markets is because they have mastered the art of effective manufacturing and distribution. They can make devices/services that suit the market. Apple is clearly not that type of company, nor do I think they are going in that direction. Having handsets readily available in 70+ countries is good for brand awareness, but it won't necessarily drive market share.

    Another BRIC in the Wall

    What is iPhone's real marketshare? In the United States, during second quarter 2009, Apple ranked No. 6 in handset unit marketshare, behind Nokia in one of its three weakest markets, according to IDC. Apple's share: 5.9 percent. By comparison, leaders Samsung and LG had 24.8 percent and 22.1 percent unit share, respectively.

    But Apple's global showing is more revealing, and the numbers fall far behind US hype about iPhone and App Store. For example, combined, four emerging markets known as BRIC -- Brazil, Russia, India and China -- account for more than 40 percent of world population. There, iPhone's largest unit marketshare in any one country was 1 percent -- in Russia during second quarter, according to IDC (That's actually good enough for rank of No. 7). Marketshare is too small to even register in the other three countries. That's three goose eggs for iPhone. By comparison, Nokia unit marketshare ranged from 38 percent to 56.1 percent in these same four countries during second quarter.

    China isn't so surprising a non-showing considering that only in August did Apple cut a distribution deal with second largest wireless carrier China Unicom. But that doesn't explain iPhone's tiny share in Brazil, India and Russia. The reasons are actually many, and on closer analysis they don't bode well for iPhone gaining significant unit marketshare any time soon -- perhaps not unless Apple just gives away handsets (Please jump to next subhead for further analysis).

    Cell phones, India, Q209During this month's new iPod launch event, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company had sold 30 million iPhones -- a number that is sure to increase when third calendar quarter shipments are officially announced in a few weeks. Thirty million is a remarkable number in just two years, but from another perspective it's paltry. In just the second quarter, Nokia sold three-and-a-half times more handsets as Apple did in more than two years, according to Gartner and IDC.

    I've read the comments and commentary; iPhone defenders try to dispute numbers like these by insisting on only counting smartphones. They claim the comparisons are unfair, because iPhone is in a different category. OK, let's do that. Globally, during second quarter, Nokia sold more than three times as many smartphones as Apple, according to Gartner. Nokia's smartphone market share was 45 percent, while Apple's was only 13.3 percent.

    There is another measure of success. Defenders of iPhone are all hung up on the applications, as is Apple, which uses App Store like a marketing club. This week, Apple announced that there have been 2 billion downloads from the App Store, which now has more than 85,000 applications. The number is humongous and quite simply unbelievable. Apple has shipped about 50 million App Store capable devices (including iPod touch). Assuming they're all in use, that works out to 40 applications per device.

    A World Apart

    There are still more ways to put into broader context iPhone's 30 million units. Global annual handset sales exceed 1 billion units a year, according to combined analyst reports. In about the time Apple shipped 30 million iPhones, all manufacturers shipped about 2 billion handsets.

    Combined analyst estimates put the number of cell phones currently in use at about 4 billion units, with as many as three quarters in emerging markets. Exactly how does 30 million in use (presumably) compare to 4 billion? Apple's reach is small, but Americans would never know that from all the noise here about iPhone (Jump to the next subhead for scorching indictment of the American media).

    Apple's challenge then is to gain more share, more rapidly. "Apple has had great success in North America, but quite a bit of struggle remains in other regions, especially developing markets," Reith said.

    The reasons for iPhone's rest-of-the-world struggles are many and too many for this already overlong post. I picked two, the latter being big enough for a series of blog posts.

    Carriers operate differently in many emerging markets than here. For starters, there are many state-sponsored carriers. More significantly, in some markets there are many smaller carriers -- and these are not the ones distributing iPhone. It's not uncommon in markets like India for phone users to switch carriers by swapping SIM cards. Small carrier competition creates more consumer choice, but not for iPhone.

    Earlier this year, Anshul Gupta, Gartner's principal analyst for mobile devices, discussed some of Apple's emerging market missteps: "In India, iPhone was launched at $650, and it was locked to operator for life. At first, price was high and secondly phone was locked in a market where consumers are not used to such condition, and" where people "change operator[s] frequently."

    But iPhone is different. "You cannot [swap] SIM cards," he emphasized, "because it is locked onto [the] operator you bought the device from. An iPhone bought from Airtel will not work on Vodafone and visa versa. Phone is not subsidized as well in India."

    The perspective is about the same there in India as viewed from afar by the Gartner analyst. "Apple bungled up big time with the iPhone in India," said Rohit Mishra, a student studying mobile technologies at VIT University in Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India. "It still has a solid brand and created the touchscreen crave that has resulted in the success of Nokia [XpressMusic] 5800 and Samsung Star." Nokia is India's market leader, with 56.1 percent unit marketshare in second quarter, according to IDC. Samsung was No. 2 and Apple No. 22.

    Rohit continued: "By pricing iPhone at Rs 31,000 ($600 approximately), Apple turned away a huge bunch of people who were waiting for the iPhone. There is another issue here -- we don't have 3G here. It's been launched by the state carrier in select cities, but that doesn't count for much now."

    Most of the world doesn't yet share the American obsession with smartphones. In many emerging markets, mobile telephony needs are more basic: connectivity and commerce. Governments and industry struggle to just get citizens connected with any mobile phone. Something as sophisticated as iPhone isn't a consideration.

    According to data presented during the GSMA Mobile Money Conference, held in Barcelona, Spain, from June 22-29, 2009, mobile phone access is as little as 2 percent in rural areas of Afghanistan, in a country where 75 percent of the population is illiterate. Increasing mobile penetration is a primary goal there and among other emerging market countries. The benefits can be substantial. According to GSMA: "A 10 percent increase in mobile phone penetration can boost GDP growth by 0.6 percent."

    Cell phones, Russia, q209Beyond connectivity, in many of these same countries, governments and industry are looking at ways to enable commerce. Mobile money is a primary goal. While the concept has several forms, basically, mobile money allows residents to pay for goods using their cell phones and to receive money, too. Where banks can't reach, mobile phones can. Rather than store bills and coins under the mattress (if there is one), people carry digital currency attached to their mobile accounts.

    In October 2008, Visa launched a mobile payment network in India. A similar network launched in Malaysia in April 2009, in cooperation with Maybank, Maxis and Nokia. Three days ago, in Awareness Times, Aruna Turay wrote about a new mobile money system opening in Sierra Leone.

    The point: The majority of the world's cell phone markets have needs that the iPhone isn't ready to meet -- even with App Store as a huge asset. By the way, even Nokia is moving into the mobile money business, announcing its own network in August. One line from the press release makes the point: "4 billion mobile phones but only 1.6 billion bank accounts."

    Before writing this analysis, I took the position that mobile payments would overshadow applications. Apple has the one, but not the other. Reith disagreed. "My opinion is that mobile payments will coexist on current OS/platforms, and will play a role alongside of applications," he said. "I don't think one will overshadow the other."

    He added: "Mobile payments will interact with a lot of apps that are made for emerging markets." That's good news for Apple and its powerful App Store. By number of devices, Apple is puny. By number of mobile applications, Apple is a world-class leader. Additionally, App Store offers a limited mobile payments system -- limited meaning its dedicated to application purchases. An Apple bank, so to the speak, could actually increase the iPhone/App Store platform's appeal in emerging markets.

    Misguided Reporting

    I'm not trying to demean or even diminish Apple's success with iPhone or App Store but to create perspective too often lacking in US reporting. Many of my journalist peers are themselves obsessed about iPhone and App Store. The number of blogs in any given week just dedicated to new App Store applications is evidence enough. There is informational obsession with the device that defies reality.

    IDC's Ryan Reith agrees. "The view about American journalist obsession with the iPhone couldn't be more true," he said.

    It's that misguided obsession as expressed in two separate blog entries posted yesterday that prompted my writing about iPhone. At the Apple 2.0 blog, reporter Philip Elmer-DeWitt asserts that "iPhone's share of the smartphone market hits a record 40 percent." Really? In what alternate universe? He writes:

    Apple now has a substantial -- if not the largest -- share of the smartphone market in every region of the world except Asia and Africa, according to a report issued Wednesday by AdMob. Overall, the iPhone's worldwide share grew to 40 percent from 33 perent over the last six months. In North America, its share of the smartphone market is 52 percent, as measured by hits on AdMob's ads.

    This data -- based on advertising measurements -- doesn't even remotely jive with Gartner or IDC smartphone unit shipments, nor even Apple's figures. According to Gartner, Nokia has 45 percent smartphone marketshare in the United States. But the data makes sense perhaps looking at AdMob's share on different handsets. This kind of persistent reporting makes iPhone appear larger than what it really is. It's wonderful for Apple's Stock price.

    Now for the other blog: I disagree with Silicon Alley Insider writer Dan Frommer's assertion that "Microsoft must make more spps for the iPhone." That's a simply crazy idea from yet another member of the iPhone-obsessed American Press. If you're living in one of two glass houses -- geekdom or the United States -- this kind of thinking makes sense (Sadly, many technology bloggers or journalists live in both).

    Microsoft's mobile strategy may be total disaster, but Apple's platform is no sure thing. Frommer makes a short-sighted recommendation. That's OK, he gets plenty of other stuff right.

    As for me, I expect many iPhone and Mac fanboys to call me out-and-out wrong. Feel free, that's what comments are for. I look forward to the engaging debate.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/29/Q__How_essential_is_Microsoft_Security_Essentials__A__Does_your_door_have_a_lock_'

    Q: How essential is Microsoft Security Essentials? A: Does your door have a lock?

    Publié: septembre 29, 2009, 8:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today Microsoft released Security Essentials for free. I've been testing the software for the last month, and I'm nearly at a loss how to really review it. Either the software doesn't really work and my laptop is a malware whore, or Security Essentials works so well you just set it and forget it.

    The software has never warned of any malware infection. It works silently and doesn't hog resources -- typically less than 6,000k memory, according to Task Manager. Next to perhaps AVG 8.5, I've never used anti-malware software that asked so little of me or my computer (Read Scott Fulton's take on Security Essentials).

    Security Essentials is another example of Microsoft improving software UX (user experience). Among Joe's six principles of good software design, Security Essentials embodies the two most important. Good software: Emphasizes simplicity and hides complexity.

    By comparison, Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 violate these two principles at seemingly every opportunity. User Access Control prompts in Vista and security warnings in IE 7 demand too much from end users. Rather than drive 120km per hour, users must slow down for Windows Vista or IE 7 speed bumps. It's terrible product design because:

    • End users get angry about waiting and they so develop bad feelings about the software and Microsoft.
    • Most people don't understand enough about security or the prompts to make the best decision. Confusion makes some people feel stupid, and so they also feel unhapppy about the software and Microsoft.
    • Numbness sets in, so that end users ignore the security prompts. They develop bad click-through habits, increasing risk from ignoring prompts or mindlessly clicking through a browser generated-malware pop-up.

    Good security UX is about balance, by providing the best protection without being too intrusive. My favorite analogy is the street-side shop, where goods are displayed in the window and on the sidewalk. People need to see the goods to buy them. But as the economy has declined, sidewalk thievery has increased, so the shopkeeper moves the goods inside. That turns out not to be enough. Someone breaks into the shop through the big window and steals the goods, so the shopkeeper puts up bars and a gate. Each new security measure limits the shop's ability to conduct business with legitimate customers, just to keep out a few criminals. At some point, the security measures sacrifice commerce for safety. That's exactly the kind of security approach Microsoft applied to Windows Vista and IE 7.

    Windows 7 and IE 8 reduce the security complexity, but there is still too much of it. That said, there is lots more balance than before. The defaults are just about right but security prompts still a few too many. Microsoft's approach is more like a car prompting when the driver hits the left-hand signal: "Remember to look over your shoulder for oncoming traffic before making the turn." Such audio prompts would drive drivers crazy. Hehehe, maybe it would be a good green tactic. Riding a bicycle would be preferable to the constant nagging while driving.

    So, it is refreshing to find Security Essentials to be so silent and unassuming. Good security software should protect, not ask if you want to do something that might be risky or whether you really want to be protected. But this unassuming simplicity makes a review, other than perhaps purposely infecting my laptop, difficult because there isn't much to say.

    An Essential Utility

    As such, I'll talk strategy and what the software means for Microsoft's former security software partners. The question: Should Microsoft offer free security software to consumers? Absolutely. There is no choice, and Microsoft would do customers better by fully integrating security software into Windows 7. But Microsoft has enough antitrust problems in Europe to make including antivirus risky business.

    Integrated or separate, I see four reasons why free security software from Microsoft is a must:

    • Windows brand
    • Customer safety
    • Shadow ecosystem
    • Corporate responsibility

    Windows brand. Security problems have damaged the Windows brand. Who wants to drive an unsafe car? Apple has enjoyed much success by ragging on Windows security in advertisements, such as "Get a Mac" commercials. Additionally, offensive third-party anti-malware -- meaning annoying and resource hogging -- detracts from the end-user experience, which also hurts the Windows brand.

    Worst of all: Malware infections, where people feel vulnerable and invaded before a torrent of porn popups or other malady. Who gets the blame? Microsoft and Windows. It's funny how little the criminals are accused. When the bank is robbed, despite its security measures, who do people blame? The bank or the robbers? You know the answer.

    Customer safety. Windows is Microsoft's product. The primary responsibility for protecting it from marauders should be Microsoft's, not third parties like McAfee or Symantec. Microsoft's first obligation is to the customer who buys Windows with the reasonable expectation of using it safely. Microsoft must do everything possible to ensure customers' privacy and identities are protected from criminals. Who wants to move into a bad neighborhood, where muggers and murders roam the streets and house to house? Just one worm, Conficker, has infected millions of PCs. But experts dispute the number, which could be as low as 3 million or as high as 10 million, when considering variants.

    A second obligation: The PC manufacturer who sells a computer with Windows. Security problems tarnish brands like Dell and HP, too. There, many OEMs have failed their customer responsibilities, by shipping consumer PCs with anti-malware software that typically expires in 30-90 days. Microsoft is doing right by both customers -- OEMs and PC buyers -- by taking more security responsibility.

    Shadow ecosystem. OK, this is going to start the flamethrowers. Calm down, commenters for what you are about to read. I assert that Microsoft has got an undeserved bad security rap. Windows XP is pretty secure from Service Pack 2 onward. Windows Vista and 7 are even safer, mainly because of changes to user rights privileges and the hardened kernel. IE is still a bugger, but it's safer today than two versions ago.

    Microsoft's security problems are more a byproduct of its success than poorly written code.

    Microsoft describes its Windows partners and their products and services as an ecosystem. Third parties greatly profit from this ecosystem. But there is what I call a shadow ecosystem that profits from exploiting Windows rather than extending it. Third-party anti-malware providers operate in the shadow ecosystem fringes, by fixing security bugs rather than exploiting them; their assistance is vital to Microsoft and its customers and partners.

    But the shadow ecosystem is mostly made up of parasites. They attack the Windows ecosystem and would destroy it by profiting from it. Microsoft can't escape the shadow ecosystem. The ecosystem of developers, resellers and other partners make money from Windows platform strengths. The shadow ecosystem profits from the platform's weaknesses. Because both ecosystems come from Windows, Microsoft must take responsibility for them.

    Corporate responsibility. But Microsoft's security responsibility is bigger, because most PCs connecting to the Internet run some version of Windows. Microsoft's responsibility to protect then is about 1 billion PCs and the commerce that takes place on them.

    Every botnet puts the entire Web community at risk. For years, I've recommended that companies should provide all employees with free anti-malware software. Actually, use of the software on personal PCs should be a requirement of employment. If your employee's personal PC is infected by malware and participates in a botnet spewing spam or other maladies, he or she is the enemy. To Microsoft I say this: You should make free security software available for personal use a part of corporate volume-licensing contracts. Competitors will cry antitrust fowl, but they could offer similar option. Microsoft, do the right thing.

    Security Essentials' release isn't enough, however. Microsoft should take a bigger risk of offending third-party anti-malware developers and even European or US trustbusters: Advertise. Microsoft should make Security Essentials a part of Windows advertising, as the company has done with Windows Live Photo Gallery. Microsoft should build brand awareness like it has with Bing. "There's a safer Windows. Windows 7. It's safer still with Microsoft Security Essentials. It's so simple. Set it and forget it. Security Essentials will remember to lock the Windows so you don't have to."

    For the consumer market, Security Essentials is the kind of product Microsoft should have released long ago. Is it good enough? That's the question millions of users will answer over the coming months.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/27/Zune_HD__The_best_portable_media_player_you_may_never_buy'

    Zune HD: The best portable media player you may never buy

    Publié: septembre 27, 2009, 11:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    On Friday, I bought a Zune HD 32, so that you wouldn't have to.

    On Monday, I may return it.

    The Zune HD is perhaps the best portable media player released by any vendor -- even better than iPod touch. Microsoft finally gamed Apple, with better design, better hardware components, more appropriate size and outstanding digital content consumption experience.

    But Zune HD also is a platform without a purpose. It's a single device in a multipurpose world. There isn't much you can do with Zune HD other than watch movies or listen to music, and there is currently no ecosystem for extending Zune HD's utility -- nor is one visible in the distance. Zune HD is a real heart breaker, because Microsoft otherwise has delivered something exceptional.

    Before proceeding a qualification: Unlike many other product reviewers, I'm decidedly pragmatic. I strip away the hardware speeds and feeds, refuse to benchmark and focus on the down and dirty of usability. I ask at the start: Can you easily use the product and eke some enjoyment from it? Related: How well will the product fit into digital lifestyles? Many other reviewers have glowed over Zune HD. Much as my geek nature likes the device, my pragmatic character finds faults. These faults can only really be fixed by what Microsoft does really well: Partnering. Without partners, Zune HD is little more than prototype for a Microsoft phone, which this device absolutely should have been.

    A Thing of Beauty, Flawed

    Zune HD is a classy device. The portable media player is finely crafted, is remarkably thin and fits more comfortably in the hand than iPod touch (Zune HD measure 52.7 mm x 102.1 mm x 8.9 mm and weighs 74 grams). If Microsoft combined iPod nano with iPod touch and sprinkled in its design DNA, Zune HD would be the progeny. The device is what the 5th generation Apple's iPod nano should have been: Slightly larger to accommodate a touch screen. For size, shape, weight and feel in the hand, Zune HD is simply the best portable media player I have ever held.

    The Zune HD's size, particularly its thinness, would be ideal for a cell phone -- way better suited than iPhone. With a 3G radio, Bluetooth and application store, Zune HD could be a helluva phone. The task-oriented user interface, while very non-phone like, is ideally suited for a multi-functional device, even one with 3G telephony. Task-oriented UIs emphasize simplicity and hide complexity, increasing usability.

    Zune HD 32 Zune HD is Microsoft's sexiest product ever.

    The device would be even better for handheld gaming, and there the Zune HD packs the hardware to deliver but not the entertainment applications and games to support it. The iPod touch is rapidly becoming the handheld game console of choice. Nintendo and Sony are on the defensive, as Apple extends a rich hardware and software gaming platform. Betanews' Tim Conneally reported on Sept. 15, 2009, that App Store has more than 21,000 gaming and entertainment apps compared to about 600 for Sony's PSP and about 3,700 for Nintendo DS.

    Nearly 70 of the top 100 paid applications at Apple's App Store are games. By comparison, the Zune Marketplace offers nine Zune HD applications, seven of which are games. Nine might as well be zero when App Store offers 65,000+ applications. That said, the right seven could be enough if one of them was like any of the Halo series games for Xbox 360. But there is no killer app or game in the collection.

    It's simply unconscionable -- or worse, incompetence -- that Microsoft, the developer of Xbox 360, launched Zune HD without a marketplace of games. What? Microsoft has no arcade games that it could port from Xbox 360 to Zune HD? I understand that Microsoft plans some kind of Xbox Live support for Zune HD, but it's already too little too late. There should have been big games from Day 1. Any later is too late.

    Perhaps Microsoft isn't rushed because Zune HD is currently confined to US distribution. That's yet another logistical blunder. Microsoft should have launched Zune HD in at least five countries -- Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and United States. These are all English-speaking nations. Aside from some-fine tuning for localized English, Zune HD could be distributed fairly easily through Microsoft's existing retail channels. By confining Zune HD to United States, the otherwise internationally-focused Microsoft confines the device to failure. Apple sells iPod touch everywhere Zune HD isn't.

    Taking the UI, Features to Task

    OK, that's enough strategy analysis. What is Zune HD like to use? The OLED touchscreen is beautiful, and it's responsive. Like iPhone or iPod touch, Zune HD's touchscreen is capacitive, which responds to the fingers' electrical impulses. By comparison, my Nokia N97 cell phone uses a resistive touchscreen, which requires some pressure from the finger.

    Zune HD's user interface should be familiar to the few million people who purchased its predecessors, alibiet optimized for touch. Flick of the finger scrolls the Zune HD menu, and there is multitouch manipulation, too. The Zune HD UI inherits some aspects from Zune 4.0 software, such as Quickplay to which users can pin music.

    Zune HD and Zune 4.0 Splash Screens Zune HD and Zune 4.0 software use similar splash screens.

    But the UI works well for something else: The visuals, supported by nVidia's Tegra APX 2600 chip, are exceptional. Apple iPod designers should bow in shame. Artist splash graphics, videos, games -- anything visual -- just delights the eyes. There is eye candy and then there is Zune HD. To reiterate: Microsoft engineers just slapped their Apple counterparts across the face. The Apple group should be ashamed for it. Did I mention that Zune HD is fast, too?

    Content synchronization is simply excellent. Sync is another kind of user interface, and one Apple perfected with the first couple of iTunes/iPod generations but later ruined. The first iPod was plug in and sync. But as iTunes has grown fat so has sync become complicated with settings and switches -- forklifts to haul the music players' fat ass off the couch. Zune 4.0 software and Zune HD hardware bring back some of that joyous sync simplicity.

    For music, I only synced tracks downloaded using Zune pass. The content was DRM-protected Windows Media Audio at 192kbps bitrate. Zune HD delivers great audio fidelity, even from these compressed tracks. There's an excellent graphic equalizer, which raises yet again the question why Zune 4.0 software has none. I find that Microsoft's 192kbps WMA sounds noticably better than Apple's 256kbps AAC. Apple does something in the encoding that boosts the bass, and in my experience AAC clips the highs. As such, AAC tracks sound muddy compared to WMA.

    Similarly, Digital radio delivers great audio, too. I listened to San Diego's KGB, that's 101.5 FM, which broadcasts two HD channels. Switching between the two HD channels is easy as tapping the screen. Zune HD shows the playing artist and song title, and there is a cart icon for grabbing the music on the go. Using the media player's WiFi, I easily downloaded two tracks from Marketplace to Zune HD, which automatically synced them to my laptop when plugged in via USB cable. Because I have a Zune Pass subscription, there was no other charge for the music. How slick is that? This feature and others highlighted in my Zune 4.0 software review put music discovery on steroids. If you're looking to find new music, Microsoft will get you the goods better than Apple.

    Zune Pass is one of the top reasons to buy the HD over touch. The 16GB Zune HD sells for $219.99 and the 32GB model for $289.99. The 8GB iPod touch sells for $199 and the 32GB model for $299. For about $20 more then touch entry model, portable media player buyers can double their storage capacity with Zune HD 16. But the bigger value difference comes with Zune Pass, which on paper costs $14.95/month for unlimited download access to most of the Zune Marketplace music catalog. But Microsoft gives subscribers 10 MP3 song purchases per month for free, effectively reducing monthly cost to around 5 bucks. That's helluva value compared to iTunes albums, which increasingly cost more than $10 for new music. The hottest singles are $1.29 each. Do the math from the base price: How much would you otherwise spend per month on music for that iPod touch? Torrent freaks, why steal when you can have unlimited downloads for 5 bucks a month?

    A Misguided Approach

    For my video test, I downloaded HD version of free "An NBC Sneak Peak: Heroes," which looked fabulous, presumably because of the OLED display. But it wasn't exceptionally better than viewing the same video on my Nokia N97 or iPod touch. Those devices deliver a viewing experience that is good enough, even though not better. By the way, better is subjective to the user and relative to screen size and resolution, which is different for all three devices. For Zune HD: 3.3-inches; 480 x 272. iPod touch: 3.5 inches; 480 x 320. N97: 3.5 inches; 640 x 360.

    The HD punch comes from outputting the video to a HDTV or HD monitor. Resolution: 720p. But that process requires one of two Zune HD AV kits, priced at either $39.99 or $89.99. That's a whole lot more to pay for the privilege of watching 720p content on the big screen. I didn't have either kit to test this feature, which I view as being misguided.

    Zune HD 32 Zune HD 32 comes in other colors when purchased from Zune Originals.

    Yes, it's terribly misguided, and if you don't agree that's what comments are for. Please have your say. The AV output asks too much of most consumers. For starters, they have to buy the extra kit to get the 720p HD benefit. Additionally, it's an unnecessarily cumbersome approach to connect wires in an increasingly wireless world. Sure, a Zune HD user could set up the AV docked and leave it plugged into the TV all the time. That would reduce initial complexity to docking the device and fiddling with separate remotes. But it shouldn't be necessary, especially from a Microsoft that has put media sharing and streaming capabilities into Windows and Xbox 360. More importantly, it's a niche capability most mainstream users wouldn't want.

    Since I'm harping on the misguided, there is Zune HD's Web browser to call out. Microsoft would have done better to ship no browser than the lame Internet Explorer piece of doggy doo stinking up Zune HD. It's a disappointment by many measures, starting with usability. It's a decidedly mobile browser (e.g., pages typically render differently in the browser than they would on a desktop version or Apple's WebKit-based mobile Safari; in search, user can choose between some mobile and non-mobile destinations).

    Bing is the main user interface, and I don't have much to quibble about the basic approach. For years I've said that search is the new user interface, or should be for PCs and mobile devices. But search UI as a concept doesn't necessarily translate into excellent execution. I found getting around the Web to be somewhat frustrating, which takes points away from the overall good user experience. If people feel good about the product, for godsake don't give them any reasons to feel bad. The search UI is great, but the browsing engine beneath stinks.

    Since Zune HD is a portable media player, I made YouTube my first browser destination. The page rendered just fine, but not the content, Microsoft's lame-ass browser doesn't support Flash. That would be OK if Microsoft imitated Apple and offered some other utility for watching those videos. By comparison, I can watch YouTube videos in the browser that shipped with my Nokia N97 cell phone.

    Microsoft, what the hell are you doing here? What good is a portable media player that doesn't support one of the major distributors of portable media? That means no Hulu, either. What about Silverlight support? Will it come, perhaps? Dream on, baby. Dream on.

    For its few flaws, Zune HD is a great portable media player, even if standing alone in a solitary ecosystem. Apple's mobile ecosystem is closed, too, but plenty more open and inviting to developers. I highly recommend Zune HD -- don't buy the iPod touch, bud. But I may not keep mine because it duplicates nearly all the functions on my Nokia N97 smartphone. Whoa, surprise: Nokia supports Microsoft's DRM technologies, which means Zune Pass content plays on the N97. Nice! I sync using Nokia's Ovi Suite 2.0.

    Alas, as this post's title asserts: Zune HD is the best portable media player you may never buy, because:

    • Most people will chose iPod touch. Apple's marketing is better and there is a huge stock of mobile applications.
    • Zune HD's US-only distribution cuts it off from the world. What good is a device reviewers rave about that most nobody can buy?
    • There is no content, particularly games. Portable media players have matured into new entertainment categories Zune HD misses.
    • Xbox 360 and Zune HD aren't two peas in a pod, as they say. There's no real integration. They're more like two peas in the same field.

    Tomorrow I will decide whether or not to keep my Zune HD 32. I do really like the device, and you would, too -- if Microsoft distributed it in your country. I say that for Betanews' many non-US readers, who deserve better. Doesn't everyone deserve better than iPod touch?

    [Photo Credits: Joe Wilcox, using Nokia N97 smartphone.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/24/Microsoft_s_Windows_7_House_Party_prep_video_is_a_real_party_pooper'

    Microsoft's Windows 7 House Party prep video is a real party pooper

    Publié: septembre 24, 2009, 7:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Sometimes buzz is the last thing a company should want.

    Microsoft's lame Windows House Party prep video is the rage of the Web right now -- and that's not good. I refrained from blogging yesterday but have been called to action. This morning, Interpret's Michael Gartenberg tweeted: "How have you not weighed in on the House Party videos? Are you just laughing too hard... We need some JW analysis here please." OK. OK. I'll break my silence.

    The House Party video is so bad I hurled not laughed. It is godawful disgusting marketing. Two days ago, I received my Windows 7 House Party confirmation. But I'm now seriously -- and I do mean seriously -- thinking about cancelling. If this video is Microsoft's idea of a party, whoa -- I don't want to be a lame-ass by association. These people make even the weirdest geeks seem cool, by comparison.

    There's something about the baddness that reminds me of Internet Explorer 8 videos with actor Dean Cain (You remember the handsome, Princeton graduate turned TV Superman?). One video featured a woman hurling, which, again, was my reaction to the Windows 7 House Party prep video.

    Gartenberg later tweeted: "Just show your guests a few of the Win 7 Orientation videos. You'll never worry about having friends over again."

    What really scares me: The video is so 1950s bad and boring, I wonder if there is some hidden revelation about Microsoft corporate culture. It's all so staid, so contained, so contrived. Do you see any characteristics in this video that remind of some Microsoft products? Gulp, I do. Please give your answers in comments.

    After hitting so many marketing homers -- "The Rookies," "Laptop Hunters," and "Bing" -- the Windows 7 House Party prep video is a pop out. It's like counter-marketing. Boring video. Boring people. Boring party. And by association, boring Windows 7. You can turn off the clock and go back to sleep now. There's nothing worth getting up for here.

    Microsoft does want to generate excitement around Windows 7 -- or did I miss something? The intro video should be exciting and tuned to the audience. Exactly who does Microsoft think is signing up for these parties anyway? Geeks are what I see, and this video is oh-so not for them.

    One of my regular readers and an IM buddy is Puppet, a 12th-year student from Australia. Puppet is a big Microsoft fan. He was super enthused to sign for a party and to be chosen. For Puppet (not his real name, of course), the Windows 7 House Party approaches geek nirvana. It will be in a sense his graduation party, too. "It's the day after my last day of school ever," he told me over IM. Puppet finishes high school next month.

    I'll make a plug here for Puppet. He's looking for a PC manufacturer to provide some gear for his party. Would you like to help him out? If I were a Microsoft marketer, Outlook would be open already and an email half-written to Puppet. What better marketing than a teenage geek who loves Microsoft products celebrating his high school graduation with a Windows 7 party? Puppet already has gained a little local celebrity status for being chosen to host a party: "Tupperware tactics to push New Windows 7."

    Tupperware. Tupperware. Mmm, that's the problem with that damn Windows 7 House Party prep video. It's more like a Tupperware party instructional. Windows 7 Tupperware provides containers for all your stuff. Photos go into this plastic pop-top. Movies require this liter-size container. For your music, there is compartmentalized storage. Torrent downloads go here. Zune Pass tracks go there. That tiny box is for iTunes music you foolishly paid for. All this Tupperware can be yours for free with Windows 7.

    Perhaps, just perhaps there is method to the madness -- or so I can hope. Microsoft kicked off its $300 million Windows marketing campaign with those insanely stupid Bill and Jerry commercials -- as in Microsoft cofounder Gates and comedian Seinfeld. They were so bad, everything that followed seemed good. Could that really be Microsoft's objective here?

    For now, I just don't know about holding a Windows 7 House Party. Party hosters, you do realize that Microsoft will use your uploaded pictures and movies for marketing purposes? Wouldn't you just die if the Microsoft marketing makeover made you look like the people in the video? There are geeks, and then there are freaks.

    Speaking of freaks, here is the obligatory link to the altered video everyone is laughing about. It's really funny, but even worse party buzz for Microsoft marketers.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/23/Microsoft_should_dig_into_the_WebKit_to_stop_Google_from_framing_IE'

    Microsoft should dig into the WebKit to stop Google from framing IE

    Publié: septembre 23, 2009, 9:30pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Internet Explorer is in a state of crisis so severe that Microsoft may yet lose most of the browser market territory claimed during the browser wars. Microsoft has no choice but to make a leap of development faith, by abandoning the IE rendering engine and releasing new WebKit-based desktop and mobile browsers. IE is a dead platform. It's long past time for Microsoft to end its "Weekend at Ernie's" behavior.

    What a difference a decade makes. Ten years ago, Microsoft won the browser wars with Netscape, only to abandon the territory after Internet Explorer 6 launched. Many end users are still stuck in the IE 6 past, whether it's the browser directly or progeny Internet Explorer 7 or 8. According to Net Applications, IE 6 usage share is higher than either of the newer versions. Perhaps IE's market position would be better had Microsoft not let browser development lay idle until after Mozilla started working on Firefox about six years ago. AOL and Mozilla reignited browser development because of paid search -- that Google box -- as did several other software developers. AOL eventually gave up on Netscape, but Apple, Mozilla and Opera continued developing browsers.

    Google entered the market just a year ago and already has released three versions of browser Chrome. The speed of Chrome development is eerily familiar. Microsoft rat-tat-tat released new browser versions in 1996 and 1997, going from IE 2 to IE 4. Through IE 6, Microsoft released new versions every year. In the new browser wars, Google is to Microsoft as Microsoft was to Netscape in the late 1990s. Microsoft fought to protect its Windows platform. Similarly, Google is fighting to protect its search and informational platform. If will determines winners, Google has got it over Microsoft.

    Framing IE for Posterity

    Matters bad are worse, with Google's Chrome Frame announcement and Microsoft's weak position in the mobile browser market, where WebKit-based Chrome and Safari rapidly gain users. Chrome Frame, which has just entered beta, is an Internet Explorer plug-in supporting HTML and JavaScript, among other technologies or tags. Google is trying to redefine Internet Explorer on terms that suit its product and platform objectives. It's Google's most ambitious drive into Microsoft controlled territory ever, even more than desktop search, Exchange email sync or toolbar products/services.

    For Microsoft, Chrome Frame and forthcoming Google Wave are a looming crisis of IE's character, as expressed in end-user features and the browser's appeal -- or lack thereof -- to developers. By Framing Internet Explorer, Google seizes control of the end user experience away from Microsoft. If Google can succeed widely distributing Frame, the easy step is next: Moving those same users to Chrome.

    Chrome browser usage share doesn't seem like much -- 2.84 percent -- according to Net Applications. But that's up from zero a year ago. Meanwhile, Internet Explorer usage share continues a long slow decline -- 66.97 percent in August down from from 79.49 percent about two years ago. Firefox is up from 15.45 percent to 22.98 percent during the same time period.

    If Chrome Frame succeeds, Firefox could easily be collateral damage. Firefox uage gains have largely come from Internet Explorer, which if Framed could give up many fewer users. Meanwhile, should Google succeed moving end users en masse from Framed IE to Chrome, Firefox growth likely would stall and over time recede. Looked at that way, Chrome Frame poses potentially more risk to Firefox than IE. Remember, Mozilla is dependent on Google paid search revenue through the browser.

    Frame would be a seemingly small problem, if not for:

    • The surge in competing browsers
    • Monetization of browsers around search
    • Increasing demand for browsers on mobile devices
    • Declining developer interest in IE technologies like ActiveX
    • Increasing developer interest in other Web browsers or technologies

    Microsoft won the browser wars by several means, with establishment of IE as a development platform being one of the most important. Today, other than businesses with legacy dependencies, is there really any core developer interest in Internet Explorer? That's a question for comment; please pipe in on the topic.

    Apple, Google and Mozilla are doing much better wooing new developers to their browsers, and, again, Chrome and Safari are based on WebKit, whether for desktop or mobile device. Mobile applications are the future, and it's there Microsoft looks surprisingly pale before brawny Apple and Google. Regarding Google, that's without factoring Chrome OS, which could directly rival Windows.

    Commercial Open-Source is the Solution

    Microsoft should answer WebKit for WebKit, by releasing a new browser based on a new rendering engine; put on the IE brand and ship it for desktop and mobile. For businesses and consumers that need backward compatibility, there would be IE 8. But people wanting something new and fresh or developers looking to do cool development could choose the new IE, which Microsoft should tout for its standards support.

    Something else: Such an approach would be in line with Microsoft's so-called "Interoperability Principles." Additionally, about two weeks ago, Microsoft opened the CodePlex Foundation, which is supposed to bridge commercial and open-source software development. WebKit may be open source, but the practical development comes from commercial developers like Apple and Google. Microsoft could extend WebKit, much as Apple has done with Safari and drive standards around it. Example: Silverlight integration.

    Bundling IE with Windows certainly helped Microsoft win the browser wars, but the company did much more, such as either developing or coming to effectively control emerging Web standards during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Microsoft isn't really driving Web standards today. A commercially developed WebKit browser, supporting HTML 5 and other standards, would strengthen Microsoft's position of influence against Apple, Google, Mozilla and other developers supporting open-source browsing engines. Done right, WebKit-based IE could even steal marketshare from other open-source browsers. IE's 67 percent usage share is helluva starting place.

    By releasing WebKit-based IE, Microsoft could also:

    • Offer a better IE alternative to users than Google Frame
    • Nip the Google Chrome bud before it grows any meaningful usage share
    • Quickly bring to market a competitive mobile browser and development platform
    • Increase IE's appeal among developers and to governments demanding open-source development
    • Better support emerging Microsoft Web technologies that do interest developers, such as Silverlight
    • Level the compatibility and performance playing field with open-source browsers, such as Chrome and Firefox
    • Unload from developers Windows baggage -- legacy technologies like ActiveX and constraints for backward compatibility

    Left unchecked, Google will take Internet Explorer and Frame it. Perhaps Apple and Mozilla will break the glass. Microsoft is posed to become the Netscape of the 2010s, otherwise. Microsoft must act to preserve and even reclaim territory taken during the browser wars. There's still time, but not for long.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/22/Accounting_rules_shouldn_t_change_to_benefit_Apple__other_high_tech_companies'

    Accounting rules shouldn't change to benefit Apple, other high-tech companies

    Publié: septembre 22, 2009, 10:10pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    The Financial Accounting Standards Board will make a grave mistake if it gives into Apple and other high-tech companies demanding a change to subscription accounting rules. FASB is preparing to vote on a rule change affecting GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) versus non-GAAP accounting. Apple is on record as supporting the change, which would artificially boost the company's quarterly revenue and almost certainly its stock price. Some other companies, including Microsoft, could receive similar benefits.

    Under current rules, companies defer subscription revenue. Since they deliver services over time, revenue is accounted for by X percentage every quarter. Microsoft has deferred revenue for years, but the numbers got really big starting in 2002, following the implementation of annuity volume-licensing contracts under Licensing 6. Four times a year, Microsoft states the total unearned revenue, how much deferred revenue it realizes as real revenue and how much more the company gains each quarter.

    Nearly 12 months ago, Apple started reporting GAAP and non-GAAP results side by side -- with fiscal 2008 fourth quarter earnings. CEO Steve Jobs clearly was dissatisfied with not officially reporting iPhone revenue, a large portion the company deferred. In an uncharacteristic appearance, Jobs joined the fiscal fourth quarter earnings call, where he droned on about GAAP versus non-GAAP reporting and how much higher Apple results would be when adding subscription revenue.

    "Subscription accounting is the solution we adopted to let us provide free software updates to iPhone users under GAAP accounting rules," Jobs told financial analysts. Non-GAAP results "eliminate the impact of subscription accounting," which is a strange way to describe deferred revenue, unless the objective is to convey stronger performance regardless of accounting standards. For that one quarter, Apple revenue would have been 48 percent higher when accounting for subscription revenue.

    By reporting GAAP and non-GAAP side by side, Apple did something most companies don't ever do. For a reason. According to FASB standards, GAAP results are those officially reported. Sure, Microsoft and other companies report non-GAAP results on paper, but not side by side or aggressively as Apple did a year ago and continues to do today.

    It's sensible that Apple report non-GAAP earnings on some basis, if for no other reason than comparison to other mobile phone manufacturers using similar subscription revenue accounting methods. For example, Nokia reports non-IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) results.

    Changing the Rules

    The rule change is already approved in draft stage, which was a mistake that the vote could compound. I see industry lobbing to change GAAP/non-GAAP reporting as attempt by some companies to manipulate their quarterly results and share values. For Apple, the ability to add currently non-GAAP results to GAAP would be huge. For example, during fiscal 2009 third quarter, Apple reported revenue of $8.34 billion and $1.23 billion net quarterly profit. To get a sense of how much Apple executives loathe non-GAAP reporting, I will quote from the fiscal third-quarter press release:

    Adjusting GAAP sales and product costs to eliminate the impact of subscription accounting, the corresponding non-GAAP measures for the quarter are $9.74 billion of 'Adjusted Sales' and $1.94 billion of 'Adjusted Net Income.'

    The current rules are goddamn sensible, because deferred revenue encourages accountability. Apple and AT&T sell iPhone under two-year contracts and deliver software updates over time to the smartphone and to iPod touch. Apple shouldn't get the benefit of money upfront for a service delivered to the buyer over X time period. Deferred revenue accenuates Apple's obligation to its iPhone buyers.

    Something else: Device, service and software are intertwined. In an October 2007 blog, I asked, " Who owns iPhone?," after an Apple software update bricked some devices. That Apple can so easily change the device raises questions about ownership and how much the device-service-software is more of a lease, which by definition is a subscription. Similarly, Jack Consumer buys iPhone, which requires a carrier (presumably AT&T in the United States) and ongoing software updates from Apple. This binding of device, service and software demands accountability, which revenue deferral offers as customer obligation. The rule change would remove the obligation subscription accounting creates.

    Microsoft could also benefit from rule changes, and it should not. Under current FASB guidelines, Microsoft must defer revenue from annuity licensing contracts, which obligate the company to deliver upgrades and other services to subscribers over two or three years. For fiscal 2009 fourth quarter, Microsoft's reported income was $3.987 billion. But the number would have been $4.391 billion when reconciling GAAP and non-GAAP results.

    Questioning the Reporting Record

    Apple isn't the only high-tech company asking for the accounting changes. But it is perhaps most prominent, because of blogs and news stories posted last week. Many stink of bad reporting or Apple bias. I don't care which reason, as I'm going to piss all over them. I've randomly picked examples.

    At the Apple 2.0 blog, Philip Elmer-DeWitt wrote that "Subscription accounting meant that Apple has been under-reporting earnings on its bestselling smartphone for two years." Say, what? Apple hasn't under-reported anything. Apple recognizes a portion of the deferred each quarter, which is like having money in the bank.

    At ArsTechnica Chris Foresman wrote:

    Apple ended up having to report two sets of figures for its quarterly and yearly earnings reports: GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) earnings, using the subscription revenue for iPhones, and non-GAAP earnings, which include the full revenue from iPhone sales. Needless to say, Apple would prefer to report the non-GAAP numbers, since it is a more accurate representation of the company's performance in a given quarter.

    Apple wasn't forced to report two sets of numbers. The company chose to. The numbers as stated are accurate per quarter, if services revenue is deferred over the life of the subscription.

    At Engadget, Nilay Patel wrote that Apple's "stock price doesn't always reflect the true amount of iPhone money coming in -- in fact, Apple earnings reports now include a second, unofficial balance sheet that does away with subscription accounting to show off the real numbers."

    The GAAP results are real numbers. Of course, the meaning of those real numbers will change if FASB votes to officially put new rules into place. I contend that revised rukes would be dishonest, unless the buyer is allowed to pay for the product or service over X time period -- the life of the contract. Payments over time would quite accurately reflect company revenues and further keep it honest.

    Do you pay the guy doing repair work on your car, computer or home up front in full before any service is performed? No. You might pay something, but not the whole amount until the work is completed. The iPhone is a work in progress, as evidenced by two full software upgrades and ongoing updates. Should Apple reap before it sows? I say no.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/22/2001__An_Apple_Odyssey'

    2001: An Apple Odyssey

    Publié: septembre 22, 2009, 2:03am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's not uncommon for bloggers and journalists to get hung up on the present. For Apple, there's big noise about soaring stock price, even considering economic recession, and increasing demand for iPhone. But the past defines the present. For Apple, products or services launched in a single calendar year -- and the consistent execution that followed -- define current successes, including iPhone.

    I contend that next to 1984, when Apple launched Macintosh, 2001 was the most important year in the company's history.

    Apple is on a remarkable role that even its strongest critics cannot reasonably deny. The stock closed at $184.02 today -- about a buck off its 52-week high. Apple's market capitalization is $164.85 billion, which is -- get this -- higher than Google, which valuation is $157.34 billion.

    Apple's brand is sizzingly hot, with iPhone being important factor. But none of this present would be anything if not for decisions made in the past. So, please, enter the Wayback machine for a trip to 2001:

    • In January 2001, Apple unveiled the iTunes music player
    • In March, Apple launched troubled Mac OS X 10.0 and relaunched as 10.1 in September
    • In May, the company opened Apple Store, in two locations -- California and Virginia
    • In October, the first iPod debuted

    At the time, Apple Store, iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X seemed innocuous launches, but they would later be the four pillars raising Apple's brand from obscurity to mass popularity. In June 2002, Apple's "Switchers" marketing campaign kicked off the first of many successful campaigns, including "Get a Mac," supporting Apple's "2001 Four."

    All other Apple products that followed depend in some way on the 2001 Four:

    • If not iTunes and Mac OS X, no iLife
    • If not iTunes and iPod, no iTunes Music Store
    • If not iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X, no iPhone
    • If not Mac OS X, no iMac, MacBook/Mac Pro
    • If not iTunes and Mac OS X, no Apple TV
    • If not Apple Store, none of the above

    Some people will call my approach simplistic, wondering why I ignore, say, iMovie, which also contributed to iLife. Yes, but music and photos proved more important. That last bullet in the list is perhaps the most important and controversial assertion. I don't believe that Apple could have achieved its current level of success without the retail stores. Apple Store is the supporting pillar.

    First Applle Store Opening Apple executive briefing at first Apple retail store, May 2001.

    The first Apple Store opened in McLean, Va., in May 2001. I was there for the official news media unveiling and launch days later. Timing struck most analysts I interviewed as strange: Gateway was looking to get out of retail just as Apple wanted in. But the stores increased exposure to Apple's brand and provided a place to foster mac community and lifestyle, around digital activities like listening to music and watching, making or sharing videos.

    In 2000, Apple CEO Steve Jobs started consistently talking about the Mac as digital lifestyle hub. But the company also later extended the Apple lifestyle to Windows PCs, through AirPort Extreme, Apple TV, iPhone, iPod, iTunes, iTunes Music Store, MobileMe and Time Capsule. Most of these products are sold through Apple Store.

    But that's not to diminish the importance of the other three. The 2001 Four all contribute to the Apple lifestyle, culminating in iPhone, which adds a mobile lifestyle component, extending from the others but more connected through the applications and the Web.

    The question now: What next? The past first:

    • In 2002, Apple launches iLife and the aforementioned Switchers marketing campaign
    • In 2003, iTunes Music Store opens
    • In 2004, iLife `04 launches with great marketing
    • In 2005, iPod nano makes stunning debut
    • In 2006, first Intel-based Macs ship; "Get a Mac" ads air
    • In 2007, iPhone launches
    • In 2008, App Store opens; unibody Mac laptops ship
    • In 2009, Apple products defy economic recession's gravity

    Granted, the last bullet isn't a product or service launch, but it's the rightful culmination of all the others. Is there another year important to Apple's success? Absolutely. But not just one:

    • 2006, for the move to Intel processors
    • 2007, for the launch of iPhone
    • 2008, for App Store's debut

    The move to Intel processor opened the Mac sales spigot. Launch of iPhone and, more importantly, the supporting App Store opened up a new mobile platform. But none of this would really have been possible if not for the 2001 Four.

    Before I move onto the topic of Microsoft's most important year, I'd like to ask Betanews readers: What do you think it was -- and why? I'll incorporate feedback in the follow-up post on Microsoft's most important year.

    [Photo Credit: Joe Wilcox.]

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/18/Could_Microsoft_Tag_augment_Windows_Mobile_reality_'

    Could Microsoft Tag augment Windows Mobile reality?

    Publié: septembre 18, 2009, 11:28pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft is promoting its Tag barcode system over at its PressPass this week. The PR is a big marketing pitch showcasing brands like Ford and Proctor & Gamble; it's a sensible approach for the technology. But I see another: Making augmented reality more real, and in so doing recover Microsoft's botched handset strategy. AR isn't new, but it's all the geek rage now that iPhone has a compass: BBC, CNET News, Robert Scoble and Telegraph UK, among many others.

    A quick AR primer: Augmented reality is essentially the overlay of additional visual information onto something real. American football is great example, where during TV broadcasts yellow lines and other information overlay the field of play. What? You thought those lines were really there? You experienced augmented reality.

    AR's future potential on mobile devices is huge, and it's one of the many applications that has me asserting once more that mobile phones will supplant PCs in the not so distant future. Pew Internet says 2020, but I predict 2015 (I really think sooner, but who would believe it?).

    A handset with accelerometer, camera, compass and GPS can orientate its position relative to objects as well as geographic location. This orientation, and through the camera ability to identify specific objects, makes it possible for software or service providers to augment reality, perhaps with educational or marketing information.

    Informational example: Jack Consumer takes his kids to Washington, DC. Perhaps he uses the phone's GPS to navigate from a Metro station to the National Mall. Along the way, the mapping program offers additional information about historic sites -- even videos or, gasp, special events going on in the area right then. All this overlays the GPS map on the screen. Jack points the phone's camera at the Washington Monument and sees overlay of information about when each portion of the structure was completed, its height and what the heck those flashing lights mean (Jack slept through American history class).

    Marketing example: After a hot and humid day walking in the city, Jack's family wants to see Hayao Miyazaki film Ponyo, which Disney recently released in the United States. Jack points the cell phone's camera at a movie poster in the Metro, and the image overlays with theatre locations and showtimes. He then taps the screen for the theatre in Union Station. Based on information contained on the movie poster and gathered from the handset, the mapping service brings up a Metro map. That's augmented reality. Jack conducts a sophisticated search without ever having to launch Bing or Google and type in keywords. But wait, Jack sees another option -- to buy tickets with the tap of the screen.

    Making Augmented Reality Real

    It's hard to understate augmented reality's potential on mobile devices and, in succeeding, for disrupting keyword search. Yes, keyword search. People will need to manually search less, if the information indirectly comes to them through the mobile software or service or directly by the consumer pointing the camera at something.

    I predict that mobile augmented reality will displace mobile keyword search, which is lots worse for Google than Microsoft. I'm assuming it will succeed, just not necessarily as envisioned by all the augmented reality freaks -- eh, geeks -- pining over iPhone's compass: Edible Apple, Fast Company and O'Reilly, among many others.

    For all the buzz about iPhone and augmented reality, Apple is a latecomer, following Google and Nokia, among others. Big support came with iPhone 3.1 software, which Apple released last week.

    Google Sky Map, for Android phones, is augmented reality for the stars. The software uses a Google phone's accelerometer, compass and GPS to correctly display the right map of the night sky, overlayed with constellation names. Nokia's three year-old MARA (Mobile Augmented Reality Applications) project adds the camera to accelerometer, compass and GPS for overlaying information.

    For mobile augmented reality to be most meaningful, it must be real time. Google Sky Map is a good example of real-time augmented reality. But like other augmented reality mapping services, the user is real-time but not necessarily the overlaid information. Augmented reality apps that show, say, friends or Twitter followers in physical relationship to you or local traffic laid out onto a mobile map are much more real time.

    The real-time value shouldn't come from disparate apps only tied to the phone's positioning functions but to broader services, or even a software-services platform. There, Nokia's MARA approach, which also utilizes the phone's camera, makes loads of sense. AR can provide information about landmarks, etc. by what the camera sees. The Wikitude Browser for Android phones is product available now for doing just that.

    But positioning and landmark/scene recognition are still early stages development and their third-party commerce potential is somewhat limited. For example, Jack Consumer sees where the nearest McDonalds is by way of Nearest Tube. Location is one thing, but where is the menu or today's specials? Additionally, GPS accuracy isn't good close to buildings and essentially useless inside them. The camera can make up where other phone positioning features fall short.

    Tag, You're It!

    By using the phone's camera, tagging is one way to broaden mobile augmented reality's commercial and even informational appeal. Things tagged with 2D or 3D barcodes could provide much more information, which could be updated real time on the backend service without necessarily changing the tag. Additionally, positioning information from the phone could allow, say, Sony Pictures to distribute the same barcode tagged movie poster nationwide while providing local movie times. Parental control information from the wireless carrier also could ensure that Sandy Teen views the PG-13 and not the R movie trailer on her phone.

    Search is a multi-billion business because of keywords. Barcodes/tags could open up the commercial and informational replacement on handsets. Think tagwords or, ah, codewords. I don't suggest that tagging is the only way for mobile augmented reality to go. I'm saying it's a way to, ah, augment augmented reality -- to extend its reach and also to provide a commercial backbone; as search is today for the Web browser.

    Like search keywords, competitors could go after tagwords, too. My daughter likes to shop at Forever 21. Price tags with barcodes could bring up competitive prices at other stores when viewed through the cell phone camera. It's comical to think about -- young women leaning over dresses, jeans and tops with their cell phones.

    There is yet no mobile barcode economy. Google doesn't control tagwords. Microsoft Tag has potential to become the barcode development and services platform. The Bing and Windows Live teams should be all over Tag. Microsoft isn't exactly early barcode adopter, but there is yet time as there is no widely adopted standard. There are competitors, like Nokia Mobile Codes. Google isn't sitting idly by, either. For example, the aforementioned Sky Map Web page has a ZXing barcode. Just point your Android phone camera to download the application.

    Microsoft is building the services infrastructure to do much more, if company executives have the wherewithal. Tags could be the commercial backbone for mobile information, with no manual search necessary. They could build economy into mobile augmented reality.

    I say to Microsoft: Don't wait for third parties. Tag it! Tag everything. Microsoft Tag already is available for most mobile platforms, not just Windows Mobile. I would start with Windows Live Maps, augmenting reality in the browser as well as the device. Even do some augmented augmented reality, by overlaying mapped rooftops with Microsoft Tags. The user clicks or touches the Tag to get more information. Sure, you could overlay name of the store, but a mobile barcode could access so much more information tied to a database service.

    Building out infrastructure will take years, and Google is sure to push its own technology if Microsoft does. Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates built the company by selling stuff cheaper than competitors and by controlling key file formats and technology standards. The mobile barcode is a technology standard Microsoft shouldn't want any other company to control, particularly Google.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/17/If_Microsoft_sold_a_lifestyle__would_you_buy_it_'

    If Microsoft sold a lifestyle, would you buy it?

    Publié: septembre 17, 2009, 11:03pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    In the Northern Hemisphere, Autumn is typically a time of bright colors and falling leaves. Perhaps Microsoft has moved south of the equator to Spring, because the company is poised for brand rebirth -- a reawakening of key consumer brands.

    Six brands -- Bing, Xbox, Windows Live, Windows Mobile, Windows 7 and Zune -- are coming to market as new versions and/or marketing campaigns. No single brand will revitalize Microsoft's overall consumer image. But combined, these brands could revive the company's consumer brand profile. I predict that they also are Microsoft's last stand. Failure now will resign Microsoft's brand image to large businesses.

    There is a seventh brand, which is as important as the other six combined: Microsoft Store. But that is more a 2010 story, as the company only plans to open two retail locations, both in the United States, this year.

    Key to the six (OK, seven) brands' success is marketing, which Microsoft has excelled at for much of 2009. Last year, I harshly criticized Microsoft advertising agency Crispin, Porter + Bogusky for its early handling of the "I'm a PC" campaign. In my December 2008 recommendations for 2009, I told Microsoft to "fire your ad agency." But the marketing came together in early 2009. "The Rookies" and "Laptop Hunters" -- launched in February and March, respectively -- are simply great advertising campaigns. Bing is even better. I was wrong about Crispin, Porter + Bogusky.

    Good Marketing Demands Advertiser Commitment

    To really succeed, good marketing requires cash, commitment, consistency and creativity for starters and also patience -- willingness to let a marketing campaign succeed. In 2006, Microsoft gave up too quickly on the Windows Vista "Wow" campaign, afterward pulling back nearly all Windows marketing for about 18 months. Meanwhile, Apple seized control of Windows messaging with its persistently jabbing "Get a Mac" commercials. Microsoft is on a marketing roll right now, but the company has to stick with it and extend it.

    Good marketing:

    • Tells a story -- and doing so is aspirational
    • Promotes a lifestyle -- and with it a sense of belonging and community associated with the brand
    • Shows people why their lives will be better -- how they will be happier -- for using products X, Y or Z
    • Makes people feel good -- and by association brings up that good feeling whenever seeing the brand or product

    Microsoft's current big consumer campaigns -- for Bing and Windows -- meet these criteria quite well. But there is a missing undercurrent that Microsoft must bring to the surface as it markets the consumer brands: Lifestyle. The company has got to better sell a Microsoft lifestyle, and it's perhaps no coincidence that the six brands are collectively foundation for such a thing.

    Bing Search Page Bing search page, Sept. 17, 2009.

    The most successful brands sell a lifestyle. Among high-tech companies, Apple, Nokia and Research in Motion are exceptionally good at lifestyle marketing. In August I asked: "What is the Microsoft lifestyle?" I couldn't find it, and I had been looking hard for a long time. But as new Bing features, Zune 4.0 software and Zune HD come to market this week and Microsoft prepares Windows Mobile 6.5 and Windows 7 for October launches, hints of a larger lifestyle pitch are coalescing. The Microsoft lifestyle has been fragmented for too many years. Around these products, Windows Live and Xbox, a tighter Microsoft lifestyle could emerge.

    But Microsoft has got to sell it, and that's a message CEO Steve Ballmer and his honchos must hear and act on. Laptop Hunters shows that Microsoft can do good brand marketing and seize the messaging away from a competitor (e.g., Apple). But Bing shows the real power of good marketing. The Bing TV commercials are clever and catchy -- and they frequently air on many primetime television shows. I record most TV programs to skip the ads, but I almost always stop for a Bing commercial. What about you?

    Marketing matters. Two summers ago, number of searches at Ask.com increased by over 10 percent in a single month, according to ComScore. Not coincidentally, Ask.com was running an aggressive TV ad campaign. Fast forward to 2009. Microsoft launches the Bing brand with a massive marketing campaign, and the results show in consistently increasing search share. Yesterday, Nielsen Online said that Bing's US searches increased 22.1 percent month-on-month in August, bringing search share to 10.7 percent.

    The Google Lesson

    Now it's time for my bold assertion: Right now, Bing is Microsoft's most important consumer brand. It's Google that shows why and perhaps that Microsoft's search deal with Yahoo is smart after all.

    Google is a marketing amorphism. Until recently, Google did little to directly market its products. Yet Google has strong consumer brand awareness and offers a clearly definable lifestyle around Apps, search and other products or services. Like Windows, Google search is something most people use everyday. But people are aware they use Google, because they must actively open a search page where there is the colorful name logo.

    People can easily forget they use Windows; there is no strong brand identification, and operating systems function too much as utilities. From a branding perspective, the best thing Microsoft has done for the operating system in years (other than advertising) is to replace the "Start" button with the Windows logo.

    Ballmer has obsessed about Google as a competitor to a fault. Microsoft has focused too much chasing Google when improving its own products and their marketing mattered more. For that reason, I initially dismissed the Microsoft-Yahoo search deal. But in retrospect, the deal makes sense for a different reason: Branding and lifestyle marketing. The more people that use Bing everyday, the better for Microsoft's core brand -- at the least. Bing marketing and the Yahoo deal are sure to increase the number of people who touch a Microsoft brand every day. Sorry, Steve Ballmer, Windows Live isn't touch enough.

    Microsoft can't be sure consumers will upgrade to Windows 7, certainly not when. According to analysts, most people still use Windows XP -- not Vista. But Microsoft can assure that people use Bing, if the marketing and Yahoo deal are there. Already, Bing is gaining share. Search is a utility most people use most every day, so the brand can only gain from this exposure. From Bing and its associated and Windows Live services, Microsoft can push a lifestyle around communications, convenience, mobility and value, among other attributes.

    Four Digital Lifestyle Hubs

    While Bing's importance won't diminish, other Microsoft brands will grow to overshadow it, principally Windows 7 during holiday 2008. Windows is Microsoft's most important lifestyle hub, not just for consumers but businesses. Now that the Windows Live team has joined with the broader Windows group, I expect product/service synergies and lifestyle opportunities to increase. Microsoft will have to punch it home with creative, consistent and committed marketing.

    Zune HD Windows Mobile train wreck confines Microsoft mobile strategy to Zune HD.

    In an ideal scenario the six brands would connect the Microsoft lifestyle around four hubs: Bing/Windows Live, Windows 7/Windows Live, Windows Mobile/Bing/Windows Live and Xbox/Xbox Live and Zune/Zune Marketplace. But Microsoft's mobile strategy is a train wreck. Windows Mobile 6.5 isn't what Microsoft needs to hold back upstarts Apple and Google or the revitalizing Nokia. However, Microsoft deserves huge praise for coordinating a single mobile OS launch across multiple wireless carriers, as it plans in October for Windows Mobile 6.5. It's an amazing feat and something that should scare Apple and Google executives witless. If Microsoft can do this with a weak Windows Mobile OS release, what could the company do with a strong product?

    Microsoft's mobile story -- the one that matters -- is confined to Zune HD. There Microsoft will confront strong comparisons to Apple and iPod touch and criticism for a weak smartphone OS strategy (It's already started, search the blogosphere). But Zune HD isn't an iPod touch wannabe. It's something more and something different. The device is a portable media player first above all else and perhaps the last in the category. Convergence that includes telephony is the future -- and, I hope, a Zune phone. Any PMP shouuld only be a placeholder for something to come.

    Fortunately, Microsoft has a strong lifestyle message around Zune 4.0 software and the Zune HD. It's about consuming high-quality digital content on the go, and that lifestyle extends to Windows through Media Center and eventually to Xbox. Around Zune and Xbox, Microsoft is pushing an entertainment lifestyle. By the way, so is Apple with iPod touch, iTunes and portable gaming. I'm waiting for Microsoft to extend Xbox gaming to Zune. Some unsolicited advice for Microsoft: The Xbox Live team and not the Windows Mobile group should control the Zune applications store.

    In a future post, I will explore how the four lifestyle hubs fit together today and should fit better in the future. For now, I'll close by giving Steve Ballmer and his honchos some advice: Advertise, advertise, advertise. If you don't control the lifestyle messaging, some competitor will. Must I say Apple?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/09/17/Why_I_chose_Windows_7_over_Snow_Leopard__and_you_should__too_'

    Why I chose Windows 7 over Snow Leopard (and you should, too)

    Publié: septembre 17, 2009, 12:09am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last week, I returned to using Windows 7 after spending the summer on a 13-inch MacBook Pro. Apple almost had me there for awhile, but I'm back where I belong and satisfied with the switch. Given that Apple released Snow Leopard a couple of weeks ago, Windows 7 officially launches October 22nd and there is plenty of geek debate about which OS is better, it's appropriate time to tell the story about how I went -- in the words of J.R.R. Tolkien -- "there and back again."

    First, some background. I am a longtime Mac and Windows user. I have used Windows pretty much since its release in the early 1990s and Macs since December 1998, when I carted a Bondi Blue iMac out of a CompUSA. Based on my reading comments, many Betanews readers are religious about their platform choices; I am not. Mac OS and Windows are just tools to me. I don't dogmatically defend either platform. I'm neither Mac or Windows fanboy. My work requires using both operating systems, and for convenience one usually is primary. That said, I've flopped between platforms for more than a decade.

    In April, I posted at my old work blog: "How I Came to Get a PC and Not a Mac." There I explained how in January 2009, I forsook the Mac for the PC, mainly because of Windows 7. If someone asked me in November 2008 about buying a Windows PC, I would have laughed. It just wasn't happening. But Windows 7 won me over, in beta and later release candidate.

    Still, post switch, I struggled with a key product category: Digital media creation software suite. In a June blog post, I asked: "Why is there no iLife equivalent for Windows?" Windows Live Essentials isn't it, although Microsoft's digital media suite is lots closer since the final release of Windows Live Movie Maker. Ahead of Comic-Con 2009, where I planned video interviews and needed easy and efficient software to process them, I moved back into the Apple camp. My main machine became the then new 13-inch MacBook Pro. I also planned to test out the MacBook Pro's new battery and later Snow Leopard.

    The Mac portable's battery life hugely satisfied (consistently 6 hours) but not Snow Leopard. I find Snow Leopard to be hugely disappointing, shockingly so. Apple promised no major, new features, so I didn't expect much -- and the $29 price ($100 less than Leopard) further lowered expectations. But, after using Snow Leopard, I think $29 is asking too much for what Microsoft would call a Service Pack and give away for free.

    From an architectural perspective, however, Snow Leopard is Apple's most important Mac OS X release since the dot-oh release in March 2001. I call Snow Leopard a fix-the-plumbing release, in preparation for moving the Mac install base forward to 64-bit. Performance tweaks are everywhere, and you can feel them in subtle but distinct ways. I predict that Mac OS X 10.7 will be a big release, jumping off Snow Leopard's architectural remodeling. But for now, Snow Leopard offers few benefits where users can see them.

    The Mac OS X user interface, once trendsetting, is now a tired motif overdue for overhaul. Worse, Apple hints at what the UI could and should be in a few places, with QuickTime being the most visible example. The QuickTime UI is refreshing and new -- delightful. Something similar should skin much of Snow Leopard. Worse still, QuickTime's more modern UI is jarring reminder when switching back to the Snow Leopard Finder about how old most of the rest of Mac OS X feels.

    By comparison, Windows 7 feels surprisingly fresh. Microsoft is finally doing good user interface design. Around 2006, which coincidentally -- or not -- is about when Bill Buxton joined Microsoft Research as principal researcher, the company started making huge strides in UI and UX (user experience) design. Buxton is a well-know UX designer who professes mantra:

    Ultimately, we are deluding ourselves if we think that the products that we design are the 'things' that we sell, rather than the individual, social and cultural experience that they engender, and the value and impact that they have. Design that ignores this is not worthy of the name.

    I find myself to be way more productive using Windows 7 than any Mac OS X version, and that's surprising to me. For years, the greater productivity claim belonged to Mac OS X. Consistently, I get about 30 percent to 40 percent more work done using Windows 7 than either Leopard or Snow Leopard. Windows Vista doesn't rate. The combined usability flaws -- everything from slow resume from sleep to nagging pop-ups to UI pauses or hangs -- are too much for me to use Windows Vista any longer.

    More importantly, I have loads more fun using Windows 7 than Mac OS X. I haven't had this much fun using a Microsoft operating system since Windows 95. After more than three months running Mac OS X, I really missed Windows 7. By comparison, for the six months I primarily used Windows 7 test builds, I only missed Mac OS X for iLife.

    There still is no iLife for Windows, but I decided to do without. Perhaps if Snow Leopard was more or Windows 7 much less, I would be using a Mac laptop today. I did briefly use Apple's Boot Camp to install and run Windows 7 gold code on the MacBook Pro (Hey, the Windows Experience Index was 5.2 -- not bad). But I wanted something more from a lightweight portable that Apple doesn't offer, which I explain in a couple paragraphs. The MacBook Pro is gone now and replaced with a Sony VAIO.

    I find the Sony VAIO, model Z720D/B, to be much better value than the 13-inch MacBook Pro. Sony sells the VAIO for $1,849.99, but some dealers charge less. I got mine from PC Nation for $1,499.98 -- or about $100 less than the 13-inch MacBook Pro sold direct from Apple ($75 less from some dealers). A friend bought the MacBook and digital camera, which more than covered cost of the VAIO.

    Sony config: 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (1066MHz front-side bus), 13.1-inch LED backlit display with 1600-by-900 resolution, (dedicated) 256MB nVidia GeForce 9300M GS graphics (DDR3) and Mobile Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD, 4GB of DDR3 memory, 320GB SATA hard drive (7,200 rpm), dual-layer DVD burner, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, 10/100/1000 Ethernet, fingerprint reader, 802.11a/b/g/n wireless, two USB ports, FireWire 400 port, HDMI port, Verizon EVDO modem and Windows Vista Business 64-bit.

    MacBook config: 2.53GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (1066MHz front-side bus), 13.3-inch LED-backlit display with 1280-by-800 resolution, 4GB DDR3 memory, (shared) 256MB nVidia GeForce 9400M (DDR3) graphics, 250GB SATA hard drive (5,400 rpm), dual-layer DVD burner, 802.11n wireless, backlit keyboard, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, 10/100/1000 Ethernet, two USB ports, FireWire 800 port, one Mini DisplayPort and Mac OS X 10.5.

    While the computers are fairly close in terms of base hardware, I find the VAIO's higher screen resolution to be a highly appealing feature, and the major reason for my replacing the MacBook rather than installing Windows 7 via Boot Camp.

    Since there has been so much unnecessary noise about 20-hour Windows 7 upgrades -- which Scott Fulton appropriately addressed yesterday -- I would briefly like to share my own expierence. After unboxing the Z720 and booting it up, I immediately made restore discs. After which, I removed unwanted software, such as Google Toolbar and Symantec anti-malware. I then installed Microsoft Security Essentials beta and Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit gold code. The upgrade took about 45 minutes. The Windows installer warned of compatibility problems with four Sony utilities, but they all work just fine.

    Windows 7 performance is excellent, and resume-from-sleep time is about as fast as Snow Leopard. I've no complaints and lots of satisfaction for the switch. For anyone holding back because of Vista, Windows 7 is for you. For anyone considering switching to a Mac, wait to see what new designs PC manufacturers release with Windows 7. You might be surprised just how cool they can be.

    Gulp, here it comes. I'm a PC, and why aren't you?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

    Add to digg Add to Google Add to Slashdot Add to Twitter Add to del.icio.us Add to Facebook Add to Technorati
  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/08/19/What_is_the_Microsoft_Lifestyle_'

    What is the Microsoft Lifestyle?

    Publié: août 19, 2009, 10:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Since January, when I switched to Windows 7 (Beta and later Release Candidate), I have sought an answer to that question. To my surprise, I have yet to find a Microsoft lifestyle -- not one that fits me. So I ask Betanews readers: What is the Microsoft lifestyle? What is your Microsoft lifestyle? Please answer in comments.

    Perhaps Microsoft's lifestyle is enterprise computing, something I don't participate in. I've never worked for a company that required SharePoint and often, because of older deployed software, neither has there been mandate to use Exchange Server. When I was an analyst, writing in Word was a must, but not before or since.

    There's a gaming lifestyle around Xbox and Xbox Live, but it doesn't really touch enough other Microsoft products for there to be extensive lifestyle. There's a value lifestyle, for businesses and consumers, looking to save money. But who really wants to participate in that? "Attention, Wal-Mart shoppers." The value of value is saving money on one thing to spend it elsewhere on luxuries -- another lifestyle.

    All successful companies sell lifestyles. For decades, PepsiCo used motto "Pepsi Generation" for a reason. There is a Pepsi lifestyle. Harley Davidson sells a motorcycle lifestyle that some people stereotype as Hell's Angels' types but is really something else: Graying (or balding) middle-aged men riding their hogs, usually on weekends; they feel virile, and who wouldn't riding a Harley. That's the lifestyle.

    Many technology companies excel at lifestyle marketing, too. Research in Motion sells a connected business-personal lifestyle around BlackBerry and email. BlackBerry lifestyle marketing also benefits from America's hipster president being an admitted Crackberry addict.

    There is increasingly a Facebook lifestyle, and it's successful without any real marketing. It's a water cooler or dress party lifestyle, where people gossip and share what's important to them with friends and even strangers.

    Among technology companies, Apple is the 21st Century's lifestyle marketing leader. There's nothing new about Apple selling a Mac lifestyle, but the approach got a major makeover in the new century. I contend that next to 1984, when Apple launched Macintosh, 2001 was the most important year in the company's history. In January 2001, Apple unveiled iTunes music software. In March, Apple launched troubled Mac OS X 10.0 and essentially relaunched as 10.1 in September. In May, the company opened Apple Store, in two locations -- California and Virginia. In October, the first iPod debuted. Apple Store, iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X seemed innocuous launches at the time, but they would later be the four pillars raising the Apple brand from obscurity to mass popularity.

    All four products -- later supported by marketing, starting in June 2002 with the "Switch" campaign -- laid the foundation for the Apple lifestyle of the new century. There had been a Mac lifestyle, but Apple Store, iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X extended it to the larger company brand. All the other successful Apple products that followed came from these four 2001 launches:

    • If not iTunes and Mac OS X, no iLife
    • If not iTunes and iPod, no iTunes Music Store
    • If not iPod, iTunes and Mac OS X, no iPhone
    • If not Apple Store, none of the above

    Apple Store provides a focal point for the Apple lifestyle, around digital activities like listening to music and watching, making or sharing videos. The iPhone adds a mobile lifestyle component, extending from the others but more connected through the applications and the Web. Apple's lifestyle is dimensional, with different facets.

    In the 1990s, there was a clearly identifiable Windows lifestyle, but it lost definition coming into the new century. Today, Windows is more a utility, like the kitchen stove or refrigerator. There are no defining applications, outside businesses. What? Is there a SharePoint or Windows Server lifestyle that people aspire to? Or Outlook?

    As I look back to Apple and 2001, I wonder about Microsoft and 2007. Can Azure, advertising campaigns like "Laptop Hunters," Bing, Microsoft retail stores, Windows Mobile 6.5, Windows 7 and Zune HD be the foundational launches for a new Microsoft lifestyle? Microsoft has lifestyle vision, even without great execution, around three screens -- PC, TV and mobile device. But can all that lead to a tangible Microsoft lifestyle? You tell me.

    My questions for readers to answer and debate in comments: Is there a Microsoft lifestyle? Do you live a Microsoft lifestyle, and, if so, what is it? What do you want Microsoft's future lifestyle to be?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/08/13/Is_Microsoft_violator_or_victim_in_i4i_patent_dispute_'

    Is Microsoft violator or victim in i4i patent dispute?

    Publié: août 13, 2009, 1:26am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Perhaps they don't use Microsoft Office at the courthouse in Tyler, Texas? Could there be no computers at all and just Selectric typewriters? I have to wonder following yesterday's injunction barring Microsoft from shipping Word.

    I'm being snide because Tyler is the reputed "patent troll" capital of North America. Plaintiffs tend to win big judgments there, and surrounding vicinity, against companies like Microsoft. As such, it's easy to dismiss yesterday's court judgment as meritless. But is it?

    Toronto-based i4i claims that Microsoft infringed on US patent 5,787,449, which was issued in July 1998. In March 2007, the company filed the case in Tyler, where a jury later found for i4i.

    Come One, Come All Patent Trolls

    Tyler is located 62 miles west of Marshall, another popular jurisdiction for filing patent lawsuits. Eighty-one miles to the south is Beaumont, where a lawsuit against Toshiba led to a $2.1 billion settlement in 1999. Southeast Texas is a popular venue for patent trolling. Patent defendants include Apple, Autodesk, Microsoft, National Semiconductor, Nintendo, Samsung, SanDisk and Sony. Some cases of interest:

    • In November 2008, EMG Technology filed an infringement claim against Apple, less than a month after the patent was issued.
    • The same month, a jury found that Sony violated an Agere patent and ordered payment of $18.8 million.
    • In May 2009, a jury found that Microsoft violated the aforementioned i4i patent.

    The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts tracks the number and kind of cases filed each year. During 2008, in the Eastern Texas U.S. District Court, 358 of the 2,866 civil cases related to copyrights, patents and trademarks. There were even more contract disputes, 390, and 185 personal injury/liability cases. If that doesn't seem excessive, here's some perspective. The were 5,459 civil cases filed in Eastern New York District Court last year, only 170 of which were for copyrights, patents and trademarks. About twice as many civil cases, but only around half as many copyright, patent or trademark filings.

    By venue, i4i's patent victory is easily dismissed. But the company nor the case are atypical for Tyler. Most patent-troll cases share fairly common characteristics:

    • Most plaintiffs are companies or individuals, rather than, say, Apple, IBM or Microsoft.
    • Patents tend to have been recently issued, typically not long before an infringement claim is filed.
    • Plaintiffs typically don't produce actual products or offer services, which in many other court jurisdictions would raise questions about the patent's legitimacy.
    • Plaintiffs demand a jury trial, and the case either goes to jury or to settlement.
    • Area of filing is well known for either judges or juries favoring patent holders over defendants.

    But i4i is for real, selling XML-based collaborative solutions, mostly to pharmaceutical companies. The patent's age and existence of a real company producing real products makes this case look quite different from the typical patent troll case filed in Tyler or the surrounding area.

    Here's where I qualify that I am not a patent attorney. That said, I've covered enough Microsoft legal cases to know how to read and interpret legal findings. On this rarest of occasions in Southeast Texas, perhaps Microsoft has a problem.

    Office Not so Open

    For years I have bitched about Microsoft and XML. So-called "modern" Office file formats aren't XML, as Microsoft has claimed. They're XML-based. I was an early and fierce critic of Microsoft calling the formats Office Open XML, or OOXML. They're not "open" nor are they XML.

    Microsoft file formats use proprietary schemas and allow Office customers to generate their own custom schemas. These custom schemas are akin to proprietary dialects. That's where "open" leaves OOXML. Two people can agree to talk the same language, but communication breaks down if one person uses a dialect or jargon the other doesn't understand. Office openness breaks down with Microsoft schemas. That said, there are places where that jargon, the custom schemas, make sense for how business manipulate data.

    Starting with Office 2003, Microsoft heavily touted custom schemas' value to businesses needing to better define their data. Some of that definition is regulated, such as XML content submitted to the US Federal Department of Agriculture. Could it be coincidence that pharmaceuticals, where is i4i's main customer base, one of the markets Microsoft repeatedly touted as benefitting from custom schemas? Some examples from Microsoft's Website:

    While Microsoft touted the value of custom XML schemas around Office System for several industries, pharmaceuticals stand out -- and it's i4i's principal market. Then, in the midst of this counter marketing, Microsoft did something i4i decided had violated its patent, which abstract states:

    A system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, particularly for data representation and transformations. The system, for use by computer software developers, removes dependency on document encoding technology. A map of metacodes found in the document is produced and provided and stored separately from the document. The map indicates the location and addresses of metacodes in the document. The system allows of multiple views of the same content, the ability to work solely on structure and solely on content, storage efficiency of multiple versions and efficiency of operation.

    Does Custom XML Violate i4i's Patent?

    Based on my reading of i4i's March 2007 legal complaint, and other documents associated with the case, changes Microsoft made to better support customer needs for custom schemas and other data led to the core infringement. In Office, Microsoft provides proprietary schemas, such as WordprocessingXML to define data. But custom schemas, as I explained paragraphs ago, let businesses use definitions specific to their data needs.

    Before the release of Office 2007, Microsoft starting referring to custom schemas in context of "custom XML." Microsoft's Brian Jones explained the change and reason for it a November 2005 blog post:

    In Office 2003, Word and Excel both introduced support for marking up content in the files with custom defined schema, but one of the big things we saw from folks building solutions on top of our XML support in Office 2003 was the need to store your own XML data in the document. We had support for marking up a document with your own schema, but if you had data you didn't want to show to the user, there weren't a lot of options...In Office 12, we've introduced a new feature to the formats that we're currently calling the XML data store, and the way it works is really simple. As you should all know by now, the new format consists of a ZIP file with a bunch of XML parts (files) inside. Up until now we've talked about all the parts that we in Office have defined to create our documents...You can take any XML file and put it inside the ZIP package. Then all you need to do is create a relationship from the main document part to your XML part.

    Microsoft used the ZIP file as a way of breaking up the format, allowing businesses to extract just the raw XML. But they can also add to it. Jones explains in the blog post: "The ability to put your XML in the ZIP package means that you now have a place to store any data your solution may need."

    The i4i patent is called "Method and system for manipulating the architecture and the content of a document separately from each other." It's more practical application is some of the XML-based solutions, i4i offers today for pharmaceutical companies. A jury decided that the patent also applies to "custom XML" in Microsoft Word. Consider Microsoft custom XML support around the ZIP storage container, how customers can manipulate content and extract from or add to the container architecture.

    Again, qualifying that I am not a patent attorney, to my eyes, the case has merit. Perhaps i4i carefully chose the venue of Tyler, Texas, but this doesn't look to me to be a patent troll case.

    Even for Tyler, it's unusual for a judge to issue an injunction prohibiting sale of a major product, particularly something as widely used as Microsoft Word. The injunction says something about the seriousness of the violation.

    How serious? The judge applied the "permanent" injunction not just to Word 2007, but the 2003 version and and "Microsoft Word products not more than colorably different from Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007...Future Word Products." He specifically notates "custom XML."

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/08/12/Microsoft_and_Nokia_do_the_right_thing_for_the_wrong_reasons'

    Microsoft and Nokia do the right thing for the wrong reasons

    Publié: août 12, 2009, 7:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Today's Microsoft and Nokia strategic alliance is important for both companies, but probably not for the reasons many people will write about. Mobile Office is no big deal. Most people don't need it. Nokia already supports Exchange Sync, which matters more. For Microsoft, the deal's big bang is Office Communications and SharePoint servers support on Nokia handsets.

    Microsoft casts the deal as being for enterprises, which is shortsighted. Based on the announcement, axiom "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" applies here. The Nokia deal is potentially quite good for Microsoft, but for other reasons than Mobile Office. But, for Microsoft, Mobile Office must be the strategic priority, because the company needs to extend Office desktop software's relevance to the handset and the cloud. As I've written many times before, a new applications stack -- mobile device to the cloud -- challenges Microsoft's dominant Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack.

    Microsoft hopes to leverage the strength of its applications stack to the new applications stack, through enterprises, which is where the customer strength lies. Windows Mobile simply doesn't ship on enough devices. In one quarter, Nokia ships about five times as many handsets as Microsoft sold Windows Mobile licenses for all 2008, according to Gartner stats.

    Microsoft has got the productivity products and Nokia has the largest mobile install base and market share based on device sales. Gartner released second-quarter mobile numbers today. Worldwide, Nokia sold 105.4 million mobile phones, for 36.8 percent market share, down from 120.4 million and 39.5 percent market share a year earlier. For comparison, second-ranked Samsung shipped 55.4 million handsets, for 19.3 percent market share. Gartner tracks sales to end users rather than shipments to dealers or carriers; so these numbers are actual sales.

    The Microsoft-Nokia deal will matter more for smartphones, if for no other reason than the productivity software will be available on E-Series handsets first. Worldwide, in the second quarter, Nokia sold 18.4 million smartphones, or more than all the other top-five manufacturers combined. While Nokia's market share declined from 47.4 percent year over year, device sales rose by 3.1 million units. For comparison, second-ranked Research in Motion sold 7.7 million smartphones, for 18.7 percent market share.

    handsets0209a.png

    Nokia is more than the volume leader. It has huge international reach, which will be even more important to Microsoft. The international markets are what make me say that Office Communicator Mobile and SharePoint support matter more than Mobile Office.

    Emerging markets are notorious for what some people call technology skip. They jump over an older technology for a newer one. In many emerging markets, mobile phones and not PCs are the first connected computing devices used by consumers and small businesses. Many of these same users will never use PCs. That's another incentive for Microsoft bringing Mobile Office to more users there. Of course, the mobile version isn't meant to replace Office. Still, this is a big step for Microsoft.

    "It is the first time Microsoft will develop Office Mobile for another smartphone platform," Microsoft Business division president Stephen Elop said in a canned video announcement released today. Elop is right about that big first, with emphasis on big and first. What he didn't say: Windows Mobile isn't doing well enough, so the Business division must look to a rival platform.

    To restate the problem I see: Most people, even enterprise business users, don't need Mobile Office; even less for all those new users in emerging markets. The mobile Office applications are rather confining, particularly their requiring files and specific file formats. If you disagree, fire up your comment and tell us all why Mobile Office is or would be important to you.

    handsets0209b.png

    Collaboration and communications make sense around real-time information. That's where Office Communicator Mobile and SharePoint support matter more, assuming Microsoft doesn't get too hung up on centering most or all collaboration around Office documents. For emerging markets, Microsoft needs to offer hosted Exchange, Office Communications and SharePoint servers to support the handsets.

    This morning, Nate Mook and I IMed about the Microsoft-Nokia announcement. He wondered about competition with BlackBerry Messenger, which I've never used. But I understand that the software offers real-time communications and presence, which is important to many enterprise users and certainly would matter to many small businesses providing services here and abroad. Office Communicator Mobile and SharePoint support could offer something similar as BlackBerry only better, because of real-time collaboration.

    How does Nokia benefit? For starters, Nokia could increase its US presence. No major US carriers offer Nokia's flagship smartphone, the N97, or high-end, multimedia handsets like the N85, N86 or N96. AT&T recently started carrying the Nokia E71x, a US locked version of the E71 smartphone. The Microsoft deal should give Nokia more leverage increasing distribution for its high-end handsets.

    Smartphones are the big mobile growth market, the devices most likely to replace or supplant PCs and best suited to Microsoft productivity software or services. Manufacturers shipped 40.9 million smartphones in second quarter. Nokia is the leader in smartphone operating systems, too. According to Gartner, worldwide in second quarter, Nokia's Symbian OS had 51 percent smartphone market share. Windows Mobile: 9 percent.

    But Symbian's share is declining, too, down from 57 percent in second quarter 2008. Meanwhile, BlackBerry and iPhone OS share rises and Google's Android approaches 2 percent share. Gartner expects that Android will take share away from Symbian and Windows Mobile as more Google partners release devices.

    From that perspective, one could view today's deal, which won't bring products or services to market until 2010, as declining giants working together. They will rise or fall together.

    By the way, I have to ask who is really running this deal. Microsoft preannounced yesterday, and the official announcement came early day on the US West Coast rather than in Finland. Nokia World commences in late September, when the deal could have, and probably should have, been the crowning announcement. Nokia shouldn't chase Microsoft's wagging tail. Microsoft needs Nokia more than Nokia needs Microsoft.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/08/07/Office_Home_and_Student_accounts_for_85%_of_US_Office_retail_share'

    Office Home and Student accounts for 85% of US Office retail share

    Publié: août 7, 2009, 10:54pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Which Microsoft Office version is most popular at US retail stores -- brick and mortar or online? Office Home and Student 2007, which inherited the position from XP and 2003 versions of Office Student and Teacher. Home and Student accounts for "85 percent of Office sales, either Mac or PC," said Stephen Baker, NPD's vice president of industry analysis.

    I asked Baker for the percentage because it's that time of year when students are preparing to go back to school and Microsoft and retailers practically give away Office Home and Student. Last week, I spotted the software, which normally sells for $149.95, at Microsoft Store for $99.99. That's a good deal, right? Wrong. This week, I saw the software at my local Costco selling for $81.99, after mail-in rebate. That's an even better deal, right? Wrong. Amazon sells the software for $79.99, no rebate.

    That 80 bucks doesn't buy one but three Office Home and Student licenses. Three installations for $80. By comparison, Amazon sells Office Standard 2007 full version for $299.95, and that's for a single license; one activation. Microsoft Store sells the same software for $399.95.

    So, I wonder: Who buys Office Home and Student? It's not like Microsoft or retailers check student IDs. That "Home" could apply to pretty much anyone. If someone runs a business out of the home, doesn't he or she technically qualify for a cheap copy of Office?

    Microsoft doesn't talk about Office Home and Student or Student and Teacher editions piracy rates, but they have to be fairly high at retail if either version accounts for the bulk of sales. The company considers the purchase of software meant for one channel bought from another as piracy. Example: OEM Windows versions sold separately from new PCs.

    According to current US Census Bureau statistics, there are about 25.4 million business firms in the United States -- 26.9 million when adding operations with single locations. Among both categories, there are 19.5 million non-employer businesses, with the majority being sole-proprietorships. Out of the 5.9 million employer firms, 3.8 million have 1-9 employees. So, in the United States, out of 25.4 million firms, 23.3 million have fewer than 10 employees. Where do these smaller businesses buy software? For the majority, it's brick-and-mortar or online retail stores.

    costco-office2.jpg Office versions for sale at Mission Valley Costco, San Diego

    How many of these small or home-based businesses buy Office Standard 2007 or another version, when only 15 percent of US retail sales go to any edition other than Home and Student? Surprisingly few, if I rightly interpret NPD's US retail sales data.

    While Microsoft doesn't talk about cross-channel piracy, the company doesn't ignore it, either. With Office 2007, Microsoft swapped out Outlook for OneNote in the consumer version. Before that, XP and 2003 Student and Teacher editions were feature identical to Office Standard, but with three licensees/activations for $250 less (even bigger difference during back-to-school buying season).

    But is Outlook really that necessary for home-based or small businesses, when there are alternatives like Gmail or Windows Live Hotmail? It has been sometime since I checked in with the Hotmail team; but the last time, globally, small businesses accounted for more than 50 percent of users. Most people I know who aren't Windows geeks or use Outlook at work don't use Outlook. How about the people you know?

    I first wrote about Student and Teacher edition in 2002, about 10 months after Microsoft started offering the version. At the time, analysts speculated Microsoft introduced the SKU to cut Office's price for consumers without jeopardizing business pricing. I have to ask: Is Microsoft victim of its own success, because of cross-channel piracy? The version 2007 SKU change strongly suggests so. Three licenses are tempting for the price.

    What about future pricing and also retail market share? The heavy discounts won't last. "They always get aggressive on price in August, because that's when people are buying for back to school," Baker said. "This is time of year that you go nuts. That's when the volume's there; you don't want to let that stuff slip through your fingers."

    What about that low pricing? "You saw $99 last year," Baker said. But 80 bucks? He said that Amazon typically is lower than other retailers, but the $79.99 price is about $5 less than what he remembers from last year.

    costco-office1.jpg Back-to-school pricing for Office 2007 Home and Student

    About retail share, Baker said: "I don't think it's anything dramatically different form last year." He's right. Share was 80 percent in January 2007 and about the same three years earlier, according to older NPD data I looked up. I suspect 85 percent is about as high as the share will go.

    But could the market share go down? That's the $64,000 question of the day. Microsoft has acquired domain Office.com, presumably for the forthcoming Office Web Apps. I've read lots of punditry about Microsoft trying to fend off perceived Google Apps competition. But what about Office Web Apps competing with Office Home and Student among consumers and small businesses?

    I contend that Microsoft already has lost Office revenue because of home-based and small businesses buying Office Home and Student. That $80 is a great deal -- about $26.60 per license or $50 at full price -- but how much more attractive is free?

    Last week, Stephen Elop, president of Microsoft's Business division, explained the Office Web Apps strategy during the company's annual Financial Analysts Meeting:

    Office Web applications will be available in three ways. First, through Windows Live, where more than 400 million uses will have access to Office Web applications at no cost. Second, we will provide business customers with the opportunity to subscribe to Web applications as a service hosted by Microsoft similar to other offerings in Microsoft online services. And, third, all 90 million existing business customers with annuity agreements, plus all of the new Office 2010 volume license customers, will have rights to run Web applications on premises enabling them to deploy and manage these applications like they would any other service.

    The software will be free for consumers, and the consumer Office version accounts for 85 percent of sales in the United States. That's not complex math to figure out. There has to be some cannibalization, unless Microsoft requires Office on the desktop as adjunct to Web Apps.

    Something else: How exactly will Microsoft separate consumers from home-based or small business customers for Office Web Apps, when it can't for Office Home and Student? Perhaps there will be answers when or soon after Office Web Apps begins its Technical Preview later this month.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/08/01/The_Value_Question__Is_the_Apple_or_Microsoft_Family_Pack_the_better_deal_'

    The Value Question: Is the Apple or Microsoft Family Pack the better deal?

    Publié: août 1, 2009, 1:43am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Is three times the price three times the value? That's the question I'm asking about Microsoft's limited-time Windows 7 Family Pack -- three Home Premium upgrade licenses -- for $150. Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" Family Pack, with five licenses, will sell for $49.

    It's a rhetorical question really. Most people with Windows PCs won't have the option of running Snow Leopard. Intel Mac users, by comparison, can run Windows dual-boot, using Apple's Boot Camp, or by way of third-party virtualization software. That said, to qualify for the discounted Family Pack pricing, Mac users would still need Windows XP or Vista.

    I've long advocated that Microsoft offer a Family Pack. Kudos. Good job, Microsoft. But that was before Apple cut the price of its Family Pack from $199 to $49 and before Windows XP-to-7 upgrades turned out to be hard going (more on that topic in a few paragraphs). Both circumstances raise questions about each Family Pack's value.

    Mac users running Leopard can get Snow Leopard for $29 or the aforementioned five licenses for 49 bucks. Some people contend that the low pricing reflects that Snow Leopard -- hence the "Snow" added to "Leopard" -- is a minor upgrade. But that minor compared to Leopard doesn't mean minor compared to Windows 7.

    A Question Asked Different Ways
    So I'll ask you about which offers more value. Would you rather pay $49 for five licenses or $150 for three? That's the easy question. But it ignores mitigating circumstances regarding whom is eligible for what. Apple's discounted pricing is only available to Leopard users. Earlier Mac OS X users will pay more, but also get more. They must buy the Mac Box Set -- with Snow Leopard, iLife `09 and iWork `09 -- for $169, or $229 as Family Pack. So, would you rather pay $150 for three licenses or $229 for five licenses and two extra software suites?

    But, again, the question is oversimplified. The majority of Windows users run XP, for which Microsoft has got a crazy-complicated upgrade process. Microsoft will issue you the rights to upgrade from Windows XP to 7, but not the means. XP users must back up their data, wipe the hard drive and install Windows 7. Tech guru reviewer Walt Mossberg aptly expressed last week:

    The process will be so painful that, for many XP users, the easiest solution may be to buy a new PC preloaded with Windows 7, if they can afford such a purchase in these dire economic times. In fact, that's the option Microsoft (MSFT) recommends for XP users. (Conveniently, this option also helps Microsoft's partners that make PCs.)

    Vista users can directly upgrade to Windows 7, but that's not most people -- although it might be the majority of Betanews readers. So, I'll ask: If a XP user, is $150 for three licenses a bargain for you -- or is it too much for the trouble?

    fam09g.png Slide from Microsoft's Financial Analysts Meeting

    Product activation is another consideration when answering the value question. Unless Apple changes policy with the new operating system, Mac users won't have to suffer onerous product activation. It's a sale based on trust. Hackers cracked Windows 7 product activation, even before the software released to developers; Microsoft claims to have already blocked the hack. Would you rather pay $150 for three licenses bound to three machines or $49 for five licenses that could be moved around?

    Apple Tax or Microsoft Tax?
    That brings me to a broader topic of value. Yesterday, during Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting, CEO Steve Ballmer droned on about how his company and Apple approach value:

    I want to describe our value proposition. We are a high-volume player. We do not, say, like Apple, believe in low volume, very high prices, very -- Apple is a great company, does a fine job. But their model says high margin, high quality, high price. That's kind of how they come to market. We say we want big market share. But with big market share, you take a lower price...We can't be high priced, that doesn't get you the volume that we aspire to.

    Steve Ballmer means hardware and software, even though Microsoft only sells the latter. He's right that people pay more to join the Mac club. The entry-level Mac laptop is $999 and iMac is $1,199. But in terms of software, Apple can claim much lower pricing, which the two Family Packs demonstrate.

    Same applies to earlier releases. Apple sells Leopard full version for $129, or $199 for the Family Pack. Apple sells one Mac OS X edition that contains all the features and installs on a clean Mac, no upgrade over previous version or product activation required. By comparison, today, Microsoft Store sells upgrades to Windows Vista Home Premium for $129.99, Business for $199.99 and Ultimate for $219.99. The closest Vista edition to Leopard is Ultimate full version, which Microsoft Store sells for $319.95. Caveat: People buying Vista can get Windows 7 upgrade for free.

    Steve Ballmer spoke about high-volume, low-cost. Who has lower cost for productivity suite software? Apple's sells iWork Family Pack for $99, with five licenses. Office 2007 Home and Student sells for $149.99, although Microsoft Store has a special: $99. The Mac Home and Student version isn't discounted, by the way.

    How about server software? Apple sells Mac OS X Leopard Server for $499 with 10 client-access licenses, or $999 for unlimited CALs. By comparison, Microsoft Store sells Windows Server 2008 Standard Edition for $1,029. I assume this version comes with five CALs, but the product description doesn't say. CDW sells Windows Server 2008 Standard with five CALs for $954.99. Businesses with volume-licensing contracts pay less. But they still pay for CALs, which Apple includes in the $999 price.

    Yesterday, Kevin Turner, Microsoft's COO, also dug at Apple pricing yesterday. He put up slide titled, "Apple: Customers Get the Apple Tax." He told FAM attendees about Mac shoppers: "They are thinking about buying an Apple laptop, how they are going to get ripped off and pay too much, quite candidly."

    Whoa, "ripped off" is strong language. But is the $100 difference between Family Packs the Microsoft Tax? Or perhaps the nearly $191 difference between full versions of Windows Vista Ultimate or Mac OS X Leopard? Or for Microsoft server CALs? Is there a Microsoft Tax here? You tell me.

    The point: For many software products -- and I could cite plenty more examples -- Apple charges less than does Microsoft. But price isn't the only measure of value, although yesterday Steve Ballmer made it that way with respect to Apple (but not Linux). Apple charges more one place, while Microsoft charges more somewhere else. It's not the price that matters so much as the value for the money paid.

    So, I ask differently: Which company do you think offers more value, regardless of pricing, Apple or Microsoft?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/31/Secret_slide_reveals_Microsoft_will_lose__300_million_on_Yahoo_deal_before_making__1'

    Secret slide reveals Microsoft will lose $300 million on Yahoo deal before making $1

    Publié: juillet 31, 2009, 1:30am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer gave a little more information to financial analysts than perhaps he planned. There are two versions of his slide presentation -- one with a slide he didn't present this morning. I downloaded the PowerPoint file, and then noticed it had disappeared from Microsoft's investor website. That was so Microsoft could remove the errant, and quite revealing, slide.

    The slide is surprising counter-commentary to Ballmer's opening presentation. He spent much of the early portion of his talk explaining why Microsoft cut the search deal with Yahoo, and why the costs were minimal to both companies. He told financial analysts:

    "Economics is where people get even more confused. What happened? What happened? Nothing got bought. Nothing got sold. People expected something to get bought. Nothing got sold yesterday, and nothing got bought yesterday. But, the partnership in and of itself creates economic value. And not just on the future promise, not just on the future promise of improved product, improved share, and improved revenue, it creates an immediate opportunity, essentially, for synergy."

    But the slide explains: "We will lose money in first 2 years ($300m total), then start making decent return ($400m steady)."

    The slide reveals some information "context -- not for disclosure" that can be seen below. Microsoft expects $600 million to $700 million transition costs, with as much as $200 million in fiscal 2010, which ends June 30. The non-disclosure column breaks down the costs by category.


    Click for Full Slide

    I won't do analysis on the content today. While Microsoft probably wouldn't want the information released, it's not a disastrous disclosure. I suspect financial analysts will gain more from the disclosure than, say, competitor Google.

    Caveat: The slide is working from assumptions that may or may not be true as Microsoft and Yahoo begin to merge search operations. Losses could be considerably less -- or even more.

    I believe that Seattle Times reporter Brier Dudley was first to post the slide.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/31/The_state_of_Microsoft_s_Business_and_Server___Tools_divisions'

    The state of Microsoft's Business and Server & Tools divisions

    Publié: juillet 31, 2009, 12:20am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft FAMStephen Elop and Bob Muglia delivered two of the more difficult presentations during Microsoft's annual Financial Analyst Meeting. Elop runs the Business division, which had been a consistent performer until fiscal fourth quarter, when revenue fell 13 percent year over year. Server and Tools did better, but still took a revenue hit in fourth quarter.

    The two divisions share several important attributes, and the businesses are highly entwined. With the 2003 release cycle, Microsoft started aggressively increasing integration along the vertical applications stack between Office and server software. The integration creates sales pull for Office and newer server software, like SharePoint Server. I leave out Exchange Server, since Microsoft long ago established applications stack integration with Outlook.

    This vertical integration also relates to sales changes that Microsoft announced in May 2001 but didn't fully bring to market until summer 2002: Annuity licensing. Under annuity licensing, businesses pay Microsoft upfront annually under two- or three-year contracts. Microsoft had long sold software under volume-licensing contracts, but the change added what the company calls "Software Assurance," and upgrade pricing included with the contract price. (Enterprise Agreement had been this way, but not other licensing plans.)

    Together, annuity licensing changes and increased integration along the vertical stack changed how businesses bought desktop software, particularly. As revealed at FAM today, for both divisions, annuity contracts contribute about 60 percent of revenue.

    The contractual commitments are important to Microsoft:

    • The contracts are like money in the bank; they're assured sales.
    • Customers are less likely to switch to competing products, seeing as how they've already paid Microsoft.
    • Annuity licensing smoothes out Microsoft revenue, so there are fewer highs and lows between product releases.
    • Microsoft revenue is somewhat cushioned against economic slowdowns, since customers already have paid or committed to pay Microsoft.

    Not surprisingly, this last benefit has proved really important to Microsoft during the global session. "We are cushioned somewhat" by annuity licensing, Muglia, Server and Tools president, told financial analysts this afternoon."What you have in essence is a shock absorber to the business."

    For Server and Tools, annuity licensing potentially averted sales disaster. Muglia noted that at the start of fiscal 2009, IDC predicted 6 percent server hardware growth. But starting in October, server sales plummeted, stabilizing at about a 15 percent year-over-year decline at the close of fiscal 2009, on June 30.

    fam09e.png

    Microsoft's Client division is by comparison hugely exposed to declining hardware sales. OEMs account for about 80 percent of Windows sales. By comparison, for Server and Tools, "40 percent of revenue is of a transactional nature," Muglia said.

    Muglia asserted that during the recession Microsoft server software sales continued to exceed industry hardware growth, and that "our annuity sales have remained fairly strong during this period."

    By comparison, Business division absorbed more pain during the recession so far. In fiscal fourth quarter, Business revenue and income fell 13 percent and 16 percent, respectively, year over year. By comparison, Server and Tools revenue and income declined by 6 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

    Elop was clear and concise about the Business division's problems, which really started after the late-September stock market crash. Elop explained how the Business division derives its revenue:

    • Annuity licensing -- 60 percent
    • Non-annuity sales -- 20 percent
    • Consumer -- 20 percent

    Slowing PC sales hit both consumer and non-annuity revenue. Non-annuity sales are to businesses, such as boxed copies of Office. Consumer revenue declined about 30 percent during fiscal 2009 and non-annuity by about 35 percent, Elop said. By comparison, annuity licensing increased 5 percent.

    What Elop didn't say, but other Microsoft executives have explained during earnings conference calls with financial analysts: Many customers renewing annuity contracts are doing so at lower levels, because of downsizing and layoffs.

    Strangely, the econolypse has exposed a weakness in Microsoft's annuity contract strategy -- and one likely to come around only under the rare economic crunch. The annuity licensing strategy assumes growth, that customers will renew contracts and at higher levels. That's true, as long as there aren't massive layoffs.

    Both divisional presidents expressed optimism for the future, but warned second half 2009 would still prove to be challenging.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/30/Craig_Mundie__The_future_of_the_PC_is__a_room_'

    Craig Mundie: The future of the PC is 'a room'

    Publié: juillet 30, 2009, 10:40pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft FAMCraig Mundie, Microsoft's chief research & strategy officer, is charged with anticipating the future and the computing technologies people will need in the future. Early this afternoon, during Microsoft's annual Financial Analyst Meeting, Mundie spoke about the importance of natural user interfaces. He described one user interface I would never have imagined -- or perhaps you won't.

    The successor to the PC is "a room," Mundie told FAM attendees. Apparently, Microsoft's big-ass Surface computer is even too small for Microsoft's vision leader. He demoed the room, too. Mundie described his desktop as a Surface computer, but the real user interface was the wall.

    I describe the room like this: A cubicle with living post-it notes and pinned-up papers -- meaning real time and digital. I suppose it's clutter turned off with a switch, if you wanted to use the room as a, well, room.

    Oh, yes, and there's a resident digital assistant. He reminded me of a modernized, stylized and handsomer version of Max Headroom. Craig asked the assistant about the day's appointments -- postponing one -- among other questions.

    Another way to describe the room, which responds to the person, is that house in Syfy series Eureka. The one with the sultry voice and fussy character.

    I had been thinking that computers would get smaller, not larger. My smartphone and laptop are plenty of computers for me. But a room?

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/30/Ballmer__Apple_market_share_gains_are_a__rounding_error_'

    Ballmer: Apple market share gains are a 'rounding error'

    Publié: juillet 30, 2009, 9:42pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was in surprisingly good form this morning, as he kicked off the company's annual Financial Analysts Meeting. His presentation was one of the best in years. The economy may be cool, but Ballmer is hot.

    Perhaps his most piercing comments were about Apple, a competitor that has nipped away Windows PC market share and proved to be a formidable opponent in mobile devices markets.

    Ballmer dismissed Mac shipments of "10 million" units a year as being meaningless. He described Mac market share gains as "a rounding error." Ballmer emphasized: "Apple's share globally cost us nothing."

    But what he didn't say: Microsoft gained much. In a later presentation, Robbie Bach, president of the Entertainment & Devices division, touted the revenue contribution from Microsoft consumer software, which Macintosh Office is the largest component. Increased Mac sales do benefit Microsoft.

    Some advice to Ballmer: Perhaps FAM attendees should receive some Windows 7 netbook swag. Too many attendees -- or at least too many for Microsoft's CEO -- use Mac laptops. "We have lower share in the investor audience." he said looking out at attendees. "Don't hide them. I've already counted them," he joked. "Feel free, as long as you're using Office."

    Ballmer laid out the philosophic differences between Microsoft's approach to personal computers compared to Apple. Microsoft's focus is high volume, high value and low price. By comparison, Apple focuses on high price and low volume. What he didn't say: High margin. Apple commands some of the highest, perhaps the highest, hardware margins in the computing industry.

    High volume is essentially important to Microsoft's Windows business strategy, Ballmer explained. "You can't be high priced. That doesn't get us to the high volume that we aspire to." Value and volume are longstanding Microsoft corporate principles, which go back to the IBM PC era. Clearly, Microsoft has no plans to abandon value and volume principles.

    Apple justifies higher pricing by asserting that "'at the end of the day we have the coolest hardware,'" Ballmer claimed. For holiday 2009, Windows PC manufacturers will release new hardware -- and that will wipe away Apple's hardware design justification, he asserted. "New PC designs -- boom -- we're going to have a heck of a Christmas."

    COO Kevin Turner followed Ballmer and made a separate competitive attack. Turner reiterated Microsoft's "Apple Tax" claims, asserting that consumers pay more for Macs than PCs. He used an ad circular comparing Windows PC and Mac configurations and pricing. Typically this is true: Comparably configured Windows PCs often do cost less than Macs.

    That said, there are hidden features not alway obvious on either side, such as extra-long battery life in new MacBook Pros or Blu-ray playback in some Windows portables.

    The question I'd like to pose to commenters: Are Mac market share gains "a rounding error?"

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/30/Robbie_Bach__Windows_Mobile_had_a__challenging_year_'

    Robbie Bach: Windows Mobile had a 'challenging year'

    Publié: juillet 30, 2009, 8:55pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft FAMRobbie Bach, president of Microsoft's Entertainment & Devices division, today told Wall Street analysts that the company's mobile strategy would improve. He laid out Microsoft's go-forward mobile strategy during the annual Financial Analysts Meeting.

    Bach acknowledged that Windows Mobile had "a challenging year," with market share declining even as unit numbers increased. The company is ramping up for Windows Mobile 6.5's official release in October. Whoa, Bach asserted that the browsing experience on Windows Mobile 6.5 would be better than iPhone.

    "We have to do a better job executing...and operating our business," Bach said. Is that an understatement. I have repeatedly criticized Microsoft's mobile strategy as being weak.

    Bach's presentation lacked a critically fundamental element: Software platform. Apple's App Store platform is hugely popular -- with over 1.5 billion applications downloads -- and gaining. He simply ignored the importance of mobile applications.

    Bach laid out the broader mobile strategy in four areas: Choice and selection; end-user experience; cloud services; and brand marketing.

    Choice and selection is Microsoft's response to Apple's single-vendor, hardware-software approach. Earlier, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made clear that Microsoft planned to innovate with mobile software rather than make a phone. Google has similar strategy with Android.

    fam09c.003.png

    The E&D president observed that Windows Mobile delivers a good business experience, but Microsoft has work to do for consumers. He rightly explained that converging lifestyles makes focus on both markets -- business and consumer -- essential.

    "Our experiences are very good in the business space," but "our experiences are not as rich as they should be" in the consumer space, Bach said. Microsoft's mobile priority: "Taking our success in business...and expanding that across consumer scenarios."

    But I'm troubled by his timing: "This is something that is going to play out over the next 3 to 5 years." Years? Apple has stormed the cell phone market in less than two years, and Google has made surprising gains in about one year. Microsoft doesn't have 3 to 5 years.

    Bach also put the mobile strategy in context of "three screens in a cloud" -- PC, mobile phone and TV -- across social services. "Apple is very strong on the device side," but not as much in services. Google is stronger in the cloud, but not services. Microsoft can deliver in both areas, Bach asserted.

    fam09d.png

    I'm rather stunned by the assertion. Apple has a surprisingly strong three-screen strategy with iPhone/iPod, Apple TV and Macs or Windows PCs. For example, movies purchased from the iTunes Store sync across the three screens, and resume play wherever stopped on whatever device. Then there is Google's Android, which offers strong cloud-to-mobile integration, certainly better than Windows Mobile today.

    Bach simply ignores App Store, which is the preeminent mobile applications platform based on number of mobile apps available or downloaded. Surely, Microsoft knows that applications are fundamental to the success of any platform. So if Microsoft has a cloud-to-mobile device strategy, where are the applications? Once a mobile applications leader, Microsoft now trails recent upstarts. Once again, I strongly recommend that Microsoft embark on a mobile OS and browser Manhattan Project. The 3-to-5 year time horizon is way too long.

    The E&D CEO ended by talking about branding, and this is encouraging. "We are going to invest and build on the brand" -- Windows Phone. That will happen with carriers and retailers and through actual marketing. My take: Windows Phone as a single brand is sensible.

    "We're excited about Windows Mobile 6.5," he boasted during the first Q&A session.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/30/Steve_Ballmer_has_been_running_Microsoft_s_Windows_business_for_past_12_months'

    Steve Ballmer has been running Microsoft's Windows business for past 12 months

    Publié: juillet 30, 2009, 5:56pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft FAM[Editor's note: This was a live document starting around 11:56 am until 1:03 pm EDT.]

    Microsoft's annual Financial Analysts Meeting opened under a fog -- a cloud of uncertainty not seen since the company went public in 1986. For most of fiscal 2009, which ended June 30, Microsoft offered Wall Street no guidance on earnings. During fiscal fourth quarter, net income plummeted by 29 percent and revenue for all five product divisions fell year over year. Microsoft also reported its first annual revenue decline ever. When will the fog clear, and what will it reveal?

    Financial analysts have reason to hope. Yesterday, Microsoft cut a long anticipated search deal with Yahoo, smart marketing got the new Bing brand off to a surprisingly good start and important -- some exciting -- new products will ship during fiscal 2010, such as Windows 7, Windows Server 2008 R2, Exchange Server 2010, Azure Platform Services and Office 2010.

    This morning, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stepped through the fog to stand before Wall Street's finest on the FAM stage. Once again, he harkened about the global economic collapse -- the econolypse -- leading to a "reset." Recovery will be at a lower level. But he also swept his hand, and with typical booming voice cleared away some of the fog. Microsoft will not only survive but excel. Microsoft will spend $9.5 billion in research and development during fiscal 2010. "We have to innovate," Ballmer said. To "grow on a "sustained basis," Microsoft must look to the long term, he emphasized.

    During FAM 2008, "We were living in a very different world economically," Ballmer said. "The economy really slowed down, but we did not slow down at Microsoft." He spoke about the importance of Azure and Windows 7 and other products coming during fiscal 2010.

    fam10a.png

    Microsoft's CEO acknowledged that Microsoft had stumbled with mobile phones. "Will we succeed in phones?" Ballmer asked. "It was a tough year in executing in phones." He asserted that "for-profit-only software" -- not a phone from Microsoft -- is the way to get 40 percent to 50 percent market share.

    Ballmer said that there was no plan for Microsoft to announce the Yahoo search deal the day before FAM. He described the agreement as a "win-win deal" and win-win partnership" for both companies. He said the biggest benefits would come in North America and the few other Microsoft and Yahoo have combined reach. "Google has about 90-percent paid search market share in Europe," Ballmer said. "

    Ballmer described the search deal as "a tool for product improvement." With scale, Microsoft can make the search experience -- of which advertising is an important part -- better. "Product improvement is the key to market share," he asserted.

    "For the last 12 months, I've been running our Windows business," Ballmer said. That is why Steven Sinofsky, who was recently promoted to president of the Client business, didn't give the Windows presentation. Ballmer spoke about the importance of integration -- what Ballmer called a "vibrancy" -- with other products, such as Office 2010. Some of that vibrancy will in the future come between Bing and WIndows. This vibrancy is important to Windows continued success. "We're going to come under competitive attack," he asserted.

    Ballmer boasted: "New PC designs -- boom -- we're going to have a heck of a Christmas." He reviewed something that most financial analysts should already know: "The bulk of our Windows business comes with the sale of new PCs" -- about 80 percent.

    Ballmer spoke about the super-hot netbook category, which -- he didn't say -- has sapped Windows profits during fiscal 2009. He made clear that Microsoft sees netbooks as evolving to larger screens: "Ultrathin -- it's a high-end netbook." Ballmer didn't mention the Dell Adamo, but that's the kind of portable he referred to. Clearly, a high-end netbook would be attractive to Microsoft. "We need an expensive netbook," he said while describing Windows revenue for 2010.

    fam10b.png

    Ballmer made clear that Microsoft's official netbook license is for smaller screens. But with respect to netbooks that OEMs could put Windows "XP on the machine at one price," Windows 7 Starter Edition would be available at a higher price and Windows 7 Home Premium or Professional at even higher prices.

    Microsoft's CEO briefly spoke about Apple competition. He described Apple's market share gains as "a rounding error. He emphasized: "Apple's share globally cost us nothing." But he did observe where Microsoft needs to do better: "We have lower share in the investor audience." He joked about the number of Mac laptops at FAM: "Don't hide them. I've already counted them. Feel free, as long as you're using Office."

    Ballmer made clear that Microsoft's business is different from Apple's, which is high-priced, low volume. Microsoft is going for high-volume, high-value and low price. "You can't be high priced. That doesn't get us to the high volume that we aspire to," he said.

    Apple justifies higher pricer by asserting that "'at the end of the day we have the coolest hardware," Ballmer claimed. He repeated that for holiday 2009, Windows PC manufacturers will release new hardware -- and that will wipe away Apple's hardware design justification. It's possible to make cool computers, with hardware and software coming from different companies, he asserted. Cool doesn't have to come from an end-to-end provider.

    Microsoft will continue to "invest in Windows marketing," Ballmer said. He put up a slide showing how Microsoft's brand improved against Apple's following the "I'm a PC" advertising campaign, which includes "The Rookies" and "Laptop Hunters" sub-campaigns.

    Ballmer described Windows 7 as "the flagship" and "the hub." He emphasized Windows' importance to all Microsoft's lines of businesses.

    Microsoft's CEO got on fire, and went way, way, way over his alloted time. He concluded by talking about how Microsoft is investing in the future and whether "the company is well run," which he posed as a question to financial analysts.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/30/Microsoft_Yahoo_deal_is_Google_s_Christmas_in_July_present'

    Microsoft-Yahoo deal is Google's Christmas-in-July present

    Publié: juillet 30, 2009, 2:11am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's an irony about the Microsoft-Yahoo search deal. At one time, Yahoo provided search services to Microsoft. Now Microsoft is returning the favor. Well, if anyone could call the outsourcing of Bing search to Yahoo a favor. It's not. I predict that the deal will create two losers, with Google lapping up more search share -- at least in North America.

    The Microsoft-Yahoo deal is a strange one. It's the difference between two people living together and getting married. Microsoft and Yahoo will share common residence, but within somewhat separate confines, work schedules, belongings and bank accounts. This isn't even a marriage of convenience. I wouldn't even call it cohabitation. Microsoft and Yahoo are roommates who share space but different, often conflicting, priorities.

    There's a screenplay in this deal, another sequel to movie "Dumb and Dumber." But which CEO, Microsoft or Yahoo, should play which role? The deal is "dumberer" for both companies, and for different reasons.

    Search cannibalization. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has long wanted to combine his company's search share with Yahoo's. The idea: Bring Microsoft search share closer to Google's. According to ComScore, Google's US share search share was 65 percent in June, followed by Yahoo at 19.6 percent and Microsoft at 8.4 percent. Conceptually, combined Microsoft-Yahoo would be 28 percent, which is a lot closer to 65 percent than is 8.4 percent.

    Microsoft's reasoning, as first explained during the failed Yahoo takeover in 2008: Combined search share would give Microsoft enough reach to build out the customer and advertiser experience. I think everyone should have dreams, so, please, pardon my chucking black paint onto Steve Ballmer's rainbow.

    Microsoft's math doesn't add up. Bing is proof of that. Microsoft search share was up 0.4 percent month on month in June, while Yahoo receded by 0.5 percent. Search share for the other top five providers, including Google, was flat month over month. By all appearances, Bing cannibalized Yahoo search during the new engine's first full month of service.

    Further cannibalization is inevitable, and there is likely to be heaps of it. Matters would have been worse had Microsoft bought Yahoo and consolidated all search under a single brand. My prediction: Combined Microsoft-Yahoo share will be less than 20 percent within 12 months of the deal's closing -- and that's my being somewhat generous so that I don't get totally flamed in comments.

    Crown jewel. Yahoo is giving up its core asset to Microsoft. Yahoo essentially has three crown jewels: Its popular and hugely valuable brands, search and banner advertising. Search is the core around pretty much everything revolves. Yahoo wants to give that up to a competitor? Exactly what incentive does Microsoft have, then, to help Yahoo?

    Microsoft and Yahoo are competitors by most every measure other than PC and server software. Other than search, their areas of competition include: small business hosting and services, Web e-mail, instant messaging, portals and online finance, mapping, travel, health and music, among many other products and services. Yahoo's online reach, in terms of branding and time people stay online, is greater than Microsoft's.

    It's inconceivable to me that Yahoo would give up something so valuable for limited gains:

    • $700 million -- $500 million operating revenue and $200 million cost reduction
    • $250 million increase in cashflow
    • From Microsoft, 88 percent TAC, or traffic acquisition cost, at an initial rate of 88 percent of search revenue

    It's like Yahoo has sold its soul to the devil under separate five- and 10-year terms. Yahoo started as a search company. Search is still core to the company's business, strategic and technological identity. Overture, which Yahoo bought in 2003, pioneered the keyword business model that Google made mighty profitable. Yahoo search share is more than double Microsoft's for good reasons. Search is Yahoo's soul.

    The crown jewel Yahoo gives up today is another it loses tomorrow. Future search technology development will come from Microsoft, not Yahoo. What is smart about Yahoo giving up search technology development and essentially abandoning its research and development investment in the Panama ad system?

    Something else: Bing search share gains, as widely reported by many news sites, are overrated. Those weekly search gains cited after Bing's launch aren't yet sustainable, as shown by more granular search data released by ComScore. There were 1.02 billion searches at Bing in June. Windows Live/MSN racked up 1.19 billion searches in May, 1.25 billion in April and 1.19 billion in March, according to ComScore. From that perspective, Bing search declined month on month in June compared to Windows Live/MSN in May. So let me see if I understand. Yahoo wants to swap out something that works for something unproven? It's another reason to wonder about Yahoo losing share once Microsoft controls search.

    Missing mobile. Microsoft has been chasing Google for way too long. I would dare call Steve Ballmer obsessed with catching Google. Microsoft is distracted from more important matters, such as developing a solid mobile strategy, which includes search. I keep wondering how much of this Google obsession is about pride. It's like Microsoft executives are trying to recapture 2001-2002, when Microsoft led Google in search.

    Two events catapulted Microsoft to US search leadership, starting in late 2001: Internet Explorer pushed "404" page not find errors to MSN Search; Windows XP launched. Microsoft not Google was the search leader. But by the end of 2002, Microsoft had fallen to third rank behind Google and Yahoo. MSN Search kept steady, while Google and Yahoo gained users. According to what was then ComScore MediaMetrix: Between March 2002 and May 2003, MSN Search grew by about 1 percent, as measured in number of visitors, compared to about 25 percent growth for Google.

    Microsoft might regain some glory days, if the company spent more time on mobile, which is the future of search. But Google has won the desktop and is rapidly gaining on mobile devices. Cell phones are captive devices, meaning most people carry them -- and increasingly use them for more than telephony. In June, ComScore reported on March-to-March mobile search usage: Up 51 percent, in the United States. Something else: ComScore said that mobile Web browsers are the "leading access method for seeking local information."

    Meanwhile, mobile advertising is in its infancy, but growing. Google doesn't have to dominate mobile the way it does the desktop. Last week, the Kelsey Group released its forecast for mobile search and advertising revenue in Europe. Between 2008 and 2013, revenues are predicted to increase from 39 million euros to 2.3 billion euros (or US $55.49 million to $3.7 billion, at today's exchange rate). The European mobile market is larger than the United States -- 499 million handsets versus 266 million, respectively, at the end of 2008, according to Kelsey Group. The analyst firm sees smartphones as being a major driver of mobile advertising. The number of smartphones in Europe is predicted to increase from 32 million last year to 149 million by 2013.

    Microsoft needs a mobile operating system and browser Manhattan Project a lot more than it needs a Yahoo search deal. If Steve Ballmer must obsess about Google, he should focus on where the rival isn't yet entrenched and where also is the future of computing.

    The antitrust quandary. The Microsoft-Yahoo deal is subject to regulatory approval. Those trustbusters must have their say. Some lawyer surely will argue that the deal could lead the market to consolidate around two search engines: Bing and Google. The other two major search leaders, AOL and Ask, had 7 percent combined search share in June, according to ComScore. Their share will recede, someone will tell trustbusters.

    Now here's a strange thought: What if regulators reject the deal not because Microsoft-Yahoo would be too big but because search cannibalization would make Google too big? That's not typically how antitrust law applies, but there is an argument for the deal making Google a bigger monopoly. Strange as it might sound, Google lawyers could use this argument against the deal. It is not typically how companies argue antitrust -- that a deal should be prohibited because a dominant third-party would gain more market share. Nevertheless, the logic is sensible.

    Google already is a bigger monopoly. AOL's search share was 3.1 percent in June. But, technically speaking, that's really untabulated Google search share; Google still provides paid and unpaid search to AOL. So, Google's real US search share nips 70 percent, and paid search is nearly 80 percent. Do trustbusters really want to risk making it more?

    Now, I suppose that Microsoft could seek to steal away AOL, which deal with Google is up for renewal. Then Microsoft would get that untabulated search result. Such circumstance would be good for Bing, I predict, even pushing total search share over my predicted less-than 20 percent.

    I'll end with that. I could write a short book on why this deal is bad for Microsoft and worse for Yahoo. Well, damn, I gave away which is Dumb or Dumber.

    By the way, as is typical of this kind of announcement, the analysis is my own. I reviewed the announcement material and the BetaNews "need-to-know" bullet-points story. That way, no one else's thinking influences my opinion.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/24/Microsoft_takes_big_hit__Q4_revenue_falls_for_all_product_divisions'

    Microsoft takes big hit: Q4 revenue falls for all product divisions

    Publié: juillet 24, 2009, 12:55am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft closed fiscal 2009 with a whimper -- feeble performance not seen since the last recession in 2000-2001. Microsoft's fiscal year ended on June 30.

    For fiscal fourth quarter, revenue fell -- often double digits -- for every Microsoft division: Client, Server and Tools, Business, Online Services and Entertainment & Devices. I can't recall the last time, if ever, there was such an occurrence.

    Chris Liddell, Microsoft's chief financial officer, described the quarter's results as "disappointing," during a conference call late this afternoon. "Market conditions were certainly difficult in the quarter." That said, "there are some signs we have seen the worse," he said. Microsoft saw sequential Windows and Windows Server shipment gains for the first time in a year.

    Actual Quarter and Year Results
    For 2009 fiscal fourth quarter, Microsoft reported revenue of $13.1 billion, for a 17 percent year-over-year decline. Operating income: $3.99 billion, down 30 percent. Net income: $3.05 billion, or 34 cents a share. Net income fell by 29 percent and earnings per share by 26 percent year over year. If not for one-time charges, earnings per share would have been 4 cents higher.

    Full fiscal 2009 fiscal year revenue was $58.44 billion, down 3 percent from fiscal 2008. Operating income reached $20.36 billion, down 9 percent. Net income fell 18 percent to $14.57 billion. Earnings per share fell 13 percent to $1.62.

    msftfy09a.png

    Wall Street consensus was $14.37 billion revenue for the quarter, or expected 9.3 percent year-over-year decline. Earnings-per-share estimate was 36 cents, for a 21.7 percent consensus decline. Wall Street consensus for fiscal 2009: $59.66 billion revenue, down 1.3 percent; $1.70 earnings per share, down 9.1 percent. By pretty much every measure, Microsoft missed analyst consensus for fiscal quarter and year.

    Fiscal 2009 started off strongly but went to hell in the second quarter, following the late-September 2008 stock market crash. Uncharacteristically, Microsoft stopped giving guidance to the Street, starting in second quarter. The company also announced its first-ever layoffs during the second quarter earnings announcement, in late January. Layoffs continued in fiscal third quarter.

    Today, Microsoft continued its recent trend of not offering guidance for upcoming quarters. Clearly, the company still sees the sales situation, exacerbated by the global recession, as too difficult to forecast. Microsoft did offer fiscal 2010 operating expense guidance of $26.6 billion to $26.9 billion.

    It's Not Over Yet
    Microsoft remains challenged. The CFO warned that the economic climate would remain difficult for at least the rest of the calendar year, which would be the first half of fiscal 2010. Liddell sounded more chipper on today's conference call than the last few. He told analysts of seeing "signs now of the bottom" of the economic crisis.

    msftfy09b.png

    As I explained last week, Microsoft has not turned the corner. There are simply too many obstacles tearing away at its core business:

    • Sluggish PC sales (which hurt both big revenue products)
    • Tightened IT budgets (corporate and state-and-local government)
    • Smaller volume-license renewals (because of corporate downsizing)
    • Credit crunch (small-and-medium business loans for new technology)

    That said, fiscal 2010 is chock full of new Microsoft products or services. During fiscal 2010, Microsoft expects to launch, among other products:

    • Windows 7 (October 22)
    • Windows Server 2008 R2
    • Windows Mobile 6.5
    • Azure Services Platform (during November developer conference)
    • Exchange Server 2010
    • Office System 2010

    Whenever there is economic recovery, Microsoft will have a strong product portfolio to offer enterprise customers. However, Microsoft's strategy bets almost solely on businesses and the continued success of the Office-Windows-Windows Server stack. The company's mobile strategy is weak, as newcomers Apple and Google make dramatic smartphone sales gains and a newer mobile-to-cloud applications platform gains momentum.

    msftfy09c.png

    Segment Results
    Once again, sluggish PC sales hurt big revenue products Office and Windows, but the operating system much more. Microsoft estimates that global PC sales declined 5 percent to 7 percent year over year.

    Client. There is little good news coming from the Windows division in fourth quarter. Windows OEM unit growth fell 10 percent -- inconceivably by 3 percent to 5 percent more than PC unit declines. Increased piracy and stronger sales of PCs shipping with other operating systems, such as Mac OS, are likely factors. Microsoft identified another: OEMs buying fewer Windows licenses as they clear out excess PC inventory. Microsoft won't likely see a restocking boost until Windows 7 ships.

    But bad news is worse. The mix of premium OEM SKUs fell 13 percent to 59 percent. OEM revenue fell 31 percent to $1.1 billion. OEM licenses account for about 80 percent of Windows revenues.

    I blame netbooks, which I've described as a "menace" to Microsoft and Windows OEM margins. Microsoft said that non-netbook PC sales fell 16 percent to 18 percent. Microsoft estimates that netbooks made up 11 percent of PC sales. Netbooks are also pulling down average selling prices. According to NPD, at US retail, the Windows notebook ASP for June was $569 without netbooks but $520 with them.

    For fiscal 2010 first quarter, Microsoft plans to defer between $1.1 billion to $1.3 billion in revenue until second quarter as part of the Windows 7 technology guarantee program. Liddell is hopeful about Windows 7. "We could see Client revenue grow faster than PC shipments by the end of the fiscal year," he said.

    msftfy09d.png

    Server and Tools. For the second quarter in a row, the division's revenue exceeded Client. Server and Tools is Microsoft's most resilient against the econolypse. The division's quarterly year-over-year declines were less than most other product groups.

    Server and Tools is somewhat insulated from slowing hardware sales, because of the high percentage of annuity license sales to businesses. That said, sluggish server hardware sales sapped revenue gains.

    Business. The Office division had until this quarter largely resisted the downward pull of global recession. Major reason: Businesses buying annuity licenses. But revenue from businesses fell 10 percent, or by $413 million, largely because of volume-license agreement declines. These declines don't necessarily indicate fewer renewals. Corporate downsizing and layoffs mean many businesses will renew fewer licenses.

    Consumer revenue plummeted 30 percent, or by $289 million. Microsoft blamed the sluggish PC market. Businesses account for about 80 percent of the divisions' sales and consumer 20 percent. Office accounts for about 90 percent of Business division revenues.

    Online Services. Online advertising revenue declined by 14 percent, or $86 million, to $529 million. Microsoft said that the number of unique visitors has increased 15 percent since Bing's launch. Bing Shopping increased by three times and Bing Travel by 90 percent -- both since the new search engine's launch.

    Entertainment & Devices. Microsoft reduced the division's losses mostly through cost containment rather than sales gains. For example, Microsoft reduced sales and marketing expenses by 30 percent, or $107 million.

    The division shipped 1.2 million Xbox consoles during the quarter, down slightly year over year. Mediaroom and Zune primarily contributed to a 42 percent, or $291 million, decline in non-gaming revenue. PC gaming revenue, also affected by the sluggish PC market, fell 12 percent, or by $110 million.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/23/Apple_has_91%_of_market_for__1_000__PCs__says_NPD'

    Apple has 91% of market for $1,000+ PCs, says NPD

    Publié: juillet 23, 2009, 4:17am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Move over Microsoft. Apple can claim big, big market share numbers, too. According to NPD, in June, nine out of 10 dollars spent on computers costing $1,000 or more went to Apple. Mac revenue market share in the "premium" price segment was 91 percent, up from 88 percent in May.

    By the way, Apple's command of the premium market is way up from first quarter 2008, when, according to NPD, Mac revenue share was 66 percent. Gee, and it seemed so high when I broke that story.

    Microsoft executives had better study Apple's success -- and well -- as they prepare to bring Windows 7 to market. The new operating system released to manufacturing today and launches on Oct. 22. But some people will get Windows 7 sooner. Microsoft might want to reconsider its marketing, too. Apple's premium sales success means that from one perspective, Microsoft's "Laptop Hunters" commercials are a failure.

    Market Share 101
    Microsoft and OEMs measure success in unit market share, which for combined Windows PC shipments is over 90 percent, according to Gartner and IDC. In the United States, Mac market share was a paltry 8.7 percent in second quarter, according to Gartner. The bulk of PCs sell for less than $1,000.

    According to NPD, in June, average selling prices for all PCs sold at US retail was $701, or $690 for desktops and $703 for notebooks. But the ASPs get more interesting when comparing Macs to Windows PCs. For all Windows PCs, ASP was $515 in June. For Macs: $1,400. Desktop Windows PC ASP: $489. Mac desktops: $1,398. Windows notebook ASP was $520, or $569 when removing all those nasty, margin-sucking netbooks. Mac laptops: $1,400.

    Mac ASPs have been higher for a long time, because Apple chooses not to compete at lower prices. The real entry price for Apple computers is $999 for the white MacBook and $1,199 for either the low-end iMac or MacBook Pro. By comparison, Windows netbooks sell for as little as $199, unsubsidized, and even some fuller-sized laptops don't cost much more. For example, HP laptops start at $349.99 after rebate.

    Apple's starting prices put nearly all Macs in the premium category -- but A (higher pricing) doesn't necessarily lead to B (greater sales). All major Windows OEMs sell PCs in the premium category, too. Apple's charging more isn't necessarily recipe for people paying more for Macs, or their capturing big revenue share.

    Among the things working for Apple:

    • Mac OS X, iLife and hardware design differentiate Macs from PCs
    • Most households have Windows PCs -- so a Mac is something fresh, new
    • Most Windows PCs come with Vista, which has gotten lots of bad press
    • Apple retail stores offer a singular purchasing experience
    • Apple excels at lifestyle marketing; there is a Mac lifestyle
    • Sales halo effect from satisfied iPod and iPhone customers help Mac sales
    • Design priority: Apple emphasizes different features, such as super long battery life for MacBook Pro, than most Windows OEMs

    Despite these advantages, US Mac retail sales slowed for about six months.

    The Macolypse Hits Apple
    From about November 2008 to April 2009, Mac year-over-year US retail sales declined, even as Windows PCs dramatically gained. There was kind of a numbers reversal, following the late-September stock market crash. For example, in October 2008, following release of new aluminum, unibody laptops, US retail Mac revenue grew 25.5 percent, while Windows PC sales fell 4.2 percent, according to NPD. By January 2009, Mac retail revenue was down 10.4 percent from a year earlier and Windows PC revenue was flat.

    The unit changes were dramatic, too: in January, Windows PCs were up 16.7 percent, and Macs were down by 5.4 percent. In February: Windows PC units sales rose 22 percent year over year and Macs fell 16.7 percent.

    Several factors accounted for this dramatic turnabout:

    • The post-September economic collapse chilled consumer spending -- higher-priced PCs among the harder-hit categories.
    • In September, Microsoft started its "I'm a PC" marketing campaign, which, according to the company and analysts, boosted Windows perceptions and PC sales over several months.
    • Apple took a four month break from airing "Get a Mac" commercials.

    By April, Mac sales started to turn around, as the economy improved and new "Get a Mac" ads started airing.

    Laptop Hunters Miss the Game
    In March, Microsoft's ad campaign entered another phase, with "Laptop Hunters" commercials, which sought to demonstrate the value of Windows portables compared to Macs. Many Apple and Microsoft pundits or analysts have said the Laptop Hunters commercials are about price -- meaning PCs costing less than Macs. That's simply not true. The commercials are about value, and at premium prices.

    Six Laptop Hunters commercials have aired in the United States. For four of the commercials, the shoppers had budgets between $1,500 and $2,000. Budgets for the other two: $750 and $1,000. If the commercials were about contrasting Windows laptop lower pricing to costlier Macs, Microsoft wouldn't feature shoppers with so much money to spend. Consider that at retail, where all the people in the commercials shopped, Windows laptop ASP was $703 in June, according to NPD.

    Microsoft marketers sought to compare and contrast Windows laptops in the same premium price ranges as Mac portables. That's the market segment where Microsoft and its OEM partners need to gain share against Apple and where PC hardware margins are richer. The commercials were supposed to show Windows' laptops greater value against Macs in similar price range.

    By that measure, the Laptop Hunters campaign is a failure. Clearly, more US retail buyers see more value in Macs in the premium price range, which is evidenced by Apple's ridiculously high revenue share and gains reaching it. I'm a fan of Laptop Hunters and consider it be one of Microsoft's very best advertising campaigns. Laptop Hunters campaign has boosted Microsoft's brand and, by analysts numbers, helped boost Windows sales in a soft market. But the campaign apparently didn't boost Windows laptop value perceptions against Macs.

    Apple Calms the Stormy Economic Seas
    Apple must be doing something right to go from, in the US retail premium PC market, 66 percent revenue share in first quarter 2008 to 91 percent at the end of second quarter 2009. The company has masterfully navigated the stormy economic waters that battered so many other companies. While competitors slashed prices to protect market share and to pull sales, Apple sought to preserve the perceived value of the Mac brand.

    Rather than lower entry-level pricing and move big time into the sub-$1,000 PC market, as some analysts recommended, Apple chose to do something else, in early June:

    • Lower 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pros by $300
    • Replace 13-inch MacBooks with Pro models for $100 less
    • Effectively lower the Pro entry price to $1,199 from $1,999

    Based on data from NPD and other analysts, including Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster, Apple's price cuts at the high end significantly boosted Mac sales, which at US retail were up 16 percent year over year in June. Rather than aim low, Apple chose to make the high lower, in a segment where Macs already commanded overwhelming market share.

    Yesterday, the company revealed that it had shipped 2.6 million Macs during second calendar quarter, beating analysts estimates.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/22/Apple_Q3_2009_by_the_numbers'

    Apple Q3 2009 by the numbers

    Publié: juillet 22, 2009, 3:36am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Apple has once again defied the economic gravity pulling some tech companies' earnings into a black hole. For fiscal 2009 third quarter, the company posted, again -- isn't this getting tiresome -- strong year-over-year revenue and earnings growth.

    Strong Mac and iPhone shipments contributed to a quarter that surged past Apple's guidance and Wall Street analysts' inflated estimates. Apple described the results as being its best for a non-holiday quarter. That's a remarkable claim given that second calendar quarter typically is the slowest for PC shipments and economic recession afflicts all Apple's major sales market.

    During today's earnings conference call, Apple revealed supply shortages for iPhone 3GS and some MacBook Pro models. The company didn't reveal whether or not the shortages impacted sales for the quarter. Apple released new iPhone and MacBook Pros in June.

    For fiscal third quarter, Apple reported 8.34 billion revenue and net profits of $1.23 billion, or $1.35 a share. A year earlier, Apple reported revenue of $7.46 billion and $1.07 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.19 per share.

    Three months ago, Apple forecast revenue between $7.7 billion and $7.9 billion, with earnings per share ranging between 95 cents and $1 a share. Analyst estimates were much higher than Apple guidance: $8.2 billion average revenue consensus and $1.17 earnings per share.

    For fiscal fourth quarter, Apple forecasts between $8.7 billion and $8.9 billion in revenue, with earnings per share ranging between $1.18 and $1.23 a share. Apple projects gross margins to be about 34 percent. In the comparable 2008 quarter, Apple revenue was $7.9 billion and $1.14 billion net quarterly profit, or $1.26 per share.

    Apple Q309 Chart 1

    Apple's forward guidance reflects:

    • Slower-than-typical educational sales
    • Tough year-over-year iPhone comparison
    • Lower MacBook selling prices (following June cuts)
    • Timing of new MacBook models (in fiscal third quarter)

    Macs Defy Gravity
    Apple shipped 2.6 million Macs during the quarter, a near record number. As viewed separately, Mac desktop shipments declined 10 percent year over year, while laptops increased 13 percent. Combined, Mac shipments grew 4 percent year over year, or about 100,000 units.

    Last week, analyst firms Gartner and IDC split on Mac shipments. In the United States, Gartner said that Apple shipped 1.422 million Macs, up 2.5 percent year over year. Market share rose to 8.7 percent from 8.4 percent a year earlier. By comparison, IDC said that Apple shipped only 1.213 million Macs, a 12.4 percent year-over-year decline. IDC put Apple's US share at 7.6 percent, down from 8.5 percent a year earlier.

    I contacted both analyst firms earlier today, but have yet to receive answers on how they measure shipments. One plausible explanation for the difference: One firm measures sales going into the channel, while the other measures sales out to customers. Right before Apple announced earnings, I heard back from Gartner analyst Mika Kitagawa: "Our PC sales figure is based on sell-in shipments to the channel, and some to the end user directly."

    Apple Q309 Chart 2

    Regardless of the differences, there is another measure that portends well for Apple: Sequential market share gains. In some ways, given the global recession, sequential share better reflects sales performance. Quarter to quarter, Mac shipments were flat, at 7.6 percent, according to IDC data. But Mac market share rose 1.3 percent sequentially, according to Gartner data. Keep in mind with the Gartner data -- and as of posting I don't know about IDC -- that the measure is mostly sales into the channel. During first calendar quarter, many PC manufacturers reduced shipments into the channel because of global sales malaise, according to both IDC and Gartner.

    The Price is Right
    From one perspective, Apple's strong Mac shipments are perplexing. To enter the Mac club, consumers must pony up at least $999 for a Mac laptop or $1,199 for an iMac. By comparison, a cellular carrier subsidized Windows netbook costs as little as $99. Price entry is significantly higher for Macs than PCs.

    That said, in early June, Apple cut 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro prices by $300. Additionally, the company rebranded and updated existing aluminum MacBooks as Pros, also cutting prices by $100. The change reduced the entry cost of MacBook Pro from $1,999 for the older 15-inch model to $1,199 for the newer 13-inch MacBook Pro.

    "It's just jaw dropping," Apple COO Tim Cook said during today's earnings conference call about what he described as a $800 MacBook Pro price cut.

    Since the price drop, I have made weekly visits to the three San Diego, Calif.-based Apple Stores. Christmas crowds is how would describe the number of shoppers. I could stand outside any store and count the new MacBook Pro owners walking by. NPD did an official count, putting Mac US retail sales up 16 percent in June. The analyst firm released data to customers on July 20. A day earlier, in a research note, Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said that NPD data would need to show 5 percent growth for Apple to meet Wall Street consensus of 2.45 million units.

    Apple Q309 Chart 3

    Perhaps Apple has a different perspective on the economic gloom. The news media is seemingly obsessed with describing how bad is the US recession, or what some call the econolypse. But there's another way to look at things:

    • US employment is more than 90 percent
    • For most people, a Mac is a first-time purchase
    • Four out of five US home owners hold good mortgages
    • Most NetGeners have discretionary income to spend on Macs and iPhones

    The point: There is still plenty of spending power among American consumers. Apple has chosen to tap that spending power through higher prices that preserve gross margins. Not everyone shops at Wal-Mart (which sells iPhone, by the way).

    Pocket Computers Come of Age
    Macs accounted for about 40 percent of Apple's fiscal third quarter revenue, but iPhone made a strong contribution -- more than desktops. The iPhone accounted for about 20 percent of revenues, up from 5.6 percent a year earlier. Combined, iPhone and iPod accounted for 38 percent of revenues. Apple's pocket computers may soon exceed Mac revenue -- that's without factoring services revenue the company must defer.

    Apple doesn't disclose the breakdown of sales among standard iPods from iPod touch, but executive comments over several quarters indicate increasing iPod touch sales. Today, Apple revealed that, combined, it had sold 45 million iPhones and iPod touches. The number is significant for what it means for Apple's emerging smartphone platform.

    Apple Q309 Chart 4

    Deutsche Bank analysts Brian Modoff and Jonathan Goldberg predict that this year, Apple and Research in Motion will sell between 5 percent and 10 percent of all mobile phones shipped worldwide, but account for substantially more of the profits -- 31 percent and 35 percent, respectively. But the analysts don't count iPod touch, which is the other leg holding up Apple's App Store platform.

    App Store is rapidly emerging as Apple's biggest differentiator for all other mobile devices. With more than 1.5 billion application downloads, in about a year, the store has gained unquestionable momentum. Fiscal fourth quarter could bring more fortune to the platform, if iPhone 3GS sales gain even more after Apple resolves supply problems and iPod touch get its typical quarterly sales boost from back-to-school promotions.

    In other news for the quarter, Apple retail stores performed surprisingly well, considering the global recession. The stores sold 492,000 Macs during fiscal third quarter, up from 476,000 a year earlier. Apple opened six stores during the quarter for a total of 258. However, revenue per store fell year over to $5.9 million from $6.8 million. That said, overall retail revenue grew 4 percent to $1.496 billion.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/20/Could_Popfly_s_pop_out_be_game_over_for_Microsoft_'

    Could Popfly's pop out be game over for Microsoft?

    Publié: juillet 20, 2009, 10:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    There's a strange foreshadowing in Microsoft naming its social mashup service Popfly. In baseball, pop fly is a ball hit straight up that comes straight down, usually into the catcher's mitt and to an out. Popfly is out, with Microsoft's decision to close down the service on August 24th.

    I'm really bugged about the shutdown, because of what it represents:

    • The Bill Gates era really is over. In the year since the cofounder's full-time departure, Microsoft has shuttered many of its best incubation projects or consumer products.
    • The closure is yet another sign that Microsoft doesn't really get social media, in part by taking design approaches too closely tied to its stuff and not extensible enough to other Web services.
    • Microsoft is more aggressively trying to protect and to extend its existing Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack. There is ever increased emphasis on enterprise computing.

    I believe that in 2009 Microsoft has turned a direction that is scarier than movie "Quarantine." Without a course correction, Microsoft in the 2010s will be very much like IBM was in the 1990s.

    It's a Top-Down Problem
    I like Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. He's a heart-on-the-sleeve kind of guy who speaks his mind whenever the PR minions don't interfere. But Steve Ballmer's strength also is his weakness. As I explained last week, the chief executive is too focused on giving customers what they want instead of innovating what they need. Everything about his leadership -- and how Microsoft now develops products -- is about preserving the status quo, whether the company's existing products or enterprises' entrenched business processes.

    By comparison, Bill Gates is more visionary. He may talk and walk like a geek, but he's prescient. For example, he rightly recognized, if somewhat belatedly, what the Web would mean for Microsoft, which he aptly expressed in the May 1995 "Internet Tidal Wave" letter.

    Bill Gates' post-2000 impact on Microsoft really started manifesting about four years ago, after the company brought on Ray Ozzie with the acquisition of Groove Networks. Perhaps the two men are like minds about software development. After all, they shared the chief software architect title. The number of incubation projects (run by guerrilla groups acting more like internal startups) soared since early 2006.

    But after summer 2008, when Microsoft's cofounder shifted primary focus to philanthropy, incubation projects started a priority decline. Since the September 2008 US financial meltdown, Microsoft has had two rounds of layoffs, pulled popular consumer software titles or services and curbed or closed most incubation projects.

    In June, TechFlash's Todd Bishop chronicled the demise of many consumer products, including the Encarta encyclopedia and Microsoft Money. But the incubation groups, like Live Labs, or services, like Popfly, are more indicative of a directional shift. It's a direction I don't like seeing Microsoft go.

    Microsoft's Short, Golden Age of Incubation
    What a difference two years makes. In October 2007, over at Microsoft Watch, I blogged about Microsoft's state of reinvention. The company had numerous guerilla groups working on many cool and exciting incubation projects. Some of the most notable -- for example, Photosynth and Worldwide Telescope -- have brought accolades and new partnerships, with NASA being among them.

    Microsoft is a middle-aging company, in an industry dominated by young upstarts. Many younger managers -- that's in Microsoft years, not necessarily physical age -- brought new ideas with these incubation projects. Younger managers and outsiders had been turning some Microsoft product groups into networks of loose startups.

    I first perceived that Microsoft had entered incubation pullback mode, after the near closure of Live Labs in April 2009. Gary Flake, who founded Live Labs, describes its incubation approach in the Live Labs Manifesto: "We will deliberately not do many things that are already well-established within Microsoft. Instead we will seek to connect complementary efforts or to fill existing voids, so as to maximize impact for effort."

    It's this kind of approach that could shake Microsoft's dependence on Office and Windows and open up new revenue streams along the emerging mobile device and Web applications stack.

    But Bill Gates is no longer there to protect incubation project managers. Steve Ballmer has different priorities, as evidenced by recent Microsoft cutbacks and closures. Microsoft is now in state of retreat, as it grapples with the econolypse. Recent cutbacks and internal refocusing point to Microsoft making its core business market the top investment priority -- at the expense of anything else.

    Retreat Before the Econolypse
    On Thursday, the company will announce fiscal 2009 fourth quarter and yearly results. Wall Street consensus is for earnings per share to fall 21.7 percent year over year for the quarter and 9.1 percent for fiscal 2009. Microsoft's shortlist of problems:

    • PC sales are down (although not as bad as analysts' forecasts three months ago).
    • Most IT organizations have cut back technology spending.
    • Most enterprises already have Microsoft software (e.g., reselling to them rather than generating new sales).

    Microsoft's consumer product and incubation project cutbacks are Action A. Increased integration along the existing applications stack and refocused sales on enterprises is Action B. My contention: Microsoft is too focused on seeking to preserve existing revenue streams when creating newer ones should be a greater priority. Microsoft's self-preservation approach will compel its developers to bind new technologies to Office or Windows.

    IBM followed a similar path in the 1980s, seeking to preserve its applications stack around the mainframe. While Big Blue released a PC, the company made protecting its legacy business priority. IBM and its mainframe business didn't go away, but its relevance diminished before a new applications stack. Microsoft faces similar challenge before the mobile-to-cloud applications stack.

    Popfly is just the latest casualty of a status quo-preserving strategy that primes Microsoft to become the IBM of the 2010s -- unless there is a dramatic course correction.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/16/Microsoft_should_use_Twitter_data_theft_as_hosted_apps_marketing_FUD'

    Microsoft should use Twitter data theft as hosted apps marketing FUD

    Publié: juillet 16, 2009, 7:35pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft couldn't pay for counter marketing as good this. Twitter has officially admitted to a security breach, via personal e-mail account, and the pilfering of confidential documents stored in Google Apps. Can you say, "On-premise computing?"

    Based on the cycle of renewals, an unusually large number of Microsoft volume-licensing subscribers must re-up by July 31 or not at all. Given the econolypse's impact on IT spending and, because of layoffs, number of seats to renew, those license renewals may come harder than ever. Then there are all those newfangled hosted applications, some from Microsoft, and Google's push into the enterprise with Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook.

    Microsoft talks about the "Apple Tax," but I've heard plenty of IT managers complain about the "Microsoft Tax" in reference to Software Assurance fees or CALs (client-access licenses). They see that off-premise hosting can cost loads less per employee, provide immediate software and feature upgrades and reduce management costs. It's to these businesses considering hosted services -- and not from Microsoft or one of its partners -- that the Twitter/Google Apps data breach could be used as effective counter marketing. Microsoft sales people can spin the story to emphasize the importance of on-premise software and to call out new security features coming in Windows 7.

    Twitter cofounder Biz Stone blogged "Twitter: Even More Open Than We Wanted" yesterday. Sorry, I'm a day late putting perspective on this one. In fairness to Google and Twitter, there wasn't an overt security breach but pilfering of passwords that allowed unauthorized access. But details like that don't much matter in counter marketing, particularly when the audience is receptive, even if unsure about whether to stay with the Microsoft software they've got or embrace the next new thing.

    Many enterprises -- some bound by regulatory obligations -- are wary of letting information outside the confines of the firewall. Hosted services are scary to them, because they don't want to lose control over data -- the corporate crown jewels. Yet off-premise hosting appeals to some businesses, for the aforementioned reasons.

    Letting information outside corporate confines is really a fear factor thing, anyway. Major businesses let terabytes of data leave the firewall every day, on laptops, BlackBerries and other mobile devices. These are high-theft items that also are often used for personal and professional purposes. There is commingled personal-professional behavior and data. which creates huge risk of data loss or password pilfering.

    Twitter's security breach really may be a woeful tale of what can happen when commingling goes awry. Biz Stone blogs:

    "About a month ago, an administrative employee here at Twitter was targeted and her personal email account was hacked. From the personal account, we believe the hacker was able to gain information which allowed access to this employee's Google Apps account which contained Docs, Calendars, and other Google Apps Twitter relies on for sharing notes, spreadsheets, ideas, financial details and more within the company. Since then, we have performed a security audit and reminded everyone of the importance of personal security guidelines."

    The red warning in that paragraph is "personal account." He continues:

    "This attack had nothing to do with any vulnerability in Google Apps which we continue to use. This is more about Twitter being in enough of a spotlight that folks who work here can become targets. In fact, around the same time, Evan's wife's personal email was hacked and from there, the hacker was able to gain access to some of Evan's personal accounts such as Amazon and PayPal but not email. This isn't about any flaw in web apps, it speaks to the importance of following good personal security guidelines such as choosing strong passwords."

    Evan refers to Twitter's CEO, Mr. Williams. Biz Stone doesn't reveal how the personal e-mail accounts were hacked. He doesn't have to. It's clear from the brief explanation that the hacker got access to passwords, some of which were likely the same across multiple accounts.

    For Microsoft, the sales spin is obvious:

    • Hosted applications are yet unproven compared to on-premise software. You get the security that you pay for.
    • Microsoft software is the safer, known choice. You're in control of employee access and passwords, not some administrative assistant or unpaid summer intern.
    • Windows 7 and Microsoft server software provide tools that allow IT organization to control who has access to what.
    • Windows Vista and 7 encryption tools can protect information leaving the corporate confines from theft or loss.

    Bottom-line sale pitch: Renew your contracts now.

    Microsoft couldn't ask for better timing, right at the close of a big volume-licensing renewal cycle. There's fear in the air, or there will be plenty if Microsoft's sales force stirs up some marketing FUD -- fear, uncertainty and doubt -- around the security of hosted apps served up by Web companies without rich heritage of software development; or business model (e.g., not Microsoft or its partners).

    Is it fair counter marketing? Well, no. Microsoft has got its own software security problems, and there was no hacking of Google Apps or Twitter -- just the pilfering of passwords. Marketing isn't about fairness but selling more stuff. Twitter's data loss is premo marketing ammo. Fire away, Microsoft.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/16/Microsoft_laughs_off_Apple_legal_request_to_kill_TV_ads'

    Microsoft laughs off Apple legal request to kill TV ads

    Publié: juillet 16, 2009, 4:50am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Microsoft Laptop Hunters

    Apple is a company known for good design -- meaning also that appearances matter beyond just the products. Apple's legal department may have done something that appears simply laughable. Even if untrue, it's a helluva good story -- and a Microsoft executive tells it. Well.

    Apple has a reputation for issuing legal take-down notices. The practice is a byproduct of the company's penchant for secrecy. Many Websites posting leaked Apple product pics have felt the burning ire of Apple lawyers. Today, at Microsoft's annual partner conference, COO Kevin Turner described receiving what could be characterized as the ultimate take-down notice.

    "Two weeks ago we got a call from the Apple legal department saying, hey -- this is a true story -- saying, 'Hey, you need to stop running those ads, we lowered our prices.' They took like $100 off or something. It was the greatest single phone call in the history that I've ever taken in business."

    "I did cartwheels down the hallway. At first I said, 'Is this a joke? Who are you?' Not understanding what an opportunity. And so we're just going to keep running them and running them and running them."

    In June, Apple introduced 13-inch MacBook Pros for $100 less than the MacBooks they replaced and cut $300 off 15-inch and 17-inch laptops. Assuming the story is factual as told, Apple legal actually has a point about the price comparisons in most "Laptop Hunters" commercials. That said, the prices were correct when Microsoft first aired the ads.

    Is there a little tit for tat going on here? Of course. I had noticed that in recent weeks Microsoft started airing older Laptop Hunters commercials more frequently, after a hiatus. I didn't make the connection until today that these same commercials also call out the higher Mac notebook prices.

    Is that unfair? In marketing there is no love between competitors. Just war. Microsoft took the marketing two-by-four to Apple's head. Whack. Whack. That's what effective marketing is for.

    It's no wonder Kevin Turner cartwheeled around the office. For nearly three years prior to Laptop Hunters, Apple dominated PC purchasing messaging with "Get a Mac" commercials, which brilliantly use two people -- Mac and PC -- to simply communicate complex ideas about computer buying. KT told Microsoft partners about reactions a year ago:

    "Gosh, when I went home for the holidays, brothers, sisters, cousins -- hey, hope you don't have anything to do with marketing over there at Microsoft. What are you guys going to do about those Apple ads?"

    Apple and Microsoft are both readying new operating systems for autumn release. I expect Microsoft to all but literally cover the planet in advertising. According to KT:

    "When we put Windows 7 in there, which we've got coming out in October, what an incredible opportunity for us to fight back. And it feels really good to be on the offensive here. And we know we've got plenty of work to do. We don't have it all figured out."

    Laptop Hunters commercials have proved to be a surprisingly effective response to Apple marketing. "I'm a PC" ads were OK and "The Rookies" spots were much better. The Laptop Hunters series is the big home run. The commercials have improved perceptions about Microsoft and Windows PCs. The company stated so during its earnings call three months ago. By the way, the Bing commercials are even better -- some of best tech ever run on TV.

    I suspect Apple's sensitivity is more than about Laptop Hunters. Microsoft has played up value by highlighting what it calls the "Apple Tax" -- the price premium paid for Macs compared to Windows PCs. In fairness to Apple, that premium is in the market under $999, which is the entry price to join the iMac, MacBook Pro or Mac Pro clubs.

    Microsoft plans to expand the "Tax" concept. Apple is one target. VMware is another. Kevin Turner told Microsoft partners: "Just like we did with Apple...we're going to get this virtualization tax, the VMware tax out there and start driving people crazy with the value proposition."

    Given the econolypse, Microsoft has picked a good time to reemphasize value in its marketing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/15/Steve_Ballmer_s_denial_can_t_stop_change_from_coming'

    Steve Ballmer's denial can't stop change from coming

    Publié: juillet 15, 2009, 10:00pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    "On résiste à l'invasion des armées; on ne résiste pas à l'invasion des idées." -- Victor Hugo
    Literal translation: "One withstands the invasion of armies; one does not withstand the invasion of ideas."
    Often paraphrased: "Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come."

    Web-based operating system/platform is an idea whose time has come, whether or not Google succeeds with Chrome OS. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer can deny it. He can march his Office 2010 and Windows 7 armies into the enterprise. But, elsewhere, the Web platform is turning from idea to practical reality -- in large part because of mobile handsets.

    Yesterday, on the one-year anniversary of App Store, Apple announced that iPhone users had downloaded 1.5 billion mobile applications. It's a momentous achievement for a relatively new platform. That's one sign of big changes coming. A new applications stack is emerging, from mobile device to the cloud. Steve Ballmer doesn't get it, even as Microsoft embraces cloud computing tied to the dominant Office-Windows-Windows Server applications stack.

    BetaNews has transcribed portions of his comments from Microsoft's annual partner conference:

    "What we really do understand is that the model of the future brings together the best of today's rich client Windows-style applications and some of the things that people consider the best of the Web. People like the deployment model, you click on a link and you get your application deployed. People like the notion that, kind of, the globe from an information perspective, and a people perspective, is built in. And people like the richness and visualization and responsiveness and offline characteristics of the Windows applications."

    "So as we talk about where we're going, we don't need a new operating system. What we need to do is to continue to evolve Windows, Windows applications, IE [Internet Explorer], the way IE works in totality with Windows, and how we build applications like Office, like the stuff we showed here, and we need to make sure we can bring our customers and partners with us."

    The people who download applications from Apple, BlackBerry, Google, Nokia or Palm mobile stores are not getting "Windows-style applications." These applications are lightweight and many are Web connected. Widgets running on my Nokia N97 keep persistent Web connections.

    Microsoft's CEO will never understand the real power of the Web platform, but deny it, because:

    • He's a salesman who makes customers the top priority. The approach his commendable. But what his enterprise customers tell him they want today holds Microsoft back from reaching tomorrow.
    • Microsoft corporate culture is fixated on building up from existing products into new areas. This integration brings sales leverage for future products, which are chained to existing ones.
    • Related: Next to security and extended integration, Microsoft's top design priority is backward compatibility. So, for the benefit of customer satisfaction, Microsoft looks too much behind while trying to move ahead.

    Steve Ballmer has interesting ideas about where most people spend most of their time. He told Microsoft partners, yesterday:

    "The truth of the matter is, there's good data that actually says that about 50 percent of the time, somebody's on their PC, at least 50 percent they're not doing something in the Web browser. So what we need is an operating system that brings local richness together with the Internet, and Windows is the operating system for the job."

    Really, now? Fifty-percent of the time in a Web browser is a helluva lot. There is the other 50 percent. How much of that is in applications connected to the Web? I currently have five applications open, other than Web browser, and all are connected to the Internet. Meanwhile, I have seven browser tabs open to Web services, including the blogging platform for this post. So I'll ask you: How much of what you regularly do on a computer (or even smartphone) is connected to the Web? Please answer in comments.

    Steve Ballmer's statement about an OS bringing "local richness together with the Internet" could as easily describe Android, iPhone OS, Mac OS, any Linux distribution or Chrome OS. Even Google's new operating system will have to run something locally.

    Microsoft's CEO is right to be perplexed about Google bringing to market two operating systems: "The last time I checked, you don't need two client operating systems. We tried it before -- Windows 95 and Windows NT. It's good to have one. So I can't, I don't really don't know what's up at Google." Nor do I. Android or Chrome OS should be enough. Not both.

    That said, Chrome OS, or something like it, is an idea whose time has come. Netscape wanted to bring a Web-based OS to market in the late 1990s. It wasn't the right time, Microsoft outmaneuvered Netscape with Internet Explorer and Internet Information Server bundling and Netscape wasn't the right company. By comparison, the time is right, Microsoft's responsiveness is hampered by European and US antitrust oversight and Google is the right company. Or Apple.

    Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 were about the PC. Web 3.0 is about the mobile device and the cloud. In a future post, I'll explain the major factors that make Web 3.0 about the mobile device-to-cloud applications stack. Two for now: Ubiquitous and fast Internet connectivity; search utility and potential third-party profitability.

    Wrapping up, Steve Ballmer's emphasis on customers shouldn't be a liability, but it is for Microsoft. Innovation isn't about listening to what customers want, but giving them something they didn't realize they needed. This is the fundamental difference between how Apple and Microsoft develop new products. Microsoft caters to enterprises and their fickle and risk-adverse behavior. That's good for Office, Windows and Microsoft server products today. Tomorrow is an idea whose time already is passing.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/15/Windows_7_E__Microsoft_s_sensible_response_to_Europe'

    Windows 7 E: Microsoft's sensible response to Europe

    Publié: juillet 15, 2009, 9:59pm CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Yesterday, in a Windows 7 for Developers blog post, Microsoft revealed more details about the special version of Windows 7 for the European Union. The company isn't ripping out Internet Explorer 8 so much as using the "Turn Windows on or off" tool to disable the browser. For all practical purposes, IE8 won't be available to end users or third-party applications. However, Internet Web Applications components will remain.

    About 30 days ago, in a brilliant solution to a troubling problem, Microsoft announced plans to release an "E" version of Windows 7 sans the browser. Windows 7 E will be exclusively distributed in the EU, where the European Competition Commission is nearly ready to officially rule that Microsoft's bundling Internet Explorer with Windows is an anticompetitive act. The European Commission is currently entertaining remedies, which are rumored to include a proposal for presenting Windows users with a choice of browsers to set as default during installation.

    Microsoft's decision to offer Windows 7 E in Europe makes loads of sense. The company made a tough call, but a good one. The European Commission and Opera can complain, but Microsoft is thinking business, which is the right priority.

    I'm not defending Microsoft's tactic of bundling -- in legal parlance tying -- Internet Explorer to Windows, nor am I reproaching it. I encourage people to stake out their opposing positions in comments. But I do commend Microsoft's pragmatic solution -- and one that clears the way for Windows 7's worldwide launch.

    European regulators can whine and complain about how oh-so terrible is IE, but that contention ignores that:

    • Many businesses depend on Internet Explorer
    • The new browser war is on mobile phones, where neither Windows nor IE is dominant
    • Desktop browser competition is fiercer than ever (Firefox usage surpasses IE in some European countries)

    Lots of European businesses, consumers and developers will be sorry to lose IE from Windows. Some will feel slighted, like they're being treated second rate compared to people in every other region in the world. Surely there will be backlash -- some pointed at Microsoft for making the decision, but perhaps more to European regulators for creating the situation.

    Windows 7 E is a brilliant business maneuver, because:

    • Microsoft can comfortably plan on launching Windows 7 worldwide on October 22nd, regardless of the EC's remedy.
    • The solution is reasonable enough that the European Commission will have a tougher time imposing a tougher, alternative remedy.
    • By shipping IE on a separate disc, Microsoft also can offer Windows Live Essentials and other software -- all technically unbundled but easily accessible.

    Each of these business goals/benefits needs further explanation.

    Windows 7's Launch. Microsoft is most vulnerable to competitor interference right before launching a new operating system. The company also is most likely to make concessions about Windows in the months before launch. In early 2001, Kodak complained to the New York attorney general about Windows XP's new, bundled photo features. At that time, Microsoft hadn't yet settled its US antitrust case and was under strict scrutiny form the Justice Department. Microsoft made changes that allowed Kodak's software to be a default option. Microsoft made other concessions -- some of them preemptive -- such as ceding control of desktop icons, ahead of Windows XP's launch.

    Competitors also circled around Windows Vista, pointing fingers and crying out for Daddy Trustbuster to do something about Microsoft. Google complained about Internet Explorer 7 search defaults, which the Justice Department decided were flexible enough -- certainly as much as Firefox. Nevertheless, Microsoft modified search after Google also complained to the European Commission. Security competitors/partners also called on the EC, leading to other Windows Vista changes.

    The newer situation is considerably more problematic for Microsoft, because the European Commission is likely to reach a decision after Windows 7 is certified gold and before its release to volume-licensing subscribers on September 1. The EC is taking suggestions from many parties, including Microsoft competitors, now.

    Limiting EC's Options. Even if the European Commission demands more or something different, Microsoft has established a framework that should allow a stay of any remedy for appeal. No one should doubt Microsoft's primary objective: The simultaneous worldwide launch of Windows 7 in October. Last month, Dave Heiner, Microsoft's deputy general counsel explained in a blog post:

    "The worldwide launch of Windows 7 is fast approaching, but a pending legal case raises concerns about the sufficiency of competition among the Web browsers that are available to Windows users in Europe...We're committed to making Windows 7 available in Europe at the same time that it launches in the rest of the world, but we also must comply with European competition law as we launch the product...this is a big step for Microsoft. But we're committed to launching Windows 7 on time in Europe, so we need to address the legal realities in Europe, including the risk of large fines."

    Microsoft's approach clears way for Windows 7's launch, while also drawing a line before the European Commission. But the EC can still sock Microsoft, because of the extent of IE8 removal and the ease with which it could be restored.

    Competitive Landscape. Microsoft also unexpectedly is getting some help from Google, which last week announced plans to release Chrome OS for netbooks. Microsoft can argue that Windows 7 E removes the browser at a time when Google is preparing a browser-based operating system. Surely, given this potentially market-changing move, Microsoft can assert that it has offered the European Commission remedy enough.

    Then there is Opera, which immediately and unsurprisingly complained about Windows 7 E. The EC's proposed plan would assure Opera free distribution with every copy of Windows sold in Europe. Microsoft's alternative actually gives nothing to competitors, Opera in particular. Taking something away doesn't give something instead. By the way, Opera filed the complaint that started the EC's browser investigation.

    Microsoft is planning to ship separate application discs with Windows 7 E retail versions. By distributing CDs with IE and other Microsoft software, the company gets some bundling benefits without tying software to Windows. It's a brilliant business response to companies practicing competition by litigation.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/15/Who_says_Microsoft_has_turned_the_corner_'

    Who says Microsoft has turned the corner?

    Publié: juillet 15, 2009, 1:37am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    It's unusual for me to disagree with Microsoft's most infamous, anonymous employee blogger. Mini-Microsoft says that "Microsoft has turned the corner." In his dreams, or perhaps some Xbox 360 role-playing game, Microsoft has turned the corner and found a hallway and door to the outside sun. But in this universe, if Microsoft has turned the corner, it's into a wall.

    Microsoft has got big problems for which there are no easy solutions; I'll get to those later in the post. Mini rightly identifies some things that Microsoft is doing right, and they are certainly commendable. They're just not enough. I'll give his shortlist with my perspective:

    "Windows 7": The version that should have been Vista is soon releasing to manufacturing. It's a great day coming. But volume-licensing customers won't get the software until September 1, and the official launch isn't until October 22. Meanwhile, Google is talking about forthcoming Chrome OS, and Apple is preparing Snow Leopard for September launch. The only sense I can make out of Microsoft making volume-licensing subscribers wait another six weeks to get Seven is PR bang against Apple's operating system. Cute, Microsoft.

    "Bing": Google search is still better, by leaps and bounds. College Humor's "Googling with Bing" video aptly identifies the huge branding problems Microsoft must surpass. That said, Bing shows how Microsoft user-interface design is improving by huge strides. The UI changes foreshadow a future where more Microsoft products make tasks -- that is getting things done quickly -- a top user priority. Microsoft will probably get more search share gains from Bing marketing than it would have from buying Yahoo -- measured over the long term.

    "Silverlight": Version 3.0 officially launched on Friday. If Mini's measure of turning the corner is H.264 support but no real mobile application, Silverlight 3.0 turns the corner.

    "IE EU chutzpah": Microsoft's approach to the European drama is quite novel, and shows that somebody in Redmond really is smart. By proactively removing Internet Explorer from EU distributions of Windows 7, Microsoft has effectively taken the loaded gun from the European Competition Commission's grubby hand. Problem: The European Commission has got a knife in the other hand and a smaller pistol strapped to a leg.

    "Award worthy, coherent ads that aren't a demonstration of how best to destroy millions of dollars quickly": Here's the one I agree most with Mini. Microsoft advertising is way better in 2009 than anything seen since the launch of Windows 95. Good, effective marketing will be crucial to successfully launching Windows 7 and building brand awareness for Bing. I'm a huge fan of marketing as a tool for selling products.

    But advertising can only go so far. Products must deliver the right priorities. Based on early financial analyst assessments, Apple 13-inch and 15-inch MacBook Pro sales are shockingly strong, considering the economy. Among the reasons for MacBook Pro: New battery design that delivers hours more performance. Battery life is the laptop's killer application. Microsoft must get back to "killer application" basics. Can you name any Office 2010 or Windows 7 killer applications? Please answer in comments.

    Microsoft Must Break Through the Wall
    Here's what is hugely significant about Mini's post -- and perhaps where Microsoft has turned one corner: Employee sentiment, assuming other employees share Mini's hope and enthusiasm. Companies fail or succeed sometimes more based on morale than actual business strategy.

    But these inspired employees must still contend with harsh realities, which is where Mini and I hugely disagree about "that corner." I'll condense Microsoft's problems into what I see as the three biggest challenges:

    The econolypse: Simply put: Businesses aren't spending much on new technologies and US consumers are in debt. PC sales are way down, including emerging markets, even as Microsoft readies Windows 7. For Microsoft's third fiscal quarter, Windows Client revenue fell 16 percent year over year to $3.4 billion, while income plummeted 19 percent to $2.5 billion. Windows performed below expectations in both reported quarters since the late September 2009 economic collapse.

    Microsoft reports fiscal fourth quarter and yearly results on July 23. I expect Business and Client divisions to report continued sales weakness tied to slower PC sales and tightening IT budgets. Microsoft's position would be better if:

    • Still frozen credit markets weren't keeping businesses from financing needed to buy new technology.
    • The threat of layoffs and actual furloughs weren't making technology managers fearful of making buying decisions that might risk their jobs.
    • Corporate downsizing hadn't reduced business eagerness to renew volume-licensing contracts, or, if doing so, for fewer seats because of layoffs.
    • Microsoft's core business was growing, rather than reselling new software versions to enterprises that already use the company's products.

    Microsoft is ill-prepared for the econolypse because so many customers already own its software. Situation would be much better if emerging markets had more spending power. Bit of hope: Businesses and consumers in most emerging markets took on much less debt during the boom than their counterparts in the European Union and United States. Recovery should be much quicker in emerging markets.

    Antitrust oversight: Microsoft has agreed to yet another two-year extension of oversight in the United States. Meanwhile, the European Commission is ready to slap around Microsoft over Internet Explorer bundling with Windows. While Microsoft's IE removal -- Windows 7 E -- was bold, the EC will still have final say. Competitors like Google and Opera are lined up behind the European Commission. Even if the EC were to agree that Windows 7 E is remedy enough, antitrust oversight would continue. Microsoft would have to second guess different bundling and other product strategies, even as Google cranks up the competitive pressure with Chrome OS.

    My analogy: Grown-up Microsoft suddenly must get permission from daddy before going out for the evening. Daddy sets the curfew, too. By comparison, teenager Google needs no permission and is bound by no curfew. Who do you think is going to be the better party animal?

    Mobile computing: Microsoft controls the last-generation application stack, which also is being whacked by the econolypse: Office-Windows-Windows Server. Microsoft has by the most generous of measures a tenuous foothold on the rapidly emerging, next-generation application stack: Mobile device to cloud. Microsoft's major problems:

    • Windows Mobile is a train wreck. In 2005 and 2006, Microsoft was on track to winning the mobile market through the enterprise. For example, Exchange sync threatened BlackBerry's e-mail dominance. But Windows Mobile development languished, and more recently hardware partners are deserting to rival operating systems. such as Google's Android.
    • Upstarts deliver the goods. Mobile OS newcomers Apple and Google are storming the cell phone market. Apple had nothing to offer before mid 2007 or Google before late 2008. Yet they're wooing customers, developers and partners. Windows Mobile is where? Who's talking about it? Who's deploying it?
    • Windows Mobile has no scale. Apple, Google and Nokia have operating systems that can run on handsets and netbooks and, for Apple, notebooks. Windows Mobile doesn't currently scale up from handsets to larger form factors. This fragmentation of Windows versions works against developer adoption, continued hardware partnering and future enterprise deployments.

    As carriers open up more 3G and 4G bandwidth, business users and consumers will be able to do more with mobile handsets. In a December report, Pew Internet predicted that "the mobile device will be the primary connection tool to the Internet for most people in the world in 2020." I disagree. The transition will happen much faster, easily by 2015. The mobile device is better suited for the cloud and light, Web-connected apps than heavy applications like Office. Then there is mobile search, which right now plays more to Google's strengths than to Microsoft's.

    Microsoft is a hugely successful company, and it will continue to be for the foreseeable future. But Microsoft also faces continued challenges -- many outside its control -- that will continue to block some endeavors.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009

  • Lien pour 'BetaNews.Com/2009/07/15/Is_Office_2010_Oh_So_2005_'

    Is Office 2010 Oh-So 2005?

    Publié: juillet 15, 2009, 12:05am CEST par Joe Wilcox

    By Joe Wilcox, Betanews

    Last night, I watched the 11 Microsoft videos introducing various Office 2010, Office Mobile and Office Web Applications features. I kept thinking: Microsoft is living in the past. The reaction was about the same for each video. Office 2010 will come five years late.

    The past ultimately derives from Microsoft's application stack -- Office-Windows-Windows Server -- that the company desperately is trying to preserve. The new stack goes from mobile device to the cloud, which Microsoft cautiously embraces for fear of upsetting lucrative revenue streams tied to its established applications stack.

    Microsoft's applications stack will remain lucrative for years, like IBM's mainframe monopoly did. But change is inevitable because of cycles of growth and maturity that affect businesses as much as people or other living things. Microsoft might slow down change through business tactics, but the move to a new applications stack is inevitable. Microsoft would have done better for its successful stack by better embracing the new one. But let's put that topic aside for a few paragraphs.

    I'll sum up Office 2010 this way, based on information Microsoft disclosed yesterday: If you are someone who habitually uses applications like Word or PowerPoint -- who feels safe with them -- Microsoft has extended you a lifeline to smartphone and to the Web; user-interface and other tweaks should improve productivity. If you're someone like me who rarely, if ever, uses Office applications but creates content on the Web or for the Web, you may not want Office 2010 (I want to say "won't," but that's unfair without testing the software suite).

    Let me ask a simple question for which I encourage answers in comments: How much do you really use Microsoft Office? Stated differently: How much do you need to use Office? For me the answer is rarely. I don't even have Office installed on my laptop, although I guess the Office 2010 Technical Preview will be obligatory if I'm going to write about it.

    Peruse the Word 2010 video. Ayca Yuksel highlights new, gasp, formatting features for "creating a lengthy report for work or invitation to our office's open house." Other changes include new print or print preview features. No disrespect, but printed reports are oh-so five years ago.

    Microsoft's idea of collaboration and social networking is Word and other Office documents shared via SharePoint. By appearances, Microsoft packs in good tools for online presence, but within confines. What? No Facebook or YouTube integration? New school, rather than old school, thinking would mean features for social networking across the Web for collaborating or sharing anytime, anywhere and on anything. Such an approach would resonate with Microsoft's so-called "Interoperability Principles."

    According to the PowerPoint 2010 video, inserting and formatting photos is easier than ever. Oh, yeah? Why is there no dedicated photo editor or manager? (OK, there is a slick looking photo manipulator.) Why is there no dedicated video editor or manager? Static, text presentations are old school. They won't come alive with arrows or buttons but by audio and visual elements that tell stories. Videos should be just as easily posted to YouTube as inserted into the slide deck. Photo and video slideshows are the new PowerPoint. There's a reason for cliche "A picture is worth a thousand words." A good slide deck should be a talking point not a jumble of bullet points and graphics.

    The Outlook 2010 video is like an invitation to sign up for another three years wearing a ball and chain. Desktop e-mail is oh-so old school. If most e-mail sent over the Internet is either spam or unwanted, what value is any desktop e-mail client? I don't mean to appear like a Google apologist, because I'm not. But something like Google Wave, which incorporates real-time connectivity across services, is more forward looking. Instead, you get Outlook 2010 conversations grouped together.

    I'm not exactly pining for Office Web Applications. Already, I've read punditry about Office Web Applications being the end of Google Apps: Microsoft's response to Google free is free, all extended from familiar Office. Oh, yeah? Too many people make too much of a big deal about Google-Microsoft productivity suite competition. The emerging applications stack of the future isn't about productivity suites. It's about the creation and consumption of other content types -- raw information (for search) and audio and video, among others.

    Office Web Applications might be more exciting if Microsoft better supported the kind of content that already dominates the new, emerging applications stack -- mobile device to cloud. Same goes for Google Apps. But Google aims to pick off low-hanging Microsoft customers. Office Web Applications seeks to hold onto them. Neither productivity suite is the future of anything. They're all about the past.

    Something else: There are dwindling numbers of office workers -- at least the kind Office appealed to five years ago. Most people don't need to produce information in Office, even if they might cling to all habits or business processes. If you agree or disagree, please say why in comments.

    I'm starting to think Googlers are really smart at business, after all. Last week's Google OS announcement suddenly has bigger context, because of Office Web Applications. Office Web Applications conceptually could complete the Google productivity applications stack, from Chrome OS devices, depending on how many features really do require Office 2010.

    Linux is a desktop PC loser because there's no Microsoft Office. Linux has perpetually stalled on the PC because there is no Office equivalent (Please, let's not debate OpenOffice in comments). The applications stack was incomplete. Macs have done better in enterprises -- and still not that great -- in part because of Office for Macintosh. For many businesses, Microsoft's Web suite could be the best thing running on Chrome OS.

    Copyright Betanews, Inc. 2009